Sitting of 28 October 1992

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

    Visitors (Information)
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that visitors to the United Kingdom are properly informed by British consulates of possible apprehension when arriving in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): A guidance leaflet is available in British missions overseas explaining the requirements of the immigration rules, which all visitors must satisfy.
    Mr. Etherington: Does not the Minister agree that when a citizen of Papua New Guinea is reassured about entry on no fewer than three occasions—twice in the company of one of my constituents who probably speaks English better than I do—it is deplorable that she should be treated as if she were an illegal immigrant on her arrival in this country? Rather than talk about leaflets, pamphlets and guidance, should not the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ensure that consular staff are fully aware of the conditions for entering Britain, so that such a deplorable incident does not happen again?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman asked about the steps that we take to make known Britain's immigration policy, and we do that which I described. The hon. Gentleman refers to the case of Mrs. Mea, and I shall be happy to tell the hon. Gentleman in private all that I know about it. However, that case is subject to appeal and is therefore sub judice, so I cannot comment on it here.

    Western European Union
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress he has made in enhancing the role of Western European Union.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The WEU is likely shortly to be enlarged to include Greece as a full member; Turkey, Norway and Iceland as associates with rights of full participation; and Ireland as an observer. The WEU is
    996
    rapidly developing a military operational role, complementing that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and drawing on a wide range of national and NATO forces.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about enlargement, which can only strengthen the European dimension of western alliance security. It is regrettable, however, that the Government appear to be so preoccupied with putting Britain at the heart of Europe that they acquiesced in the WEU council's move from London to Brussels, when county hall provided an ideal site for not only the council but the assembly. Locating the council in London ensured that the Government had a direct input into European security matters.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the core of our defence relations and arrangements is NATO, and it is sensible that the WEU should be sited close to that organisation.
    Mr. Hardy: Does not the Minister agree that if the council's move from Grosvenor place to Brussels and all the other changes that we are hearing about are not accompanied by consistency and sensible awareness throughout Europe, that transfer and those changes may prove highly disadvantageous?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is right to say that there should he continuity and consistency. I welcome that part of the WEU declaration made at Maastricht and article J of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it plain that the WEU and its functions must be compatible with NATO and NATO obligations.
    Mr. Jessel: As defence is an end in itself, in keeping our people free and safe—and that is surely the first duty of any Government—and as my right hon. and learned Friend said that NATO must be the main bastion of our defences, how will they be strengthened by making the WEU in any way answerable to the European Community or obliged to consult it?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend knows well the provisions of article J.4 in particular, and will have read carefully the WEU declaration made at Maastricht. He will appreciate that NATO is the core of our defence arrangements and that anything done within the WEU must be compatible with existing NATO arrangements.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Minister aware that one of the demands in the list of Danish proposals presented today is for an opt-out on the WEU and defence sections of the Maastricht treaty? Will he confirm that a definitive answer could not possibly be given before the Edinburgh summit, as the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said on BBC television's "One O'clock News"?
    Mr. Hogg: As I have not been involved in the negotiations, I cannot give an answer to that effect.

    Middle East Peace Talks
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace talks between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The seventh round of bilateral negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbours started in Washington on 21 October. I understand that the atmosphere has improved considerably since the Israeli elections. Some progress was made in the last round, especially in the negotiations between Israel and both the Syrians and the Palestinians. We have urged all parties to show courage and flexibility in their efforts to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the dispute.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the slow progress of the talks? Does he accept that time is running out for them to reach a successful conclusion? Will he put renewed pressure on all the parties concerned, to ensure that they recognise the importance of securing a just solution to the Palestinian problems before much longer?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I feel that the progress that has been made should not be understated. Currently, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are discussing proposals for interim self-government in the occupied territories with an authority on interim self-government: that is what is happening on the Palestinian side. We believe that the proposals should be studied seriously, although without prejudice to the final status of the territories. Negotiations on that would start during the third year of the five-year interim period.
    Sir David Steel: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge that I am normally very complimentary to Foreign Office Ministers, but where was the sense in the Minister of State's refusal to meet such a distinguished Palestinian representative as the mayor of Bethlehem, at a time when we should all be encouraging maximum dialogue?
    Mr. Hurd: No difficulty is involved in my right hon. Friend the Minister's meeting the mayor of Bethlehem; the problem concerns the level at which we should hold discussions with the PLO. We have talked about that problem before.
    We hold discussions with the PLO: our ambassador in Tunis often has discussions with its members. The question is at what level, and with what purpose, such discussions should be raised to a ministerial level. There is a considerable background history to his, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why we take the stand that we are taking.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that heavy-handed bombing and shelling of Lebanese villages do nothing to help the cause of peace in the middle east? Does not the basic problem arise from the fact that Israel has continued to occupy a slice of Lebanese territory following her invasion, which has inevitably stirred up a hornets' nest of opposition among those who happen to live in the area?
    Mr. Hurd: As my hon. Friend knows, we could start the argument at two different points. I think that the only sensible reaction for us is to deplore the renewed violence in both southern Lebanon and northern Israel, and to say that all concerned have a responsibility for restoring calm. Those with influence over Hezbollah should use that
    998
    influence to prevent any further murderous attacks in northern Israel. Equally, we call on Israel not to retaliate further.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the American presidential election and its aftermath should not be used as a reason for any delay in the middle east peace process? Surely, far from delay, what is needed is acceleration of the peace process so that parties to it can show their supporters that there are some tangible benefits —and can also show anyone who is doubtful about the process that the only way towards lasting peace in the middle east is a meeting around the negotiating table.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), is quite right. This process is precious and must be kept going, regardless of the coming and going of Governments. That is crucial. There has been progress between the Syrians and Israel and between the Palestinians and Israel and it is essential that the impetus is retained. We shall do anything that we can to help to support the process and to keep that impetus going.

    Iraq
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had recently with Governments in the area concerning the problems faced by the Shia communities in Iraq: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are in close contact with the Governments in the area. Most recently, in New York, in September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed with Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Iran and most other Gulf states humanitarian problems in Iraq, among other issues. We have always made it clear that repression of the Shia and other members of Iraq's civilian population is deplorable and must cease, as called for in United Nations Security Council resolution 688.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House about the efficacy of the exclusion zone over the territories in southern Iraq, where the Shia community are living and where they have suffered so horrendously? Will he comment on any contacts that the Government have had with the Iraq national congress, which is meeting all this week and which draws together for the first time all the parties that are in opposition to Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Hogg: There have been various contacts with the congress. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the meeting that is taking place in north Iraq at the moment, to which we are willing to send a United Kingdom adviser. On the no-fly zone in south Iraq—there is a difference between a no-fly zone and an exclusion zone—there has been, as far as we can judge, a reduction in the Iraqi Government's repressive action against the people in south Iraq, but I am bound to say that the position is still disturbing.

    Human Rights Abuses (Children)
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other Governments about human rights abuses involving children.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have discussed human rights abuses involving children with our European Community partners. We are planning to introduce a resolution on street children at the current session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
    Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Minister for that answer, which perhaps was positive in one respect. Where there is undeniable evidence, as there is, that Government agencies in countries such as Guatemala and Brazil are involved in the murder of children on the streets, the international community has a responsibility to make those nations understand their pariah status. On a more controversial note, is it acceptable to the Government that Britain should be importing coal from a country such as Colombia, which uses children to mine it?
    Mr. Hogg: The substance of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course, quite right. We have made representations to the Governments of Brazil and Guatemala on the matters to which he referred. As I said in my substantive answer, we shall introduce a resolution on street children in the current session of the General Assembly. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my understanding is that no coal that has been produced by child labour has been imported into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I am delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's response on human rights, particularly as it affects children. Can he tell the House how successful Britain has been in leading our European Community colleagues on this matter? It is one of the areas where we can act better as 12 rather than acting alone.
    Mr. Hogg: I think that that is correct, in the sense that we need to be active in every international forum that we can identify. Moreover, we can take action through our bilateral aid programmes to hold back developmental aid from countries where there are serious human tights abuses. Again, we must be realistic and must recognise that those countries where there are serious human tights abuses are often impervious to appeals to reason.
    Mrs. Mahon: Surely the Minister has read that. Dr. Arango, who is head of the coal industry in Colombia, has admitted that children mine coal there. What will the Minister do, therefore, to stop importing that coal, which is mined at the expense of children?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady was not listening to what I said. I did not say that coal in Colombia was not, on occasion, produced by child labour; I said clearly that my understanding was that we have not imported from Colombia any coal produced by child labour. The hon. Lady does herself no credit by failing to listen.

    South Africa
    Mr Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding progress to a post-apartheid system of government.
    Mr. Hurd: Despite a tragic drought, most countries of the region are going through what we believe is a hopeful period of political and economic change. Stability in South Africa is crucial for the region as a whole. Last month I went there with the troika of EC Foreign Ministers. We discussed with President de Klerk and other political leaders practical ways to help reduce violence and encourage an early resumption of the constitutional negotiations.
    Mr. Pike: We all wish to see the negotiations back in session and proceeding rapidly, but we all realise that the time for those negotiations is being eroded. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that the only solution to the problem of ending apartheid that will be acceptable to a British Government is one that is acceptable to the majority of people living in South Africa—and that that means the majority of black people?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course, any solution must be acceptable to those people, but it must be worked out in the constitutional discussions, which were interrupted because of the violence. That is why we in the Commonwealth and the European Community have taken steps by sending observers to underpin the peace accords. Fifteen EC observers will arrive this week—two of them are British. We already have a British police officer in South Africa, with the Goldstone commission. Those are practical steps which we in this country can take to help those on the spot to deal with the violence, and so bring forward the constitutional discussions which are the only possible way forward.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the South African rugby tour of this country should proceed, despite the sudden and unfortunate opposition of the African National Congress—[Interruption.] Will he also ignore Opposition Members, Bishop Trevor Huddleston and Leeds city council, among others, all of whom seem happy to act as the ANC's toadies in the matter.
    Mr. Hurd: I have good news for my hon. Friend. The ANC yesterday publicly confirmed that it had not withdrawn its support for the tour—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members are listening. The ANC called on anti-apartheid groups not to disrupt the Springbok tour.
    Dr. John Cunningham: First, I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about sending more observers to South Africa. They have a crucial role to play in the progress towards free and fair elections in that country and, ultimately, towards the establishment of a truly democratic state. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to work, by means of his presidency of the EC Council of Ministers, to ensure that more observers are sent. The 15 are welcome, but that is certainly nowhere near enough to oversee the process throughout South Africa.
    With regard to the imminent South Africa rugby football union tour of Britain, will the right hon.

    1001
    Gentleman make it clear that, although he has accurately reflected the ANC's position, which I too welcome, the ANC stressed the need for us in Britain and for people everywhere not to reduce the pressure on South Africa, especially on the South African rugby football union, which has made no significant progress towards multiracialism in that sport?
    Mr. Hurd: The 15 EC observers are only part of the total number, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is also a UN team and there is likely to be a Commonwealth team, too. There may also be an Organisation of African Unity team. The total number of observers underpinning the peace accords may fall short of 100 initially, but it will be far more than 15.
    As regards the rugby tour, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirmed what I said about the ANC's attitude, and I hope that, before long, he will be able to confirm that Leeds city council is withdrawing its opposition to the match that is to be played there.
    Mr. Cryer: Why should it?
    Mr. Hurd: The reason it should is that the ANC, whose lead it follows, has changed that lead and decided that the tour should go ahead.

    Maastricht Treaty
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to renegotiate the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in respect of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position on the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Hurd: In Birmingham on 16 October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues, including the Danish Prime Minister, reaffirmed the importance of concluding the ratification of the treaty as soon as possible, without reopening the present text. We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear again yesterday, that the treaty is good for Britain, and we intend to stand by it.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, whatever the merits of the Maastricht treaty may have been in December 1991, it is clearly not a treaty based on economic growth and job creation and will therefore not lift Europe out of recession? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the depth of public concern about the Maastricht treaty, and is he not aware that, unless the Government indicate a willingness to amend the treaty, they will face defeat in the House next week?
    Mr. Hurd: That is something that will be judged by the House and not by the Government. I am well aware of public concern about the recession and unemployment, and that concern is shared in many countries of the Community which, in one way or another, have the same anxieties. What I do know is that, if the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in foreign or, indeed, British
    1002
    investment in this country, he will not wish to support or vote for a concept of Europe that gives investors the idea that we are half way in and half way out.
    Mr. Raynsford: If the Foreign Secretary believes that there is a common interest between Britain and Europe in action to get out of recession, why have the British Government, according to today's Financial Times, given a cool reception to the proposals made by the Commission's President yesterday for a concerted European growth programme to get Europe out of recession with measures to tackle the investment shortage and to boost growth and confidence?
    Mr. Hurd: I listened to the President of the Commission sketch that idea yesterday. It was not put forward by him or anyone else at the Birmingham summit. What the Birmingham summit did was to reaffirm the policies that the Heads of State or Government gathered there decided offered the best chance of sustainable growth. Those policies are being followed in country after country in the Community. They are based on tackling problems of public borrowing and laying the foundations for an economic recovery that will last. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and it is the policy set out in the Birmingham declaration.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary fully aware that, in the past few months, opposition to the treaty has grown substantially in the country at large? Why should Tory Members be coerced into voting for the Government's motion next week simply because the Prime Minister wishes to boast at the summit meeting in December that some progress has been made on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? As the Prime Minister is no longer holding out the threat of an early election, which was always an empty threat—I only wish that there would be such an election—why should Tory Members be intimidated in any way into voting against their principles next Wednesday?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends have any intention of being intimidated. They know the basis of the treaty. They know the background. They know the discussions and debates that have taken place in the House over the past year and they know the results of those debates and discussions. They know that my right hon. Friend will go to the summit in Edinburgh holding the presidency of the Community; that 10 member states are clearly on the road to early ratification; and that the Government of the eleventh, Denmark, have today produced a plan that would enable them to put again to their people the possibility of the recommendation for ratification.
    The House will have to decide whether it wants my right hon. Friend to preside over that summit preserving and extending this country's influence over what happens in Europe or whether it does not, and particular responsibility in this matter rests on—among others—the Labour party leadership.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for once again re-affirming the Government's determination on a treaty which does not need renegotiating but merely needs supporting. Is that not in contrast to the pathetic loss of courage at the eleventh hour by the Labour Opposition?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know about loss of courage. None of this has so far been confirmed. I read about it in newspapers. The Labour leadership have a choice. Either they stick to the position that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) announced on television on 27 September and the assurances that they have given to like-minded parties on the continent, or they revert to the traditional Labour policy which the hon. Gentleman inherited—that is, negative, opportunistic, and changing their minds 180 degrees on Europe at regular intervals.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Would it be possible for the document on subsidiarity that the President of the Commission submitted to the Birmingham summit, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in encouraging terms in reply to a question from me last Tuesday, be made available to use, as it seems to be available to a number of parliamentarians in other EEC countries? It would be very helpful if it could be placed in the Library so that we could see what the proposal was and what conclusion is finally reached on this important subject.
    Mr. Hurd: I will certainly look into that matter. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals that Mr. Delors put to the Commission for reorganising the way in which the Commission transacts its business so that it complies with subsidiarity from now on without waiting for the treaty to be ratified. As I understand it, that paper has not yet been published or, indeed, formally confirmed by the Commission, but I will look into its status and what is to be done.
    Mr. Milligan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the request put forward by the Danish Government last night can be accommodated by the Community without renegotiating the Maastricht treaty? As Opposition Front-Bench Members have been using a Danish figleaf to disguise the naked nature of party politics, now that the Danish position is clear and eight out of nine parties in the Danish Parliament support it, there is no reason why the Opposition should not support the Government in Wednesday's vote unless they are more interested in party politics than in the future of this country in Europe.
    Mr. Hurd: Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the Danish move is strongly positive. Their Folketing Committee has to ratify it and the Danish Minister has to present it to us as the presidency and to other member states. We then have to carry it forward with the aim of reaching agreement on it among the partners in Edinburgh. There is still work to be done. What is clear now but was not clear before, and I hope that the Labour leadership will welcome it, is that the Danish Government, with the support of the great majority of Danish political parties, now have the clear intention, without reopening the text of the treaty—my hon. Friend's point—to seek clarifications which will enable them to put the matter again to the Danish people. That is a step forward.
    Sir Russell Johnston: On that point, one of the main criticisms which particularly emanated from the Labour Front Bench was that the Government were unwilling to bring the Bill back into Committee until the Danish question had been "resolved", whatever that meant. However, so far as I remember, at the Council of Ministers on 4 June in Oslo—I believe that the Foreign Secretary was there—immediately after the referendum the other
    1004
    Eleven agreed unanimously to proceed with ratification forthwith. How were the Government able to promise to delay and then promise not to delay?
    Mr. Hurd: At the meeting in Oslo, instead of saying that they could not ratify the treaty, the Danish Government asked for time—and they have used that time. We have also used that time. Next week the House will have an opportunity to express its views on how the Government and the House should proceed. I return to the point that I made earlier. I hope that in its deliberations, perhaps even this afternoon, the Labour leadership will take comfort from the courage of the Danish Government in announcing their plans.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is important that the suggestion in the original question asked by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) should be firmly rejected? I am sure that there is economic linkage between ratification of the Maastricht treaty and the present state of the economy. My right hon. Friend referred to inward investment. Surely current intentions to invest in British industry depend on removing uncertainty.
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Maastricht treaty is a compromise treaty. The way in which it was negotiated at Maastricht by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister safeguarded this country from the two parts of it which might otherwise have caused us real difficulty; the social chapter, which the Labour party embraced, and a commitment to a single bank and a single currency. The Government were not willing to make that commitment and, clearly, the Danes are not willing to do so. So we protected ourselves from those two effects. The treaty which remains is the treaty to which we have put our hand and which we ask the House to enable us to ratify. It is the only possible agreed framework for the success of the Community in the next few years. That is the fact of the matter. If we are interested in enlarging the Community, making a success of the single market, and achieving other objectives of the Community, with Britain in it, in the next few years, it should be on the basis of a ratified Maastricht treaty. I do not see another foundation on which we can make that progress.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that in the Chamber on 24 September the Prime Minister said that two matters needed to be clarified and agreed before we could proceed to consider the Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty? First, a Danish accommodation would have to be agreed not only by the Danish Parliament but by the other 11 states. Secondly, the Prime Minister offered the opinion that there would have to be clear and agreed definitions of subsidiarity before we could proceed to consider the Bill. As neither of those conditions has been met, and neither can be met until the Edinburgh summit at the earliest, why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why has he done a U-turn on this, as on other matters?
    When the Foreign Secretary said that the House would have to decide next week whether the Prime Minister should lead Britain's representations in Edinburgh, was he not implying that the House would be asked to vote next week on a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister? If so, how does he expect us to support that?
    Mr. Hurd: The House will have an opportunity for debate on 4 November, and it will be slightly surprising if that debate does not end in a vote of some kind. The hon. Gentleman, who has some experience in these matters, knows that the motion will be decided, discussed and communicated in exactly the usual way. We are seven days ahead of the debate. It would be unusual for matters of drafting and tactics to have been decided by this date. The debate is therefore being handled in exactly the same way as others.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, there is clarity now about the Danish plans. It is bad luck for the Opposition that the Danes happen to have come clear at this particular time, but it does not let the Opposition off the hook of their decision.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Prime Minister stated clearly and without ambiguity that we could not get on with the Committee stage until a detailed and settled system of subsidiarity had been worked out and put in place, will the Foreign Secretary advise us whether that may be worked out in Edinburgh so that those of us who want to get on with discussing the treaty will know? Is that likely to be resolved so that we can at least start discussing the treaty immediately after the Edinburgh summit?
    Mr. Hurd: I have good news for my hon. Friend in the light of his concern that we should be able to proceed as soon as possible. On 16 October in Birmingham we made substantial progress. He will have looked at the Birmingham declaration, which shows how that work is being carried forward. First, there is the article on the Maastricht treaty; then there is the Lisbon decision, which is now being carried forward in Birmingham. The detailed work has been set in hand, so the situation is advancing quite fast in the direction that my hon. Friend favours.

    Cyprus
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
    Mr. Hurd: This is Rabbit's busy day!
    Direct negotiations, under the United Nations Secretary-General's chairmanship, reconvened in New York on 26 October. Security Council resolution 774 makes it plain that the international community expects this round to lead to the agreement of an outline settlement on the basis of the United Nations Secretary-General's "set of ideas", as set out in his report of 21 August.
    Mr. O'Hara: We must all be positive and optimistic that the round of talks will at last resolve the problems of Cyprus, but we must also be aware of the number of disappointments in the past 18 years and be concerned about the extremely negative statements made by Mr. Denktas before departing for New York. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the United Kingdom Government have contingency plans? Will he offer us a specific initiative—something pro-active—to demonstrate Britain's special position in relation to the problem? Not only is Cyprus a member of the Commonwealth, but Britain is a guarantor power with specific and clear moral and legal responsibilities for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic of Cyprus.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a special position in that matter. That is why we have been doing our utmost to back up what the Secretary-General plans to do and encouraging him to persevere against the obstacles. The hon. Gentleman knows what the obstacles are, but it is important that both parties in the talks now taking place in New York should understand that the problem cannot be allowed just to drift on. A heavy responsibility falls on them and their friends. In the past few weeks I have talked to the Turkish Foreign Minister, the Greek Government and President Vassiliou to emphasise that point. I urged them strongly that the present round of talks should proceed.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is it not plain that, after all this time, partition is bound to continue in that troublesome island, particularly in view of the negative attitude taken by the Greek Cypriot Government?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree that partition can be the basis for a settlement. My hon. Friend's underlying thought is perfectly right—there are two communities on the island and they must be given rights as two communities—but if there is to be a lasting settlement, it must be within the sovereignty of one Cypriot Government.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that any attempt to continue the separation of the island of Cyprus would be absolutely disastrous for both communities there? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked together continuously for the past 18 years for a settlement for both communities. As the officials in the state department and those in the United Nations said, the problem is the lack of meaningful involvement from Mr. Denktas. When will the Government make it clear that we want a settlement? And does Mr. Denktas want one?
    Mr. Hurd: That is something that Mr. Denktas has to answer in the talks. He says that he wants a settlement. I hope that he understands that a settlement is desperately needed by members of his community, and of the other community, and that it will not be reached on the basis of the status quo but must be reached on something like the set of ideas proposed by the Secretary-General at the last round. It was on the basis of those suggestions that the Security Council passed the last resolution.

    Occupied Territories
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Israeli Prime Minister to discuss the future of the occupied territories.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to meet the Israeli Prime Minister during the latter's visit to the United Kingdom at the beginning of December. I am sure that the future of the occupied territories will be one of the issues that we discuss.
    Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am delighted that the subject of the occupied territories is to be discussed. On my visits to the occupied territories and Israel I have seen a growing willingness on both sides to reach a settlement. The recent action of the new Israeli Government in restricting settlements has gone a long way to help. Does my right

    1007
    hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a chance of reaching an agreement under the new Israeli Prime Minister whereas there was not a cat in hell's chance of doing so under the previous one?
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I certainly agree that there is a greatly improved chance of negotiating a settlement under Mr. Rabin's Government. I also believe that the changed policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is extremely welcome. I should like to see the Arabs reciprocate by removing the boycott regime.
    Mr. Barnes: The occupation has been illegal since 1967. The settlements are illegal. Israel is in contravention of the Geneva convention and is failing to conform with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338. In those circumstances, what lessons are the Arabs likely to learn from contrasting present action with action taken by the United Nations and this nation in response to the illegal occupation of Kuwait by Iraq?
    Mr. Hogg: If that is supposed to imply that we should use force against the Israelis, it is a very unattractive proposal.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that our interpretation of resolution 242 is that the occupied territories include all the land east of the green line? If so, should not the forthcoming elections for Palestinian self-government include the Palestinians living in east Jerusalem? Will my right hon. and learned Friend raise that subject with the Israeli Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hogg: We all recognise that the solution of east Jerusalem—and Jerusalem generally—is probably the most vexing subject to be tackled in the negotiations. If it is to be successfully tackled, it should probably be left until last when all the other elements of the agreement have been put in place.

    Anglo-Israeli Relations
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There have been positive developments recently since the election of the new Israeli Government in June. We have had numerous contacts with them at all levels to encourage Israel to make the best of new opportunities in the peace programme. The Israeli Foreign Minister called on the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in London in September. The Israeli Prime Minister will meet the Prime Minister in London in December. The Prime Minister has expressed his hope to visit Israel next year.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that response. Is it not refreshing to be dealing with a Labour Government in Israel who seem to understand the peace process and are committed to it? Is it not a fact that a time of crisis is a time of opportunity? There is still a crisis in northern Israel and southern Lebanon and an opportunity exists—a precious opportunity, as the Foreign Secretary said—and the peace process must continue. Will the Minister of State and Her Majesty's Government use Mr. Rabin's visit in December to ensure a fruitful and positive outcome of the peace talks?
    Mr. Hogg: We very much welcome the impetus that Prime Minister Rabin has given to the peace process. It is enormously valuable and it creates a good opportunity to make an agreement with all the parties. We will certainly do whatever we can to reinforce that process—recognis-ing, as we do, the need to provide security for Israel and the need to comply with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338.
    Mr. Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend said a few moments ago that a proper response to the flexibility being shown by the new Israeli Government would be for the Arab Governments to end the boycott. What action is he taking to promote that process in discussions with Arab Governments?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The movement on settlements has been dramatic and important. It removes a barrier to the peace process. It is important that the Arab Governments respond to what has been done. We are impressing on them, both bilaterally and with the Community, the need for them to tackle the question of the Arab trade boycott. We think that it is wrong and should be removed, and we are saying so.
    Mr. Janner: What response has the Minister received to his representations to Arab Governments regarding the Arab boycott?
    Mr. Hogg: The response is encouraging, but it has not yet gone far enough. We shall therefore go on pressing the Arab states on the need to get rid of the boycott, which we believe to be wrong and an obstacle to the creation of confidence which is essential if there is to be a total agreement.

    Botswana
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Botswana.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Botswana's democratic traditions and record of sound economic management are widely admired. We enjoy excellent relations with Botswana and look forward to continuing our close co-operation in the future.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have just come back from an excellent lunch with the Botswana high commissioner, who is an admirable woman high commissioner. She discussed with me over lunch the plight of Botswana's farmers in respect of elephant stocks. She put it to me that CITES, the convention on trade in endangered species, has prevented Botswana from marketing the tusks and hides of the elephants and is leading to severe problems in her country. She has asked me to ask the Minister whether the Government will reconsider our attitude to the CITES provisions which stop countries such as Botswana farming their elephants and creating a market in the by-products.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has found a most public way of thanking the Botswana high commissioner for a delightful lunch. Great though our respect for the

    1009
    Botswana Government is, we still support the CITES trade ban on ivory, but we recognise that there is a growing elephant population in Botswana.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition of the word subsidiarity he uses in the context of the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Hurd: The treaty states that the Community should take action
    "only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states"
    Nor should any action by the Community go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty.
    Mr. Gill: I am grateful for that answer. I first asked for a definition of subsidiarity in this House in April 1990 when it was just a mote in someone's eye. Why two and a half years later, has that question still not been satisfactorily answered? How can the Government come back to the House with the Maastricht treaty, which relies so much on the definition of subsidiarity, when the definition is still unclear? Is it not great arrogance on the part of the Government to bring back the treaty before that matter has been finally resolved?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend may well be a pioneer in asking that question—if so, I congratulate him—but he must have had a similar answer over and over again. The answer is the one in the treaty and I answered detailed questions about it the other day in the Scrutiny Committee. I am not sure whether I satisfied all hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] but we had a good discussion on the matter. What is new since my hon. Friend started to ask the question—indeed, new in the past few months—is that the Commission, the Council of Ministers and, I hope, the European Parliament, to which I spoke yesterday, are all setting in hand measures to apply the principle from now on. If my hon. Friend looks at the way in which Community legislation is now being prepared by the Commission, at the sharp drop in the number of proposals, at the proposals made by the President of the Commission to change the way in which the Commission looks at these matters, and at the Government's decision to put an explanation of subsidiarity into every explanatory memorandum that we send to the Scrutiny Committee, he will see that the principle is beginning to work. it will be a long time before I can convince him—I readily understand that—but it is beginning to happen.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that to the Government subsidiarity means that decisions are taken at two levels—at European level and at the level of this Parliament—whereas to the Germans it means decision taking at three levels—European level, German level and Lander level. Whose definition is the right one?
    Mr. Hurd: That point was discussed and cleared up at Birmingham. The Birmingham declaration clearly states that the arrangements within each member state are for each member state to decide.
    Mr. Lester: Would it not be helpful to my right hon. Friend if the many colleagues who ask questions of great complexity about subsidiarity, the various regulations and
    1010
    so on would simply say what they genuinely are—anti-European—and that whatever answer they get they will remain so?
    Mr. Hurd: There are different concepts of Europe. My worry about the people who are basically opposed to our membership of the Community is that they close their eyes to what is actually happening and to the way in which the Community is beginning, albeit slowly, to move in the direction that we have advocated. They close their eyes to that because of their conviction that everything coming out of the Community has to be treated in a sour and hostile way.

    East Timor
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on the sentencing practices following the massacre in Santa Cruz, East Timor.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Together with our European Community partners we made a dérche to the Indonesian Government in June. Representations were made following the meeting of aid donors in July and subsequently by Ministers, most recently during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to Jakarta.
    Mr. Battle: I welcome the Minister's response and the representations, but would it not be better for the Government to go further and stop their current practice of providing scholarships to train military personnel from Indonesia in British military colleges and also to close the defence sales organisation that has just opened in Indonesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the best way to influence human rights policy in Indonesia is by staying in there and maintaining our trade, and by discussing with them the matters on which we disagree, especially bearing in mind the fact that in the first six months of this year we had £170 million of trade with Indonesia, which is double last year's amount.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that since the massacre in Dili in November 1991 the reaction of the Indonesian Government in seeking to bring the perpetrators to justice has been totally inadequate? Does he also agree that if the East Timor problem is to be resolved in the long term it is crucial that East Timor's representatives are given the opportunity to sit at the negotiating table with representatives of Indonesia and third parties, such as Britain as the president of the Community, and the Portuguese, so as to resolve their differences?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We made clear our abhorrence of the East Timor massacre. There was an inquiry by Dr. Wako, the representative of the United Nations Secretary-General, and an inquiry by the Indonesian Government followed by prosecutions and sentences of members of the security forces. That was unprecedented in Indonesia. My hon. Friend asks about the issue between Portugal and Indonesia over East Timor. We believe that

    1011
    the way forward is discussion between those two countries under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General.

    Middle East
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The seventh round of bilateral negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbours started in Washington on 21 October. The atmosphere at the talks has improved considerably since the Israeli elections. Some progress was made in the sixth round, especially in negotiations between the Israelis and the
    1012
    Syrians and Palestinians. We have urged all parties to demonstrate courage and flexibility in their efforts to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the dispute.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government, with our Council of Europe colleagues, stand ready generously to aid the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian refugees living in the appalling refugee camps in which they have been for so long, as well as to aid the Russian and Soviet immigrants into Israel proper once a peace agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours has been signed?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right when he says, in effect, that the conclusion of the wider peace settlement is a necessary pre-condition to the tackling of the other issues, both economic and those involving weapons, which must be resolved but cannot be resolved until the peace process is complete.

London Ambulance Service
3.31 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the breakdown of the recently introduced control procedures of the London ambulance service.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I am very concerned about recent reports relating to failures in the London ambulance service. These were caused by exceptional circumstances which led to a breakdown in the computer-aided dispatch system earlier this week. I have had urgent talks with the London ambulance service, and with the South West Thames regional health authority, which is responsible for overseeing the LAS. They have assured me that firm action has been taken to tackle these difficulties and make sure they do not happen again.
The computer-aided despatch system, which cost £1.5 million to install, has the potential greatly to improve the service to patients. Ambulances can be despatched in seconds rather than minutes. However, it is obvious that there are initial technical problems. The LAS will therefore establish, from 11 pm tonight, a support system, involving, where necessary, direct voice contact between the control centre and ambulances. This will build in an extra safeguard to ensure that ambulances are on their way. This system will remain in place until we are satisfied that the problems with the CAD system have been remedied.
The LAS has also decided to conduct an external inquiry into the operation of the CAD system and the circumstances surrounding its failure on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Full details of this inquiry will be announced as soon as possible, but it is envisaged that it will be headed by a chief ambulance officer from another metropolitan region. The inquiry will identify lessons to be learnt for the operation and management of the service.
The House will want to know that, as a result of recent difficulties, staff levels in the LAS control room have been increased—[Interruption.] The House will also want to know that earlier this afternoon the South West Thames regional health authority accepted the resignation of John Wilby as chief executive of the London ambulance service. Martin Gorham, deputy chief executive of the regional health authority, will take over as acting chief executive of the LAS immediately until a permanent replacement can be recruited.
My overriding concern is to ensure that proper management is in place in the LAS so that the problems which exist can be dealt with speedily and effectively. In particular, I am concerned that the problems with the computer-aided despatch system are solved and that, in the meantime, the support system that I have already described is functioning properly. Mr. Gorham will be reporting regularly, on behalf of the board of the LAS, to Chris Spry, the chief executive of South West Thames RHA. In turn, he will be reporting to Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the NHS.—[Interruption.] This reporting system will ensure that Ministers are kept in proper and regular touch with progress.
The problems in the London ambulance service do not result from a lack of resources.—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Members below the Gangway must come to order while the Secretary of State is making this very important announcement—and that includes Members on both sides of the House.
Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand that London Members are concerned about these matters, but I find it difficult to understand why they should seek to interrupt throughout my statement. I appreciate that many London Members, rightly, want to be sure that their constituents will have the benefit of a good ambulance service.
The problems in the London ambulance service do not result from a lack of resources. Funding this year is up 9 per cent. over last to nearly £70 million. In 1991–92, Government investment enabled the purchase of 130 new vehicles. There will be another 80 this year. The number of fully trained paramedics has risen in the past two years from three to 326.
The Government have invested substantially in the London ambulance service. The capital needs and deserves a better return on this investment from the service than it is currently receiving. It is a job for management and the work force to see that this is achieved. A better ambulance service for London is our top priority. The action that I have described today will help to bring this about.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, over the past few months, she has had representations from London Members on both sides of the House, from the Back Benches and the Front Benches, about the progressive deterioration in the London ambulance service? Is she aware that, in June 1991, her predecessor refused to see a deputation of London Labour Members about the shortcomings of the ambulance service in general, and in particular the failure of the £3 million first computer despatch system? Does she recall that, on 3 June, 17 July and 14 September of this year, I wrote to her warning of the impending crisis in the LAS? On 28 September, a junior Minister replied, blaming ambulance personnel for some of the problems and stating that the computer system was functioning correctly.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, on 14 September, I spent over an hour with the chairman of the London ambulance board, telling him that, if in October he introduced new rosters, as was his intention, together with activation of the computer-aided despatch system, he would be gambling with the lives of Londoners?
Do not all these matters show that a terrible disaster was wholly preventable and that the Secretary of State's action in bringing into the picture members or officers of the South West Thames regional health authority was entirely inappropriate as they are responsible for the appointment of the London ambulance board, which is responsible for this mess? Will the right hon. Lady appoint a well experienced and well regarded ambulance officer from outside London to take over the direction of a vital service to Londoners, being accountable directly to her and through her to the House and to the people of London?
Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that I well understand the concerns of London Members generally and those of the hon. Gentleman in particular. There has been a substantial investment in the London ambulance service. Many Members who have ambulance services operating in their constituencies that are not within the London service would envy the investment in

1015
terms of computer equipment and vehicles that has taken place in London. About one third of the fleet will be replaced by 1993. The fact is that the service, especially the new computer system, has suffered from considerable teething difficulties. That is why I have made my announcement this afternoon.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the skills of a chief ambulance officer benefiting London, that is why I have announced that there will be an external inquiry into the operation of the system, the circumstances surrounding its failure this week, and any lessons that can be learnt from the operation and management of the service. I shall announce in the near future who that officer is.
Mr. Richard Tracey: There is undoubtedly a long catalogue of complaints from London Members of Parliament on both sides of the House about the London ambulance service. Is it not time that my right hon. Friend announced a completely independent and deep-seated inquiry into the working of the ambulance service in London? We understand that there are far more calls for ambulances in London than anywhere else in the country. Far more people leap for a telephone to call an ambulance in London than elsewhere. Will the inquiry look into the working relationship between the officers and the union in the London ambulance service?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend identifies what has been a particularly difficult area for the London ambulance service—some of the management issues and the relationship with those providing the service. I hope that effective management, good communications and an understanding of the new system will lead to full co-operation and an improved service. The vast majority of those working in the ambulance service want to give the standard of service that is routinely available in other parts of the country, often with fewer resources than are available in London. I am confident that the arrangements that I have announced will result in clear improvements. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who has responsibility for the London ambulance service, will be more than happy to speak to any hon. Member about particular constituency problems.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that the new management of the London ambulance service will listen seriously to those who have given a lifetime of work to the service, instead of condemning them and attempting to break up the union organisation, as the unlamented Mr. Wilby was trying to do? Will she also assure the House that she will no longer even countenance any proposal to create an NHS trust out of the London ambulance service but instead will give Londoners an efficient, safe and accountable ambulance service, which is so desperately needed and which so obviously has not been provided for the past few years?
Mrs. Bottomley: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, good communication is essential to good management. The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is no. Many hon. Members' constituencies benefit from an ambulance trust, providing a first-rate service. I advise the hon. Gentleman
1016
to visit Essex, Northumbria and many other areas to see what can be achieved when an ambulance service becomes an NHS trust.
Mr. John Gort: Will my right hon. Friend, who knows that I have put several cases to her recently, bear in mind that her explanation does not adequately explain why a 92-year-old lady should have to wait seven hours for an ambulance despite the fact that crews were available throughout the day only a few miles away? What is the minimum time that people can now expect to wait for an ambulance in the light of the new arrangements that my right hon. Friend has just announced?
Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the inadequate service that was available, but some of the stories that have been alleged about that day have not been borne out by the facts. However, I accept that, as things are, the service is not delivering good enough results. My hon. Friend will know that we expect 95 per cent. of calls to receive a response within 14 minutes. There are also standards to be met regarding the time that it takes to activate an ambulance once a call has been received. That is why it is so important that we have the 16 extra call takers at the headquarters in order to ensure that people do not have the unacceptable response of a telephone answering machine. We have sufficient lines and sufficient call takers.
Exceptional circumstances arose on Monday and Tuesday this week. It will take us longer to identify all the aspects of those events, which is the reason for the external inquiry. I may say that there was a dramatic increase in calls and a large number of exception messages, in which ambulances did not notify their status to the headquarters.
Mr. Malcom Wicks: Ambulance staff in Croydon telephoned me this morning to tell me what has been happening, and some said that there had been tears this week because of the appalling situation. I was told about a woman who suffered a heart attack and who, after waiting 45 minutes for an ambulance, died after her husband took her to hospital by car. Does not the Secretary of State agree that Londoners are in pain and misery, that some are at risk, and that many have died? The right hon. Lady has been warned about the situation for months. We have met with complacency, and my questions have not been answered by the Department. I say with sadness that complacency and inaction have cost the lives of too many Londoners.
Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear to the House that we must await the results of the great investment made in the London ambulance service. It is not a good enough explanation to say that there are unique reasons for inner-city anbulance services delivering the required standards all over the country but failing in London. In Greater Manchester, 97.4 per cent. of responses are made within 14 minutes, but in London the figure is only 64 per cent. In Merseyside, it is 94 per cent., and in the west midlands it is 92 per cent. Other inner-city and urban areas deliver results that are not achieved in London. We have made clear our investment commitment and announced the external inquiry, and must now deliver the result.
Mr. David Mellor: Recently I wrote to my right hon. Friend to draw her attention to a series of incidents in my constituency that caused widespread

1017
concern when the London ambulance service failed to arrive in proper time to deal with casualties. In one case, in which a constituent had a heart attack and subsequently died, it took 45 minutes for an ambulance to reach him. That suggests that London ambulance service failures are not isolated and cannot be blamed merely on a computer system, but are systemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they call for top-to-bottom reform?
While it is helpful that responsibility is carried by those at the top of the organisation, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing for the unions to be proud of? Why has it taken so long for new rostering arrangements to be introduced? I hope that my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State is in charge.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Who is in charge?
Mr. Mellor: It is a jolly good thing that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in charge.
I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is crucial that the crisis that has arisen is not used as a tit-for-tat battle in the service's industrial relations problems, which have continued for far too long, but provides an opportunity for everyone to look to their consciences and to give the people of London the ambulance service which they deserve and which they do not currently have.
Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. The real progress that we want to make can be achieved only if management and staff co-operate and work constructively together. There must be more effective and harmonious dealings within the London ambulance service.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the new rostering arrangements, which should result in 20 per cent. more ambulances being on the roads in peak periods. However, we have not been making the staff side progress with that practical improvement which the management wants, and which would benefit London and Londoners.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Does not the Secretary of State realise that simply recounting stories about increased resources and efforts by the London ambulance service cuts no ice with Londoners whose simple test is whether or not the service works, and it is patently clear that it does not. This is merely the latest episode in the deterioration of London health services.
Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that no one telephoning a 999 service—which by definition will be in exceptional circumstances—will receive a response other than a human operator, and that no caller will suffer the trauma and distress of having to hang on, listening to an answering machine, while waiting for a loved one to receive emergency treatment?
Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I have made it clear that there are to be 16 more call takers for the London ambulance service. About half that number have already been appointed. They have experience in the field, and they are also receiving careful training.
I am satisfied that sufficient lines are available. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that calls should be promptly received, promptly answered and promptly responded to, and it is clear that improvements are needed
1018
at every level in management, with co-operation and determination to provide a first-class service throughout the ambulance service.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only the emergency ambulance service but the ordinary service is unsatisfactory and causing great distress across London? Many elderly people —and others who are not so elderly—sit at home waiting to be collected for an urgent hospital appointment by an ambulance that never arrives. After receiving hospital treatment, people find themselves waiting for an ambulance that never arrives to take them home.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there are sufficient ambulance men in London to deal with both emergency and ordinary cases? Will she also ensure that the inquiry looks into attendance levels, and into whether ambulance men are fit to be at work all the time? Should not that factor be considered?
Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the entire London ambulance service will benefit greatly from the advice of a chief ambulance officer from outside London, who will be able to review some of the difficulties and advise on the way forward. As I have said, however, many hon. Members take for granted an ambulance service that is resourced less generously than the London ambulance service and achieves a very much higher standard of service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked in particular about absentee rates. It is cause for concern that, in the London ambulance service, the rate is running at about 10 per cent., compared to about 6 or 7 per cent. in the rest of the health service.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State said that resources were not an issue. How does she explain the case of my constituent, 18-year-old Keeley Donaghy, who died of an asthma attack while her frantic mother rang the ambulance service between 4 and 5 am on 4 July this year? An ambulance was indeed dispatched within a reasonable time, but it could not find the address. We understand that the reason— referred to by the coroner—was the fact that there was no local ambulance available at that time in the morning, and those who were sent were not familiar with the geography.
Surely the Secretary of State's inquiry must examine staffing levels and the number of operational vehicles available at any one time.
Mrs. Bottomley: I offer my great sympathy to the hon. Lady's constituent, who underwent a very distressing, frightening and tragic experience.
The computer-aided despatch system is intended precisely to ensure maximum use of the available ambulances. Its teething difficulties are the reason why we have taken half a step backwards and supported it with radio contact. The very large investment of £1.5 million in the London ambulance service, however, was made with the precise purpose of enabling ambulances to be located, and to be put in touch immediately with callers in their vicinity.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in London believe that the problems of the ambulance service predate this week's difficulties with the computer? Given that the service receives such good resources, must not the problem

1019
be one of management or bloody-minded employees? The people of London will welcome my right hon. Friend's inquiry, which will lead to a much better service in the months to come.
Mrs. Bottomley: I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. David Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his tenacity and his wholly justified pursuit of this issue over the past six years.
Will the Secretary of State join me in offering further congratulations to the Daily Mirror on its excellent exposé of what has been happening over the past few days? I suspect that, without that, we would not have heard this statement today. Does she agree that the time for prevarication is over, that lives have been lost arid that people continue to be at risk? She should immediately introduce outside managerial expertise, not merely for the inquiry but to run the service in the interim period.
Does the Secretary of State agree that she failed to respond to the clear signs of crisis in the service or to the appeals of hon. Members? She refused my request in a letter of 16 September for a public inquiry, but wrote to me instead about the computer system, saying:
"When fully operational, this system will result in improved response and call waiting times. Calls will be answered in seconds rather than in minutes."
Does she agree that that not only proved to be incorrect but led to the situation that arose this week, when people have died? Their demise and their families' bereavement could have been avoided.
On Friday, the closure of London hospitals was announced. Yesterday, we learned of the scandal of what is taking place in the west midlands. Does the Secretary of State agree that the time for complacency and neglect is over and that she should act in the interests of everyone, as Conservative and Labour Members have suggested?
Mrs. Bottomley: About £70 million is being spent on the service in London. A third of its vehicles will be new by next year and it will have an extra 326 paramedics. I think that I made it clear that other parts of the country would envy such investment.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the computer system is without value. It clearly stands to benefit London and Londoners. It has had teething difficulties, and we shall have to think further about how we can ensure that it works properly and that all the staff co-operate with the new working procedures. Teams throughout London must understand that, for the computer to work properly, they must press the buttons at the right moment and be in touch with the centre. Management must effectively lead that change so that Londoners can benefit. Martin Gorham, deputy general manager of South West Thames regional health authority, will be acting, and we will have the benefit of the chief ambulance officer from another metropolitan area to advise us.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the west midlands. The requirement is that 50 per cent. of calls should be answered within eight minutes. It is managing to answer 72 per cent. of calls. Ninety-five per cent. of calls should be answered within 14 minutes, and the west midlands is just meeting that target. It is setting a good example in ambulance services. If we can get the London service to match the west midlands service, all Londoners and hon. Members should be content.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Bernard Jenkin

Sir Michael Grylls

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Etc.
3.58 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault; to provide protection for women and children at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence; to make related new provision in respect of compensation and legal aid, and consequential entitlement to certain social security benefits; to amend the Child Support Act 1991; and for connected purposes.
Sex is fine, but rape and sexual assault are not and they must be criminalised. The important distinction involves consent, as against coercion, violence or threats of violence. The House needs to modernise the rape laws to make that distinction crystal clear.
On 21 February 1990, I introduced my Rape in Marriage (Offence) Bill, which secured some action. After that, I met members of the organisation Women Against Rape, who said that the rape laws in general were badly out of date and in need of reform. Working with them, I introduced my Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill—a version of my present Bill—on 19 June last year. Now, still working with Women Against Rape, I introduce the present Bill, which would bring about an even more comprehensive and radical update of the rape laws.
There are four crucial necessities, the first of which is recognition of the crime of rape in marriage, and the second a recognition of the crime of male rape. The third necessity is greater rights for survivors of rape, including increasing their physical safety, giving them improved protection in courts hearing rape cases and ending the discriminatory compensation arrangements which now work against them. The fourth necessity is a redefinition of rape, based on coercion and lack of consent.
First, the Law Lords made a judgment that rape in marriage should be a criminal offence, and the Government referred the matter to the Law Commission, which in January reported that legislation was needed to make the existence of such an offence absolutely clear. We are still waiting for a response from the Government.
It has been argued that, if rape in marriage were made a crime, vast numbers of women would bring charges, so, although the Law Lords made the recommendation, I shall still quote what Helena Kennedy QC said about that idea:
"The real position is that that's not going to happen because the evidence is going to be difficult to find … the Crown Prosecution Service is going to have a great difficulty in looking at the cases which will stand up evidentially in court, and those which will, will be ones where there's been a history of domestic violence or where there's going to be evidence of domestic violence".
That sounds much like the law before the Law Lords' ruling. Clearly, the Crown prosecution service will not move unless the House lays down instructions for it.
What the judges can give they can also take away. Their discretionary powere should go. We need legislation so that there is no such discretion in cases of rape in marriage. There are no two ways about it; it is a serious crime and it must be written into the statute book.
Secondly, my Bill would for the first time make male rape a specific criminal offence. There is an assumption that only women can be raped, but that is not true. There is no law concerning male rape, but there is a law concerning indecent assault on a male, and the numbers of such cases are increasing. There was one in my constituency only yesterday, and in London the numbers
1022
of such cases have doubled over the past 10 years. More than nine out of 10 such cases are not even reported to the police, perhaps because of the fear, the humiliation and the shock which are felt or because of the fear of being criminalised or branded as a homosexual. A law on male rape is needed, so that victims have the confidence to come out into the open. As that happens, more such cases will be reported. Another reason why such a law must be on the statute book is that at present the rapists get away with it, perhaps to do the same thing again. That must be changed.
The third necessity is for greater rights for rape survivors. Those rights fall into three categories, one of which is the right to physical safety for the victim. My Bill would enable secure places to be provided for victims while cases were heard: a local authority would have to provide emergency accommodation. There would also be income support for a woman in danger from a partner who had raped her. With that assistance, women would not be forced to go back to the rapist.
Furthermore, bail would not be given to a man with previous convictions for similar offences. If bail were broken, he would be subject to immediate arrest. That would be in the interests of the victim's better physical safety. Victims would also have protection in court and there would be guaranteed anonymity. At the moment, discretion should be repealed and the victim guaranteed anonymity. Victims should have the right to legal representation in court and to have someone with them in court while the case is being heard.
The Bill would also end the discriminatory compensation arrangements that currently apply. It would extend legal aid to the victim in any compensation board hearing. A carer who has been raped may incur costs in the care of a child or elderly relative, and those costs should be reflected in the compensation. At present, there is a limit of £5,000 on the compensation that can be awarded to a woman who has had a child as a result of a rape. That goes nowhere near reflecting the costs of bringing up a child. The Bill would get rid of that limit.
The Bill would prevent any arbitrary assumptions made by the compensation board about the victim—for example, an assumption about the reason for a victim's delay in reporting a rape. Such delay should not be held against him or her. Similarly, the compensation board—and judges, too—often make assumptions about a victim's dress or alleged character. That should be stopped and should certainly not penalise the victim in any compensation arrangements. No social security benefit should be deducted from the compensation and compensation should be disregarded in calculating any means-tested benefit entitlement. The key point here is that women should not be prevented for financial reasons from using the law to leave violent husbands or partners.
The Bill would contain a redefinition of rape based on coercion without consent. That includes not only physical force but deception, economic coercion or threats to women or their children. The Bill would thus widen the definition of rape.
This change in the law is needed because the rape laws are out of date—just consider the fact that rape in marriage and male rape are not properly covered—and because victims cannot be confident of obtaining justice or even a fair and sympathetic hearing.

1023
Let me refer to the comments made by Mary Tuck, the former head of the Home Office research and planning unit and the chair of a working party that looked into these matters for the Home Office. She said:
"Dealing with domestic violence is the single most important preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society."
I agree with that comment. The House must come to terms with domestic violence, which often includes rape.
A survey conducted by Women Against Rape in 1985, whose findings have been confirmed in other surveys since, showed that one in seven wives had been raped by their husbands; one in six women had been raped; one in three women had been sexually assaulted; one in eight black women had suffered racist sexual assault; one in five women had been raped or sexually assaulted as children or teenagers; three in four married women who had been raped had been prevented from leaving by lack of money and/or housing and one in 12 women who had been raped had reported the rape to the police. Those are amazing figures, and we need action on them from the House.
Immigrant women should not lose their right to stay because they leave a violent partner and a child support action—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to conclude his speech. I assure him that I have been trying to attract his attention to the clock.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms. Jean Corston, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Ms. Dawn Primarolo and Ms. Joyce Quinn.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ETC.
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault; to provide protection for women and children at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence; to make related new provision in respect of compensation and legal aid, and consequential entitlement to certain social security benefits; to amend the Child Support Act 1991; 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 66.]

Public Accounts
4.9 pm
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although certain reports are listed in the motion, may we debate any reports of the Public Accounts Committee? For the sake of clarity, may we be sure that that is the case?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentlman and the House may debate all the reports listed on the Order Paper under the public accounts motion.
4.10 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 36th to 43rd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1990–91, of the 1st to 24th Reports of Session 1991–92, of the 1st to 11th Reports of Session 1992–93, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 1725, 1784, 1798, 1819, 1865, 1856, 1949, 1998 and 2074), with particular reference to the following Reports:
Thirty-sixth, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Qualification of accounts, 1989–90;
Thirty-seventh, Fraud and irregularities at defence establishments; Session 1991–92
First, Sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace plc;
Third Management of road maintenance;
Twenty-second, PSA Services accounts 1990–91; Session 1992–93
Seventh, Sale of the water authorities in England and Wales.
This is the annual debate on reports of the Public Accounts Committee. Last year, we had 45 reports and this year we have 43. As usual, we have highlighted several of the reports in the motion, but others will, as usual, be mentioned in the debate. Of course, the debate is on all the reports–43 of them—that we prepared last year and were published. Almost every report could warrant a full debate on its own. In fact, on an estimates day when no suitable subject for debate could be found, we volunteered one of our many reports, and the debate ran for its entire length with a number of hon. Members being unable to be called. One of the problems is that the large number of reports tends to frighten some colleagues and, as a result, they do not take part in these important debates.
My first thanks must be to the Committee. It meets more often than any other Select Committee and it agrees many more reports. The pressure on hon. Members to digest the voluminous information is very great. My thanks, of course, also go to the Committee members and my particular thanks must go to Sir Michael Shaw, who was the senior Government Member for many years. The development of the Committee owes much to him. As a result of the general election, we lost a number of valuable Members, one of whom is the present Chairman of Ways and Means, but there were others, too, some who found their way to the other place and others who have played a part in other aspects of our public affairs.
As usual, the House is by no means full. I do not interpret that as a lack of concern about our work, but in some peculiar way we must regard it as a tribute to it. We know full well that if we failed to hold Departments to account and if we were felt to be failing in that crucial

1025
work, the House would fill immediately with demands for action by the Committee. I hope that, in this debate at any rate, we can show that we are fulfilling that role.
We have more information presented to us than at any previous time. We now have the departmental reports, and Andrew Likierman has shown how useful they can be. I hope that the departmental Select Committees will make use of them, as well as comment on the public expenditure White Paper as it applies to the Departments they cover. It is my constant concern to encourage them, for heaven's sake, to look at those matters for which they have some responsibility and say that, yes, they agree with everything that the Government are doing and so issue a new return. However, often they do not even look at them. There has been some improvement, but it has been very slow and much more is required.
The Public Accounts Committee normally takes its evidence from permanent secretaries, so we have a wider overview of senior civil servants than any other Committee of the House, or indeed most Back-Bench Members and even most members of the Government, because twice a week we see those people and we get to know their characteristics and assess their capabilities in the efficient use of public money. We do not bully or harangue them. In the main, we are impressed with their abilities, and we hope that our work assists them to improve the work of the Department as well as ensuring that the taxpayer gets a fair deal. That is what unites the Committee.
Politically, we are naturally partisan. However, we do not examine policy. However distasteful we may personally find the policy, our task is to assess the way in which the policy has been implemented and to see whether we have obtained value for money. As a result of that, all our reports are unanimous and, more important even than that, they are untainted by fudging to create a bogus consensus. They are direct and hard hitting, and they mean what they say.
The Committee and the National Audit Office have an excellent relationship. The Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in selecting investigations. A regular discussion of the programme takes place in the Committee, and also takes into account suggestions made by members of the Committee.
We are pleased that the work of Sir John Bourn has been recognised and that he has acquired a United Nations audit role. The National Audit Office has produced information showing where it has obtained savings from its activities. Although the office gives illustrative figures, the most important aspect of its work is not the instances of mismanagement that it discovers but those that it prevents. The very existence of the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee only improves the situation as they find it, but prevents worse errors from being made because of the possibility that such errors will be uncovered by our work.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Dr. Jack, and his staff do valuable work. On Monday of this week I was able to see the construction of their new offices in Belfast, which should be ready by the summer of next year. The Committee also thanks John Beastall, the Treasury Officer of Accounts, and others who assist us with our work. I welcome the Financial Secretary
1026
to his new position, and look forward to his interest in value for money leading to a valuable dialogue with the Committee.
There is a heavy responsibility on those in public life to maintain and improve standards in the public service. We must do our best to overcome the dangers of a civil service that might consider itself from time to time undervalued. That brings me to the first point that I wish to make. The prime aspect of the control of expenditure is to eliminate or reduce to the absolute minimum the possibilities of fraud and the lack of probity within the civil service. That must be a continuing aspect of our work. Value for money and saving money are of enormous importance and are a major preoccupation of the Committee, but even more important are the standards in the public service. We pride ourselves naturally and rightly on our standards.
Many overseas visitors who have come from public accounts committees within the Commonwealth and others who have responsibility for overseeing public expenditure in other parts of the world have asked me and other members of the Committee, "How can we obtain the kind of standards that you have?" The most important aspect is prevention—stopping fraud arising in the first place. Once a civil service is rooted in corruption it is almost impossible to remove it. So prevention must be our first priority. The greatest peril is when a group within a unit colludes to defraud. The greatest protection that we have is the honest public servant who prevents fraud from arising. So, although it does not take much of our time, prevention must always be the most important aspect before us.
Looking at the major themes of the year, I shall concentrate on only four. The first issue is fraud and the need for probity in the civil service. The second is objectives and performance.
Years ago, we had problems when many of the Departments engaged on a programme and were unaware of the precise nature of what they were trying to achieve. We have established right from the beginning that when a programme is started, a clear statement of objectives is set out and a means of monitoring the progress of that programme and comparing objectives with achievements is established. Departments can thus see exactly what is trying to be achieved and are able ultimately to compare the objective with the achievement.
Most of the examples that I hear about when I go around and speak on these matters happily relate to a long time ago. The worst examples are those of the past, but we still have a number of bad examples and some way to go. Some aspects of that can be found in the advisory services to agriculture, the pollution inspectorate, the polytechnics and the safeguarding of jobs in Wales. I am sure that we shall hear more on that from some of my hon. Friends. I mention those only in outline and do not intend to go in to them in great detail.
The relationship between what Departments set out to achieve and what they actually achieve is important. I understand that not everything can be quantified, but one can attempt to quantify those programmes as closely as possible so that the final outcome is more clearly related to objectives.
We heard today about the London ambulance service. I regret to say that its problems are not untypical of some of the serious problems that we see with computerisation within the civil service. Help is available to Departments when they are computerised, and I fear that proper use of

1027
them has not been made. An extreme example, the like of which I hope never to see again, is that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Insolvency Service, to which I shall refer in greater detail.
My fourth theme is the role of non-departmental public bodies, and control over them. An increasing number of Government functions are being delegated from Departments to a wide range of non-departmental bodies, and such work is funded by grants or grants in aid, rather than direct expenditure borne on Bills. The general aim is to move away from that detailed departmental involvement with delivery of programmes and services and still maintain a broad oversight and overall control to bring management and accountability closer to the point of delivery.
Although that is fine in theory, some of those programmes have, unfortunately, failed wretchedly. I refer to two cases in particular, the first of which is the 23rd report—1991–92—on "Financial Management and Control in the National Rivers Authority", which involved the relocation of the authority's headquarters. It demonstrated bad management and repeated failures to observe the care required for the spending of public funds. Some £1 million of taxpayers' money was wasted. We criticised the hoard and the senior management of the authority for their failure to establish proper, effective management and monitoring arrangements. That should have been accompanied by regular reviews of progress and costs, but those were inadequate, and tendering and contracting arrangements were poorly controlled, with attendant risks of fraud and corruption.
Once control is lost in that way, one also loses control over how much fraud and corruption is taking place. In that case, a contract of £2.6 million was made available on the basis of a tender for a few thousand pounds, without competition. Those and other matters went to the heart of the authority's proper accountability for public funds. We called on both the authority and the Department of the Environment to strengthen systems of controls, clarify responsibilities and introduce a wide range of improvements without further delay.
We also criticised the severance payment to the former chief executive who had a key responsibility. His severance settlement was £125,000 for the loss of three of the five years of his contract, plus £2,350 for legal expenses, plus £1,057 for financial advice, plus his normal pension. Had it not been for the Comptroller and Auditor General being able to look at the accounts, we would never have found that out.
My colleagues will recall the unhappy occasion when evidence was given on the 11th report—1992–93—on the Development Board for Rural Wales. The terms approved by the Welsh Office and the Treasury for the early retirement of the board's former chief executive were substantially exceeded. Amounts were paid that went substantially beyond the normal retirement settlement terms without the knowledge of the Welsh Office—the sponsoring Department. Payment of £ 15,563 was made for untaken leave; records were inadequate and the sum went beyond the terms that had been approved by the Treasury.
There were also weaknesses in the Welsh Office's monitoring and control. We were not convinced that payment in lieu of notice was necessary. The former chief executive was also given consultative assignments worth
1028
up to £30,000. That is not the way to handle such matters. We were grateful to the Comptroller and Auditor General for uncovering the incident.
The Welsh Office was not aware that the board had acted beyond its authority. The board failed to consult the Welsh Office legal adviser or the Treasury solicitor over recovery action. Both cases underline the general lessons to be learnt about the oversight of non-departmental public bodies and the need for further clarification of the role of chairmen of boards and their chief executives.
The 37th report—1990–91—on fraud and irregularities at defence establishments is one of the reports highlighted on the Order Paper. The amount of expenditure at the Ministry of Defence was £1,800 million in 1989–90. Such expense is incurred locally at more than 3,000 defence establishments in the United Kingdom and overseas. That expenditure relates to items such as the local purchase of stores, minor works contracts, travel and subsistence claims, and general administration costs. In addition, there are stocks of equipment and stores worth £16 billion that are held at 50 major storage depots and hundreds of subsidiary storeholding units. If any irregularities occur, there is large scope for considerable losses.
Following the Committee's earlier report on fraudulent travel and subsistence, we expected an improvement in the controls of those large sums of money. A number of subsequent cases prompted the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake a further examination. Paragraph 7 of the report states:
"the Department reported to the Treasury a total of 283 proven cases of fraud, excluding procurement fraud, perpetrated by civilian employees or Service personnel".
We found the increased incidence of reported fraud disquieting.
In paragraph 11, we noted:
"the 1990–91 figures for theft of assets included the loss of computers and office equipment valued at some £500,000. There is a ready second-hand market for such equipment, the custody and movement of which needs to be tightly controlled. A key factor in preventing the loss of such equipment is site security, including a reliable system of checking vehicles and personnel leaving establishments."
In paragraph 17, we say that an adequate separation of duties is needed. Such a separation is an essential feature of any accounting system. The National Audit Office found that there were weaknesses in this important area at many of the establishments visited and that such weaknesses had contributed to some of the recently reported fraud.
It is important that those in control are not the same people as those who carry out the tasks of security. We say:
"where it is not possible, for example in a small office, to arrange adequate separation of duties, it is, in our view, essential that the staff should be closely supervised and their work subject to frequent management checks."
We say in paragraph 24:
"where it is established that a civilian member of staff has committed fraud or theft, the Department claims their policy is that dismissal will invariably follow unless there are exceptional circumstances."
Nevertheless, we found that only 45 per cent. of those guilty of fraud were dismissed. Could 55 per cent. of them claim exceptional circumstances? We find it hard to reconcile the dismissal policy with the number of exceptions to it, now running at 55 per cent., and we have asked the Department to analyse the reasons for these

1029
exceptions and to review its guidance to line managers on the circumstances in which exceptions to the dismissal rule are appropriate.
The Treasury minute states that the Treasury is now issuing guidance to clarify the exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will comment on that later.
I come now to the most important of our reports, the 36th report for the Session 1990–91 on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "Qualification of Accounts, 1989–90". Between 1989 and 1990, the Foreign Office introduced a new computerised accounting system to make payments, record transactions and produce its four annual appropriation accounts. The system did not work properly and the final accounts which should have been signed in August were not produced until the end of November. They were based on ledgers that did not balance, and the Comptroller and Auditor General was unable to complete his audit and qualify his opinion on all four accounts.
This is such a serious matter that I must go into some detail. The situation is wholly exceptional. We say in our report that we agree with the Department that it made a mistake in believing that it could manage such a computerisation on its own. We were disturbed that it should have taken the Department so long to recognise that and to adopt a better standard of computer project management.
The old accounting system broke down irreparably; it did not have adequate back-up in case of failure. The Department acknowledges that, in retrospect, this had been a mistake and that it had been cavalier in not obtaining expert advice. The same story has been told on a number of occasions—a new computerised system is introduced and instead of having a back-up or a parallel operation in case things go wrong, none has been installed. It is essential to have two systems running side by side: the old system, which may not be good but which at least works, and the new system which it is hoped will replace it. After a certain amount of time it is possible to have confidence in the new system and to move over exclusively to it. Meanwhile, the old one is kept in operation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not do that and we considered that a serious failure. It was unfortunate that the old system broke down at such an inopportune time, but we were concerned that the Department operated an aging system without back-up.
That experience underlines the necessity to provide alternative facilities to cover system failure and those facilities should continue to work should the need arise. Paragraph 18 of our report states:
"Since the old system had broken down, the Department had no option but to run their accounts entirely on the new system, even though it had not been fully tested and had known faults."
Therefore, the old system had no back-up at all, and when the Department introduced a new system and the old system failed, it was completely caught out and had nothing on which to depend.
The matter is even worse because, as paragraph 19 states:
"From their attempts to reconcile the two systems it soon became evident to the Department that there were serious problems. Some payments had not been recorded on the new system while others had been posted two or three times.
1030
Incorrect opening balances were found on the new system; programming errors had allowed wrong or single entry postings; a large number of journal transfers had been made to the wrong month; and other transactions had not been recorded for several months."
Paragraph 20 states:
"The Department were unable to produce their usual monthly trial balances … there was a difference of £485 million on the Parliamentary Grant account and a net £46 million across all votes on the Paymaster General account."
Those are extremely serious matters, and in paragraph 21 we say:
"By early May 1990 it became apparent that the Book-keeping Section were unable to resolve the serious discrepancies between the two systems. Extra staff, including internal auditors, were drafted in to undertake a major exercise to reconcile the two systems and to rectify the errors made by the new software."
As a result of all that, the Comptroller and Auditor General was unable to complete his audit. He considered that the Department had failed to maintain proper books of account and qualified his audit opinions accordingly. Paragraph 24 states:
It was the most serious qualification of an appropriation account which the present Comptroller and Auditor General had made."
In our conclusions, we say:
"We are alarmed at the catalogue of accounting errors that were made by the Department."
As you know from your experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Committee chooses its words very carefully and does not use such words lightly. I have never used words as strong as those in our report and I hope never to use such words again. I have kept them in reserve for disasters of the kind that we now face.
Of the accounting errors we say:
"Their gravity is illustrated by the size of the imbalances which were revealed, by the scale of the sums posted to 'dump accounts' and by the exceptional nature of the qualifications made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We cannot do other than strongly criticise the Department's accounting arrangements."
I am afraid that the matter does not end there, because we say in paragraph 30:
"In June 1990, while the cashier was on holiday, the Department found £8,000 cash and £23,000 cheques missing. These sums have been recovered; the cashier has since been found guilty of theft and has received three concurrent suspended sentences of one year's imprisonment. He has been summarily dismissed from the Department.
We asked whether this fraud was due in any way to the breakdown of the old computer or to the introduction of the new one."
Once control is lost, all things are possible, and only continuous control can make sure that such things do not happen. The Department could not say whether the fraud was due in any way to the breakdown of the old computer or the introduction of the new one and was unable to comment further.
We conclude:
"We note the Department's evidence that the theft in this case was attributable more to an abuse of trust than to any weakness in the system of control. However, we consider that inadequate controls create a climate which is conducive to fraud and thefts:"
Such controls need to operate effectively. There is more bad news for the House. At a critical time when there was an aging system on one hand and a new and untried system was being introduced on the other, the entire bookkeeping staff changed. Having inexperienced staff with limited training and insufficient guidance and supervision led to many additional errors and that was one of the underlying problems beyond that of software.

1031
When changing from a system that has its faults to one that one hopes will be effective, it is crucial to retain the staff who know how to operate at least one system and who know the figures that are being put in. To replace them all at the same time defies belief, but that is what happened. It did not happen in a far-flung part of the civil service empire—it happened in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, one of the great Departments of State. We should be seriously concerned that this could ever happen.
In our conclusions, we use the word "astonished", which I have never used before and hope never to use again when we say:
"We are astonished that the Department should have allowed a complete turnover in book-keeping staff at the very time when major changes were taking place in their accounting systems, the more so since the new staff were given inadequate guidance and supervision. We consider it essential that departments should provide continuity of experience on accounts work, employ a sufficient number of qualified personnel and provide sound training, guidance and supervision."
The Treasury minute that is the reply to the report says that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has learnt and applied valuable lessons. I look forward to hearing how this is proceeding.
Another case involving computerisation was that of the Insolvency Service. To qualify the accounts of the Insolvency Service filled us with horror. It started to computerise, but did not even consider the use of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. The CCTA, which is an advisory body working within the Whitehall machine, is well staffed and equipped, as know because I had quite a lot to do with it 20 years ago. It is the fount of a great deal of information and understanding about the essential problems that have to be faced when one computerises.
The Insolvency Service thought that it could go it alone rather than asking for advice. The imbalances that were found, the fraud and the over-payments were inevitable and the qualification of the account, which I hope that we will never see again, was the outcome. The Treasury minute tells us that the service has appointed a director of information technology and now discusses its requirements with the CCTA. Thank goodness for that, but it has come rather late.
Our first report in the Session 1991–92 was on the sale of Rover Group plc to British Aerospace plc. We had gone into this matter on a previous occasion. In 1975, the British Leyland Corporation, which was making heavy losses, was taken into public ownership. In August 1988, it was returned to the private sector by sale to British Aerospace for a price of £ 150 million, after a cash injection of £547 million in recognition of the company's debt and to support its investment programme. The report does not describe the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace because we had already fully described it in an earlier report when we took evidence from Sir Peter Gregson of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry went into the matter as well.
In this important report, we draw attention to the main lessons for privatisation in general that emerge from the sale, and make recommendations. The brevity of our report should not be taken to mean that we place anything but the greatest importance on our inquiries into this subject. We hope that the Treasury and other Departments
1032
will ensure that all future sales of public assets have regard to our recommendations. I hope that they will be used as a check list by those who sell public assets, to ensure that we get value for money and that sales are handled efficiently.
The first recommendation is:
"Anything other than full and open competition should be the exception. Should this not be possible, we would expect some limited form of competition to be arranged in order to establish a benchmark against which to test the price finally negotiated."
The great advantage of these recommendations is that they result from our examination of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have a great respect and admiration for the work of the National Audit Office and its staff. It has changed fundamentally, and you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the change has been to the enormous advantage of the House. We now have proper accountants and auditors who are held in respect by the highest organisations in the country, including the City of London and big private industries. We have people who produce results that are universally admired in the accountancy and auditing professions. When they produced these conclusions, we examined them and we added one or two of our own, and came up with this report, which sets out the tasks that have to be undertaken before selling public assets.
Our second recommendation was:
"Before entering negotiations, we expect the selling department to make their own comprehensive valuation of the undertaking to be sold."
That is elementary, but in so many cases, it did not happen
and all that seemed to matter was the price that would be got for the undertaking. That is a test, but the market may not be suitably placed and there may be undervaluation of the assets. There must be a longer-term assessment of the value and the price achieved should be as close to that as possible.
Thirdly we said:
"Specifically we expect departments, in making such valuations, to identify any land or other assets surplus to the needs of the main business. We recommend that such assets should be separately valued; in the case of property sites these values should reflect any higher figures appropriate to possible alternative uses to which the land might be put."
Again, that is elementary, but, like other elementary precautions, it was not taken. We make that point and we set out these precautions in a form that everybody can understand. We continued:
"We also expect departments to consider whether the separate disposal of surplus assets, such as stocks and shares in other companies, may yield a higher return for the taxpayer than selling them with the main business.
In situations where a department decides not to dispose of surplus assets ahead of the main sale because, for example, their future value is uncertain, we expect them to protect the taxpayer's interest by providing for the public purse to claw back any gains arising within a reasonable period subsequent to the privatisation."
I am pleased to see that this, at least, is being undertaken in some cases. We continue:
"Where departments consider that to include clawback provisions within the terms of the sale might depress the price which the purchaser is prepared to pay, we expect them to assess where the balance of advantage to the taxpayer may lie before they make any binding commitment either way."
We make a number of other recommendations that I am sure will be taken into account by Departments undertaking such an exercise. We continue:
"we expect departments to be forthcoming when fulfilling their obligations to keep the United Kingdom Parliament informed, and not simply to comply with the letter of the requirements. Information should not be provided piecemeal

1033
in scattered notes, but in a coherent statement. While the Department gave us an account of how Parliament was informed of this transaction, we cannot accept that the DTI discharged its duties in this regard in a helpful or effective manner. This must improve, in any future privatisations of other financial transactions."
The transaction involved there was the sale of the Rover Group. In the next paragraph but one we recommend
"that Departments do not subject themselves to time deadlines … which"—
perhaps the appropriate word is "produce"—
"pressures to sell at a lower price than that"
which they might have been able to achieve.
As the House knows, the Committee of Public Accounts does not examine policy, which has nothing to do with the Committee. The members of the Committee are concerned only with getting best value for the taxpayer. I am seriously worried about the pressure of time that causes assets to be sold at prices below those that might have been achievable.
When the Treasury makes its forecasts it takes account of what it is hoped to achieve by the privatisation or sale of public assets. That factor is built into its forecasts. The Treasury will ask a Department what it intends to achieve, and it will be told how much is expected to be obtained from the sale of a public asset or assets. That is then followed by the unexpected. We all know that the unexpected always happens. It is found that the market is not quite right because something has gone wrong and it is not possible to meet the timetable. In the normal course of events one would have a postponement and wait for a more suitable time. There would then be more time to make and implement the necessary arrangements.
The Treasury timetable, however, is inescapable. Certain things have to be obtained within a certain period or the Treasury's forecasts will be even more wrong than they usually are, which would be unforgiveable. So pressure will be on a Department to carry out the sale. That leads to the serious problem of sales at prices that are well below what otherwise might have been achievable. That greatly concerns the Committee.
It can be argued—we have advanced this argument in several of our reports in previous years—that the sale of public assets should be phased. After all, when the Government come to sell their gilts they do not sell on 1 January for however many billions of pounds are involved. Instead, they look to the Government broker and decide how much it is worth selling at a particular time given the state of the market. They are extremely knowledgeable about the state of the market. Unfortunately, they are not knowledgeable when it comes to privatisations. Instead of a phased approach, they try to get everything in one go. That is nonsense, and we have stated repeatedly and unanimously that it is something that must be considered. On one or two occasions the Treasury has listened to the argument, as have Departments, but not enough has been done or is being done.
We are told in the Treasury minute that the Government are considering further guidance on sales of public assets. I hope that it will include the points that the Committee has made.
Mr. Maxton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one privatisation to come before us will be the railways. It is possible that the coal industry and the water and
1034
sewerage industry in Scotland will also be privatised. Given what my right hon. Friend has said about sales of public assets, should the Committee of Public Accounts be examining the valuations that the Treasury is putting down, as it were, prior to any sale taking place, rather than retrospectively, which is often the case with the Committee?
Mr. Sheldon: It would be hard to tempt me into taking that course of action. The Committee is essentially an auditing body, and we shall examine matters in that way. We find out what has happened and then we are able to produce our reports. It should he appreciated that the reports have a future impact. Civil servants, or even the Minister, are aware that these matters will come before the Committee. We have examined every privatisation, of course. The Minister might not be quite so concerned as the Permanent Secretary, but it might be said that he will be vaguely aware of what is happening. We hope that the effect of our reports in future will be based on that process.
The third report is entitled "Management of Road Maintenance", something that we have had several goes at over the years. It has been a rather sad story. The introduction reads:
"The Department of Transport are responsible for expenditure of £440 million in 1991–92 on the capital maintenance of the national roads system. Their maintenance aim is to preserve the life of motorways and trunk roads in England at minimum cost, including delay costs, and to ensure roads are safe and are strong enough to carry the expected traffic."
In 1984, the Department of Transport estimated that there were 70 miles of motorway to renew to keep pace with deterioration. In 1985, the backlog had increased and a new target was set of 80 miles. In 1990–91 the backlog was still great and a fresh target was set of 86 miles. It was decided for 1992–93 to employ consultants, and it was found that 100 miles of motorway should be renewed each year to keep pace with deterioration. The increase in trunk road maintenence was even greater.
The Department has had difficulity in obtaining a comprehensive and consistent picture of the condition of the road network. In 1988 it abandoned a national structural survey because of its unrealiability. It was only after consultants advised the Department in 1989 that it had a complete picture of road conditions. I find that surprising. Roads can he expected to deteriorate and there is surely a need to know which roads need to be repaired, which roads will disintegrate and how the system can be operated effectively. Paragraph 12 reads:
"We are concerned that the Department now face a situation where so much of the country's main roads network will continue to be closed for repair, with about one-third of every single lane or motorway expected to be coned off at some time in the next five years. We are disappointed that the Department have not been more successful in dealing with the growing backlog maintenance, and that the clearance of the backlog promised by the end of 1992–93 has now been extended by a further five years to 1997–98."
Paragraph 13 states:
"We consider that the Department need to have better information on the condition of roads in order to deploy their funds most cost-effectively. We are concerned about the past inadequacies of the Department's data on road condition, and note that the national structural survey of the condition of roads had to be abandoned because the data provided by their agents were incomplete and inconsistent."
In paragraph 15 we said:

1035
"We regard it as unsatisfactory that for the last six years the Department have consistently underestimated the levels of maintenance required because their traffic forecasts have been too low."
Paragraph 16 reads:
"We note that the revised target of clearing the backlog in 1997–98 is based on the assumption that roads past the critical condition are expected to last as much as a further eight years before requiring reconstruction."
This is a serious aspect of the report.
If a road has not been looked after properly, it becomes necessary to reconstruct it, and we are then faced with extremely heavy expenditure. That is what happens. If the Department is not aware of the conditions of roads it can be faced with the cost of reconstruction. The Committee reported:
"There are two main methods of road maintenance: reconstruction, which is the process of removing most or all of the materials past a critical condition and replacing them with new materials; and overlay, which involves putting a layer of blacktop or concrete over an existing road. Reconstruction is some three times more expensive than overlay".
It should be said that the true cost are rather less than that.
Again, it is a serious matter. If we do not know the condition of our roads, more of them will pass the critical condition. As a result, there will be extra expense. Paragraph 23 reads:
"We asked the Department why they had not adopted the information systems used by other countries instead of producing new systems themselves. The Department said that their planned information system is more elaborate and comprehensive than those used in other countries, and that it would be dangerous to introduce a tailor made and sophisticated computer system too hurriedly and without sufficient preparation."
I hope that that is true.
The report continues:
"In view of the Department's evidence that reconstruction is much more expensive than overlay, we are concerned that the Department's planning and management of the maintenance programme has failed to prevent a significant proportion of the road network passing the critical condition which entails expensive reconstruction. We note the Department's assurance that roads approaching the critical condition will generally now be overlaid."
We shall be watching that, because we have already had a number of goes with the Department of Transport on those matters.
The Committee says that it welcomes the useful results or lane rentals. We think that that has been a good idea. But the reality is that still one third of every single lane of motorway will be coned off at some time in the nest five years.
The Treasury, in its reply, accepts past inadequacies and points to a number of improvements. We look forward to hearing those.
Mr. David Nicholson: The study of the management of road maintenance was carried out before I became a member of the Committee, but on the M5 in my constituency, between Taunton and Wellington, repairs have proved to be inadequate a few years later and the process of coning and vastly expensive repair has had to be gone through again. I do not want to tempt the right hon. Gentleman into subjects that might be debated tomorrow, but my attention was drawn this very day to the vast cost of aggregates from, for example, the Mendips in Somerset, which are used for road repairs and the damage caused by heavy lorries, which I believe is estimated to be about 1 million times more than that caused by the average car. That may be something at which the Public Accounts
1036
Committee or other Committees of the House could look in terms of value for money for the taxpayer and the use of natural resources.
Mr. Sheldon: We have looked at some of those aspects on previous occasions, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall. I am sure that we shall return to many of them. It is such a pity that, despite our efforts, so little has been done. Much more remains to be done and I hope that it will be.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has had to say about the performance of the Department of Transport south of the border in relation to the maintenance of motorways and trunk roads. Has his Committee done any work on the situation north of the border where such matters are dealt with by the Scottish Office and, if so, does the Scottish Office perform any better or worse?
Mr. Sheldon: I regret that I cannot make a comparison. However, we shall be going further into the matters and we may be able to see whether there are any improvements north of the border.
Mr. Home Robertson: I doubt it.
Mr. Sheldon: We look forward to investigating that in due course.
I now come to the 22nd report of Session 1991–92 on PSA Services accounts 1990–91. On 1 April 1990, Government Departments were untied from PSA Services and became free to employ private sector companies to carry out their works services. In consequence, PSA Services had to involve all Departments for work undertaken on its behalf. It had to issue fresh invoices.
The report says:
"Difficulties experienced by PSA Services in introducing the new cost coding structure and inadequacies in the underlying records led to errors on customers' invoices. That, in turn, led the customers to delay or withhold payments. By the end of 1990–91 works expenditure totalling £65.6 million had not been accepted by departments and, with Treasury approval, it was charged by PSA Services to their own Appropriation Account. … Since there was no certainty that the sums making up this figure would ever be accepted by customers, the Comptroller and Auditor-General qualified his audit opinion."
The number of qualifications that we are seeing is disturbing, and this one is more disturbing than most.
The report continues:
"PSA Services told us that the level of expenditure not accepted by customers had now been reduced to £22 million. It is a most serious matter that PSA Services' financial system should have broken down to the extent that they had to charge £65.6 million on their own Vote instead of being able to recover it from their customers. Moreover we find it unsatisfactory that, despite having had sufficient time to do so, PSA Services were so poorly prepared for what was clearly a major change in their status and procedures."
PSA Services' inability to produce proper invoices is one of the fundamental aspects of proper management and control.
Paragraph 41 of the report says:
"We recognise that the present time is one of very considerable change not only in PSA Services but across government generally. There are new bodies, new financial systems and new people are being appointed to run them. We conclude therefore that, where the role of a department changes significantly"—
that may happen to an increasing extent—

1037
"it is essential that there is adequate planning; that new systems are fully tested; that staff are given the necessary training and, above all, that there is effective management and supervision."
Those changes have gone through now, but we think it important to refer to them at this stage.
The last of the reports to which I wish to make special reference is the seventh report of Session 1992–93 on the sale of the water authorities in England and Wales. The report says:
"In December 1989 the Government sold all its shares in the 10 water companies of England and Wales for net proceeds of £3.6 billion. The sale was complex and was undertaken against a very tight timetable."
It is a pity that the question of timetables crops up again and again, but in this respect it is even more unfortunate, because the timetable was particularly complicated by the arrangements made in the 10 water companies. We point out:
"the Secretary of State had two distinct roles: first to ensure that the companies would be able to finance their functions and that customers were not disadvantaged; secondly, as seller of the companies, he had an objective to maximise proceeds."
The report continues:
"First, the Department found themselves running out of time to conclude the negotiation for sale on satisfactory terms. By the time their final week was reached they had still not settled terms with the chairmen and the 10 new companies, who knew the deadline to which the Department were working. In this final week, the cash injection rose to £1.1 billion and the illustrative net proceeds fell from £5.7 billion to £4.4 billion. Secondly, the Department had not been able to set any benchmarks for what they were aiming to realise by the sale. They told us that the 'illustrative net proceeds' which they had calculated were not meant to imply that this much money could actually be raised."
I am not sure what it was used for. What is the point of having illustrative net proceeds if use is not made of them? In the event, even that sum was not reached, since the final net proceeds were £3.6 billion against the illustrative net proceeds of £5.7 billion.
The report continues:
"Thirdly, the Department were understandably concerned to see that the companies started operations on a reasonable enough basis to finance their capital investment programmes. To assist them, the Department gave substantial benefits in the form of debt write off of £5.2 billion, cash injections of £1.5 billion and tax allowances of £7.7 billion. But they could not say to what degree these measures were reflected in the sale proceeds."
The Committee recommends:
"consideration should be given to future cases for responsibilities for regulatory decisions and for selling to be located separately. This would enable the Departments concerned to demonstrate clearly to Parliament that both had received full attention."
Mr. Maxton: As a Scottish Member, I read that recommendation with considerable interest. I am aware that the Scottish Office is at least considering the possibility of selling off Scottish Water, which is at present run and owned by Scottish local authorities. How could the Scottish Office separate—within that Department or otherwise—the two functions of regulation and sale?
Mr. Sheldon: That should not be too difficult. I do not know the situation in Scotland, but in England the regulatory function is distinct from the administrative function, and the two can be handled separately. I refer to the Treasury minute:
1038
"The Government agrees with the Government's description of the arrangements in its first four conclusions, but does not accept that those arrangements gave rise to difficulties outlined in the fifth conclusion"—
which relates to separating the functions.
If this debate had taken place five years ago, that minute might have been more convincing than I find it now. At that time, Chinese walls were held to be rather more valuable than they are today. Few people have faith in Chinese walls today. We know that the two functions interact, and that when they are within the same Department—with individuals meeting one another regularly, arranging the proper price and sale, and adhering to a time scale—it is right to separate the two functions of getting the best price and of disposing of the industry successfully.
I have spoken long enough. It has been a fruitful year. Given the matters that will come before us over the next 12 months, I shall be surprised if we have anything unworthy to report to the House. I hope that our activities will maintain some of the standards of public service that we should like to be evident.
5.11 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: The House has just listened to a remarkable overview of the work of the Public Accounts Committee by its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I pay tribute again to his excellent chairmanship. One of the Committee's features is that it is perhaps the only Committee of the House that operates on a non-party political basis. All its members are united in their determination to deal with facts and to report objectively to the House.
I pay tribute also to two former members of the Committee who retired at the last general election. I refer to Sir Michael Shaw. the former Member for Scarborough, and to Mr. Michael Latham, the former Member for Rutland and Melton. Sir Michael served the Committee for many years with great distinction and made an enormous contribution to its deliberations. Mr. Latham will be remembered by all who served on the Committee for his special contribution in connection with the De Lorean inquiry.
The Committee's work results in a major saving of taxpayers' money. The National Audit Office estimates that in the three years from 1988 to 1991, an average of £200 million per annum was saved as a result of PAC recommendations based on NAO inquiries. In 1991–92, Government Departments accepted 95 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations. That record of work and achievement could well be emulated in other parts of Government service. We certainly feel that we have made a useful contribution, and the figures speak for themselves.
Our Chairman spoke to all the reports to which the motion refers, but I shall refer to only one or two. The first, for which I also have reserved some of the strongest comments that I have ever felt compelled to make in the House, concerns serious and disturbing matters that came before the Committee as a consequence of the qualification of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's accounts for 1989–90 by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
As a result of the Foreign Office's computerised accounting system not working, final accounts that should have been signed in August were not produced. The accounts were based on ledgers that did not balance, and

1039
as a result the Comptroller and Auditor General was unable to complete his audit, and qualified his opinion on all four accounts.
How could that happen to the mighty and influential Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which sits at the very heart of Government service and whose influence spreads around the world? It happened because the Foreign Office replaced its six-year-old software with software that did not conform to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency's standard system of computer project management. The Foreign Office had not prescribed its own means of managing such projects and, most importantly, made that decision because those responsible thought that they could manage the project on their own—but they could not.
The Foreign Office intended to run the old and new systems in parallel, but the delayed delivery of the new system made that impossible. The old accounting system broke down irreparably and no adequate back-up system existed in case of failure. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that, if our secretaries behaved in that way when working on constituency business and did not maintain adequate back-ups, we would have some fairly harsh words to say to them.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office representative told the Committee:
"This had been a mistake."
While all that was happening, the Foreign Office allowed a complete turnover of the bookkeeping staff at the very time when continuity would have helped to avoid the catastrophes that occurred.
The PAC rarely uses strong language. The strongest word in its vocabulary was used by our Chairman, when he said that the PAC had been astonished. That is a strong word; I can think of stronger ones, but I shall not use them this evening. The final result was the most serious qualification of accounts since Sir John Bourn's appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General
When the Committee took evidence, I asked Sir Patrick Wright, permanent under-secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—one of the most eminent of Whitehall mandarins—why the official responsible for selecting the Memory software system was not present to give evidence. Sir Patrick replied:
"I am not clear who that official was, I am afraid."
I asked Sir Patrick whether he should not know. He replied that the present incumbent's predecessor
"has retired from the service."
He explained:
"I am afraid it is partly an aspect of Diplomatic Service careers that people move quite rapidly."
They obviously moved very rapidly in that instance—and well out of sight of the Committee's inquiring eyes.
Mr. Richard Page: Does my hon. Friend agree that many accounting officers miraculously retire before they are due to come before the Committee, leaving their successors to explain past deeds? Is that purely coincidental?
Mr. Shersby: It is not unknown for that to happen. If it happens again, the Committee should, if necessary, call the former, retired official to give evidence. We cannot have people spirited away into retirement, with the Committee left unable to question them.
I say this with all due respect to Sir Patrick Wright, but I was very surprised by the attitude taken by such a great
1040
man and by his lack of any real knowledge of what was going on down the line in his Department. I realise that, viewed from the lofty heights of the permanent under-secretary's office, the mundane business of keeping accounts and knowing who is responsible for making the system work may not seem very exciting stuff. In the private sector, however, such a responsibility would form a vital part of the work of any good managing director —which is what the permanent under-secretary is, in addition to his many other duties.
I hope that the same thing will not happen again. I remind the House that we pay our permanent secretaries pretty well to do their job. I note that Sir Patrick's salary is more than £100,000 a year. Surely the least that we can expect from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that it keeps its accounts properly.
I turn next to a situation that would border on farce were it not so serious. It concerns the Development Board for Rural Wales. The retirement settlement for the board's former chief executive is mentioned in the 11th report of the 1992–93 Session; it has already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and involves one of the most scandalous episodes that I have encountered during my membership of the PAC.
When the chief executive accepted an offer of early retirement in December 1990, his retirement settlement —approved by the Welsh Office and the Treasury in February 1990—was exceeded. One of the payments that he received was the sum of £15,563 for untaken leave. Neither the Welsh Office nor the Treasury was able to justify giving that retrospective covering authority, and the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified the board's 1990–91 accounts accordingly.
However, when the PAC questioned the principal witness—none other than Sir Richard Lloyd-Jones—about that and related matters, we unravelled a chain of further irregular payments. At one moment I thought that they would never stop coming out of the woodwork. We discovered, for example, that the settlement included the capital cost of pension enhancement amounting to a further £180,000. There could be no doubt that the board had gone beyond the terms of the retirement package approved by the Treasury in making the payment for untaken leave.
We found the position all the more incredible when we discovered that the former chief executive had not even kept reliable leave records, and that it was impossible to check whether the amount that he had received related to leave actually taken. As we all know, such records are required to be kept in Government Departments, and clearly they should also be kept in sponsored agencies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales.
I tabled a parliamentary question for answer on 19 October to find out what action the Treasury had taken as a result of our report to draw to the attention of non-departmental bodies the rules governing untaken leave and the obtaining of prior approval from the Treasury Solicitor before agreements are made with employees. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed, in a written answer, that non-departmental public bodies were reminded on 5 October of the need to ensure observance of the general principles of sound management and provisions relating to untaken leave. I hope that such bodies will keep that very much in mind in future, and that they will not need to be reminded again.

1041
Let us return to the retirement settlement, for the story is not yet finished. It seems clear that the settlement was reached by the chairman of the board, Mr. Glyn Davies. On taking office, Mr. Davies wanted to change the chief executive, who was then Dr. Skewis. He reached an agreement with Dr. Skewis on terms that went way beyond the package approved by the Welsh Office and the Treasury. It is true that Mr. Davies informed the board of his intention, but any discussion with board members was informal and no minutes of the decision were kept. The fact is that the board had not formally approved the terms and was told of them only after Dr. Skewis's retirement had been publicly announced.
To make matters worse, we discovered that the package included a consultancy assignment for Dr. Skewis of up to 150 days at £200 a day, without the precise scope of the work being defined at the outset. That is another £30,000. We we continued our investigation, more and more such items emerged from the woodwork. This is a disgraceful state of affairs—particularly as it is not the first time that the PAC has taken evidence from the Welsh Office on its monitoring of non-departmental public bodies. In 1987, we were highly critical of the way in which it had operated.
I put it to Sir Richard Lloyd-Jones that this was an unsatisfactory, indeed appalling, state of affairs. The permanent secretary readily acknowledged that monitoring and control arrangements were not effective. The Welsh Office even told the Committee that it could not give an unqualified assurance that it had adequate controls over the remuneration and terms and conditions of staff employed by non-departmental public bodies.
Sir Richard Lloyd-Jones is still in post and seems to be able to continue in post, despite a record of mismanagement of whose like I have never heard in the House. If the same thing had occurred in the private sector, it would have led to the instant dismissal of either the boss or senior officials in the enterprise concerned.
Sir Richard is not being paid tuppence-ha'penny a year to do his job. His current salary is £86,720. This is a serious matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will tell the House what action the Treasury intends to take—not only in dealing with the question of mismanagement but in dealing with the officials who allow it to continue. It really is not good enough, and I feel that we are entitled to know what action will be taken.
Mr. Kim Howells: Did not the PAC identify one of the special problems affecting the Welsh Office—that Wales is administered through quangos? It is very difficult not simply to issue directives insisting that such quangos keep proper records but to prevent the inevitable consequence of running the Principality in such a way: jobs are done on the nod, through private agreements and understandings. Basically, the same people run all the quangos.
Mr. Shersby: That is interesting. I seem to remember a song that went something like this: "If you ever go to Wales, you will hear such funny tales." I am quite prepared to accept that in Wales matters are run very differently. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take that into consideration when he gives his heavyweight reply.
1042
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has mentioned the sale of the Rover group, and I shall do so only briefly. I think that the sale of Rover for £150 million gave us all cause for great concern, especially as the £150 million was not paid up until some months after the deal had been done. Many of us will remember that, over a long period, we tramped through the Division Lobbies voting tranche after tranche to the British Leyland Motor Corporation in its various guises. Over a long period, about £5 billion of public money was invested in that enterprise.
When Rover was eventually sold to British Aerospace, a first-class British company, I felt that at least Rover would be able to produce motor cars that the people of this country would be proud to drive once again. So it has proved to be. Rover is now a successful company, with a fine record of quality, and its cars are extremely popular. In selling the company, a contingent liability of about £1.5 billion was removed from the shoulders of the taxpayer. It was not, therefore, all bad news.
There were lessons to be learned from the sale of Rover, to which the Chairman referred, and it is right that they should be learned, but it is important to put the matter in perspective and to be thankful that we no longer have to grant huge sums of public money to a company that was not viable and which produced a poor product.
The Chairman referred to the possibility of a third of the motorway system being coned off for repairs. That is an appalling prospect, because expenditure on the road programme is at its highest for many years. It has always been my understanding that the citizens charter contained some assurance that we would not have to face the horrors of the epidemic of coning that has occurred on our motorways in recent years. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take to heart the words of the Chairman. That is a serious problem that every hon. Member is anxious to overcome.
The debate is of much importance to the House and to our constituents, because it gives members of the Public Accounts Committee and other hon. Members an opportunity to put on record our views, so that if future events show that our work had not been heeded, the necessary action can be taken. We can be modestly proud of our record that savings of more than £200 million a year have been made as a result of our work.
I pay tribute to Sir John Bourn and his colleagues at the National Audit Office for the splendid service that they provide to the Committee and to Mr. Beastall at the Treasury, whose wise advice often helps us to defuse a difficult situation.
5.32 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on the way in which he performs his role as Chairman and on the way in which he manages to keep the goodwill of the Committee and to achieve consensus. In this Chamber, I shall later stretch consensus a little further than I would ever dare under his chairmanship. That, of course, is no criticism of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying desperately to protect myself and my future.

1043
I pay tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the work of the Audit Office. Without its detailed analysis, it would be impossible for us to carry out our investigations.
I repeat the criticism of the system that has been voiced by several hon. Members: it is frustrating when the incumbent at a Department whom we have questioned as part of our investigation is moved sideways or is prematurely retired before we can make further investigations. That has happened time and again. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned the Welsh Office. The permanent secretary at the Welsh Office is due to appear before us again in December on yet another qualification of Welsh Office accounts. I understand that members of the Committee have initiated a sweep on whether he will appear.
It would be helpful if we could put in a little overtime and increase our productivity further to reduce the backlog of NAO reports and ensure that our investigations are more contemporaneous with its reports.
I shall ignore the rather racist innuendos of the hon. Member for Uxbridge about us Welsh and the way in which affairs are run in Wales, but sometimes even 'Welsh Members speculate about was going on in some of the nominated organisations.
To borrow words that our Chairman used about something of far greater financial magnitude, we had an astonishing session on the Development Board for Rural Wales. All members were incredulous about what they heard. We sat to discuss a £15,000 irregular payment authorised by the board's chairman in relation to holiday pay to get rid of a chief executive, but in the process of our sitting discovered a pension package that had not been revealed to anyone. Astonishingly, no one had costed it. I remember passing my calculator to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge supplementing some of my arithmetic. We costed the package at £120,000, at which point our Chairman rightly said that it would be helpful to ask the Welsh Office to give us a document showing the full costing.
It emerged that the £15.000 irregularity was the tip of the iceberg. The total package was worth much nearer £250,000—all to get rid of a chief executive who had served for 12 years. The new chairman had taken up his duties in April and, according to the permanent secretary. was determined that the chief executive should go. The chairman went to the Welsh Office in January and, without any attempt to cost what he was doing, set about negotiating any terms that would persuade the chief executive to go. The whole thing smacks of autocracy. He did not even inform the board of the details of the package that he had negotiated. He indicated that he was negotiating terms, but he informed the board of them only after the retirement had been announced and a package had been agreed.
What emerged from the permanent secretary, which endorses the suspicion of autocracy, was that, although the chairman is paid for only two days a week, the new chairman does four or four and a half days a week. In fairness, that extra time is unpaid. Some members of the Committee expressed concern that that suggests someone wanting to have rather more hands-on control of the organisation than a two-day-a-week chairman should have. The chairman, in his previous manifestation as a councillor in Montgomeryshire, had sat on a committee
1044
that negotiated three retirement packages for senior retiring officials. One would have thought that he would be aware of some of the costs and risks involved. Someone told me that, amazingly, he has been reappointed, but I think that it is slightly early for that.
Sadly, at this point in my speech, consensus comes to an end. I shall now deal with an issue touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—the sale of the 10 water companies. I have never seen anything more akin to statutory theft than that sale, and I shall demonstrate that resemblance with some figures.
We had 10 water companies with an asset value of £34.5 billion, yet they were sold for £3.6 billion—that was 10 companies for the price of one. The permanent secretary confirmed to me in answer to a question that, if those same water companies with their assets as on that day had to be re-created, it would cost £34.5 billion, not the £3.6 billion which it cost to buy them.
Furthermore, as I shall prove, we have lost money on the operation; the deal was even worse than our report suggests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has told the House that there was a £5 billion write-off of national loans fund money which was yielding 12.5 per cent. interest to the taxpayer. In writing that loan off, £625 million a year in income was lost to the taxpayer. Given the level of tariffs at the time, the write-off meant that, by definition, as the privatised companies were not paying that money to the Exchequer, they had a built-in £625 million profit before they even started. On the basis of such profits, the chairmen of the companies gave themselves productivity bonuses for earning extra money.
That was not the end of the matter. Next, there was a cash injection. Hard public cash—£1.5 billion in taxpayers' money—was given to those private companies. Again, that cost the taxpayer money. We lost the interest which we would have received on the loan. Then another £190 million a year was lost to the taxpayer. Between the cash injection and the write-off, we gave the companies unsolicited profits of £800 million, and in doing so we robbed the taxpayer of £800 million a year. That was not a once-and-for-all payment; it was £800 million a year in interest payments.
I shall follow the sequence through. We received only £3.6 billion for selling .the companies, and we are losing £800 million a year as a result of having sold them. Therefore, by the time the companies have been in private hands for four and a half years, all that the Government received—the proceeds of the sale of the water authorities—will have been lost.
The companies were given away for nothing—or rather, they were given away at a loss to the taxpayer. The loss on the written-off loan—the £800 million a year—will continue after four and a half years, so our national assets, our industries, as represented by the 10 water companies, were literally given away not for nothing but at a loss.
Those calculations do not take into account other aspects of the sale. As if what I have described were not enough, not only did we give the companies away but we then gave them £7.7 billion in tax allowances, when the shareholders had spent only £3.6 billion to buy the assets in the first place. The companies are receiving in tax allowances twice what it cost them to buy the industry. Those 10 companies will pay virtually no tax for the rest of the century.
Those 10 water companies were ours. They belonged to everyone here. Our companies were given away, and we

1045
are now making an on-going loss as a result. Moreover, we are allowing them to rip us off with their charges and profits, and allowing the chairmen of the boards to milk obscene salary increases at the expense of the consumer. All that is happening as a result of the private giveaway —or throwaway—monopolies. That is why I described the process as statutory theft, and I do not retract that description.
I wish that I could be kinder about the electricity industry, but I cannot. Electricity privatisation was the same but different. It was not statutory theft but an exercise in how to make the deprived owner pay the burglar's costs. The same initial pattern was observed. Sixteen billion pounds of taxpayers' assets—our assets—were sold for what the Government describe as £8 billion in proceeds.
One could be misled into thinking that that £8 billion in proceeds means that the new private owners, the shareholders, paid £8 billion for the £16 billion-worth of assets, but I am afraid that you, like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be naive if you made that assumption. In fact, the shareholders paid only £5 billion; that is all that was raised. The shareholders got £16 billion-worth of assets for £5 billion. Guess where the other £3 billion came from.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House which Public Accounts Committee report covered the electricity industry? I do not recollect one. I may be wrong, but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would specify the report.
Mr. Williams: I was referring to the report on the electricity industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are free to discuss—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the number of the report?
Mr. Williams: I must ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
Mr. Sheldon: It follows by implication.
Mr. Williams: It follows by implication, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Committee has already carried out the investigation, and I am trying to demonstrate that what happened in one instance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the debate is to cover certain specific reports—a great number of them. He must refer to those reports; he must not anticipate the results of the Committee's current inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman has plenty of reports to choose from, and there is plenty of meat on them, so I urge him to stick to the reports before the House.
Mr. Williams: I am trying to draw an analogy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to show that what happened once can happen again, despite the fact that there has been a National Audit Office report and a PAC report on water privatisation, both of which demonstrated the disregard for public assets. One case is a variation of the other and I am explaining that variation. The Committee must consider the detail, but what happened was that the Government created a notional, non-existent debt of £3
1046
billion which the companies had been made to pay back to the Treasury. However, that money did not come from shareholders; it came from us, as customers.
I am trying to explain that, whereas in one instance an industry was given away at what proved to be a net loss to the customers, in the other case—that of the electricity industry—there was a variation on the same system. The electricity industry was given away at a cost of £5 billion to the shareholders but at an on-going cost of £3 billion to us, the customers. That is reflected in the tariffs paid by every customer in the country. In both cases, the financial interests of the nation and the consumer have been ignored in the pursuit of dogmatic political objectives.
It is rather fascinating to note that not only the permanent secretaries who are so often responsible for the offences—if that is the appropriate term—that the PAC has to investigate but the Ministers who are the architects of the arrangements move on. In the case of both water and electricity privatisations, the perpetrators have either been promoted or elevated to the other place. In view of the facts that I have put before the House today regarding the ongoing loss that is being carried by the taxpayer, it seems to me and to many of my constituents that, instead of elevation, they should have faced incarceration.
5.51 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I must first apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for the fact that I have unfortunately accepted a speaking engagement later this evening and so will not be present for the end of the debate. For weeks, the shadow of the Maastricht debate has been hovering over our timetable, and I was not sure when this debate would take place.
I add my thanks to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chairs us with quiet determination. No matter how much we push and try, he always gets his own way, and it is one of the strengths of our Committee that he manages to ensure that we produce a report on which we are united. When we speak, we speak with one voice, even if we may not have extrapolated as much from our criticisms of aspects of the way in which the water companies were privatised as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The unanimity of our reports is our strength.
The Conservative Benches are remarkably empty. I should explain that quite a few members of the Committee have retired, some have been promoted, and one has even managed to become Chairman of Ways and Means. I urge the House not to regard the absence of my hon. Friends as indicative of a lack of interest.
Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman honestly suggesting—perhaps there is a little of this on the Opposition Benches, too—that the only hon. Members who are interested in these debates are the members of the Public Accounts Committee? One would have thought that many more hon. Members on both sides of the House would be interested both in the accounting done by the PAC and in the general political points that are raised in the reports.
Mr. Page: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. The substance of the reports is absolutely fascinating, and I am surprised that our debates on them are not used by

1047
more hon. Members as a vehicle for making points, political or otherwise. The evidence is there. The baseline information is agreed, and I should have thought that many an hon. Member could make quite a few telling points on it. One need only look at the pile of papers beside me to realise that the source material for a filibuster is almost endless—although I do not propose to use the documents for that purpose tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I also appreciate greatly the work done by the National Audit Office under the guidance of Sir John Bourn. His consistently positive and helpful replies to our queries assist us in taking evidence.
I do not propose to mention any of the reports to which the motion particularly draws attention. I propose instead to refer to the evidence we took on the progress of the first executive agency—the Vehicle Inspection Agency. The Committee considered that matter with great interest because it was our first progress report in respect of a concept that has attracted a great deal of attention and intense interest—not least because of the number of activities that are going down the agency route.
It is another strength of our Committee that we do not simply make reports and leave it at that; we are constantly reassessing the position. We took the evidence on the agency in July and were able to draw comparisons between the evidence that we heard and the information contained in our 1987–88 report on heavy lorries. Those comparisons showed that there had been improvements—for example, in the weighing of heavy lorries.
The message of the evidence seemed to be that there was greater flexibility and a better, more consistently hands-on management approach. Let me give an example. To begin with, it took 2.5 days to process test applications. The time taken then dropped to 1.5 days, and I believe that the target is now one day. A similar message emerges from the number of axles per lane coming through each of the testing stations.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) asked Mr. Brown, the new head of the agency, what was meant by the statement that the inspectorate intended to undertake a review of its grading structure to overcome the inflexibilities of the civil service code. Mr. Brown replied that the agency intended to do that because it felt that the code made the organisation more hierarchical than he would like and brought in artificial dividing lines between one grade and the other which did not necessarily equate to natural breakpoints in the vehicle inspectorate's organisational needs. That again points to flexibility and the ability to make changes far more quickly than previously seemed possible in the civil service.
We shall watch the changes with interest, and with the anxiety with which one watches anything new. The agency may have some way to go, but if all the agencies get off to as good a start, the idea will no doubt gain weight and momentum.
I am one of the members of the Committee who likes to try to paint a happy picture at times. To my mind, however, the next report to which I intend to refer—the 10th report on major defence projects—is an unhappy one. We are now faced with the point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) concerning the change of accounting officer. For years we had the delights of Sir Peter Levene, who dealt with us with his customary skill and relaxed attitude and approach. He answered most questions by saying, "Yes. It is a problem but it was before my time and before my new system was
1048
introduced." Now, of course, before we have an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of his system and his changes, Dr. McIntosh has moved to the crease to try to defend and explain the actions not only of Sir Peter Levene but, because of the time that some Ministry of Defence projects take, of his predecessors.
The report contains parts that condemn the delay, procrastination, changed minds, dithering and unexplained gaps in decision making, all of which cost the taxpayer money and represent a lost opportunity not only for this country but for exports. The House knows that, if any company wants to sell a defence product, it must have the endorsement of being bought by the British armed forces. Overseas buyers will not buy a unique product, something that is made by one arms salesman or one arms company for defence purposes. They want the British Government's endorsement. Some of the time scales involved in the British Government giving their endorsement are sad and sorry tales. When we took evidence, I mentioned the saga of the advanced short-range air-to-air missile. I can only quote the PAC's conclusion. One must be a little careful because some of the topics involve confidentiality. However, the report shows that the PAC is concerned that it has taken 13 years for ASRAAM to enter full development.
There have been two competitions and delays for more than a year in deciding when and how to go to the next step. More frightening is the fact that, now that there is a new world order so that the immediate pressure is not upon us, it emerges that at a crucial point the Ministry of Defence was not pushing ahead in ordering the development of a missile that this country could have needed. On that point alone, the Ministry of Defence stands condemned.
A thread that runs through the MOD is its unsatisfactory speed in making decisions and in giving a clear sign whether it wants to go ahead with a certain project. A particular example has arisen in my constituency. A British company is not being allowed to quote in respect of the servicing of military helicopter engines that are to be shipped abroad instead. I find that exceedingly unsatisfactory.
My final point relates to ground that has already been trampled over. It relates to the No. 11 report on the retirement of the chief executive. I shall not recount the story, because that has already been done all too well. However, if hon. Members had been present and seen members of the Committee teasing out information, whether it be about overpayment in lieu of leave, a consultancy package, payment in lieu of notice, or the make-up of a pension package, they would have seen it all come out steadily bit by bit. It was just like a television courtroom drama. Undoubtedly, when the verdict was given, the man in the dock was guilty.
That is one reason why the work of the Public Accounts Committee is so valuable and should continue. You will know more than most people, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the value of the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to it continuing its work for many years to come.
6.4 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: I also reflect the gratitude of members of the Committee to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He has been a superb Chairman during the past

1049
two sessions in which I have taken part. I also thank Sir John Bourn and the Treasury officials and their teams. They have provided us with superb back-up.
I should like to discuss the fifth report, entitled "Creating and Safeguarding Jobs in Wales". I do so because we are going through a time when, for those of us who represent Welsh constituencies, creating and safeguarding jobs has never been more important. The first paragraph of the report deals with the relative position of jobs in Wales and it sets the scene very well:
"Over the last 30 years unemployment in Wales has been consistently higher than the average for Great Britain. Successive Governments have placed considerable importance on tackling unemployment and creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales. The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency … and the Development Board for Rural Wales spent about £200 million in 1990–91 on various schemes directly or indirectly aimed at creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales."
That is a large sum and it proved a source of great concern among members of the Committee. We looked at it very carefully and tried to quantify as best we could exactly what that sum had returned to Wales in jobs. In other words, we tried to find out whether we were getting value for money. Right hon. and hon. Members have already said that that is the prime purpose of the Committee—are we getting value for taxpayers' money?
The Committee makes it clear that, in terms of the performance indicators, it is not easy to decide whether we are getting value for money in Wales. For example, passages of the report clearly show that we have in Wales a very poor statistical data base upon which to judge the success or failure of the various schemes of job creation that have been put forward. For example, the first page of the report also states:
"We consider it unsatisfactory that, despite the Welsh Office's undertaking in 1988 to improve the accuracy of the figures provided by the database for regional selective assistance, inaccuracies subsequently remained uncorrected."
We have already heard much about some of the problems that have emerged in terms of the Welsh Office's job in monitoring its various functions and Departments. Calculations of success or failure rates throughout have been proved to be rather poor in the published report. For example, the first page further states:
"We are concerned that a large percentage of regional selective assistance projects did not start … We are concerned that the jobs achieved on regional selective assistance projects were well below the forecast."
That is of enormous importance. The report recommends, for example, that the Welsh Office should tighten up the process of appraising project applications in order to discourage applicants from making what it calls over-optimistic job forecasts. Perhaps nowhere in any of the reports is there a more prescient warning.
I should like Conservative Members to give some sign that they have read that recommendation. It should be extended to Ministers and to the Secretary of State for Wales, all of whom are very fond of quoting job projections which, in terms of their usefulness, are about as valuable as a ripped dap. For those who may not be familiar with it, "dap" is a term that Welsh people use when referring to a plimsoll. It is very difficult to call it anything else if one comes from south Wales.
Mr. Roy Hughes: As useful as a wet echo.
Dr. Howells: Indeed, the job projections are about as useful as a wet echo.
The affliction of over-optimism, rightly condemned in the report, appears to have taken a grip on the Welsh Office during the dark ages when the Cathays Park fortress was presided over by Lord Crickhowell and Lord Walker. As Secretaries of State, they developed hype and repackaging to a fine art. When Peter Walker was Secretary of State, over-optimism became a religion. Anyone who dared to challenge it with more than a whisper of scepticism was accused of talking Wales down. Many of us have been accused of talking Wales down by showing a little scepticism.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who are present know that Lord Walker has been appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to supervise the distribution of the as yet mysterious and unquantified barrel of aid to the coalfields to soften the impact of the pit closures. Most people in Wales believe that the appointment is designed to substitute with hype what cannot be provided by financial resources. Its brazenness makes Madonna look positively modest. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will read the report before he dispatches Lord Walker and his wagon train to the north and the west of this troubled land.
The President will read on page vi that, despite the much heralded triumphs of Wales in attracting inward investment, which we all welcome and celebrate, there has been a rise
"in the number of persons claiming unemployment benefits; a continual decline in the levels of employment in heavy industries; and relative to other economic regions in Great Britain there has been a higher proportion of people unavailable for work, a decline in the average wages for full-time workers and a continuing lower gross domestic product per head."
I may add that the GDP is lower than that for any part of the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland.
To counter that gloom, the afflicted over-optimists—as they are described in the report—told the people of Wales that the various employment schemes administered by the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and so on—job creation schemes themselves constituted a new and burgeoning industry in the Principality—had undoubtedly had a
"beneficial effect on the economic situation in Wales."
However, as the report says, proving that assertion is less easy than boasting about it.
The report says:
"the forecasts and the figures for jobs achieved were always calculated in terms of gross jobs created and safeguarded without adjustment for various factors such as additionality, displacement and supplier effect. Therefore, the published figures almost always over-stated the net jobs."
That is a serious charge, if ever there was one. It calls into question the veracity of a significant part of the Hollywood rags-to-riches success story which successive Ministers of the Welsh Office have attempted to project for the Welsh economy in the past 13 years. However, no one who lives in Wales regards that charge as surprising. We are glad that the report highlights it.
No one who witnesses the misery of high unemployment and low wages, from Holyhead to Newport and from Delyn to Pembroke dock, finds the charge surprising. We watch the very fabric of Wales being torn and strained by the substitution of hype for real action and we ask whether we are getting value for money from the sums expended on

1051
job creation in the Principality. It is not easy to find a reliable answer, for the simple reason that the Welsh Office fails to honour an undertaking that it gave in 1988 to the Public Accounts Committee to improve its systems of monitoring and measuring the results of its expenditure. The report says that "inaccuracies subsequently remained uncorrected". That is significantly the case in respect of regional selective assistance, which is vital for Wales and will become vital for other parts of the United Kingdom.
The report says,
"We note Regional Selective Assistance is one of the largest schemes operated by the Welsh Office and is expected to create or safeguard over 12,000 jobs each year. We are concerned that a large percentage of regional selective assistance projects did not start, and we endorse the Welsh Office's intention to identify the reasons why this was so."
The Welsh Office should have been able to tell us why this was so, but it could not do so. We may well ask why. Perhaps we can explore the matter further. The report says:
"We are equally concerned that the jobs achieved on projects were well below the forecasts but note that the Welsh Office will secure a better understanding of the reasons for the shortfall in achievements when the evaluation study is completed. We recommend that, in addition, they should tighten up their process of appraising project applications in order to discourage applicants from making over-optmistic job forecasts".
There is that phrase again—"over-optimistic job forecasts". We are a land cursed by this over-optimism, and that is the truth of it.
If I may for a moment mangle Antonio Gramsci's dictum, may I suggest that the Welsh Office Ministers should display a little more
"pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the spirit",
rather than their version, which tends to be optimism of the intellect and, reflecting their dismal electoral results in Wales, pessimism of the spirit.
There is no doubt that evaluation exercises in job creation are expensive. We watch that carefully. We want to ensure that even evaluation exercises give value for money. Highly professional staff are required to carry them out. There may be people among us who would argue, "Spend the money even on failures, rather than endless evaluation exercises." That is a dangerous theory.
We have already heard about the non-departmental government bodies—the so-called quangos. They appear before the Committee and we realise that they seem to be answerable to no one at the moments when it matters most that they should be. It is all very well to drag them in. As my colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said, mysteriously the guilty men have been retired or moved on. They have gone for some reason or other. They never step into the Public Accounts Committee. They seem to be outside the direct control and accountability of the Government.
We have heard the saga of the redundancy package of the chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Committee was captivated. It was absolutely extraordinary. We all sat there trying to do our bit. We were captivated as layer after layer, like an onion, was peeled away from one financial perk after another. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West out of modesty did not mention that in the end he said to the chief accounting officer, "Don't tell me you gave him a car as well." The chief accounting officer said yes. If I remember rightly, he could not confirm its colour.
1052
The problem is serious in a small country of 2.8 million people, which is ruled by quangos. Often, the administrative cadres which control the quangos are incestuous and self-sustaining. Small numbers of powerful families predominate and have their fingers in almost every pie in Wales. I have heard the kind of conversation that go on. Given the serious and pointed criticisms that we have heard this evening, it was frivolous of me to jot down such a conversation. It would run as follows: "OK, you be chairman of the tourist board and the water board this week. I'll be chairman of the Welsh language board and the broadcasting board next week and the week after, your son can take over the Welsh Ruritanian branch of the sports council and my son can be chief reporter on 'This Week in Westminster'."
Wherever we look, those people seem to run things. If we do not have checks and balances in such a society, we shall witness the Welsh Taffia continuing to thrive in the manner to which it has become accustomed—born to rule by means of mutual back scratching.
Mr. Shersby: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Not so many years ago, quango shooting was a popular pastime of my hon. Friends. Sir Philip Holland, the then hon. Member for Carlton in Nottinghamshire, made a successful name for himself through badgering the Government to get rid of those quangos. Over a period, many of them were disbanded. Listening to what the hon. Gentleman says about the position in Wales, it appears that the shooting may not have been too good there and that many of them have thrived despite Sir Philip's keen eye. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say a word about that. It is an aspect of government in Wales that should be looked at.
Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent intervention. The problem is that, while one is attempting to shoot those quangos, the Welsh Office is throwing grenades and appointing new quangos. There is no accountability in terms of who is appointed to quangos.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, in any review of quangos within the United Kingdom, we would appreciate a thorough examination of the continuing growth of quangos to the total exclusion of elected representatives at any level in Northern Ireland.
Dr. Howells: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. It is a serious question, which, I am glad to say, the Public Accounts Committee has tried to address. I hope that the point will be well noted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and that he will tell us what he thinks about the subject when he sums up.
The report is vital because we need to know the reasons behind the creation of those quangos. The Welsh Office, which appoints the quangos, is the branch of Government that has, in the past two weeks, signalled the end of another 1,000 mining jobs in Wales, a further slimdown in steel making, and the possible shake-up of as many as 3,000 jobs at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea and innumerable other jobs spread throughout the Principality.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not my hon. Friend think that there is an odd poetry about that situation? The DVLC was brought to Wales in the late 1960s under a regional aid programme, and now 3,000 jobs will be up for sale. The

1053
contracts are to leave Wales and go to private purchasers in England. It would be interesting to work out what it cost to bring them in and compare it with what the Government hope to gain by selling them off again.
Dr. Howells: Absolutely. One of our reports on the great computer sagas—perhaps it was the Metropolitan police computer saga—said that cheap labour in the Philippines may programme the new police computer or put the physical records on the computer sheets. I hope that that does not happen to the DVLC jobs in Swansea.
We should be acutely aware of the need to ensure that the Welsh Office at least has the statistical gathering ability to identify and target successful job creation projects and to learn from its failure in other areas. That is at the heart of the report. I do not blame the civil servants in the Welsh Office, who have enough of a burden to carry anyway, if only the cruel jibes often aimed at the Welsh Office by its critics in Whitehall—allegations that it is second only to the Ministry of Defence in its ineptitude. I have heard it said that a posting to the Cathays Park fortress is the equivalent of a Wehrmacht officer being sent to the eastern front in 1943. I have always found Welsh Office staff helpful and efficient and, in private conversation, frustrated because they know full well the difference between the hype and the reality of claims made about job creation. No one is in a better position to know that.
For example, they know about some of the dubious triumphs claimed by Welsh Ministers for jobs created by inward investment. A brief example from the report is contained in a passage involving an exchange between me and Ian Rooks, executive director of marketing in the Welsh Development Agency. I said:
"I have the most important jet engine refurbishment plant in Great Britain in my constituency. It used to be owned by British Airways and has lately been taken over by General Electric of America. Is that takeover by General Electric going to be defined as inward investment?"
Mr. Rooks answered,
"Yes, it is."
I said:
But no new jobs have been created."
Mr. Rooks replied:
"That is correct. We use the same definitions as laid down by the IBB."
I asked the Library what IBB stood for and a helpful research assistant said that it means the Invest in Britain Bureau, which is a quango that we have not had up before us yet, but I hope that we will.
Mr. Alan Williams: It is a section of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Dr. Howells: I am sorry to hear that.
Mr. Rooks then said:
"There is a standard approach by all regions throughout the UK in measuring inward investment and that, according to the criteria, is a legitimate inward investment for Wales."
I said:
"Presumably it comes within the definition of safeguarding jobs, does it?"
Mr. Rooks answered,
"Yes it does."
I said:
"But no new jobs are created."
He said:
"Not in the short term; there may be, we do not know."
I said:
1054
"There may be layoffs as well of course."
He replied:
"Correct. At the moment we are just regarding it as an acquisition."
I find that extraordinary. If the people of Wales are to have confidence in those paid to create and safeguard jobs in the Principality, they should not be subjected to such double-speak—perhaps we should call it Walker-speak, after its prime exponent. In a less complicated language, such statistical exercises might more accurately be termed "cooking the books". That is the last thing that Wales requires in its effort to stave off the spectre of mass unemployment hanging over it.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend remember how, in the last Parliament, Lord Walker, as he is now, told the Chamber that Wales's unemployment problems were over and that we could happily look foward to a future in banking and banking services? Significantly, when the recession made itself known to us in Wales, Lord Walker decided to leave office and is now under what we might call "House arrest" in another place.
Dr. Howells: If Lord Walker is under house arrest, I beg it is a comfortable one. However, my hon. Friend made an important point.
Still less do the people of Wales require any cooking of the books in respect of training and enterprise councils —also covered by the report—or in relation to the provision of training, retraining and upskilling generally. As the report makes clear, it is a serious on-going problem in Wales. I quote Mr. Phillip Head, the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency, who gave evidence during the inquiry:
"I should like to see a position where certainly training provision is there for the unemployed and for the school leavers, but I should also like to see some sense of upskilling for those in work because as you quite rightly point out Wales is at the bottom of the wage league in the UK. We are changing our own actions and our own strategies towards trying to attract what I would call more added value investment, another glib phrase economists use I am afraid though I think it sums it up. That will include skill availability. In some of the surveys I have seen, skill availability or the lack of its is mentioned as a constraint by companies but not necessarily as a constraint to expansion at the moment. It is a coming problem."
For too long, Wales has been held up as some sort of unmitigated triumph for hands-on interventionist government. It deserves that accolade in some respects. It has certainly provided a temporary home for a series of refugees from Thatcherism, despite efforts to plant fanatic Thatcherite agents like Mr. Nicholas Bennett in office to keep an eye on some of his less dry colleagues.
However, the proof of the Government's pudding is in the eating. At present Wales is eating little more than dust. Statistically and organisationally, the business of job creation and protection in Wales must be reviewed with a degree of energy and commitment which, until now, has been significantly lacking in some crucial respects. If the Welsh Office as now organised and administered is not up to the job, we must have an elected and accountable Welsh assembly that is.
The matter cannot be allowed to slide. The confusion of the maze of agencies claiming to be in the job creation business must be straightened out and a clear referral system for potential investors and employers devised. Geographically, Wales is on the periphery of Europe and

1055
must live off the talents, skills and professionalism of its work force. We require clarity of language and statistics, not Walker-speak or creative accounting. To continue with those policies will be to continue to court economic suicide.
6.35 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: My remarks relate largely to Command Paper 2074, the Treasury minute and, particularly, the fifth report on creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales. The context in which we discuss the report is as follows: the number of people out of work in Wales is 129,000, 3,000 of them in my constituency; so far this year, there have been 4,500 actions for mortgage repossession in Wales; the coal industry faces oblivion; the steel industry fears short-time working; the aerospace industry is questioning its long-term future; 1,800 businesses have already failed this year; the construction industry is on its knees; and, importantly, the Government are instituting a review of assisted area status in Great Britain, under which Wales is certain to lose some of its development area status.
It is fair to put the discussion into context by stating that a Labour Administration set up the Welsh Development Agency and that a Labour Administration created the Department of State—the Welsh Office. They created the office of the Secretary of State and transferred from London to Cardiff the important powers contained in sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972.
We heard a superb, magisterial speech from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It was a privilege to hear his unrivalled exposition. Right hon. and hon. Members have levelled harsh and justified criticism of matters related to the Development Board for Rural Wales. I hope that the organisation is picked up and shaken vigorously. There is a smugness and complacency at its heart. In some ways it is good, but in many ways bad, that its headquarters are a long way from both London and Cardiff. Those at the top should consider their position in relation to the board and recent decisions. I say that with some sadness as I helped to handle the legislation that created the Development Board for Rural Wales long ago when there were Labour Administrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) mentioned training. Paragraph 76 on page 17 of the Treasury minute relates to training in Wales. There is considerable complacency at the Welsh Office. The Committee said that it wanted a review of the skills and training needs for Wales at the earliest opportunity. The response in paragraph 76 is far from urgent. Those of us who follow such matters in Wales know that nothing substantive is being done about them by Her Majesty's Government or the Secretary of State for Wales.
I can give examples from my constituency of the predicament that we face in Wales. We had three great companies: British Steel, British Aerospace and Courtaulds. Each company had a large, quite famous and very successful apprentice and training school. Courtaulds left the district, and there is now no apprentice school. The one at British Steel, arguably among the finest in the world, now barely merits the name. Sadly, the apprentice and training school of one of Europe's greatest aerospace factories, the Broughton works—which has 4,000 staff—has recently closed in all but name.
1056
Decisions as serious as those three on the future of our industries in north-east Wales ensure that there will he a serious problem throughout Wales in the next century. The skills required to enable our industries to compete will no longer exist. I do not like the Government's response which is contained in the Treasury minute and I urge the Department to consider the matter urgently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made some shrewd remarks on safeguarding and creating jobs in Wales. I am not at all sure that the Welsh Office is capable of responding to the strictures, advice and prodding of the Public Accounts Committee. Jobs are one of the most important issues facing Wales and are critical for the next century.
I should like to offer an example of why I believe all is not well, despite the detailed investigations of the Committee. One week ago, when the Secretary of State for Wales was winding up the debate on the future of the coal industry, he said:
"In one day we lost 8,000 jobs at Shotton steel works. This Government created the Deeside industrial park, which now provides 10,000 jobs."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 527–28.]
The right hon. Gentleman is head of the Welsh Office and hence the political head of Wales. I should like to explain why I am far from sure that the Welsh Office will do what the Committee wants it to do while the right hon. Gentleman is its political head.
My local knowledge enables me to say that the Government did not create Deeside industrial park: Mr Callaghan's Government did. And 8,000 jobs were not lost in a day: they were lost between Christmas 1979 and Easter 1980. Nor were 10,000 jobs created—possibly 5,000 have been. We welcome every new job, of course, but this story shows why the PAC has criticised the Welsh Office in the past for exaggerating.
The political head of the Welsh Office last week gave forth in this Chamber—I am sure unintentionally—a series of major inaccuracies that no member of a British Cabinet should ever have uttered. When I rose to attempt to correct the right hon. Gentleman, he would not give way to me.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not altogether surprising that the Secretary of State should make such remarks when he was not even consulted about the pit closures in Wales?
Mr. Jones: I am sure that that welcome intervention was wholly in order. We are talking about the safeguarding of jobs in Wales. We are desperately worried about the future of our coal mining industry, and we are angry about and disappointed by the contribution of the Secretary of State. It appears that he was not consulted about the proposed death of, for instance, the Point of Ayr colliery. Precious, highly skilled jobs in the mining industry in Wales are at stake. Other collieries in south Wales can probably find more persuasive advocates in other right hon. and hon. Members, but I speak about that particular colliery because it is but a few miles from my constituency.
The Secretary of State for Wales appears to have allowed himself to be pushed around by the President of the Board of Trade, and I suspect that he did not fight hard in that informal group of Ministers for the collieries of south Wales. He appears to have gone along with the

1057
closures. In those last few hours, it seems that British Coal and the President of the Board of Trade and his civil servants decided to add Point of Ayr colliery to the list because not enough of a fight had been put up in the informal meeting of Ministers. The Secretary of State was treated like a tea boy, as some of my hon. Friends have already said. He did not defend the pits and he has not delivered the goods. We must all work with him to save our pits and we hope to remove Point of Ayr from the list.
It is also clear from the PAC report that the Welsh Office database was not good enough. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that matter in hand. I hope, too, that he will stop making glib, irresponsible and unjustifiable statements to the House. I fervently hope that he will find it within himself to apologise.
6.44 pm
Mr. John Maxton: I congratulate the Chairman and the whole Committee on the work that they do in producing these excellent reports. Many years ago I was a member of the Committee under the chairmanship of Joel Barnett and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Two reports stand out in my memory: the major report on De Lorean, and the investigation into the closure and sale of Hamilton college. The latter was a test case for the Committee to which I could bring expert knowledge, because I used to lecture at the college before the Government closed it.
It is, however, a pity that so many reports are being taken together and that so few Members appear to be interested in them. I do not know about the Conservative party, but my party is on a one-line Whip. I do not know whether I should say this, but Members tend to go elsewhere when they are on a one-line Whip, assuming that the business of the House is unimportant. It is nevertheless absurd that we should debate 43 reports by the PAC in one evening. The control of public finance is one of the most important jobs of any legislature.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said, all this comes about because of our over-centralised legislature, which is dominated by the Executive. Only when we decentralise power to the nations of Wales and Scotland and to the regions will we have legislatures that can properly consider these matters and scrutinise public finance in the way that we need.
I intend to limit my remarks to just two reports, the report on the sale of the water authorities in England and Wales and the report on the condition of Scottish housing. In an earlier exchange that I had with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) we agreed that this was an opportunity to raise political points arising out of the reports. I am therefore surprised that the Scottish National party, which has made great play of the possible sale of water in Scotland—it is to be the party's next great political issue—is not represented here this evening. Nor are some of my own colleagues who are members of an organisation known as Scotland United. [Interruption.] I was not of course talking about my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
The members of Scotland United have claimed that they will raise great issues relating to Scotland on every
1058
possible occasion, yet none of them is present to discuss the sale of water in England and Wales, which presents the opportunity to see what happened there and to make valid political points about what might happen if a similar sale takes place in Scotland. We should always remember that, when water was sold in England and Wales, it was not sold in Scotland. In Scotland, it is still owned and run by the Scottish regional and islands councils. It remains a local government function.
The ownership of water in Scotland, and certainly in the Strathclyde region, involves some of the most beautiful countryside not just in Scotland, but in Britain and even in the world. These facilities belong to the people of those regions, and the Government have no mandate whatever to sell water to private companies. Before any hon. Member says that that makes me a nationalist, let me say that the Government have no mandate because water privatisation was not in the manifesto that they placed before the Scottish people at the recent general election. There was not a single reference to that, and just before the election Ministers assured us that they had no intention of going down that road.
Within weeks of managing to cling on to his job by his fingertips, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he was looking at that possibility. Why? The reasons are the same as those given for selling off water in England and Wales and some of them are given in the report.
One of the Government's reasons for selling water in England and Wales was that it was a local government function. The Government want to introduce a new single-tier form of local government in Scotland and believe that, by selling water, they can finance that reform and achieve their desired structure of small, weak local councils which are unable to stand up to central Government. There is the same need to finance water and sewerage developments in Scotland as there was in England and Wales, and that is driving the Government down the road towards privatisation.
EC regulations mean that higher standards are required from our water authorities. Perhaps we are trying harder to meet those standards than some of our fellow members of the EC, but as is shown the PAC report and the report which I am grateful to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for sending me on the sale of water in England and Wales, it is not necessary to put water and sewerage services into private hands in order to finance the necessary developments. That is clearly shown in the reports.
Mr. George Foulkes: In his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend mentions that the proposal to privatise water was not included in the Conservative party's Scottish manifesto. Has he read the results of the interesting poll published in the Glasgow Herald showing that only 4 per cent. of Scottish people are in favour of the privatisation of water and that only 7 per cent. of Tory voters there are in favour? Even if the Tories are interested only in self-preservation, they might have a rethink on the issue.
Mr. Maxton: I am aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are beginning to get slightly edgy. I agree with my hon. Friend and I read that opinion poll. Rightly, the people of Scotland have made it clear that they do not want privatisation.

1059
However, reforms and developments of Scotland's water supply and sewerage system are needed. In Strathclyde large amounts of sewage are still dumped in the sea, and although at the moment there appears to be no risk to Strathclyde, we do not want dumping to continue.
Privatisation is not necessary for development and some of the questions in Committee asked by my hon. Friends, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), bore that out.
The Scottish National party and the organisation that now calls itself Scottish Militant Labour suggest that somehow we do not pay for water now but will pa;y for it if it is privatised. Water is currently paid for through the poll tax and in the near future it will be paid for through the council tax. We must accept that in future we shall have to pay more for our water and sewerage systems to ensure that necessary developments are carried out. Investment is essential, but there is no need to privatise.
An interesting feature of the report is that all the arguments advanced about water privatisation in England and Wales were to the effect that it would allow companies to enter the market and raise share capital which would then be used to recapitalise and invest in the industry. What happened? First, the evidence in the report shows that 61 per cent. of investment in water in England and Wales since privatisation has come from the consumers by way of increased prices. The money has not been raised by loans or by new share sales. I agree that the water companies have borrowed money for investment, but there is no reason not to give Scottish regions greater power to borrow money to carry out the necessary investment.
Almost none of the money that was raised for improvements in England and Wales has come from increasing the share capital, even though the share value has increased enormously. I accept that to meet Scottish needs price increases might be necessary, but that will happen whatever way the Government decide to proceed. Scottish needs could also be financed by giving Scottish local authorities a green dowry equivalent to that given by the Government to the new privatised companies in England and Wales. We have heard about a £5 billion write-off and a £1.5 billion cash gift.
Privatisation would have too many drawbacks, the Scottish people do not want it, and it would be little or no benefit to the Scottish people. We do not want Scottish water and sewerage services run by private companies which are interested only in profit. We do not want them to have our land—and I emphasise that it is our land. I am a ratepayer in Strathclyde, and the land around Loch Katrine is owned as much by me as by every other ratepayer and taxpayer in the region. We do not want that land to be given away to private companies which will then sell it to developers who may ruin some of our most beautiful landscapes. Scotland does not want laws that will allow the new companies to cut off people's water supply. Scottish local authorities currently have no such rights, and such cuts would give rise to health risks and social dangers.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his financial and political advisers have read the PAC report. His advisers will tell him that water privatisation in Scotland is not the answer, that it is not wanted by the Scottish people, and that it is not the way forward.
1060
I have some criticisms of the report on the condition of Scottish housing which I thought was over-reliant on the word of Scottish Ministers, because the Committee had allowed itself to be taken in by what they were saying. For example, it says:
"We questioned the Department on the reliability of their information on house condition, the reasons for shortcomings in their information, how they intended to improve their information and what action they intended to take to monitor progress in house condition.
The Department agreed that comparatively little information was available on the condition of the housing stock in Scotland. They explained that they were actively seeking more information and that the picture was becoming clearer all the time. … they were conducting a national house condition survey of the sort which had been conducted regularly in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."
Reading that, one would wonder who had been in charge of the condition of Scottish housing for the past 13 years. The answer is, of course, the Conservative party and the officials of the Scottish Office. If one read that, one would also think that, out of the blue, those people had suddenly become aware that there was a need to know about the condition of Scottish housing. One would believe that nobody had ever raised the subject before, and then along came these forward-looking civil servants and Ministers who said, "We need to know more about Scottish housing than we do. It is not in the state in which it should be."
The simple fact is that, in every housing debate that I can remember since I came to the House, and in every debate on a Scottish housing Bill—many have been before the House—a Labour Member, whether it was me or somebody else, has tabled an amendment, and spoken to it, suggesting that we have a house condition survey in Scotland. Time and again, to the point of tedium, I have made that point.
Mr. Foulkes: Hear, hear.
Mr. Maxton: I can do without my hon. Friend saying, "Hear, hear."
Although we may have made that point, we have consistently been ignored by Ministers. "Ignored" is too weak a word: we were mocked. We were told that it was nonsense and that we did not need a house condition survey in Scotland, because they had all the information anyway. Therefore, we presented them with the facts and told them about the number of houses suffering from damp, those that needed rewiring and those that needed major redevelopment. Again, Ministers said that the figures came from local authorities and were grossly exaggerated, the Scottish Office is saying that there are not enough figures about unsatisfactory housing in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, as soon as this came up in the last Parliament, when I first became Minister, I said that the matter was under review? Will he also accept that the figures have increased because many local authorities, on our recommendation, have been carrying out local house condition surveys? This is to be warmly welcomed and will lead to action.
Mr. Maxton: The first major house condition survey —that by Glasgow district council—was carried out without any help from the Scottish Office. It was almost actively discouraging the council because it knew what would come out and that what it would cost to get

1061
Glasgow's housing back into proper condition would be millions more than it would make available. There is a smugness in the words of the Scottish Office about the house condition survey.
When the Minister came to his job, I welcomed him, and I admit that he has done a better job than most of his predecessors, although that is not a great compliment. However, his predecessors told me that there could not be a house condition survey and that they did not have the true facts.
In paragraph 4 of its report, the Committee says:
"Prime responsibility for the condition of Scottish houses rests with their owners. Local authorities, in addition to their responsibilities for the housing stock which they own, also have the major responsibility for implementing housing legislation in their areas. The Department's role is indirect. They exercise influence and control over the housing sector by a variety of means".
I do not accept that the Scottish Office played an indirect role in the condition of housing in Scotland over the past 12 years and the present crisis in housing. Instead, its role is central and direct because, over that time, it has been cutting the funding of local government housing in such a way as to make it impossible for local authorities to carry out their function of ensuring the good condition of Scottish housing.
Eleven years ago, the housing support grant was £228 million and the general fund contribution provided a further £100 million. This financial year, the two of them will contribute £49 million. Since 1979, £1.5 billion of direct Government support for Scotland has been lost. These are cash figures. In real terms, the facts are even more catastrophic.
In 1979, 40 per cent. of housing costs came from rent, 39 per cent. from housing support grant, and 14 per cent. from rate fund contribution. This year, 93 per cent. comes from rent, 7 per cent. from housing support grant, and less than 1 per cent. from the general fund contribution. Thus, the Government's cutting of housing support in Scotland makes a direct contribution to the decline in the condition of Scottish housing, including the increased number of houses suffering from dampness, with all the ill health that that can lead to, and the increased number of houses that need rewiring, replumbing and redevelopment. That is not an indirect role; it is a direct role.
Capital allocations have also played their part in the condition of Scottish housing. Again, the Department has a direct role in this. The capital allocation has been cut again and again. I take the point made by my hon. Friends who represent English constituencies, that they want the capital receipts from the sale of council houses released to be used in housing. In Scotland, those receipts have always been used, but there has been a net receipt. In other words, there is a gross capital allocation, but local authorities are then told that they will have to sell a certain number of council houses and are given a net allocation. Far from benefiting from what other sales might take place, they find that they do not have the money that they require. It is ludicrous that this year eight local authorities in Scotland—Berwickshire, North-East Fife, East Lothian, West Lothian, East Kilbride, Hamilton, Perth and Kinross and Orkney—are required to sell more council houses for more money than the Government will allow them to use for building and redevelopment.
1062
The role of the Scottish Office when it comes to the condition of housing in Scotland is not an indirect one. The Scottish Office is largely responsible for the fact that the condition of Scottish housing has declined over the past 13 years. A massive job needs to be done in either rebuilding our housing stock or redeveloping it, and it can be done only when the Government are prepared to make proper public financing available. I hope that the Government have read the report and will take account of it.
7.10 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: First, I join my colleagues who are members of the Public Accounts Committee in expressing appreciation of the work of Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have paid tribute to his work—the whole House is indebted to him—but we should pay tribute also to the other people who work in the National Audit Office. Altogether, about 900 work there. We know that Sir John and the other senior people at the NAO serve the PAC and the entire House extremely well, but we should not forget that there are others who do important work but do not undertake the perhaps glamorous value-for-money studies. There are those who undertake the vital work of checking the Government's accounts to ensure that they can be certified as correct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, during the past year, these staff have brought to light some extremely worrying examples of the misuse of taxpayers' money. I pay tribute to all those who work in the NAO.
I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in expressing appreciation of the contribution made to the work of the PAC by five Conservative Members who served on it over the past few years. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) went on to become a Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has gone to sort out the Conservative party. The three other Government supporters who were members of the Committee retired from the House at the general election. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield will be welcomed back on the Committee when he feels that his time has come at Conservative party headquarters.
The three Government supporters who were members of the Committee and who left the House at the general election were Michael Latham, Sir Michael Shaw and Sir Ian Stewart. They all made valuable contributions to the Committee's work. I mention Sir Ian Stewart in particular, because he came to the Committee as a former Treasury Minister. He served on the Committee for only about 12 months, but he made an extremely valuable contribution during that period.
Like other members of the Committee, I pay tribute to the contribution to its work by our Chairman, my right hon Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. He brings to the Committee nearly 30 years of experience in the House and makes a unique contribution as a former Treasury Minister. We all benefit from his deft chairmanship and the kindness with which he keeps us in order and tells us when our time is up in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) left the Committee some years ago. He, too, is missed. I welcome his interest in the debate, and he is right to draw attention to the fact that we are trying to debate many reports. As I have said before, too many

1063
reports are before us during these debates and we find that we cannot do justice to the work of the Committee and to the Departments whose work and inefficiencies we examine. We should have more frequent debates so that we can concentrate, for example, on a group of reports that concern a particular Department. I hope that that will be taken into account by those who determine such matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne reminded the House that there are four themes to the work of the Committee during the past year. The first and perhaps most important theme has been to focus on the detection of fraud and the maintenance of high standards in the public service. We are concerned not only with honesty, because during the past year we have come across one or two cases—as my right hon. Friend said, one or two is too many—of dishonesty and fraud. When examining the complete range of Government activities, however, we came across few examples of fraud in the expenditure of taxpayers' money.
We must have regard, too, to the efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure, and twice a week we review examples of that. We examine instances where public money has been wasted or misspent. It is a scarce resource and there are instances when it could have been spent in a much better way. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish not to reduce public expenditure but to spend public money in a more effective way. Every £1,000 that is wasted by civil servants is £1,000 less that can be spent on social services, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I want to expand and improve.
Although the Committee does not consider the merits of policy decisions, it examines the way in which those decisions have been implemented. That is the second theme of the Committee's work. As I have already said, we review far too many examples of inefficiency and the ineffective use of the taxpayers' money. We do not review policy decisions, but there are instances when politics are much involved in our work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to several examples of privatisation and the Committee's criticism of the way in which that policy has been implemented.
One of the Committee's reports focused on the sale of the Rover Group. We criticised, rightly, the way in which the sale was conducted. It is important to remind the House that it was not conducted by civil servants. It was a classic case of a Minister who had a hands-on attitude. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—it was not the Board of Trade, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman preferred to describe it as the enterprise Department—conducted negotiations, if they can be called that, with British Aerospace about its acquisition or takeover of the Rover Group. We were represented by the wrong man. We would have been much better off if we had been represented by British Aerospace's negotiators. They took our representative—the Secretary of State, our so-called salesman—to the cleaners. Instead of being sold, the Rover Group was given away.
I draw attention to one detail in the report on the sale of the Rover Group that shows the way in which the sale, if that is how it can be described, was conducted. In one paragraph we point out that the negotiations were conducted on the basis of profit forecasts in respect of the Rover Group. We learned from a confidential memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General that there was a wide range of profit forecasts. The then Secretary of
1064
State and his assistants at the Department took the lowest forecast and used that as the basis for the valuation of the Rover Group. No one in his right mind would do that when selling a company. Throughout his questioning by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—the then Secretary of State declined to appear before the PAC—
Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. It is important that we get the facts on the record. The then Secretary of State did not decline to appear before the Committee. He thought that it was not normal to be invited and therefore he did not expect to appear. I wrote to him to point out that, although a peer of the realm is not required to appear before the PAC or any other Select Committee, I should be astonished if anyone with responsibilities for the handling of public money ever refused to attend the PAC. We have powers to call to the Committee virtually anybody who has such responsibilities.
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having put flesh on the bones of what I was saying. We did not try to require a peer of the realm to appear before us, but we did suggest that it might be helpful if he did so, in order to discuss the result of negotiations with us, especially as he publicly criticised the National Audit Office report. However, he preferred not to attend the Committee. It is not too much to say that he did not want to attend the Committee.
From the details of the negotiations, it was clear that the Secretary of State had used the lowest forecast for the profits of the Rover Group as a basis for its valuation. One might expect someone selling a company to use the highest forecast for profits, not the lowest. One might expect the person trying to buy the company to want to base the valuation on the lowest forecast. That is why I say that the taxpayer had a bad deal. It was the taxpayers' assets that were given away.
As my right hon. Friend said, the third theme of our work during the past year has been computerisation and the apparent inability of almost any Government Department to get it right. A succession of Government Departments told the Public Accounts Committee that their problems were all due to the computer. Anyone would think that the computer was a divine institution, some piece of mysterious equipment which struck at random, rather than a piece of technology which does what people tell it to do.
Civil servant after civil servant, permanent secretary after permanent secretary, accounting officer after accounting officer, seemed to believe that to say that something was the fault of the computer was sufficient defence or explanation of what had gone wrong in a Department. The classic case was the accounting officer from Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Patrick Wright, the permanent secretary at the time.
My right hon. Friend has explained in detail how that project went so disastrously wrong. My impression was that, at the beginning of the session with the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Patrick Wright could not understand why he was there. I had the strong impression that he did not think that it was important that the accounts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could not be certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General as accurate, that there was a possibility—I put it no higher than that—of fraud. He did not think that that was a

1065
matter that required his attention as the permanent secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, I think that he changed his mind as a result of his appearance before us.
I notice that the Treasury minute in response to the Committee's report says that the accounting officer, Sir Patrick Wright, gave new written instructions to finance staff in March 1991 requiring them to inform him immediately of problems that might prejudice the maintenance of proper accounts. I welcome that belated action by the permanent secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is clear that such action was the result of his appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, because he came before us on 4 March and that instruction was written during March. Therefore, I have no doubt about the connection between those two events.
Connected with the point about computerisation is the constant employment of outside consultants. If the Government have failed miserably to undertake com-puterisation, they also seem to have great difficulty in finding competent consultants to help them with computerisation. In the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the blame does not entirely attach to the accounting officer, because an expensive firm of outside consultants, Price Waterhouse no less, was employed. But it got it wrong. The new system did not work. The account that we were given of the work of those consultants was incredible.
I want to make it clear that I am not criticising one section of the Government. There is one group of people about whom I have heard no criticism in the past 12 months, and that is the group employed at the Government centre for information systems. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on computerisation. My complaint is that far too often, as in the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, those Government experts are ignored.
Time and again, permanent secretaries seem to try to want to re-invent the wheel. Instead of going to the people employed in the Treasury who know about these things, they try to do it themselves with the assistance of outside consultants at great expense. It costs more to employ consultants than the experts working for the Treasury, and the results are hardly encouraging, certainly in the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Insolvency Service, which also thought that it could do it alone.
The Government seem to be cutting back the welfare state for people on low incomes or with no income at all, while running a welfare state for consultants.
These reports also show an amateurish approach to administration. When my right hon. Friend talks about the need to maintain high public standards, he is referring not only to the standards of integrity and honesty, but to the standards of administration—efficiency and effective-ness. Time and again, we read criticisms in National Audit Office reports of the way in which Departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have handled these important matters.
I do not want it to be thought that we are concerned only with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That other major Department of State, the Home Office, came out of our discussion about the allocation of police
1066
manpower very badly. We were discussing value for money from the provincial police forces. The Home Office controls the number of police officers who can be employed by any police authority.
It is not open to the members of a police authority— elected councillors from the district councils covered by the police authority and some magistrates—to decide, in consultation with the chief constable, how many police officers it should employ and then face local taxpayers to defend the increase in taxes required to pay for extra police officers. That is a proper matter for political argument and debate and an entirely proper matter for local democracy, but it is not open to the police authority to make such decisions. It cannot employ any more officers than it is allowed to employ by the Home Office. I cannot think of any other public service where a Government Department specifies the maximum that can be employed by a local body, whether it be a local council or any other appointed body. I can think of no other group which is controlled in such a way.
I do not understand why we need such restrictions to be imposed on police authorities made up of local people who understand the needs of local areas and who should be able to decide, on the basis of locally expressed opinion, that it is a sufficiently high priority to improve and increase the number of police officers in the area and be answerable to the local electorate. The local electorate, too, are rendered incapable of making a decision because Big Brother, the Home Office, controls the number of police officers employed by each police authority in the provinces.
When we examined the matter in detail with the Home Office and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, we were told that, having decided on the size of the cake, extra slices were given to those areas where there were already, according to their calculations, more than enough police officers. At the same time, other police authorities, such as the West Midlands, which were desperately undermanned, were not allowed to employ as many as they wanted.
Conservative and Labour members of police authorities, who agreed unanimously, on the advice of the chief constable, on the number of extra police officers that they would employ, were thwarted by the Home Office which, meanwhile, was giving extra police officers to other parts of the country which, according to its own statistics, were overmanned with police officers. It was incredible. We were told that the then Home Secretary was pleased because his constituency happened to be in one of those areas. I leave that comment, which is on the record, to rest where it is for others to read.
Therefore, the Home Office too is a most amateurish organisation. It does not seem to have learnt anything since it came before us a few years ago to explain why there were such long delays in the issuing of passports and told us that the number of passports was affected by international difficulties and said that, for example, riots in Tiananmen square could affect the number of people who applied for British passports to go abroad. I think that it was a Conservative member of the Committee who asked whether it was really thought that people who would otherwise have gone to Peking would go to Brighton and therefore would not need a passport. It was ridiculous. Administration in the Home Office is still at that level.
I come now to the most important theme of the past 12 months—the way in which some agencies have behaved. My right hon. Friend drew attention to reports highly

1067
critical of two of the new-fangled quangos—the National Rivers Authority and the Development Board for Rural Wales, which shared similar problems. The NRA clearly had poor control of contracting arrangements, particularly in respect of the relocation of its offices to Bristol. That project involved awarding a contract to an outside company—another firm of consultants—to advise the NRA on relocation and to assist it in the tender process. National Audit Office figures showed that £1 million of the project's £2.65 million cost was wasted. The Committee expressed concern at that evidence of inadequate and poorly controlled tendering and contracting arrangements.
The Treasury minute appears to accept the Committee's conclusion, saying that the NRA has established an internal inquiry, informed the police, and tightened up its procedures—but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. What happened to the people who wasted £1 million of taxpayers' money?
The NRA's chief executive was made the scapegoat for that debacle, but the PAC concluded that the board and senior management together should bear the responsibility, and be reminded of their duty to exercise proper care in the stewardship of public funds.
The NRA is not alone. Last year, the Committee's 42nd report found that the national health service's purchasing control was deplorable, to put it mildly. It pointed out that the same topic had been investigated by the Committee in 1984, when it was said that the health service's organisational weaknesses in supplies procurement would have to be overcome if the benefits of greater co-ordinated purchasing could be enjoyed. Seven years later, a new Comptroller and Auditor General found that significant weaknesses in NHS supplies activities remained.
What happened during those seven years? So often, we receive bland Treasury minutes giving assurances that action has been taken, everything will be all right in future, and that the problem will never arise again. In the NHS example that I cite, the situation remained almost as bad as seven years previously. Sometimes, we should take the assurances of Treasury Ministers with a big pinch of salt —especially as the same Government remained in power throughout those seven years, when it appears that little was done by Ministers or civil servants.
The Committee's hearing on that matter was in May 1991, and the Treasury minute was able to report the establishment in October 1991 of a new body—the NHS Supplies Authority—to deal with national health service purchasing and supplies. Clearly, that was the result of the PAC hearing. I welcome that new body, and I hope that it will be more successful than its predecessors. That experience proves the weakness of Government purchasing—whether it be in the National Rivers Authority or the NHS.
I return to the NRA, and refer to the departure of its chief executive "by mutual agreement." He did not resign, but received a golden handshake of £125,000. It is hardly surprising that the Committee regarded the financial terms on which that executive left as generous and open to question.
Nor was that experience unique. As other hon. Members mentioned, the report on the Development Board for Rural Wales revealed an even worse situation. That board's chief executive left because he was not able to get on with the DRBW's chairman. It may be fairer to say that the chairman could not get on with his chief
1068
executive, because no criticism was made of his performance. The chairman had obviously taken dead against him, and went to the Welsh Office to have his chief executive paid off.
I am concerned about the way in which that matter was handled, and the waste of taxpayers' money, in disregarding proper consideration of the proper amount to pay. A payment was made in lieu of notice that was wholly unjustified, and payment was made for leave not taken. However, it is clear that those responsible for calculating that sum started at the bottom of the page, decided how much money to pay as a sweetner—so that the chief executive would leave smiling and not shouting—and devised a way of justifying the bottom-line figure. Because the National Audit Office staff picked up on £15,000 that had been paid irregularly and without proper authority, the PAC set out on the trail that led to it teasing out the £150,000 given as a golden handshake, so that the board's chairman could have as chief executive someone he could get on with.
The Treasury minute published in October this year states:
"The Treasury has issued new guidance reminding departments of the need to put in place arrangements designed to ensure that non-departmental public bodies do not make irregular payments and do not act beyond their authority."
When the Financial Secretary replies, I hope that he will say—for reasons I shall explain shortly—when that guidance was issued. The Treasury minute added:
"There is no entitlement to payment in lieu of leave for staff subject to Civil Service conditions of service, which includes staff in departments, Agencies and most controlled fringe bodies … The Treasury has reminded departments of these conditions."
Paragraph 155 of the minute states:
"Payments in lieu of notice should be made only where it has not been feasible for the employer to give the employee appropriate notice of termination of employment or to allow him or her to work until the end of the period of notice."
I hope that the Financial Secretary has made a note of the minute, because I shall be returning to it in the light of a report issued yesterday by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
We cannot debate the details of the report tonight, but I very much hope that it will be the subject of a PAC hearing in the months to come. It is an important report, although it arose from the unglamorous work involved in certifying the accounts of West Midlands regional health authority. It is a sequel to other reports that we are debating: in the opening paragraphs, the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to the earlier PAC report on the Development Board for Rural Wales.
The health authority report discusses the awarding of yet another contract to consultants. Originally, the contract was expected to cost £2.5 million; we now know that the total cost was £4 million—more than half as much again as the contract awarded by the National Rivers Authority. The contract was awarded by the director of regionally managed services at the health authority. The Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff found that the director did not follow the proper procedures for awarding a contract to a firm of consultants.
Members of the Public Accounts Committee have been here before: we have heard similar tales about the National Rivers Authority. The auditors found that the director had shown

1069
"cavalier disregard for the standards of conduct expected from public officers",
and concluded that
"the contract was improperly entered into".
The House will be interested to learn that the £4 million cost of the contract included expenses, over a single year, of £350,000. That included the cost of houses leased in London for executives and their wives; the use of aircraft to take executives to work; and, in the words of the auditors, lavish entertainment. The report does not, of course, tell us who was entertained by whom and for what purpose. No doubt my colleagues on the PAC will be anxious to establish that at a future hearing; there are many more questions to be asked. Tonight, however, I simply wish to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that we have yet another scandal on our hands. Yet another contract has been improperly entered into; yet more money has been squandered on lavish entertainment—if I may use the strong language employed by the auditors. And, yet again, a resignation is involved.
The director of regionally managed services at West Midlands health authority left the employ of the national health service in June 1991. As the report reveals, he did not simply leave; he resigned. He was not sacked; nor did he leave according to mutual agreement. He resigned, which might indeed be considered the honourable thing to do—but he then received a severance payment. Again, my colleagues on the PAC will point out that we have been here before. This time, the sum involved was £62,000, including £20,142 for redundancy.
I do not understand how someone can resign, and then receive compensation for redundancy. According to the calculation, however, that director received £20,142 in redundancy compensation, plus £12,876 in lieu of notice. He was paid as though he had been dismissed—unfairly dismissed, perhaps—or declared redundant and paid in lieu of notice. Despite the Treasury minute, £12,876 of public money was spent in that way.
It did not stop there, however. A total of £28,982 was classed as a "special payment"—compensation for an earlier error in the calculation of the pension that the director had been led to expect. It is not the director's fault that the health authority told him that he would receive a higher pension than the one to which he was entitled, and I do not criticise him at all. This was another blunder by the health authority.
According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, a total of £41,500 has been overpaid, without approval by the Department of Health. Again, my hon. Friends will say that we have been here before: other severance payments have been made on the authority of the chairmen and directors of the boards of agencies. Money is paid out so that people can be got rid of quietly. Sometimes it is seen as hush money or a sweetener; sometimes it is spent simply to get rid of a nasty problem quickly. But—although it is paid without proper approval or authority—no one else has resigned; at least, no one had done so by 3 pm today. As far as we can establish, no member of West Midlands regional health authority has been dismissed for a blunder that has cost the taxpayer and the national health service money.
It does not stop there. The Comptroller and Auditor General tells us that, for an entirely different reason, the regional director of finance has also resigned. He has
1070
resigned because South Birmingham health authority ran up a deficit of £10.5 million, with a continuing overspend of £5.4 million. Now the regional health authority has had to bail out South Birmingham to the tune of £16 million.
That director of finance resigned on 7 September 1992. I emphasise that date. It was in July 1992 that we issued a report referring to severance payments, which has led to the issuing this month of a Treasury minute that states that people should not be paid in lieu of notice; yet the director of finance was given six months' pay in lieu of notice, as though he had been declared redundant. Moreover, he was given two months' pay for untaken leave in the current year and in previous years. We keep hearing the same story. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who raised the question of company cars, will want to know that the director of finance has also been allowed to keep his car for six months.
We must conclude that the same thing is happening in places other than the National Rivers Authority and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Other parts of Government, other agencies and sections of Departments, are wasting the taxpayers' money in identical ways. What worries me is the examples of which we do not know. Is this just the tip of the iceberg? How many other people are receiving unjustified payments in lieu of notice? How many other people are being allowed to keep their company cars after resigning under a cloud? How many other people are being given money for leave that they have not taken in previous years? In spite of the issuing of Treasury minutes on a date that the Financial Secretary will give us later, such practices seem to be widespread.
What emerges from all the reports—including one that is still to come before the Committee—is this. At a time when thousands are losing their jobs as a result of genuine redundancy and through no fault of their own and are receiving pitiful sums in compensation or no compensation at all, as a result of changes introduced by the Government in the calculation of such payments—the recipient must have worked for his employer for two years —and at a time when people who lose their jobs are put on the dole and must worry about their mortgage repayments, others are receiving big golden handshakes. There is one policy for those who are well off, and another for those who are not.
People who have not been genuinely made redundant receive thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to which they are not entitled. The Government are running a gravy train for directors and senior managers.
.49 pm
Mr. Tim Smith: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) said, I was privileged to serve as a member of the Public Accounts Committee for most of the last Parliament. I should like to endorse what he said about our colleagues who retired from the House, and therefore from the Committee—Michael Latham, Sir Michael Shaw and Sir Ian Stewart, who all served on the Committee with much distinction, some for a long time.
I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. Like other members of the Committee, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has served as Chairman for, I think, nine years. It is impossible to think of a replacement for him. He does a splendid job

1071
and, in my recollection, only once in the last Parliament failed to chair a sitting of the Committee, which usually sits twice a week and considers many reports.
One of the themes of the debate has been the importance of finance and regularity audit. The Committee's report on the Development Board for Rural Wales is a classic of its kind. It should be read by every accounting officer on his appointment. The guidelines to accounting officers should direct them to read the report so that they understand, beyond doubt, what is meant by regularity and the importance that the House attaches to all payments being properly approved and regularised.
That was the most scandalous example of irregular payments to come before the Committee in the last Parliament, but as the hon. Member for Hodge Hill pointed out, there have been many other examples. He mentioned recent examples involving the national health service. One of the changes that were made as a result of the Committee's reports was the establishment of the NHS Supplies Authority in October 1991. Judging from the report that was published yesterday, to which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill referred in detail, there is still a strong case for investigating purchasing in the national health service.
I hope that the Committee will consider the report that was published yesterday, because, although I do not want to give all the details, a constituent of mine is in a position to supply goods to the NHS at a price considerably lower than that prevailing at the moment. He has had considerable difficulty in persuading the supplies authority of the value of his proposal. I shall take that up with the chief executive of the NHS, Duncan Nichol, but if I do not make any progress, I shall certainly send the details to the Comptroller and Auditor General, because that aspect of purchasing must be fully investigated, especially given the close relationship between those responsible for purchasing and the very large suppliers. Some of the companies are very large suppliers and, because the NHS has a virtual monopoly, they are almost totally dependent on the NHS for contracts. That is why that aspect of supply must be scrutinised carefully. The first lesson that needs to be learned from the reports is the importance of financial and regularity audit, especially regularity.
I was reminded of the report on Scottish housing by the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He obviously has personal knowledge that I do not have, and he gave his view of the condition of Scottish housing. I was struck by the Scottish Office's lack of information on which to base any decisions. There are 700,000 council houses in Scotland. My questions in the committee established that, between 1985 and 1990, 287,000 were improved. In a memorandum sent to the Committee subsequent to the inquiry, further information was given to the effect that, in the five-year period up to 1984–85, another 186,000 houses were improved and, in 1990–91, 72,000 houses were improved. That makes a total of about 500,000 houses, from a total local authority housing stock of 700,000. It appears that the vast majority of council houses in Scotland have been improved in the past 13 years. That does not accord with the description given by the hon. Member for Cathcart, but we never received a satisfactory answer to the questions.
I believe that the situation may be rather different from the one that the hon. Member for Cathcart described. I was sorry that he felt it necessary to criticise the
1072
Committee's report, particularly in respect of what I thought was the factual description of the indirect responsibility of the Scottish Office.
I want to mention the Committee's report on the privatisation of water. I well recall the questions that were asked by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). As it was just before the election, I thought it right that he should be given considerable latitude, but simply to extrapolate the total value of the assets is not a sensible way of valuing a company. There are two different valuations of assets—the net book value, which was £8.7 billion in historic cost terms, and the value in current cost terms of £34.5 billion, which the right hon. Gentleman compared with the sales proceeds. Paragraph 29 of the report says:
he accounting value of assets is not a reflection of the underlying value of a company and investors will base their value of a company on the expected stream of future dividends."
That is exactly what happened and, in the circumstances, the sale produced a reasonable deal for the taxpayer.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the House to the Committee's conclusion:
"we recognise that for the water companies to have been sold for a figure approaching the replacement cost of their assets, the price of water would have needed to be raised to a very high level"?
We did not hear about that finding from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams).
Mr. Smith: Absolutely. The Committee said that the Department
"had sold assets worth £34.5 billion at current values for net proceeds of £3.6 billion. The Department explained that they were not selling assets, which had no marketable value, but an industry which had an income flow which had a value on the open market."
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West suggested that it did not matter whether the water industry was in the public or private sector, because if it were in the public sector, it would still be able to borrow. Of course it could do so but, if it did, it would find itself—because that borrowing is in addition to the public sector borrowing requirement—in competition with all the other Departments that are lining up at the door of the Treasury, no doubt at this moment, pleading their case for increased public expenditure. The virtue of transferring the water authorities to the private sector—this will apply equally to Scotland—is that they are able to go to the market for their increased borrowing. In the end, somebody must pay, either the taxpayer or the customer—the right hon. Gentleman conceded that. There are limited resources available in the public sector, whereas if the companies go to the market, as they have, they are able to obtain the substantial amounts of capital that they need to make environmental improvements and to invest.
I want, finally, to mention the process of audit in the public sector, the role of the National Audit Office and the role of the Public Accounts Committee, because in my five years as a member of the Committee a number of improvements were made. I shall give the House one example of those improvements. Five years ago, the Treasury minutes tended not to be very specific. They did not necessarily deal with every recommendation of the Committee. Now, the Treasury minutes set out the

1073
recommendations of the Committee and the Government's response. That is an important part of the process.
There is a natural tendency for the Committee to focus on past events and I make no complaint about that, because it is inevitable. However, there has sometimes been a tendency to concentrate on ascribing blame to people and trying to attach responsibility to individuals. Although that is important, it is not the most important element. The most important element, and the object of the whole exercise, should surely be to learn lessons for the future and to ensure that they are fully understood and implemented. In that respect, there is some room for improvement.
I understand that one reason why it sometimes takes a long time for a National Audit Office report to be published is that the NAO people have to obtain the agreement of a Department on the contents of the report —by that, I mean the facts. It is not acceptable for an accounting officer to come to the PAC and dispute the facts. Those facts must be agreed between the NAO and the Department before the report is published. Clearly, that is to the advantage of the Committee.
The difficulty is that reports tend to be a mixture of fact and judgment. I suppose in theory it is possible to split those two aspects, but in practice that is difficult. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be an improvement if there were some separation between the facts—the history of a matter—and the conclusions reached, especially the NAO's recommendations for future change. Those recommendations should be set out more clearly, and the PAC should focus more clearly upon them in drawing up its recommendations. That would be one way of ensuring that the Government were not let off the hook in implementing the recommendations.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Hodge Hill said about the work of the National Audit Office. Over the 10 years since the National Audit Act 1983, the work has been transformed out of all recognition. The 900 staff to whom the hon. Gentleman referred do a fine job, but there is never any room for complacency, and we should examine ways in which the system could be further improved.
In that context, I mention a report published recently by Certified Trust, part of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants. The report, which was written by Andrew Likierman and Alison Taylor is about Government departmental reports. That valuable study examines both the departmental reports published over the past two years and the uses to which those reports were put by Select Committees.
A couple of years ago, before the reports before us were published, when the PAC was asked for its view it said, not surprisingly, that such reports should be like an annual report—a report to Parliament by the Department accounting for the way in which it had spent the sum of money voted by Parliament. The PAC said that in that context it would be appropriate to include the appropriation accounts in the report. There are tiny difficulties in doing that and it has not happened. Perhaps that does not matter, but clearly there is a slight dilemma over what the role of the reports should be.
1074
The question is whether the reports should be backward-looking or forward-looking. Should they be an account by Departments of what they have achieved over the past year, how they have measured up to their aims and objectives and whether they have met their performance targets? On the other hand, such reports are now in effect what used to be the public expenditure White Paper, so they set out the Department's public spending plans for the forthcoming year.
The role of the Treasury in all that raises an important and interesting question, especially about the extent to which the Treasury should influence the reports. If the Treasury had no influence over them, there would be no consistency from one report to another.
Mr. Sheldon: I referred to Andrew Likierman and the valuable report which he produced, and I also said that it was the role of the Select Committees to undertake a proper examination of those matters as, indeed, it was their proper duty to undertake an examination of the public expenditure White Paper. The fact is that that has been done only to a very limited extent. I teased the Committees, as I have often done, by saying that, if they were happy with expenditure on the issues that concerned them, they should say so. They should say that there is nothing to object to in what the Government have in mind. That is such a ludicrous proposition that it makes it clear that the Committees are failing in some of the important tasks that they should undertake. We must take such matters into account, too.
Mr. Smith: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. When we consider the basic purpose of the departmental Select Committees, our starting point should be the reports. The great advantage of such reports over the traditional public expenditure White Paper is that Departments are now required to set out clearly their aims and objectives, the resources committed to pursuing them and performance indicators to measure how far those objectives have been achieved. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that every Select Committee should take evidence on the reports from the permanent secretary—and from customers and clients of the Department, too, to establish whether they are getting a good deal.
I understand that unfortunately, this year, because of the intervention of the general election, many of the 1992 reports which were published six months ago have not been examined by the Select Committees. I hope that that will be put right, or if not, I hope that next year the reports will be examined by the relevant Select Committee. Some Committees have a good record, but one or two, which are mentioned in the report, have never considered the spending plans of their Departments. I believe that it is important that they do so. Such consideration is complementary to the work of the PAC.
The PAC performs an invaluable service, but it is not in a position to examine public expenditure overall. It is clear from the debate that Parliament has a vital role to play.
8.7 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate; I have been

1075
waiting for about four hours to do so. My speech will not be over-long, but I shall not rush, either, because I have some points to make.
I am delighted to associate myself with what has been said about the work of the members of the Public Accounts Committee, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I disagree somewhat with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). who said that the Committee somehow let the Scottish officials off the hook. From what I read, it appeared that the officials got the third degree from some of the members of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned the length of service of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne as chairman of the PAC. It is ironic that the Tory party vice-chairman should congratulate my right hon. Friend on the length of his service, because a similar length of service is not possible for Conservative members of Select Committees. No doubt the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was a supporter of the vindictive removal of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from the Select Committee on Health on the spurious basis that he had served for longer than two periods.
The PAC's fifth report is about "The Condition of Scottish Housing". Paragraph 3(ii) of the introduction and summary of conclusions and recommendations says:
"We consider that the Department need better information on the condition of housing in Scotland".
That has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said about the fact that councils and a whole range of organisations in Scotland pressed Scottish Office Ministers for many years to conduct a survey. The Scottish Office point blank refused to do so. The hidden agenda was that the Scottish Office did not want the full extent of Scotland's needs to be exposed to public scrutiny, because that would put pressure on Scottish Office Ministers to supply the resources to meet those needs.
It is ironic that paragraph 3(iv) says:
"We are glad to note the Department's decision to launch a national house condition survey and their intention to conduct further such surveys every five years".
We welcome the conversion of Scottish Office Ministers—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—although during the time that it has taken to convince them, there has been suffering throughout Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart mentioned the fact that the report says that the Department's role is indirect in relation to the support—or, rather, the non-support—of Scottish housing. The report says that the Department exercises
"influence and control over the housing sector by a variety of means".
It exercises complete control in its function of limiting net capital expenditure by local authorities. It dictates the agenda of the district councils which are the housing authorities in Scotland.
In one respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart about the conversion of Scottish Office officials. One of the main purposes of a national housing survey would be to try to tackle the curse of dampness in council housing in Scotland. At paragraph
1076
109 on page 11 of the report, Mr. Michael Latham, the former hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, is reported as follows:
"I have worked in the building industry for 25 years and these points here are well known in the industry. Why is there such a large number … of units in Scotland, I suspect many of them relatively new units, built in the last 20–25 years which are subject to damp penetration?"
Here is someone who has knowledge of the building industry making a point about bad design in Scotland causing problems of damp penetration.
At paragraph 113, Mr. Latham asks the officials:
"Are the local authorities coming to you in Scotland saying, 'Listen, we have a terrible problem of damp penetration of council houses in the west of Scotland which have been built in the last 20–25 years. We must have more resources to tackle this'? Do they ask you that?"
Dr. McCrone replied:
"Yes, they do and we take that into account in determining the housing allocations; that is one of the main factors which we consider."
Yet that allocation has fallen in every single year since the Conservative Government came to office.
On page 14 of the report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) makes that point—and we are certainly grateful for the support of Welsh Members on this matter. My right hon. Friend said:
"With the worst weather conditions anywhere in Europe, with evidence that shows that housing was deteriorating more rapidly than similarly aged housing in England, we actually have a reduction of about £2.4 billion in central funding towards the expenditure of the local authority."
Between 1979 and 1989, the Government deducted from central Government support to housing authorities capital receipts from the sale of council housing. When they were asked where the money would otherwise have come from, they replied that it would have come from the Secretary of State's block allocation.
Council housing in Scotland—in particular, the west of Scotland—has terrible problems of damp penetration. The Government constantly criticise councils for the number of void properties that they have, failing to take into account the fact that many of those properties are void because they suffer from dampness and the councils do not have the resources to tackle the problem, cure the dampness and put the houses back in the pool for letting. Greenhill court in Rutherglen—a systems-built block with flat roofs, built in the 1970s—has had nothing but problems with dampness and rain penetration since day one, yet under the capital allocation of Glasgow district council, the tenants have no chance of getting anything done to the block.
To its credit, Scottish Homes showed an interest at one stage, but that plan fell through, and while Scottish Homes is under pressure with its capital programme, there is no way that it can tackle the problems of Greenhill court. We are talking about expenditure and support coming from central Government to local government. The people in Greenhill court in my constituency are in a similar position to people throughout Scotland: there does not seem to be any hope of the Government's supporting them and coming across with the resources to tackle their housing problem.
Let me refer to the 16th report of the PAC on the control and monitoring of pollution and the review of the pollution inspectorate. On page vi, the report states:
"We note with interest the Inspectorate's approach of requiring industry to take a proactive role and exercise greater self regulation in pollution control, whilst continuing to

1077
recognise the particular difficulties that may be faced by small businesses struggling to meet the higher demands of integrated pollution control."
That is a reasonable statement to make.
The Rutherglen part of my constituency contains the site of a former chemical works set up in the 1830s or 1840s —White's chemical works—which continued to operate until 1970, some 140 years later. There is no doubt that it created local employment: my grandfather, my father, my brother, several uncles and a whole stack of cousins worked there. It produced chromium. I was brought up only 200 or 300 yards from that place.
It is amazing how people's perceptions of what is acceptable change. A matter of 150 yd from the chromium works, the burns and streams ran all sorts of different colours because of the chemical discharge from the factory. Nobody thought anything of it. If that happened now, everyone would be up in arms, trying to get something done about it. We could have done with this inspectorates-type approach in Rutherglen between 1830 and 1970. A result of that company's existence was the indiscriminate dumping of toxic chromium waste throughout large areas of Cambuslang, Rutherglen and south Glasgow. The company simply sent out its lorries and dumped the chromium waste anywhere that it could. We are now discovering it on sites adjacent to schools, playing fields, housing schemes and the spectators' area of a local junior football stadium. A nursing home in Rutherglen has been found to have been built on a site where White's dumped toxic chromium waste. It is a big problem in my constituency.
People are even more frightened and confused because the medical world cannot seem to get its act together and come up with a definitive answer to people's fears. The dangerous chromium, we are told, is hexavelent chromium. But another school of thought says that that dangerous chromium is unsafe only to those working with it in unprotected conditions, while a third school of thought says that it is dangerous outside—on the sites that I mentioned, for example—only if the wind disturbs the top layer and spreads the dust over the surrounding area. Nevertheless, there is a seemingly high incidence of cancer-related illnesses in the Cambuslang and Rutherglen area. It is worth remembering that, 25 to 30 years ago, workers were being told to work with asbestos dust, and that there was nothing wrong with it, whereas we now know the problems that it causes. Hexavelent chromium is in the same category.
White's, which changed its name, first to British Chrome and Chemicals and then to Albright and Wilson, left Rutherglen in 1970. For 140 years, it used the community, making its profits out of the area. It has left us with a potential toxic waste time bomb. I am not one for scaremongering, and one must always listen to experts and get their advice—although I do not have complete faith in the experts—but the fact remains that people fear the consequences of that industrial waste. I have been asking the local district council to pursue the legal liabilities of the former companies and demand that they contribute to cleaning up that waste.
Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the job that he has done in dealing with this problem for the past two years. Does
1078
he agree that, in addition to his constituency, the problem is a matter of great concern in Carmyle in my constituency, immediately adjoining his constituency, and in the east end of the city of Glasgow? Does he agree further that the devastation that was caused by the de-industrialisation of the city cannot be tackled adequately by the district council unless the Scottish Office gives additional adequate resources to deal with that worrying and serious problem?
Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I can certainly confirm that the problem exists in Carmyle and other parts of east Glasgow. The lorries went as far as they could to dump the waste.
I was about to refer to resources because, at the end of the day, that is what this matter is about. There are various points of view. There is the expert view that one can cover up the hexavelent chromium and another view that it should be transported out of the area. The problem is where it is to be dumped. Whatever response is required, it needs money.
Clearly, Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council do not have the sums available to tackle that problem. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), he came to the constituency, looked at the situation and managed to come up with about £70,000 to try to make the site safe, but the overall problem is still to be addressed. Resources are still to be made available to the local council. I can rely on the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and Scottish Members of all persuasions to try to persuade the Government that the people of the surrounding areas should not pay the price of 140 years of industrial exploitation.
8.21 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall refer to some of the points that have been raised mostly by Opposition Members, as the debate has generally been much better attended by the Opposition. I was glad to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) because—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend will observe that there is nobody sitting on the Conservative Back Benches.
Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is right, but when I started my sentence there was one Conservative Member present, and he has just re-emerged to make what I said true again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill at least managed to divert attention away from shenanigans in Welsh non-departmental public bodies and indicated that shenanigans are also going on in west midlands public bodies. It is not a matter of feeling proud about that; it is a matter of showing that the system is still failing and that, as soon as the Public Accounts Committee manages to shut a stable door in Wales, another one opens in the west midlands and another team of horses escapes. It is possible that, at the next PAC meeting, that stable door will be shut after those horses are stolen in the west midlands as well. That reinforces the need for a Public Accounts Committee and for an effective control mechanism, even if it always does its work after the wastage has taken place, after the mis-spend has taken place, after the value for money has

1079
not been achieved, and after the regularity standards that we as hon. Members representing our taxpayers have a right to expect have not been followed.
I wish to raise some points which will extend the scope of debate beyond Wales because we have given Welsh public bodies a fair old going over because they received a fair old going over in the reports. Some of the points that have been raised have universal United Kingdom significance. I have been very interested to see how the National Audit Office does its work. I am not a member of the Public Accounts Committee, but I have an economic brief and a general economic interest, but it strikes me that the National Audit Office has a difficult job, and it is probably getting more difficult all the time because of the increasing number of public bodies and the diverse way in which they are expected to be audited.
Public bodies divide themselves into three categories. Fortunately, the third category is very small. There are public bodies—quangos—which are audited, nice, plain and simple, by the National Audit Office on behalf of Parliament. They can bring matters straight to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee if they want to. There is a significant and rapidly increasing number of public bodies which are not audited by the NAO but which have private auditors in respect of which the NAO Comptroller and Auditor General—the personal title that we tend to use on such matters—has a reserve power of audit, as well as the Peat Marwicks, the Ernst Youngs and so on.
The NAO can act over and above the private auditor. The private auditor can call the comptroller's attention to what the private auditor is unhappy about, and then of course the comptroller can draw the PAC's attention to it. That is a rapidly increasing class of quango—privately audited, but with reserve powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
There is a third category of Government quango in respect of which the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have that reserve power. Therefore, there is a very weak form, if any form, of parliamentary accountability. Some of those bodies are very small and have insignificant budgets so that lack of accountability probably does not matter, but one or two of them are quite big. The one that interests me is the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which is certainly the big daddy of those quangos which do not have either the primary duty of auditor laid on the Comptroller arid Auditor General or even that reserve, long-stop power to read the books and records and have matters drawn to their attention by the private auditor so that they can bring them to the attention of the PAC.
Cardiff Bay development corporation has an annual budget of £33 million, which possibly will rise sharply if the Bill that we discussed last night completes its stages in another place and comes back to this House at some point in the spring of next year. If the corporation were to get permission to spend a great deal more money on civil engineering works, the famous barrage that we discussed last night, it would be in an even more unique position than it is now because it would have the power to spend perhaps £50 million or £60 million a year, and still without very much parliamentary accountability.
It is possible to say that the corporation has the other kind of parliamentary accountability and that the Comptroller and Auditor General can do the value-for-money audit, but then that can be done to all public bodies, anyway. We are talking about the prorietary duty
1080
which at the moment cannot be done. At least that is how I interpret the report on public bodies and of course the famous Treasury note which was issued on Thursday. That Treasury minute was in response to the now notorious Development Board for Rural Wales's access payments to the retiring chief executive, a saga which has been referred to half a dozen times already and will no doubt be referred to by the Financial Secretary.
It was very interesting to read through all the papers to the final page, then to the final page of the final paper, and then the final paragraph of the final paper to find out what the Treasury's proposals are on how to shut the stable door after the team of horses has been stolen in the case of the Development Board for Rural Wales. It is worth while to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 161 of Command Paper 2074—the Treasury minute on the first of the 11 reports from the Public Accounts Committee.
The final paragraph deals with the PAC's consultation, after the Development Board for Rural Wales's chief executive's retirement fiasco. The conclusion was:
"it is most important that the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to identify control weaknesses of this type and bring them directly to the attention of Parliament as he did in this case."
We can certainly say that again, particularly after what my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill said about the follow-on saga in the west midlands.
What was the Government's reply? I am glad that the Financial Secretary will hear this. They said:
"in the case of executive non-departmental public bodies"
in other words, quangos—
"where he"—
the Comptroller and Auditor General—
"is not the auditor, the Government believes that the C & AG should have rights of access to the body's papers and records so that he may bring to Parliament's attention, whenever he considers it appropriate, any material departures from the requirements of regularity and propriety."
We can certainly say that again.
The paper continues:
"The rights are frequently provided by statute."
That is the category denoted under the letter Y in "Public Bodies 1991". The provision of those rights by statute is the long-stop power of the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the quango, even though it is privately audited. The paper continues:
"Sponsor departments will seek to secure such rights in cases where they do not exist at present."
That was last week. The Treasury said that it would provide the right to audit in examples where the right does not exist at present.
I have gone through "Public Bodies 1991". It is a copious volume which is available to everyone in Parliament. It is about 100 pages long. It lists every Government quango. There are three significant bodies which the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have the reserve right to audit, let alone the primary ability to do so. The first and largest body is Cardiff Bay development corporation. That is the one which bothers me, because the Government seek to give it enhanced powers and massively to increase its resources.
The second body is the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I presume that it comes under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Considerable reference has already been made tonight to that Department's slapdash attitude to accountability.
The third body is, rather sadly, a new one. The Laganside development corporation is the Belfast

1081
equivalent of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. At least so far it has a small budget of £6 million a year. The Comptroller and Auditor General has no duty of audit or reserve right of supplementary audit of the regularity and propriety of that body, forgetting for the moment the value-for-money audits which the Comptroller and Auditor General can initiate. Such audits are paid for by Parliament's vote, not the vote of the quango. They are not part of the annual expenses of that quango.
We expect the Financial Secretary to tell us how the sponsor Departments—the Welsh Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign Office—intend to remedy a problem which the Government have allowed to creep in, how soon they intend to do so, and in what way. Will it be done by an amendment to the statute, an exchange of letters, or what? The parliamentary accountability of the three quangos that I have mentioned has been reduced and the National Audit Office is not the primary auditor of others, although obviously it has a reserve right to audit them.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with the three quangos to which I referred. He will have general support from the House if he proposes some fairly rapid-fire action to amend the statutes. I also hope that he will give an undertaking that if the Government set up any more quangos they will build into the statute provision that the Comptroller and Auditor General has either the primary or at least the reserve right of access.
The examples that I have described serve to reinforce Parliament's belief that continuous vigilance is needed to detect mis-spending by Government quangos. We still have that problem in Britain. Our voters expect us to watch out for examples of mis-spending.
My worries extend to bodies which are quangos in all but name but are not listed in "Public Bodies 1991". Unfortunately, it is up to not Parliament but the Government to decide what is a quango and what is not. For example, what is a training and enterprise council? Is it a quango? TECs use taxpayers' money and not much else, but the Government say that they are not quangos. The Government say that TECs work on contract, are private companies limited by guarantee and that the Secretary of State does not appoint the chairman or woman, so TECs are not quangos. Therefore, TECs are not listed in "Public Bodies 1991" and we cannot find out what their auditing arrangements are.
Training and enterprise councils are brand new. There are 82 of them in England and Wales and eight or nine local enterprise companies in Scotland. What are the auditing arrangements for them? How does the Comptroller and Auditor General discover potential mis-spending? How does Parliament find out about it? How do we find out whether the auditing arrangements are adequate to make the information available to the Public Accounts Committee or directly to the House?
What are the Government ashamed of? Why do not they include the TECs and LECs in "Public Bodies 1991"? Those bodies are 100 per cent. dependent on taxpayers' money so they should be in that book so that any member of the public can read it and know how much the chairman is paid, who the auditor is, and how to obtain an annual report. I could then find out how my taxpayers' money is spent on those new bodies.
1082
NHS trusts are not listed in "Public Bodies 1991". There is a long list of NHS bodies, but the trusts are not included. We have been told through leaks in a newspaper today to expect a large wave of trust hospitals in Wales. At present we have only one trust. It is a pseudo health authority opt-out. So far in Wales, no hospital has opted out. Therefore, there is not a great problem at present, but shortly there will be.
We do not know the auditing arrangements for trust hospitals. They are obscure. The Government do not want to put trust hospitals into "Public Bodies 1991". This time their excuse is different. It is not that the Secretary of State does not appoint the chairman or woman—the excuse that the Government used for the TECs. The chairman or woman of the trust is appointed by the Secretary of State. Only last Thursday, in the debate on the health of the nation, the Secretary of State for Health was proud enough to say:
"The trusts are unequivocally accountable to me, as Secretary of State, and there are effective mechanisms for monitoring their work."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 595.]
If she is so proud that she appoints the chairs of all these trusts, why is she so ashamed of their structure that she does not include them in "Public Bodies 1991" or, presumably, "Public Bodies 1992"?
How are Members of Parliament and ordinary taxpayers supposed to find out information if the Government hide the new bodies from the standard work which the Cabinet Office issues every year, which is supposed to be a compendium of public information on bodies which spend the money of taxpayers and no one else? Occasionally, 2 or 3 per cent. of the budget may be from receipts, so their budgets are not all taxpayers' money, but overwhelmingly the bodies spend public money.
Are grant-maintained schools quangos? In the eyes of the Government, they are not: one will not find them in "Public Bodies 1991". There is a dangerous continuous erosion of parliamentary accountability through the audit work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the accessibility of accounts to the Public Accounts Committee or any Member of Parliament. Something is going on, and Opposition Members are extremely worried about it. Such changes make it far more difficult for the fiddles and shenanigans that have been mentioned tonight to be detected. Some of the examples have been through the mill of the Public Accounts Committee. Some are so far merely Comptroller and Auditor General reports which will no doubt come along later.
It is always a race against time when as parliamentarians we seek to ensure that money is spent properly and that the proper backsides are kicked when we find examples of money not being spent properly. The continuing desire of the Government to privatise the responsibility to audit and distance us from it by evolving new, funny-money forms of public body to spend taxpayers' money is worrying. We nevertheless have to vote the money. We have to face our constituents and be able to say, "Yes, we are sure that the money is spent responsibly, even though sometimes we do not like the way in which it is spent." Whatever one's party, one has to face one's constituents and say that Parliament fulfils its traditional job, which goes back 1,000 years, of checking how the Executive spend the money that they raise from the taxpayer.

1083
We shall seek promises from the Government tonight on the implementation of paragraph 161 of Command Paper 2074, which originated with the report on the departure of the chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales.
As the spread of new bodies which can spend taxpayers' money in ways which make it difficult for people to scrutinise continues, one could say that there is a competition between the whistle blower, the Member of Parliament, the office shredder and the desire to hide behind new technologies such as paper that cannot be photocopied and the numbered issue of photocopiers. Those are the techniques that people in public bodies, as in private industry, use to stop information being made available to the public and to prevent Members of Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee, through the National Audit Office, from obtaining the information that we need to check mis-spending.
In future, we may see an evolution. It has already occurred within the national health service, where a huge row is going on about whether whistle blowers should be able to give examples of patient care being adversely affected. The Government have sought to enshrine the right of the whistle blower to bring information to hon. Members or the chief executive of the NHS if nurses are worried about the erosion of patient care.
Members of Parliament must safeguard the position by saying that, if the Government are trying to put all that information in the shredder so that nobody can find out about it, we want copies of it before it goes in the shredder. Perhaps the National Audit Office should evolve in that direction so that, if people within an organisation think that money is being mis-spent, hon. Members should invite them to write to us or, if they do not know who their Member of Parliament is, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
If they do not know how to do that, they should put the information in a brown envelope, drop it off in the district office of the NAO in Newcastle, Cardiff or wherever, and let the NAO deal with it. That information must be allowed out before the shredder destroys it within the organisation. I believe that we shall see a gradual evolution in that direction. I am sure that it will happen on a colossal scale in the health service as more trusts are formed. We need access to that information before it is destroyed.
Pages 25 and 26 of the 5th report, "Creating and Safeguarding Jobs in Wales", contains a mini-example of what happens when whistleblowing occurs. I am not a member of the Public Accounts Committee, but I am involved in the saga. During the Christmas recess last year, a whistleblower approached me with information to the effect that the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency had profited from a grant from the agency. One never knows when one receives whistleblowing information by telephone whether to believe it and one tries to find out whether one is being spun a line or whether the information is true.
I telephoned the House of Commons Library and asked the staff to find out who were the recipients of grants under the rural conversion grants scheme of the Welsh Development Agency three or four years ago, because the whistleblower had not given that information. The Library asked the WDA to provide it with a list, which is referred to on page 26 of the 5th report under point 23 of the schedule of questions put by my right hon. Friend the
1084
Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 19 February to the WDA, to which the agency replied subsequently. It says:
"The request from the House of Commons Library"—
my request—
"mentioned in item 14 above was discussed in a telephone conversation between the Chief Executive and Mr. Derek Jones—Head of Industry Policy Division, Welsh Office on 31 December 1991."
That was about a day after I had made the request to the Library, having nothing better to do in the recess between Christmas and the new year.
Bells were now ringing within the WDA, whose worried staff thought that they had better tell the Welsh Office in case there was a problem. The report goes on to say that Mr. Jones from the industry policy division of the Welsh Office, wrote to the chief executive of the WDA on 2 January 1992 asking for information on the grant. It says:
"The Chief Executive replied to Mr. Derek Jones in a letter dated 9 January 1992 confirming the date of the original application"—
of the conversion grant—
"date of provisional approval, amount of grant, date of payment and the purpose of the grant".
That is referred to as being provided in annex 7, although, for various reasons of confidentiality, annex 7 is not in the report.
One of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West was:
"On what date was there an indication to Dr. Jones that a refund might be required?"
Interestingly, the report then says:
"Dr. Jones raised the issue of change of use and clawback with the Chief Executive in November 1991."
That was a month before I made my request for information through the Library.
"He wrote to the Chief Executive on 25 November 1991 confirming the proposed change of use of the second floor of the property to residential and requesting details of repayments that might be due to the Agency".
Again, we have not seen that letter. It is contained in annex 5, which is not attached to the report.
I now have to try to work out what was going on in the agency at that time. Is it believable that, by a strange coincidence, one month earlier than the Library asked for the information, Dr. Jones had volunteered to repay the grant? Alternatively, was it decided to backdate the request, knowing how dreadful it would be to have to admit that it was only because the whistleblower had come to me, I had gone to the Library, the Library had gone to the WDA, and the WDA had felt obliged to say that the information showed that Dr. Jones had obtained a grant from the agency while he was chairman and that therefore it had better make it look better by predating a letter saying that in November—one month before I made my request—he had initiated the procedure to repay the grant?
I could be wrong and, obviously, whether I made a fair presumption or whether there was another explanation will emerge eventually. It is extremely odd—indeed, it beggars belief—that when, on 9 January 1992, the chief executive, Mr. Phillip Head, replied to Derek Jones, the head of the industry policy division, confirming the date of the original application by Dr. Jones, the date of the original approval, the amount of grant, the date of payment and the purpose of the grant, it did not refer to the fact that, on 25 November—six weeks before—Dr. Jones had already initiated the procedure for repaying part of the grant.

1085
Surely a competent chief executive of the WDA would have pointed that out and not just stated the amount, date and purpose of the grant. He would also have mentioned the fact that the procedure for repaying the grant had already been started. It is difficult to put those two items together without seeing an element of falsifying the November date. I could be wrong because there might be other explanations, but the letter from Mr. Head to Derek Jones is baffling. That he should omit to say that Dr. Jones had, one month previously, initiated the procedure for repaying the rural conversion grant to which he was no longer entitled is odd.
I use that simply as an example of the race between Members of Parliament doing their job in terms of seeing that there is no mis-spending, the regularity and proprietary standards which taxpayers have every right to expect from us, and how the Government continually try to privatise the responsibility for spending taxpayers' money, to erode the Government's responsibility and that of parliamentarians, the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General to get at the information that they need to keep up standards of regularity and propriety in the spending of public money which we all have a right to expect.
8.49 pm
Mr. Mike Hall: I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of the debate—I had urgent business in my constituency. I am sorry that I missed the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who was my Member of Parliament. I was born and bred in Ashton-under-Lyne, my family still live there and I have great ties with my right hon. Friend's constituency.
I wish to add my thanks to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General for the excellent report that they provided to the Public Accounts Committee. I have been involved in local government for 13 years and have been impressed with the reports that I received from my local authority. However, the reports received by the Public Accounts Committee are absolutely superb, and its staff and those who contribute to the compilation of the reports deserve the thanks of the House. They make my job as a new member of the Committee that much easier.
When I first became a Member, I made a vow to do the same as I had done in local government and to try to find out how the finances of central Government worked. I tried to do that 13 years ago with my local authority and I had great difficulty in keeping up with events. First, there was the revenue support grant, then there was the block grant, then grant-related expenditure assessment and then standard spending assessment.
I hope that my service on the Public Accounts Committee will help me to understand how the Government work and are financed. Since being appointed to the Committee on 9 June, the experience that I have gained has been valuable and has shown me the practical ways in which the Government work. It has also shown me how the Committee oversees Government expenditure to discover whether value for money is obtained and whether the money is spent correctly.
1086
We are discussing a number of reports today. I shall refer to four or five of them, draw a thread through them all and reach a conclusion. The 19th annual report deals with the sale of the skills training agencies. That report highlighted the fact that in 1984 the book value of those training agencies was £100 million. When one reads the report, it is difficult to discover the sum for which the training agencies were sold. When the Financial Secretary responds to the debate, will he say how much the Government have received so far from the sale of those agencies? Because of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, a clawback clause was introduced in relation to the sales. Will the Financial Secretary say how much clawback money has accrued to the Treasury in the one year that the system has been in operation?
The House deserves an answer to another question relating to the report. A Treasury minute refers to the fact that not all the bidders for the agencies were given the full details. The Treasury states that that deficiency has been corrected, but why was that practice allowed at the time of the sales of those agencies?
The conclusion of the 20th annual report—1990–91—on financial control of employment training and youth training programmes was unacceptable. I find it alarming that, when the report was considered, the Public Accounts Committee was told that 70 per cent. of the training and enterprise councils examined had effective financial controls. One must conclude that 30 per cent. did not have effective internal financial controls. Why was that defective system allowed to continue for so long and what has been done since to remedy that problem?
One of the problems identified in the report was that the attendance records of those on the schemes were not maintained properly and were inadequately related to the appropriate Departments. As a result, incorrect payments wer made to a number of organisations. I read with astonishment that one of the reasons the Department of Employment gave for those problems was that the country was in a recession. I was amazed that the word "recession" was used in a Government publication, as we had been told that the recession was nearly over and we were merely waiting for the election of a Conservative Government on 9 April to end it.
We are still in the depths of the recession—there seems to be no end to it. What measures have been taken to remove such features from the training and enterprise councils so that they can account for the number of people placed on training courses?
Another aspect of the report requires detailed scrutiny by the Treasury. The overpayments that have been made need to be recovered. The report states that recovery procedures are under way, but the Treasury minute states that the training and enterprise councils are resisting recovery of overpayment. Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say whether that dilemma is being resolved by the Treasury, and how much has been recovered so far?
I have a constituency interest in the 22nd report on the Property Services Agency accounts for 1990–91. My constituency contains both Burtonwood air base and a large PSA complex situated on the other side of Burtonwood road.
I read the report with interest, because I was told that Bovis had been brought in to smarten up the management arrangements for the PSA. That struck me as strange, as I have just bought a house built by Bovis in the vicinity of

1087
Burtonwood air base. I am sure that there is no connection between that and the role played by Bovis in trying to improve arrangements within the agency.
The report identifies the fact that the PSA was poorly prepared for privatisation—that is an understatement. The report shows that the PSA took a shambolic approach to accounting. The report said that impropriety could flourish and would be difficult to detect. The Treasury has dismissed that claim and has stated that there was no impropriety. Why is it so certain that that is true? That is a strong statement to make and should be backed up with a thorough analysis of the accounting system of the PSA.
The report also showed that the outstanding debt in 1990–91 was £56.6 million. Precisely how much of the outstanding debt has been recovered? The report also stated that the debt owed by United States' forces to the Property Services Agency had increased beyond the agency's limit. How much of that debt remains unpaid and how much has passed on to the Ministry of Defence as part of the book-keeping exercise?
I am concerned that the report into the PSA has revealed incompetency and poor management—probably as a way to depress the price of that valuable Government asset prior to privatisation. There may be a repetition of the follies that other privatisations have brought in terms of value for money for the taxpayer.
The 23rd report deals with the Department of the Environment and financial management control In the National Rivers Authority. The issue has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend said that the contract for the relocation of the headquarters in Bristol cost £2.65 million, of which £1 million of taxpayers' money was wasted.
I come from a local government background. Had a local authority been that incompetent in managing one of its contracts, it would not have been given a £125,000 golden handshake but would have been taken to the local ombudsman and no doubt to the courts, and been surcharged for the waste of money. What has happened in the NRA is an absolute disgrace. The NRA took no notice of the guidance issued to it on competitive tendering. Any tender worth more than £2 million should have been the subject of competitive tendering. On this occasion, it was not. I want to know whether the promised revised financial memorandum has been rewritten and issued to Government quangos so that there will be no repeat of the horror stories that we have heard this evening.
Another illuminating point from the report is that, but for the work of the Comptroller and the Auditor General, this waste of public money would not have been brought to light. That raises questions about open government and about the validity of the citizens charter. It also means that the House must have powers to investigate non-governmental organisations so that we can be assured that quangos are subject to some semblance of democratic control by the House.
All these reports were considered by the PAC before I became a member of it. I am impressed by their detail. just as I have been impressed by the reports that the Committee has considered since I joined it. I now look forward to the PAC looking into the sale of PowerGen and National Power to determine whether it brought value for money to the British taxpayer. Fiddlers Ferry power station, owned by PowerGen, is in my constituency. Its decision to import 4 million tonnes of low sulphur coal through the docks at
1088
Liverpool has meant that Parkside colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has been closed. That will mean an increased trade deficit and more environmental pollution, and 800 more people will be out of work, at great cost to the Exchequer and the local taxpayer. I look forward to the investigation.
9 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I should like to begin by holding an immediate vote of confidence in the Government on a show of hands, but unfortunately the rules of the House prevent that: not a single Conservative Back Bencher being present. So instead I had better discuss the reports of the Public Accounts Committee.
The guillotined Third Reading debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill took place yesterday, but that has not deterred the Welsh group of Labour Members of Parliament from seizing every parliamentary opportunity to raise matters of importance to Wales, on which I congratulate them. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on managing to discuss matters pertaining to the Scottish economy, the Scottish environment and Scottish housing.
I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the PAC. Every hon. Member who has spoken has paid similar tributes to the Chairman. I am well aware that his chairmanship is not only widely respected in all parts of the House but lends enormous authority to these reports.
As the Chairman has rightly pointed out, there are certain key themes and Departments that step forward into the limelight every year as a result of the Committee's work. Issues such as out-and-out fraud have been brought to the House's attention again today, just as they have been in previous years. Likewise, further losses to the Exchequer through the undervaluation of assets sold in the Government's privatisation programme are a recurring theme, in spite of the assurances we were given in previous years by previous Financial Secretaries in response to previous criticism by the Public Accounts Committee.
There is absolutely nothing new in the discovery of the failure properly to invest in highway construction. That costs the taxpayer much more in the medium term because of maintenance and repair costs. That point is underscored again by today's debate. Yet there is no evidence that the Government intend to stop taking a short-term view of these matters. Indeed, if they ever do take infrastructure and capital investment more seriously, that will only be because it is one of the few economic policies that they have not yet tried.
These reports highlight the affairs of the Ministry of Defence and of the Northern Ireland Office. Before dealing with those two recurring themes, however, I should like to refer to two reports that clearly require comment. The first of them is an astonishing report—the 36th, dealing with the qualification of accounts for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has attracted a full and thorough response from the Treasury. That is not in the least

1089
surprising. The Treasury official who compiled the minute responding to the report must have had mixed views about the whole sorry episode.
The PAC report refers to inadequate controls which
"create a climate which is conducive to fraud and theft … the Department's problems may have heightened the risk of irregularities remaining undetected."
The Treasury boldly responds thus, in minute 13:
"The Government has noted the Committee's comment".
The PAC further comments:
"We are alarmed at the catalogue of accounting errors made by the Department. We cannot do other than strongly criticise the Department's accounting arrangements".
Those are tough words and, to emphasise the point, the Committee says:
"We wish to underline the seriousness with which we view the Department's failings."
There is further criticism of the failure properly to control suspension accounts, of which 535 have been identified. The report is one of the most remarkable to be presented to the House and, as the Chairman of the Committee said in opening the debate, it is wholly exceptional.
The report reveals that the theory of Government Departments being publicly accountable for money voted to them by Parliament has been completely breached. That is an extraordinary serious matter. The report suggests a mess of incompetence and error. Nobody suggests that the mess was engineered deliberately, but all sorts of unworthy thoughts will be harboured if the matter is not put right so thoroughly and comprehensively that in future the Department will be completely beyond criticism.
I was not reassured to hear that senior civil servants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office approach the Committee with a relaxed attitude to these matters. The Opposition do not adopt a relaxed approach to them and the issue should not be allowed to drift. In future debates, we shall seek assurances from the Executive that the matter has been brought to a conclusion that is satisfactory to the Public Accounts Committee.
On a much smaller scale, although one has the impression that it was not for the want of trying, is the subject of the 11th report which deals with the retirement of the former chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The retirement settlement was generous, but its original terms were exceeded and the qualification of the accounts for the DBRW led the Committee initially to discover that the lucky retiring chief executive had been given a payment of about £15,000 as compensation for untaken leave, and that the payment had not been authorised by the Welsh Office or the Treasury. It later transpired that there were no reliable records from which to quantify the untaken leave even if a payment had been agreed.
The PAC later discovered that the capital cost of pension enhancements for this gentleman had been £180,000; that the eventual retirement package included a consultancy assignment of up to 150 days at £200 a day; and that the precise scope of the work to be undertaken had never been defined. That is an elastic meaning of the word "retirement". Some of my constituents would be willing to undertake the work at a cheaper rate. Given the Government's belief in competition, perhaps such consultants should be put out to tender. One wonders how many similar stories, perhaps not quite as gross, are to be
1090
found in other non-departmental bodies. I hope that this case is exceptional, but I harbour the suspicion that it is not.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who stressed the need for real powers for the auditing authorities when dealing with undemocratic and unaccountable bodies such as the wretched development corporation in Tyne and Wear and the one that I have mentioned in Wales, because they behave as if public money was a piece of property of which they alone had charge. The report gives rise to legitimate questions. Who appointed the chairman, Mr. Glyn Davies, and what responsibility for this series of events is taken by the person who appointed the chairman? How was the chairman chosen, and what are his qualities? What happens to Mr. Glyn Davies and his board when they do something like this? My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is right to say that these events are a great sorrow. They cannot be left unaddressed.
Seven of the reports deal with the Ministry of Defence. Hon. Members who have participated in these debates in the past will know that the Ministry's affairs are a recurring theme—I am tempted to say a recurring sorrow —in the Public Accounts Committee. The 37th report, about which the Chairman of the Committee spoke, deals with fraud and irregularities. That report builds on the earlier work of the 20th report of the PAC, produced in 1987–88 and debated in the House in 1988. Worryingly, the Committee is still reporting to the House that it is concerned about the level of fraud and theft at the Ministry of Defence.
For example, some £500,000 worth of computer and office equipment was stolen in 1991 and the National Audit Office found weaknesses in each of the establishments that it visited and in the way in which establishment procedures were being applied. Despite everything that was said in 1987–88 and the reassurances of the then Financial Secretary, the House is still being told of poor supervision. Furthermore, the Committee feels that the Department has failed to ensure that lessons arising from fraud cases are properly and widely learned. That is probably as damning a report as the Committee can put in front of us.
Astonishingly, we are told that although it is the stated policy of the Ministry of Defence invariably to dismiss civilians guilty of fraud, the level of excepton to this policy is 55 per cent. How can it be an exception if over half the people found guilty of fraud are not fired? That is unacceptable to the Committee and to the Opposition. I do not know what special circumstances pertain in each and every one of these cases, but if it is supposed to be the stated policy of the Ministry of Defence invariably to dismiss civilians found guilty of fraud, 55 per cent. of such cases as exceptions is a little high and worthy of further inquiry.
I do not know what the Financial Secretary has to do to prompt such further inquiry, but I urge him to do it. In the seven years since 1984–85, the Ministry of Defence discovered 388 cases of fraud, resulting in a loss to the Exchequer of £3,338,000. That is quite a lot of money and many of us think that such resources could be better used elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart was right to express alarm, on behalf of Scotland, about the future of the water industry. He based his fears on the report about the privatisation of water in England and Wales. The

1091
shortcomings of the Government's privatisation pro-gramme are a continuing feature of these debates. In particular, the losses to the Exchequer occasioned by the underselling of assets, usually land, have been highlighted time and time again. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), in his excellent contribution, referred first to that point. Had he been here previously, he would have known that his fears, expressed as a new Member of Parliament, have been echoed in debates on just about every other report on privatisation.
In 1988, we discussed the privatisation of Rolls-Royce and the critical Public Accounts Committee report, which concluded:
"Departments should ensure that tax payers' interests are protected as effectively as future shareholders' interests".
I strongly agree with that, yet we have had similar arguments over the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories, and now over the sale of the Rover Group and of the water authorities.
I strongly endorse the views expressed about the Rover Group by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill, which very much reflected my view of the matter. The key point, which emerges again and again, is that we must protect the public purse and the interest of the taxpayer when valuing the assets of public concerns that are being privatised. I also strongly support the points made by the Committee in its report on the Rover Group and I hope, as the Chairman has said, that its recommendations will become a check list for the future if the Government are to proceed with further privatisation measures.
The Committee wisely says that it is the pressure of time, the working to fixed deadlines, that puts the privatiser at a disadvantage when negotiating with potential new owners. It is clear that the Government's ideological commitment to privatisation transcends responsibility to the public purse. It is indefensible that privatisation seems always to involve a loss to the Exchequer on land values. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred to the report on the water industry and described the arrangements as statutory theft. He is right.
I move on, as I am sure the Financial Secretary is anticipating me to do—everyone who has followed the debate knows that I will—to the report on the privatisation of Harland and Wolff. First, I shall refer to the privatisation itself and, secondly, to the scandalous set of circumstances that relate to the procurement and eventual debacle of AOR1. These matters are referred to in the PAC's seventh report.
We are told that the net cost to the taxpayer of the privatisation of Harland and Wolff was £625 million, including the writing off of interest-free loans of £422.5 million and the Government's shareholding, which we are told was worth £4.6 million for this valuable piece of property. The Committee states:
"We … are disturbed that the close relationship between the Department"—
that is the Northern Ireland Office—
"and the company"—
meaning Harland and Wolff—
"and other monitoring provisions were insufficient to prevent serious weaknesses in financial management in the company."
A number of us have been making the same point since the mid-1980s. It gives me little comfort to see confirmed what many of us suspected was the position.
The report continues:
1092
"We have not been satisfied that the extent of the Department's abatement of their adviser's valuation of the Harland and Wolff land and buildings was justified in the interests of the taxpayer."
Again, we have the recurrent issue of property values and privatisation. It appears in the report from which I have quoted, as it does in every other PAC report that deals with privatisation. The report concludes:
"While it can only be a matter of judgment as to whether the objectives of the privatisation were achieved at the lowest cost to the taxpayer, the changes to the terms of the Heads of Agreement which were later negotiated were, in our view, costly. It is likely that Harland and Wolff's record of poor trading performance while in public ownership not only deterred potential buyers but also influenced adversely, from the taxpayer's point of view, the amount which it was necessary for the Government to offer to achieve the sale."
That is a condemnatory report.
The PAC reports also on the scandal surrounding AOR1. It states:
"We are pleased that the Department secured a complete break from the ongoing financial risks associated with the AOR contract but concerned that the cost of achieving this was high".
Why should there be any financial risks associated with the AOR contract? The contract was supposed to involve private competition between Swan Hunter and Harland and Wolff, which would act as if it were a private company, even though we know that it was not. Its approach to the competition was supposed to he hands-off. It was meant to be acting under the same constraints that apply in the private sector.
I declare immediately a constituency interest. The whole of Tyneside would be astonished if I did not. During the period of which I am talking, about 4,800 shipyard workers lost their jobs on Tyneside. About 2,000 were in that position as a direct result of what happened over AOR1, or HMS De Lorean as it is now known, but that is going back to the past. Ultimately, the Government placed the contract with Harland and Wolff. Before that happened, I wrote to the Prime Minister to express my fears. I stated:
"there is widespread fear on Tyneside that like is not being compared with like, and that Harland and Wolff enjoy an unfair advantage because of the substantial state subsidy that it receives."
I went on:
, "If the type 23 frigates are to be able to play their full part in Britain's defence, it is vital that the first AOR arrives securely and on time."
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I received an assurance from the then Prime Minister. On 24 April 1986 she wrote to me:
"an undertaking was given to the Swan Hunter buy-out team before privatisation that the Harland and Wolff bid would be unsubsidised"—
unsubsidized—
"and comprehensively costed … You may therefore rest assured that, in deciding to award the contract for AOR 01 to Harland and Wolff, the Secretary of State for Defence is satisfied that the terms of the undertaking have been met. I might add that he prefers the tender on grounds of design … and delivery, as well as cost and contract terms".
Four points are made—that the AOR1 tender is unsubsidised; that it has been comprehensively costed; that the design is preferred; that the delivery date is preferred. The design, as those who know the industry are well aware, has turned out to be one of the great disasters of the century. There is now a real chance that the Ministry of Defence will take delivery of AOR2, built on Tyneside by Swan Hunter, before AOR1 eventually limps into service. Why is the Public Accounts Committee so relieved

1093
that this unsubsidised and comprehensively costed contract has been escaped from, yet tells us that the cost of that escape route was so expensive?
The whole disgraceful episode is probably one of the worst piece, of procurement decision making that has ever come before the House. On such occasions, people ask whether anyone will be punished for what has happened. Yes, people are being punished for what has happened. On Tyneside, 2,000 shipyard workers have been thoroughly punished for what has happened, but they were not the guilty people who brought about this farce. They are just the people who have to pay the price.
The third report on the management of road maintenance caught my eye, not just because of the outrageous conclusion that the Public Accounts Committee has been forced to draw, but because I remember discussing all this way back in 1988, and I remember the assurances that the then Financial Secretary gave to the House.
I am sure that back in 1988 the then Financial Secretary did not tell the House that about one third of every single lane of motorway can be expected to be coned off at some time in the next five years. Nor do I recall his saying that the clearance of the backlog promised by the end of 1992–93 is now to be extended by a further five years to 1997–98. Those are points made by the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee says that it is concerned about the past inadequacies of the Department's data on road condition, a point made in 1988, and notes that the national structural survey of the condition of roads had to be abandoned because the data provided by its agents were incomplete and inconsistent.
The Public Accounts Committee says that for the past six years the Department has consistently underestimated the levels of maintenance required because its traffic forecasts have been too low, and that the revised target for clearing the backlog in 1997–98 is based on the assumption that roads past the critical condition are expected to last for as much as a further eight years before requiring reconstruction. Perhaps most damaging of all, the report says:
"In view of the Department's evidence that reconstruction is much more expensive than overlay, we are concerned that the Department's planning and management of the maintenance programme has failed to prevent a significant proportion of the road network passing the critical condition which entails expensive reconstruction."
All those points were made in the House in 1988 or, at least, similar points were made in 1988. Yet here we are again having another warning from the Public Accounts Committee, re-echoing everything that that the Government should have addressed some five years ago.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in the context of accountants and civil servants answering the Public Accounts Committee, said that it was always the successor who had to account to the Committee for the misdeeds or failings of his predecessor. The hon. Gentleman made the attractive suggestion that former civil servants responsible for previous misdemeanours should be caled before the Committee—but pointed out that they may be retired, too far away, or otherwise unavailable. I wonder whether the same might apply to a former Financial Secretary who assured the House that so
1094
many matters were under consideration. We would not have to look far for him; he has not yet retired but is the current Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Opposition are experiencing some difficulty in getting the Chancellor to appear before the House. The hon. Member for Uxbridge may have suggested a new route. However, if we start holding the Chancellor accountable for his past as well as present misdeeds, we may find ourselves in an even longer running saga than the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
I regret that only three Conservative Members participated in the debate, but my right hon. and hon. Friends made good use of the time available to them. I entertain the unworthy suspicion—the third tonight—that the Government are trying to undermine any debate of Treasury and economic affairs on the Floor of the House. We all understand why. I serve notice on the Financial Secretary that, if he hopes to claw back the rights of the House in his Budget and public spending round reforms, he will face what the Prime Minister would call not inconsiderable resistance.
Some of the PAC reports deal with shortcomings in public administration, and are all the more authoritative because of the all party consensus that underpins them. It is important to place them in context, and to remember that they cover the post-Thatcher era—or, more accurately, the post-Thatcher error.
A review of the economy since the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Prime Minister shows that it has been continually shrinking. Output has fallen 3 per cent.—some £20 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) referred to over-optimistic Conservative job forecasts. In truth, unemployment has risen from 1.62 million to 2.8 million, and the President of the Board of Trade is planning to make unemployment increase even faster.
Public sector debt has risen from 27 per cent. of gross domestic product to 40 per cent., and is rising—with the cost of the Government's mistakes being passed on to future generations. Manufacturing investment has fallen from £3.1 billion to £2.3 billion, construction orders are down 25 per cent., and property transactions have fallen 20 per cent.—with 70,000 fewer transactions per quarter than when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon became Prime Minister.
Is it any wonder that some Conservative Members pine for the return of their former leader? At least they knew where they stood with her. Time after time in PAC debates. I have heard the Committee's Chairman make the point that the nation is living off its capital, and that inevitably a price will have to be paid for that. The Government's response has been a failure to invest in our decaying public sector infrastructure and to hold back public sector pay—unfairly punishing public sector workers for the Government's own errors and artificially restraining the economy.
The Government have not even achieved their overall objective of cutting public spending. This year's extra 4 per cent. is almost entirely due to the public expenditure costs —mostly state benefits—incurred by the Conservative Government's recession. Does the Financial Secretary still believe that the Government will balance the budget over the cycle?
The last time that I asked the hon. Gentleman that question, he said that he stood by the Red Book—the source of the Government's growth forecast of 2 per cent.

1095
for 1992–93. The City's consensus is that the economy will shrink by three quarters of 1 per cent. The Government promised the electorate growth of 3.25 per cent. in 1993–94, but the optimistic City view is growth of 1.75 per cent.
The point made by the Chairman of the PAC about our failure as a nation to invest in our future has never been more important and valid. We need a growth strategy; we needed a growth strategy two years ago. Now, and for years to come, the British people must pay the price of the Government's recent errors.
9.29 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Not the least of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's achievements seems to have been to turn the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) into a Thatcherite. [Interruption.] With due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), I am not sure that I would have predicted such a consequence when my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister.
I join my hon. Friends, and one or two Opposition Members, in paying tribute to former members of the PAC. I particularly mention Michael Latham, who was my parliamentary neighbour in Leicestershire and a good friend to me, especially during my early years in the House; Michael Shaw, who was well known to all my hon. Friends as a stalwart Conservative; and Ian Stewart, who was not only a stalwart of our Back Benches but a distinguished Treasury Minister. I am sure that the PAC will be the poorer for the departure of all three.
The Chairman of the PAC, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), pointed out that PAC debates are often low key. Although he implied that he might have preferred a better attendance for today's debate—a theme picked up by one or two other speakers— he also rightly observed that, in a sense, it was a sign of success that the debate had not elicited enormous excitement. If there had been a deep-seated problem of fraud or dishonesty in the public service, there would have been much more interest in the PAC reports and the parliamentary debate about them. It is a tribute not only to the PAC's work but to the honesty and quality of the vast majority of our public servants that the PAC carries out its task, and reports to the House, in a relatively low-key fashion and in an atmosphere that is not charged with great political electricity. We all welcome that, although we might like some of the detailed work that goes into the report to be paraded to a slightly fuller House.
Let me also pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Earlier some hon. Members taunted me, saying that my predecessors had promised this or avoided that and had passed on quickly enough to leave me to pick up the tab. One of my most distinguished predecessors, however, acts as my chief torturer in his role as Chairman of the PAC, and sits on the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne gets through a tremendous work load, and it is a tribute to his chairmanship that the PAC continues to work as successfully and smoothly as it does.
The history of the PAC and the effectiveness of its current operations act as a real discipline in Whitehall. The threat of PAC examination is ever present in the minds of civil servants contemplating particular actions and the
1096
evolution of policy. Several hon. Members have today pointed out that, when the PAC examines a witness, it is often examining the witness who has followed into office the person responsible for the very misdemeanour that the Committee is examining. That, however, is to miss the main point of the benefit that the PAC brings, as a quality check within the public service: effective deterrence. There can be few more eloquent witnesses to the effectiveness of the deterrence theory than the work of the PAC and the feeling—which pervades the senior ranks of the civil service and, indeed, ministerial ranks—that it is worth taking considerable care to avoid appearing to give an account of oneself to the PAC in hostile circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) drew attention to the estimate that the Public Accounts Committee delivers considerable savings of £200 million a year in public expenditure. That is a further measure of its success, and I am happy to give credit for the substantial contribution that it and the Comptroller and Auditor General make.
I should like to say a few words about the role of the Treasury. There is an overriding need to ensure regularity and propriety in public expenditure. Parliament has traditionally looked to the Treasury to play a leading role in ensuring that money is spent only in ways that are approved by Parliament and properly accounted for. That was the basis of many of the speeches that we heard in the debate. Individual transactions are the responsibility of the Departments concerned, but the Treasury continues to play a key role in keeping the rules of Government accounting up to date and in ensuring that new instructions are issued where they are warranted. I shall refer to one or two of those rules later.
Another essential Treasury role is to promote the importance of value for money. That role is often misunderstood, but I regard it as being one of the most important functions of Treasury Ministers. Mr. Gladstone commented on the appointment of one of my predecessors as Financial Secretary in 1877 by saying of him—he had something that I do not have—
"Stanley is clever, but can an heir to the Earldom of Derby descend to the saving of candle-ends, which is very much the measure of a good Secretary to the Treasury?"
That was the first time that the phrase that has become famous and associated with the mandarins of Great George street—the saving of candle ends—appeared. The Treasury is no longer concerned solely with candle ends.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: What about light bulbs?
Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the up-to-date version is ensuring that light bulbs perform to the end of their natural life. Where possible, we buy the long-life version that is preferred by the Department of the Environment.
The Treasury maintains strict control over public expenditure aggregates but has increasingly delegated responsibility for individual items of expenditure to Departments and, through them, to other public bodies.
In the 1990s, our task is to carry the process further, building on financial management, next steps and citizens charter initiatives to develop what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as more strategic forms of control by delegating responsibility, as far as possible, to the point of service delivery. By that means, we can best assure the taxpayer of high-quality expenditure, good value for money, conventional financial disciplines and the securing of propriety in public service.

1097
The aim of the strategic management approach is to secure a sustained improvement in the quality of public services in terms of value for money per pound spent throughout the public sector within available resources, for the benefit of taxpayers, customers and staff.
Our approach recognises that, in promoting value for money, it is not for the Treasury to do Departments' jobs for them. In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide uniform general guidance across Government, but ensuring that taxpayers' money is well spent is the responsibility of every public servant, and we must create a culture where that is clearly understood to be part of the core responsibility of every public servant rather than something that is imposed from outside and from Great George street.
The Government are determined to secure a sustained improvement in the quality of public services and to maintain our objective of reducing the share of national income that is taken by the public sector. In 1989, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he said that value for money was not an arcane fetish of Treasury Ministers and officials but an absolute obligation that public service managers owed to the taxpayers whose money was compulsorily extracted for spending on public programmes. My right hon. Friend was right; that is the core responsibility of the Treasury.
I shall pick up a theme developed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)—the importance, in the evolving strategic approach to the management of the public sector, of fixing targets and management accountability systems which define objectives in both output terms and financial terms, and then holding the executive to account for the delivery unit by unit of those targets and objectives.
It has been accepted for a generation that that is the key to good management in the private sector and we seek to introduce that discipline into the public sector. The key to good management is setting targets and setting milestones along the road to the achievement of those targets.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the importance of setting those performance targets, improving management systems and developing corporate planning systems. For the reasons which I have already given, I am keen to see those factors developed. With regard to the next steps agencies and the non-departmental public bodies—which I shall call quangos, because that is easier—we have made it clear that we expect key targets covering financial performance, efficiency and quality of service to be agreed and announced in advance of the period that they are intended to cover.
Treasury guidance on the preparation of agency reports and accounts requires that the extent to which the key performance targets have been met are set out in a body's annual report. The importance of annual reports has been mentioned during the debate, both because they set out objectives for the future and because they report on the extent to which the reporting body in question has been able to meet its objectives in the past. That is an objective which we have clearly in our sights, and I regard it as an essential discipline of good management.
Dr. Howells: Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am glad to hear that statement, but will the Minister tell us what resources will be allocated to policing those directives and instructions? We have heard about such directives before, but they have not been backed up with any real resources.
Mr. Dorrell: In a real sense, I regard the answer to the question, "What level of resources will be bound up in the new, better-managed public services from 1993–94?" as, "£245 billion a year." I regard the process not as an extra, but as something at the core of public sector management. Public sector management without those disciplines is bad, out-of-date management. Setting those objectives and holding the public sector to account to deliver them are at the core of what public sector management is about.
Mr. Hall: With regard to the annual report on the National Rivers Authority, the note from the Treasury says that the information provided is not sufficient to reveal the extent of the mismanagement over the contract for the relocation at Bristol. Will the Minister deal with that question?
Mr. Dorrell: Of course it is true that any manager in any organisation, whether in the public or the private sector, needs to ensure that he has the management information necessary to deliver efficient management of the unit for which he is responsible. That is why I have stressed that good management in the public as well as the private sector involves setting targets and holding managers to account for delivering them—insisting that the manager of the unit is accountable for the delivery of measured targets and measured milestones along the road to those targets.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Financial Secretary accept that one of the absurdities of the rivers authority case is that the man who was in charge was an ex-Cabinet Minister who had himself set the targets in Wales but, as soon as he was in charge of the quango, he wasted £1 million by ignoring them?
Mr. Dorrell: Of course it is important that the targets that are set for every Government organisation serve the wider public purpose and the interests of those to whom that organisation is accountable. The important thing is to ensure that the targets are set and are clear and that there is an accountability mechanism to test whether the unit delivers those targets. That is the objective, and it is the test that I invite the PAC to apply, because it is at the core of good management.
Mr. Terry Davis: But who will do what if the PAC finds that the accounting officer has not set targets?
Mr. Dorrell: I am conscious of the fact that there is a series of specific reports on managements that have not delivered against their objectives and I am anxious to deal with them.
Mr. Davis: The Minister has missed the point, which is that we often find that accounting officers have not set targets at all. Who will do what if they do not set targets?
Mr. Dorrell: I have set out what seems to me to be a proper standard to apply in the management of the public sector. If the PAC examines a unit and finds that, against that standard, targets should have been set but were not, that is a legitimate subject of criticism. I do not see how the

1099
management of any organisation can be effectively delivered if the managers do not know the objectives to which their organisation is supposed to be directed.
The decisions on appropriate performance targets for agencies and non-departmental public bodies should normally be taken in the context of the corporate planning cycle. The Treasury is encouraging Departments, agencies and the NDPBs to develop their planning process as a management tool. We recognise, however, that strategic and corporate plans should reflect the needs of the organisation and that no single model is suitable for application to every public body.
Reference has been made more than once during the debate to the proper control of money spent by NDPBs. The bodies are set up, usually by statute, with the deliberate intention that they should operate at arm's length from Government. That does not mean, however, that the standards of control over their use of public money should be any less rigorous. The key point is that the responsibilities and the authority of all managers should be clearly set out, and the Treasury is working to ensure that that happens.
That clearly did not happen to the extent that we would all have wished in the case which has perhaps detained the House most—that of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The amounts of money involved were relatively small in the wider public expenditure context but, by any definition, that was a sorry tale of mismanagement, which was recognised as such by the relevant Department. Action has been taken to ensure that the lapses that were revealed by the PAC's work are being addressed. The Treasury has recently written to departmental accounting officers drawing their attention to the need for strict compliance with the terms and conditions under which grant-in-aid payments are made.
There is also the question of the responsibility of board members of the NDPBs. About a quarter of the total of nearly 1,500 NDPBs have a board of equivalent responsible organisation. The responsibilities of those boards vary greatly, so it falls to the sponsoring Department to issue definitive guidance to each NDPB within its sphere of responsibility. In the context of the Welsh board, the Welsh Office has already written to its NDPBs ensuring that that definitive guidance is available to them.
Mr. Tim Smith: On that point, which arose during our inquiry into the Development Board for Rural Wales, is my hon. Friend satisfied that, every time some one is appointed as a board member of one of those quangos, his full responsibilities are explained to him?
Mr. Dorrell: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it should be part of good discipline to ensure that that happens. I have given the figures to the House. There are 1,500 of those bodies. I cannot personally undertake the training of every new member of a board. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that, when they join the board, new board members should be told the responsibilities and the purpose that they are taking on.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way once more, but I should then proceed, as I have been asked several questions.
Mr. Jones: Is the same chairman of the development board still in office?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer is yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales believes that, despite that lapse which the chairman concerned has recognised, he is the best man to carry out that responsibility.
Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend tell the House why the permanent secretary of the Welsh Office is still in office?
Mr. Dorrell: Although I have acknowledged that that tale is a very sorry saga of mismanagement, it is also important to be clear about the extent of the ultimate financial cost, because the—[interruption] I make absolutely no apology for the mismanagement that took place, but the impropriety—that is to say, the payment which was not cleared through the appropriate channels, as the Committee's report makes clear—was the £15,000-odd payment for holiday back pay. There were a series of other inadequacies in the arrangements, but I do not believe—this is clearly the judgment that has also been reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the appointment of the chairman—that that mismanagement, that lapse, was by itself a reason for a change of personnel at the top.
I now refer to the points that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made about fraud in defence establishments. He was absolutely right to stress the importance of rooting out fraud in order to maintain our traditional high standards of honesty within the public service. He described that as not taking the majority of the Committee's time but being perhaps the most important individual element of the Committee's work. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East stressed the obvious absurdity of asserting that there is an invariable policy of dismissing employees found guilty of fraud and then, when asking how many have actually been dismissed, being told that it is 45 per cent., which means that the exceptions constitute the majority of actual cases.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what has happened to follow up that report and revelation. I am advised that, following the PAC's criticism of the Ministry of Defence for the high proportion of cases involving civilians in which the policy of invariable dismissal was not enforced, the Department has issued fresh internal instructions. They restate the policy of dismissal and identify factors which in future will not be accepted in mitigation, the implication being that in the past they have been accepted in circumstances where in future they will not be. Such circumstances are listed as ignorance of regulations, the claim or plea that it is custom and practice, the suggestion that the amount involved was relatively low, and previous long and good service. Those claims have been made in the past to justify continuance in office. We have made it clear that that is no longer acceptable.
Mr. Sheldon: That is obviously a very important matter. Once custom and practice is allowed as a reason for not dismissing a person, of course that tendency can spread. Before one knows where one is, one is in a South American situation.
Mr. Dorrell: That is precisely why custom and practice is listed as a reason for dismissing. We shall not allow it as

1101
the basis of a plea of mitigation. I entirely agree with my distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
There was a clear failure in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1989–90. Several hon. Members stressed that the report on that failure was perhaps the most serious of the batch of reports in terms of its effect on the morale and prestige of the Department. They said that it was the most threatening report of the batch. While I stress that the breakdown revealed in the PAC report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was extremely serious, it is important that the House should know the ultimate outcome of the final reconciliation of the accounts of the Foreign Office.
Once all the figures had been traced to the satisfaction of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it emerged that, far from money going astray—as it undoubtedly could have done as a result of inadequate control—the books were finally made to balance with a remaining balancing item of £149,000 credit rather than debit. So the public have the assurance that, although the disciplines were not as they should have been on that occasion, there was no evidence on the surface of a major cost to public funds.
More importantly, the managers involved learned the lessons of the failures of financial discipline which were revealed. That is why there has been a substantial tightening up of project management in the Foreign Office. It now gives us the undertaking that it uses the preferred systems recommended by the CCTA, to which several hon. Members referred. Management control has been strengthened by the appointment of an additional assistant head of the finance department to supervise accounts work.
Several hon. Members, including the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stressed that continuity had been improved by replacing mobile diplomatic staff with home civil servants when diplomatic staff are posted overseas. That programme has been reinforced following the recent relocation of accounts work from central London to Hounslow Park. The Foreign Office recognises, as indeed the Treasury and the Government recognise, that the lapse in the accounts was extremely regrettable and must under no circumstances be allowed to happen again.
In the time available, I shall take the case of Rover as an example to illustrate a more general principle. I was asked several times during the debate to ensure that we learned the lessons of previous privatisation experience. I entirely agree with the proposition that the Government
1102
and, indeed, the House must learn the lessons of previous privatisation experience. Let us remember all the lessons, not just a selection of them.
Let us remember that, in the Rover case, privatisation delivered the public sector from a £1.6 billion contingent liability. In the three years after privatisation, Rover returned consistent profits, exports increased from 29 per cent. of its output to 50 per cent. and productivity increased from 18 cars per employee to 35 cars. That is all part of the lessons of privatisation. I am strongly in favour of learning lessons, but I am in favour of learning all lessons, not simply a selection of them.
There are other procedural lessons from earlier privatisations. One lesson is the need for maximum competition when we sell undertakings. The Government have always taken the view, and they continue to take the view wherever it is practical and consistent with sound objectives, that full and open competition maximises the value for the taxpayer. That remains our policy for both trade sales and flotations, but the Government do not rule out proceeding with sales where there is limited competition or where the balance of interests suggests that the Government's objectives will best be served by a more limited negotiation. The purpose of privatisation is twofold: first and foremost, to secure an improvement in performance; and secondly, as part of securing improved performance, to ensure that we deliver the best value to taxpayers on the sale of the assets.
I commend the PAC for its work. It has once again revealed lapses which we need to remedy and its continued work is a continued guarantee to the taxpayer both of value for money and financial probity in the public services.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 36th to 43rd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1990–91, of the 1st to 24th Reports of Session 1991–92, of the 1st to 11 th Reports of Session 1992–93, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 1725, 1784, 1798, 1819, 1865, 1856, 1949, 1998 and 2074), with particular reference to the following Reports:
Session 1990–91

Thirty-sixth, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Qualification of accounts, 1989–90;

Thirty-seventh, Fraud and irregularities at defence establishments;

Session 1991–92

First, Sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace plc;

Third Management of road maintenance;

Twenty-second, PSA Services accounts 1990–91;

Session 1992–93

Seventh, Sale of the water authorities in England and Wales.

PETITIONS

  Great Northern and East Lincolnshire Railway pie
  10 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg leave to present a humble petition from the members and supporters of the Great Northern and East Lincolnshire Railway plc and the Grimsby-Louth Railway Society in the counties of Humberside and Lincolnshire. It is a petition against the Peakes parkway scheme to convert disused railway into a road. The petition showeth:
  An Acquisition of Land Act 1981 public notice appeared in our local Grimsby Evening Telegraph dated August 6th 1992. It empowered Humberside county council to compulsorily purchase land in order to construct a new railway … (Peakes Parkway). In schedule 1, section 10 of the above notice, 600 square metres—part of grassed area adjacent to existing footway in Recreation Ground between disused railway land—formally known as 'The East Lines Main Line" and Doughty Road is to be compulsorily purchased from Grimsby Borough Council by Humberside County Council.
  The said plot is 'open space' land for which the Council propose not to give land in exchange, as required by section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
  We, the supporters and members of the Railway Company and Railway Society, who, due to the imminent construction of the above-mentioned road … are deeply concerned about our future environment, strongly object to this further encroachment on land.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Humberside County Council not to proceed with the said compulsory purchase order and so preserve this open space land to be safely enjoyed by both present and future generations.
  The petition is signed by Christopher Leonard Birchmore, Douglas Chapman and 31 others.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pit Closures
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of thousands of my constituents. It states:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled.
  The humble petition of the inhabitants of the Jarrow constituency sheweth that the present plans of British Coal to close 31 pits with 31,000 job losses, in particular Westoe colliery which will, if closed, throw 1,200 miners on the industrial scrap heap. This short-term policy will be to the long-term detriment of Jarrow constituency and the nation. If Westoe colliery closes—it is the fourth largest colliery in south Tyneside—the male unemployment rate in south Tyneside will be more than 25 per cent. One third of those people will have been out of work for more than 12 months. The petition concludes with the words:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to stop those plans going ahead, resulting in so much social and economic hardship for thousands of families.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I beg leave to present a petition. It states:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition is in the name of M. Tandy and 4,817 of my constituents. It
  sheweth that the present plans of British Coal to close 31 pits with 31,000 job losses will be to the detriment of the Warwickshire Coalfield and the nation.
  The signatures were collected during a few hours at Nuneaton town centre last Saturday and they show the depth of feeling of those people and many others of my constituents. The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to stop those plans going ahead, which will result in so much social and economic hardship for thousands of families.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.4 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I present a petition signed by thousands of my constituents who oppose the Government's proposals to close 31 pits with the loss of 31,000 jobs, particularly Westoe colliery in my constituency. Those who have signed the petition regard the proposals to write off our coal reserves and obtain future energy supplies from imported coal and gas as short-sighted, foolish and economically incompetent.
  The petitioners are particularly worried about plans to close Westoe colliery in South Shields, with the loss of 1,200 jobs. They are alarmed at the effect of the closure on the local economy, especially as the unemployment rate in South Tyneside is the highest in Great Britain and is currently in excess of 18 per cent.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourabe House will take measures to stop these plans going ahead which will result in so much social and economic hardship for thousands of families.
  To lie upon the Table.
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I wish to
  present a petition on behalf of my constituents. It states: To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of the City of Sunderland and surrounding areas
  Sheweth
  That the recent announcement of pit closures has filled the people of the City of Sunderland with deep concern because of the consequential loss of employment for miners. They are also concerned because of the possible effect on ancillary industries.
  Eight thousand, four hundred and forty two of these people have expressed their concern by signing this petition.
  I am proud to present the petition on behalf of my constituents, and fully support what they say. Wearmouth is under threat in a district where there is already male unemployment of 21.7 per cent.
  The petition continues:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House carefully consider the case for the recently announced pit closures. We also ask that the closures should not proceed unless and until they have been shown to be economically and socially justified. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Land Travel
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to describe an appalling incident—the collapse of Land Travel, which was Bath-based and one of the biggest coach tour operators in the country. It left debts of millions of pounds, 2,500 people stranded on coach tours, and 40,000 people with lost deposits. The incident affects many hon. Members. In Grimsby, a party of 20 men, women and children from Dunlop Oil Marine who were travelling to Paris and Eurodisney had their tour cancelled hours before departure. They lost £2,000, the money that they paid for a trip down the Seine, and the money paid for their entrance to Eurodisney.
  This appalling failure is an example of the Government's do-nothing regulation. They fail to regulate holiday travel and the company sector. They fail to intervene to protect the consumer. The Government believe in a hands-off approach unless they want to ram-raid the coal industry, when they suddenly take a hands-on approach. The Government intervened in the Land Travel affair only when the chairman of Boston Conservative club complained about the terms of the trip on which his members were being sent.
  Opposition Members have been asking for more than a decade for the proper regulation of the holiday market. We have been asking for the protection of investors' funds and holidaymakers' funds, and for bonding to insure against failure. Only now, after all those years of pushing for proper bonding and protection, have the Government been prompted into action by a European Community directive. It is disgraceful that the Government took so long to do so. Even now they are providing only the minimum, with a scheme which has no central licensing, no proper control and no proactive intervention and which will not provide effective protection.
  On the issue of the protection of holidaymakers I have two questions for the Minister. What took so long? Can the Minister guarantee that the new system will prevent people from losing money in future as they did in the Land Travel incident? Will it provide protection in all circumstances? The travel trade is in for a rough time. Things will be extremely difficult and there will be more company failures and problems.
  This brings me to company regulations and the sector generally. In the case of Land Travel, all the warning signs of disaster were present. The travel trade expected imminent collapse. The company had been run irresponsibly and had been facing chronic problems since 1983. It was not paying its bills. It had been prosecuted by trading standards officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) supplied the Government with a list of 18 warning signs that something was going drastically wrong. That was well before the collapse, but the Minister and the Department did nothing.
  I should like to pick out just two areas of failure. First, the accounts of Land Travel were persistently late. They were late in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1988, and in 1989 and 1990 they were illegally late—and the Government still did nothing. Accountancy research shows a close correlation between the lateness of accounts and companies
  1106
  collapsing. It is a warning sign that something is going disastrously wrong, yet the Government do nothing and feel no responsibility even to enforce reporting requirements. Why was nothing done while it was becoming the company's habit to put in late accounts?
  The second major area of failure concerns the continual qualification of the accounts by the company's auditors. In 1986, 1987 and 1988, Shaw and Company expressed serious reservations. As for the 1990 accounts, Price Waterhouse reported debts of £2.1 million, of which £1.5 million was not recoverable. It refused to approve the accounts and was of the opinion that the company was not a going concern. If Price Waterhouse had taken a full-page advertisement in Accountancy Age and screamed the news from the top of one of the minarets of BCCI it could not have done more to draw attention to the imminent failure of this company.
  Why did the Government take no notice when all this evidence was pouring in? What are qualifications on accounts for? Who is supposed to act on them; who is supposed to invigilate them? Why does nothing happen when accounts are qualified in this way?
  Mr. Don Foster: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Land Travel's headquarters were in my constitu-ency. Many hon. Members will know that many people in my constituency have suffered because of the collapse of the company—not only customers but employees of Land Travel.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my pleasure at the fact that a number of former employees of Land Travel who were in no way implicated in the collapse have formed a new company, Tours Direct, which I hope will provide a good service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my considerable concern at the fact that the former managing director of Land Travel, Mr. Valere Tjolle, made no attempt to answer creditors at the creditors' meeting or subsequently. Although we welcome the inquiry that Baroness Denton has set up, because of the possibility that it will find the Government culpable and hence make possible compensation for those who lost out, there should also be a detailed inquiry into the company's trading practices so that lessons can be learned which will benefit other similar companies and prevent similar collapses. I assure the hon. Gentleman of my full support for his remarks.
  Mr. Mitchell: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about an inquiry. The one that we have is pathetic and inadequate; it should be more substantial and more effective.
  As for former employees—whom are company accounts for? Employees cannot rely on them, consumers cannot rely on them, so whom are they intended to inform? Why does no one see to it that action follows when accounts are seriously amiss?
  If the Government claim that people should have known from the accounts that something was wrong, why do not they require travel companies to display their latest profit and loss accounts and most recent bank statements in the office, just as banks are required to display them, and have been since 1879? During proceedings on the Companies Act 1989, we pressed for severe fines for late accounts. Nothing was done; the Government turned down the idea and refused to do anything about it. I have pressed in articles and in parliamentary questions to the

  1107
  Minister that the DTI should examine samples of accounts, that he should look at accounts qualified by the auditors and ensure some sort of enforcement procedure so that companies legislation requirements are complied with at Companies house. The answer was always no. The Government do not want to know or to do anything.
  Alarm bells should have rung at the Department. Bills were unpaid, the company was trading insolvent, it had a series of fines under trades description legislation and massive debts. But the Government turned a Nelsonian eye to all that, and no one else was responsible for doing anything about it. Why was the company left in that situation?
  We need a new Companies Act to provide for proper regulation in this area. There is no point in relying on the requirements for directors, because directors can be crooks. I do not say that that was the case in this instance, but it is curious that a director paid himself £463,000 in four months just before the company went bankrupt. There is something funny there.
  Why did not the Government put in DTI inspectors and stop this company trading before all those people lost so much money? The Minister has the powers and can act on substantial information, and the state of the accounts was that substantial information. He should have acted. He had been continuously warned and all the symptoms of disaster were there.
  I conclude with two questions to the Minister. Why, after all that time and all the warnings, did he or the Department not act; and, having failed in a pathetic, inadequate fashion, why does he argue that he does not now owe compensation to the people who have lost money? He does.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall concentrate on one aspect of the matter, the role of the insurance company, General Accident.
  This whole affair is a story of fraud and deception in which thousands of people, including many of my constituents, had their holiday dreams shattered. People such as Mr. and Mrs. Dalby of Carleton Road in Colne lost £500 of their hard-earned money. They were conned into believing that the holidays that they were buying were comprehensively insured and underwritten by one of the insurance giants, General Accident. The price of the holiday specifically included insurance cover, but we now know that the policies were not worth the paper on which they were written.
  The travel insurance document, which had the General Accident logo prominent on the cover, gave the appearance of solidity and reliability. Nowhere in the small print did it even suggest the possibility of the company folding. That was not listed in the scheme of general exclusions which included war, invasion, rebellion and so on.
  Land Travel required that all its customers be comprehensively insured
  "for their own benefit and to avoid expense and disappointment".
  However, 24 hours before the collapse of Land Travel became public knowledge, General Accident, in a nifty piece of footwork, withdrew all its insurance cover. One of my local papers, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, was told by General Accident four days ago that it withdrew following a lengthy dispute with Land Travel and not
  1108
  because of any prior knowledge that the firm would collapse. If General Accident expects us to believe that, it must think that we all have pointed heads.
  I have several questions for General Accident. What is its responsibility to the thousands of people who paid Land Travel in good faith and on the strength of the General Accident connection? Is that insurance company prepared to underwrite any old fly-by-night operator? What checks did General Accident run on Land Travel? Did it check at Companies house? Does it still underwrite holidays from firms that are trading outside the ABTA umbrella? When did the company first realise that Land Travel was going down the tube, and does it take any responsibility for the misery that has been caused to so many of my constituents?
  To date, the silence of General Accident has been deafening. I want a statement from that major insurance company; and, what is more to the point, I want my constituents to get their money back.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is our contention that the previous Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), failed, in 1991, properly to investigate a grave complaint about Land Travel. His failure permitted the company to continue to trade when it was, in effect, insolvent until its collapse a year later robbed 40,000 people of their holidays and holiday payments.
  On 14 August 1991, the then Minister received a letter from the Boston Conservative club. It had examined Land Travel's books, which revealed many adverse financial factors about the company, including £560,000 of debts, an illegal failure to file accounts and the fact that it was not a member of ABTA and therefore held no insurance to protect its customers in the event of collapse.
  The hon. Gentleman made only the most superficial check, confirmed that the accounts had not been filed within the legal time scale and took no further action. In fact, his Department then lost that letter. If the then Minister had only used his powers, and had the inspectors spent only a few hours investigating the company's accounts, they would have found all the warning signs. Serious reservations were expressed by the auditors from 1983 onwards, and the latest accounts showed the company to have £1.5 million worth of irrecoverable debt. There was a whole host of other adverse financial factors. Had the Minister acted then, inspectors would have wound up the company.
  The then Minister's inaction had devastating consequences on 40,000 people, including church groups, school parties, social clubs and many families and individuals who had booked holidays with a near-bankrupt company that the Minister failed to investigate.
  Some 101 Members have signed early-day motion 562, which calls for an inquiry into the Government's handling of this matter, not just into the loss of that letter—the inquiry mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—and to consider compensation. The only person involved in this sorry saga who did not lose is the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, yet he has not had the courtesy to come here tonight to explain his inaction. He should resign without delay, and his successor

  1109
  should ensure that there is an independent investigation into this fiasco. If not, the Opposition will continue to press for justice for the victims of this company's collapse.
  10.22 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I shall beguile the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) by informing him that this is the first time that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box, and the first time that I have made a speech in the Chamber since June 1990, when I pointed out the circumstances in which the exchange rate mechanism would collapse. I am not sure that I shall carry him much further with the speech that I shall now make.
  I recognise that many hon. Members are greatly concerned about the collapse of Land Travel and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. In the nine years that I have been in the House, I have never been successful in securing such a debate, but I am sure that, when I return to the Back Benches in due course, I will have more success.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has raised an important and topical subject, and if I do not agree with all that he has said, I still congratulate him on the force with which he has, as usual, made his case. I also congratulate the other hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I shall begin by speaking about the general issue of regulation of the travel industry and then deal with the specific issue of Land Travel.
  The package travel industry is unusual in that it commonly requires payment in advance—usually some weeks in advance—of the full cost of the package that the customer has purchased. The customer is accordingly more than usually dependent upon the skill, the honesty and, above all, the solvency of his supplier. At the same time, there is vigorous competition in the package travel industry. That is not a bad thing. As the Minister responsible for competition, I think that it is a good thing. It means that the customer is getting a good deal.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that package holidays in the United Kingdom offer value for money as good as any in the world. However, the keenness of competition in the industry means that firms must work to narrow margins. This inevitably increases the risk of companies finding that they have over-committed themselves and cannot continue.
  If a company becomes insolvent in the middle of the holiday season, customers who have paid for their holidays but have not received them are likely to lose their money. The sums of money involved are likely to be substantial, at least to the individuals concerned. People may save all year for their holiday, and if they lose their money they may be in no position to buy another. So I fully accept the importance of the issue that has been raised.
  The need to protect consumers in this situation has long been recognised, and was tackled by a combination of both Government regulation and private sector initiative. On the Government side, there came into being the air travel organisers licence system, under which all purchasers of air charter seats are protected by the
  1110
  operators being required to take out a compulsory bond for which, if the bonding level proves inadequate, there is the air travel trust fund in reserve.
  For the private sector, a number of trade associations from the travel industry, notably the Association of British Travel Agents, set up their own customer protection schemes. The ABTA scheme was particularly comprehen-sive, in that not only did ABTA give an undertaking that no customer should suffer loss as a result of failure of a member, but, because for overseas travel ABTA operators are permitted to sell only through ABTA retailers and vice versa, the coverage of that membership has become extremely wide. It now encompasses the great majority of travel agents and operators who sell through travel agents.
  But its coverage is not complete. In particular, it does not embrace all the many small—and some not so small —operators that deal directly with the public. Some of these operators are covered by other voluntary schemes. But I fully accept that many are not, and, as we have seen in the recent unfortunate case of Land Travel, this can mean substantial numbers of people being left without compensation in the event of an insolvency.
  This is a clearly an unsatisfactory situation. The problem of the solvency of package tour operators is not of course unique to the United Kingdom and the Commission of the European Communities for which I know the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) harbours warm feelings, took the lead in preparing and submitting to the Council of Ministers the draft directive on package travel. The United Kingdom Government fully supported the broad thrust of the package travel directive, and it was adopted unanimously by the Council of Ministers in June 1990. It is required to be adopted in the law of member states by the end of this year. The draft directive throws its net very wide. It includes, for example, business packages, packages organised on a voluntary basis, and packages which do not involve travel. It requires member states to have measures requiring sufficient evidence of security for the refund of moneys paid over for a package.
  The package travel directive does, however, do much more than require organisers or retailers of packages to have security for pre-payments. It requires them, for example, to have in place arrangements for repatriation should this prove necessary. It regulates the content of brochures and specific information that must be given to the customer before he enters into a contract.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not have time to give way. It is important that we place the example that hon. Members have raised and our concerns about it in the context of both the legislation that is about to supervene and the present situation.
  The directive regulates the contents of brochures and specific information that must be given to the customer before he enters into a contract. It regulates the content of the contract, and requires that the customer be given a copy. It restricts the extent to which operators may impose surcharges after the contract has been concluded. It lays down requirements regarding the performance of the contract, notably in requiring that the operator accepts strict liability for its performance.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a limited time for me to reply. I wish to respond to the issues that have been raised by hon. Members in the—
  Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What does the Minister's reply have to do with the 40,000 people who have lost their money?
  Madam Speaker: The Minister is responsible for what he is saying.
  Mr. Hamilton: I remind the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) that the debate is about regulation of the travel industry and Land Travel. I am referring to the regulation of the travel industry, which includes Land Travel. I shall take up the instant case that the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned about.
  The package travel directive regulates the content of the contract, and requires that the customer be given a copy. It restricts the extent to which operators may impose surcharges after the contract has been concluded. It provides protections which have not been available in the past but which will be available in future to prevent situations arising in which, in some circumstances in the past, customers have lost money. In future, it will provide some protection for them.
  It means that the operator will no longer be able to blame, for example, an hotel if a promised swimming pool does not materialise. Many of the requirements—for example, the giving of accurate information and proper performance of the contract—are already part of United Kingdom law, but others go further. The creation of a body of regulation aimed specifically at the package travel industry will, I am sure, do much to raise the standards of all operators towards those that are already observed by the best.
  Implementation of the package travel directive has been thoroughly discussed—
  Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I apologise. I shall not be able to answer the specific points on Land Travel if I continue to give way to hon. Members—[interruption]—or if I am forced to do so on points of order.
  The position is that the consultation period ended last week, and we will now go ahead and finalise the implementing regulations which we hope to lay before Parliament in time for them to be debated before the Christmas recess.
  I shall not attempt to describe here the many points of controvery that have arisen during the discussions on the implementation of the directive. We have listened, I hope with an open mind, to a wide variety of views. Inevitably, the decisions that we have taken have not pleased everybody. Some wanted us to go further in implementing regulations than the strict requirements of the directive. Except in the important area of surcharges, we have generally resisted that pressure. Others sought exemption from the requirements of the directive altogether, and we have had to explain that that is not within our power.
  There is, however, one important issue which I would like to deal with specifically—the question whether the requirements of the directive regarding protection against insolvency should be enforced by the setting up of a compulsory licensing authority, to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby referred. That was urged upon us by
  1112
  both consumer interests and the main trade associations involved in the industry. They pointed to the successful example of the ATOL system in the case of travel by air charter, and suggested that it be duplicated by a parallel authority for non-air charter packages.
  After a great deal of thought, we rejected that solution because, though we recognised that there were arguments in its favour, it would have meant the creation of a body which would have been both expensive and bureaucratic. The parallel with the ATOL system is misleading. ATOL holders are a fairly small group of companies of broadly common structure and purpose, though they do of course vary greatly in size. The number and variety of those that would have been embraced by a licensing system for packages not covered by the ATOL system would have been very much greater. The average size of operators would also have been very much smaller.
  We concluded that the expense and burden of a licensing system would far outweigh any advantages that it might bring, bearing in mind that, ultimately, the bearers of the expense would be the purchasers of the package holiday. That remains our view. It needs to be remembered that the entire cost of a licensing body would necessarily have fallen on those regulated by it, and that the cost would have to be met before, and in addition to, the cost of providing security for pre-payments.
  The Government's aim is to reduce the burdens upon industry, not to increase them. We aim to encourage consumer choice, not to restrict it. We aim to encourage enterprise, not to block it with bureaucratic hurdles. For all those reasons, we reject the hon. Gentleman's licensing solution, though we recognise and respect the genuinely held views of those who have argued otherwise.
  That brings me finally to the case of Land Travel. Land Travel was not a member of ABTA or of any other trade association. It had no security for the payments made to it and, when it became insolvent, many customers lost their money. I recognise that it is small consolation to those who lost money as a result of Land Travel's collapse that the package travel directive to be implemented shortly should reduce such instances in future.
  The hon. Gentleman argued that, because the Department of Trade and Industry had in its possession certain information regarding Land Travel, it is in some way responsible for Land Travel's collapse and should therefore pay compensation to those who lost money. I must make it clear that, much though the Government regret the loss that many people have suffered, and we all have constituents in that position, they do not consider that there would be any justification for paying compensation from public funds.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument betrays—if I may say so for such an expert in company law—a misunderstanding of the role and responsibilities of my Department towards the corporate sector. In the first place, whatever we may do, it is not in our power to prevent companies from becoming insolvent. The Department of Trade and Industry has in any event no general monitoring role in relation to companies. We do have certain powers of investigation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when we have good reason—for example, evidence of fraud or misconduct—but the availability of those powers cannot prevent insolvencies occuring and is not intended to.
  In view of the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman I propose to set out the facts in some detail. In August 1991, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for

  1113
  Technology, the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) had forwarded to him a letter from the Boston Conservative club. The letter drew attention of the fact that the company's 1988 accounts showed that the company had an excess of liabilities over assets and complained that more recent accounts ought to have been filed. Land Travel's 1988 accounts were not qualified by the company's auditors. The letter was referred to Companies house to answer as a late filing complaint, and Companies house said in reply that the accounts up to March 1990 had been filed and placed on the public record.
  It is a requirement of the law that company accounts should be filed with Companies house within the prescribed period, but Companies house is not responsible for scrutinising accounts beyond ensuring that they meet the main statutory requirements—such as including a profit and loss account, balance sheet, reports by directors and auditors, and so on.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby asked whom the accounts are intended to inform. The purpose of filing accounts is to inform the shareholders and the general public of the company's financial position. In recent months, we introduced a system of fines for failure to satisfy the obligation in the Companies Act 1989 to file accounts within 10 months from the end of the company's
  1114
  financial year. The responsibilities of Companies house are limited to ensuring that accounts are filed in a form that appears to comply with statutory requirements and that they are filed in due time.
  Companies house has neither the means nor the power to examine company accounts and thus perform the functions that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby invites. If we were to impose that obligation, Companies house would have a large compliance burden, which would prejudice the proper performance of all the functions it has performed hitherto.
  Companies house can and does take action against companies that fail to meet statutory requirements, but that is all. It is for company shareholders and creditors to take such action as they may see fit, on the basis of information contained in the accounts.
  I regret very much the loss suffered by many who could ill afford that loss as a result of Land Travel's collapse. The Government are addressing the gap in consumer protection that the collapse highlighted, and we hope that the regulations that we shall shortly lay before Parliament to implement the package travel directive will serve to prevent a repetition of that regrettable occurrence. However, the Government cannot—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how judges and magistrates will be advised to treat aggravating or mitigating factors when determining the seriousness of any offence.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his similar question on 27 October, at column 578.

  Table showing the strength of polices forces in England and Wales3

  Force

  31 March 1979

  31 March 1990

  Percentage change

  31 March 1991

  Percentage change

  31 March 1992

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  2,825

  3,094

  9.52

  3,092

  -0.06

  3,081

  -0.36

  Bedfordshire

  902

  1,050

  16.41

  1,105

  5.24

  1,093

  -1.09

  Cambridgeshire

  1,064

  1,193

  12.12

  1,201

  0.67

  1,250

  4.08

  Cheshire

  1,778

  1,870

  5.17

  1,895

  1.34

  1,874

  -1.11

  Cleveland

  1,334

  1,467

  9.97

  1,489

  1.50

  1,477

  -0.81

  Cumbria

  1,056

  1,166

  10.42

  1,184

  1.54

  1,179

  -0.42

  Derbyshire

  1,563

  1,795

  14.84

  1,741

  -3.01

  1,706

  -2.01

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,660

  2,852

  7.22

  2,873

  0.74

  2,898

  0.87

  Dorset

  1,128

  1,269

  12.50

  1,281

  0.95

  1,289

  0.62

  Durham

  1,312

  1,375

  4.80

  1,368

  -0.51

  1,389

  1.54

  Dyfed-Powys

  910

  935

  2.75

  935

  0.00

  947

  1.28

  Essex

  2,461

  2,822

  14.67

  2,889

  2.37

  2,898

  0.31

  Gloucestershire

  1,076

  1,170

  8.74

  1,162

  -0.68

  1,174

  1.03

  Greater Manchester

  6,419

  6,992

  8.93

  7,014

  0.31

  7,061

  0.67

  Gwent

  965

  1,008

  4.46

  999

  -0.89

  1,009

  1.00

  Hampshire

  2,949

  3,154

  6.95

  3,179

  0.79

  3,211

  1.01

  Hertfordshire

  1,462

  1,657

  13.34

  1,666

  0.54

  1,695

  1.74

  Humberside

  1,849

  1,995

  7.90

  1,998

  0.15

  2,026

  1.40

  Kent

  2,724

  2,984

  9.54

  3,005

  0.70

  3,074

  2.30

  Lancashire

  3,097

  3,201

  3.36

  3,212

  0.34

  3,198

  -0.44

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  1,769

  4.00

  1,818

  2.77

  1,845

  1.49

  Lincolnshire

  1,171

  1,188

  1.45

  1,209

  1.77

  1,196

  -1.08

  Merseyside

  4,427

  4,714

  6.48

  4,689

  -0.53

  4,621

  -1.45

  Norfolk

  1,223

  1,363

  11.45

  1,405

  3.08

  1,414

  0.64

  Northamptonshire

  905

  1,126

  24.42

  1,139

  1.15

  1,158

  1.67

  Northumbria

  3,272

  3,529

  7.85

  3,541

  0.34

  3,464

  -2.17

  North Wales

  1,268

  1,337

  5.44

  1,349

  0.90

  1,347

  -0.15

  North Yorkshire

  1,342

  1,379

  2.76

  1,387

  0.58

  1,398

  0.79

  Nottinghamshire

  2,117

  2,316

  9.40

  2,336

  0.86

  2,331

  -0.21

  South Wales

  2,936

  3,135

  6.78

  3,137

  0.06

  3,168

  0.99

  South Yorkshire

  2,546

  2,923

  14.81

  2,991

  2.33

  3,008

  0.57

  Staffordshire

  1,978

  2,187

  10.57

  2,217

  1.37

  2,176

  -1.85

  Suffolk

  1,064

  1,194

  12.22

  1,209

  1.26

  1,218

  0.74

  Surrey

  1,440

  1,645

  14.24

  1,657

  0.73

  1,706

  2.96

  Sussex

  2,758

  2,949

  6.93

  2,969

  0.68

  2,984

  0.51

  Thames Valley

  2,639

  3,659

  38.65

  3,714

  1.50

  3,772

  1.56

  Warwickshire

  841

  975

  15.93

  1,020

  4.62

  990

  -2.94

  West Mercia

  1,743

  1,991

  14.23

  2,026

  1.76

  2,034

  0.39

  West Midlands

  5,981

  6,855

  14.61

  6,876

  0.31

  6,941

  0.95

  West Yorkshire

  4,727

  5,260

  11.28

  5,268

  0.15

  5,087

  -3.44

  Wiltshire

  997

  1,130

  13.34

  1,165

  3.10

  1,221

  4.81

  Metropolitan

  22,214

  28,362

  27.68

  28,312

  -0.18

  28,381

  0.24

  City

  829

  799

  -3.62

  813

  1.75

  808

  -0.62

  Total

  109,653

  124,834

  13.84

  125,535

  0.56

  125,797

  0.21

  1Figures for 1 April are not available; 31 March figures have therefore been provided.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police force area in England and Wales and for the whole of England and Wales the number of police officers actually in post at(a) 1 April 1979, (b) 1 April 1990, (c) 1 April 1991 and (d) 1 April 1992, and the percentage increase in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Samuel Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to make a decision as to whether he will exercise his power under section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 to refer to the Court of Appeal the case of Samuel Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham;

  (2) when he received an interim or final report from the Essex police inquiry team, established in April 1992 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the convictions of Samuel Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham;

  (3) whether the Essex police inquiry team, established in April 1992 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the convictions of Samuel Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham, have obtained transcripts of any Metropolitan police interviews with the two chief prosecution witnesses at the 1988 trial, Indrakumar Thiyegaral and Muralee Tharan Arulkodnenthan, which took place prior to their statements as witnesses.

  Mr. Jack
  The Essex police are continuing their inquiries into this case and I expect to receive their report shortly. I shall then be in a position to decide, after proper consideration of all the relevant information, whether there are grounds for referring either conviction to the Court of Appeal.

  I understand that the inquiry team has established that both the two chief prosecution witnesses were interviewed by officers of the Metropolitan police before statements were taken from them as witnesses, but that no record was made of either of these interviews.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the resource implications of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the probation service; and what is his best estimate of the additional costs involved for the probation service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Jack
  Increased central Government support for the probation service was set out in the Home Office annual report published in February 1992 as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Central Government support (£ million)

  290

  314

  338

  Provision for total staff numbers

  14,234

  14,713

  15,100

  (Including year-on-year staff increases of;)

  560

  398

  376

  The additional staff and resources are primarily for the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; these represent the current best estimates of the additional resources needed.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what remuneration has been offered to probation staff to enable them to undertake new duties in respect of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The Criminal Justice Act will involve new responsibility for the probation service. To respond to this we have provided for a substantial increase in the numbers of probation officers. In addition, we recognise that there will be an impact on the work of some existing probation officers. As a consequence, probation employers have responded to this
  648
  by offering a system of local pay flexibility to reflect the increased responsibilities which individuals might undertake. Discussions over the details of this offer are continuing.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fianancial penalties will be invoked if any probation staff refuse to under-take new duties implicit in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  Probation staff who refuse to undertake duties in the context of the current industrial action in support of their pay claim are being asked to sign an undertaking that they will work normally and to return this undertaking within two working days. If an officer refuses to sign the undertaking, the probations committee will reduce that officer's pay by 15 per cent. while he or she continues to refuse to work normally.

  Any staff who were to refuse to undertake duties in other circumstances would be subject to normal disciplinary proceedings, including financial penalties.

  Court Reports
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional court reports will be written per annum under the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  On the basis of pilot trials run in five Crown court centres between May and December 1991, it is expected that between 20,000 and 29,000 additional reports will be required each year.

  Prisoners (Towels)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider increasing the number of towels issued weekly to prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The range of items issued to inmates is subject to regular review. The number of towels currently issued each week is normally two but, because of a high incidence of vandalism, it is necessary to issue some 400,000 towels each year to meet the needs of the 45,000 inmates held in custody; this restricts the capacity of the prison service to increase the level of issue for individual prisoners. However, in an effort to improve the efficiency and acceptability of the item, the existing white towel is in the process of being replaced by one of larger size in deep-dyed colours.

  Drug Prevention
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to renew the funding for each of the drug prevention projects currently funded by his Department as it reaches the end date of the period for which funds have been approved to date.

  Mr. Jack
  As I stated in my written answer of 27 October 1992, at column 578, in response to earlier questions from the hon. Member, funding for the 20 local drugs prevention teams has been agreed initially for three years in each case and active consideration is currently being given to the position of the teams beyond that period.

  Car Phones
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines are given to the Metropolitan police about stopping motorists who drive while using a car or mobile phone.

  (2) how many charges and convictions have been obtained by the Metropolitan police concerning the use of car phones while driving.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such guidelines have been issued to the Metropolitan police. The police may take action against drivers in such cases for the offences of driving without due care and attention or driving without proper control of the vehicle. No figures are available to show the number of charges or convictions obtained by the Metropolitan police for such offences involving the use of telephones.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what target date he has set his Department to clear the backlog of asylum applications.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No specific date has been set. The increase in the number of asylum division staff to 500, together with streamlined administrative procedures, is already having a considerable impact on the current backlog. Further progress will be influenced by the rate of new applications and the impact on procedures of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 775, to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) (a) which concepts used in the convention are the subject of common interpretation and (b) what is the common interpretation referred to.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Article 1 of the Dublin convention of 15 June 1990—Cm 1623—defines for the purposes of the convention the meaning of: an alien; an applicaation for asylum; an examination of an appliction for asylum; a residence permit; an entry visa; and a transit visa.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 775, to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) whether any definition has been reached in respect of first host country.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. This matter is still under discussion between member states.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 775, to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) (a) to which third countries it is intended to extend the system of the convention by means of parallel convention and (b) with which countries negotiations have commenced in respect of that convention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Formal negotiations on extending the provisions of the Dublin convention will not be undertaken until the convention has been ratified by all member states. Extension to third countries will be by the unanimous agreement of the member states.

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will publish, in any form that does not jeopardise national security, the number of entries in the names index and in the organisations index of the main security service computer system and provide a description of the kinds of information held;

  (2) whether he will publish, in any form that does not jeopardise national security, the approximate total number of files held by the Security Service, the approximate number of red, amber and green files, and the proportion of files that are temporary; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Security Service holds only information which it needs in order to carry out the functions conferred upon it by the Security Service Act 1989. The service's record-keeping policy was described in the Security Service Commissioner's annual report for 1991. It would not he in the interests of national security to provide the detailed information requested.

  Mr. John Samuels
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester on the operation on Friday, 11 September which resulted in the complaint by Mr. John Samuels.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. These are operational matters which are the responsibility of the chief constable.

  Charities
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures the Charity Commission uses when deciding whether or not to register charities formed to assist with specific disasters and emergencies and which require accelerated registration procedures to enable them to operate in good time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  In deciding whether to register an organisation as a charity the Charity Commissioners consider whether the object for which the organisation is established are exclusively charitable in law, accurately reflect the intended activities of the organisation and whether the activities proposed are acceptable for a body with charitable status.

  Where it is strongly represented to the commissioners by the promoters of an organisation, which is formed to assist with a specific disaster or emergency, that any degree of delay in registering the charity would be harmful to the intended beneficiaries, the commissioners give priority consideration to that application for registration.

  External Frontiers Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the public distribution of the draft convention on external frontiers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Copies of the draft convention between the member states of the European Communities on the crossing of their external frontiers were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in July.

  Worcester Kurdish Refugee Association
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Charity Commissioners expect to complete their investigation into the Worcester Kurdish Refugee Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Charity Commissioners expect to complete their inquiry into the affairs of the Worcester Kurdish Refugee Association in January 1993.

  Hostels
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current cost level for repairs, additions or equipment in a hostel site which represents the dividing line between his Department's capital grant and operational expenditure.

  Mr. Jack
  Major refurbishment works, new building or extension costs, and the purchase of specific items of equipment which are expected to be in use for a number of years attract capital grant. The operational or revenue budget covers more basic redecoration and routine maintenance and the purchase of smaller items. There are items which from time to time do not easily fall into either of these categories and where judgments are made on a case by case basis as to the most appropriate form of funding.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a probation hostel or a bail hostel can refuse to accept as a resident a person whom the court wishes to let out on bail.

  Mr. Jack
  The Approved Probation and Bail Hostel Rules 1976 provide that, once a court has granted bail subject to a condition of residence in an approved hostel, admission can be refused only if there is no place available; or if the person falls outside the categories for which the hostel is approved; or if the defendant is suffering from severe subnormality or a psychopathic disorder; or with the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Before the court reaches its decision, a probation officer may, through advice to the court, indicate that, in the circumstances of the individual case, a defendant would not be suitable for a place in an approved hostel, in line with the considerations set out in paragraph 16 of the "National Standard for the Management of Approved Probation and Bail Hostels". I will send my right hon. Friend a copy of the relevant section of these standards.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are normally on duty in probation and bail hostels in England and Wales(a) from 6 pm till midnight, (b) from midnight till 6 am and (c) at weekends.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: All approved probation and bail hostels in England and Wales have 24-hour a day staff cover. The funding of a number of hostels was increased this year to ensure that there is provision for at least two members of staff to be on duty at night in any hostel. Since the deployment of staff is a matter for probation or voluntary management commit-tees, detailed information on staff rotas is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Learning Difficulties)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures showing the current percentage of prison inmates in England and Wales who are known to have learning difficulties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Records of the number of prisoners with learning difficulties are not held centrally. In the White Paper, "Custody, Care and Justice"—Cm 1647—the Government stressed that the first priority for education programmes in prison must be to identify and provide help for those prisoners who have difficulty reading or writing and who are unable to do simple arithmetic. The national prison survey undertaken in 1991 indicated that 43 per cent. of prisoners had left school before the age of 16, prisoners had higher truancy rates than the general population, and 43 per cent. of prisoners had no qualification when they came into prison.

  Criminal Justice Act 1991
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received on the workings of the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: I regret that it is not possible to identify from central records of correspondence received from all sources how many of the several thousand letters dealt with in different parts of the Home Office each month refer to the workings of the Act, either as a single subject, or as one among several others. However, it is beyond question that many correspondents are referring to the Act and these referrals have increased since 1 October when the vast majority of its provisions came into effect.

  Combination Orders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many combination orders he estimates will be made under provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The power to make a combination order was introduced by section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act which came into effect on 1 October 1992. The criteria for the use of the power are set out in the section, but sentencing in any individual case is a matter for the sentencer alone. There is, at present, no basis on which to estimate the number of occasions upon which courts may exercise this power.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tender, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.
  653
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The table provides information about tender invitations issued by my Department for projects requiring the supply of computer hardware and computer software since 9 April.

  Invitations to tender (ITT) issued for projects requiring computer hardware-software since 9 April 1992

  (a) ITT's issued for projects

  (b) Description of services required

  (c) Number of companies invited to tender

  (d) Number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation

  (e) Company awarded the contract

  (f) Value of contract

  (g) Duration of contract

  (i) Computer hardware

  (ii) Computer software

  (iii) Hardware and software

  See covering reply

  See covering reply

  See note 1

  *

  Network Cabling for HMP Woodhill

  1

  Lancare

  *

  Clothing and Textile CAD system for Prison Service Industries and Farms

  3

  Gerber Garment Technology

  *

  Computer network cabling infrastructure

  3

  Misys Communications

  *

  UNIX system for Immigration and Nationality Department (bought under HOUSE 1 contract)

  l

  International Computers Ltd.

  *

  Finance and Accounting software for UNIX system above

  6

  TABS

  *

  Networking equipment for new DTELS HQ

  5

  Gandalf Digital Communications

  *

  Message Handling System for Emergency Planning

  18

  Not yet awarded

  *

  Cabling for HMP Foston Hall-Prescoed

  3

  Lancare

  *

  Extra Hard Disks for Police National Computer Organisation (PNC2)

  7

  Not yet awarded

  Note:

  1. All the contracts are one off supplies.

  Car Theft
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each police authority area the number of offences of(a) theft of and (b) unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and (c) the combined total of the two committed by juveniles in each of the last five years for which figures are available and what percentage this was of the total number of offences in this category;

  (2) if he will state for each police authority area and for England and Wales as a whole how many offences of theft from a vehicle were committed by juveniles in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage this was of the total number of offences in this category in each case;

  (3) if he will state for each police authority area and for England and Wales as a whole, how many offences of theft

  Table 1

  Number and percentage of juveniles and young adults found guilty or cautioned for offences of theft of a motor vehicles, unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle 1986

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Tolal all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  851

  29

  277

  306

  36

  61

  277

  338

  40

  217

  67

  31

  86

  40

  Bedfordshire

  332

  11

  86

  97

  29

  30

  127

  157

  47

  172

  35

  20

  77

  45

  Cambridgeshire

  265

  24

  85

  109

  41

  26

  68

  94

  35

  258

  80

  31

  111

  43

  Cheshire

  528

  18

  181

  199

  38

  35

  170

  205

  39

  375

  72

  19

  163

  43

  Cleveland

  547

  38

  198

  236

  43

  31

  181

  212

  39

  36

  13

  36

  16

  44

  Cumbria

  307

  21

  83

  104

  34

  18

  121

  139

  45

  77

  33

  43

  28

  36

  Derbyshire

  417

  30

  112

  142

  34

  26

  149

  175

  42

  225

  78

  35

  89

  40

  Devon and Cornwall

  578

  10

  133

  143

  25

  22

  241

  263

  46

  314

  111

  35

  105

  33

  654
  The value of each project is a matter of commercial and contractual confidentiality. Information about the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by my Department is not readily available.

  or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle were committed by young adults in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage this was of the total number of offences of this category;

  (4) if he will state for each police authority area and for England and Wales as a whole how many offences of theft from a vehicle were committed by young adults in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage this was in each case of the total number of offences in this category.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 October 1992]: The data in the table relate to the number of "known" offenders —persons found guilty, or cautioned—by offence category, specific age groups and police force area 1986 to 1990. Provisional data for 1991 will not be available before the end of 1992.
  655

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Tolal all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Dorset

  344

  17

  119

  136

  40

  20

  121

  141

  41

  130

  25

  19

  50

  38

  Durham

  429

  28

  156

  184

  43

  20

  124

  144

  34

  193

  51

  26

  83

  43

  Essex

  764

  74

  219

  293

  38

  63

  245

  308

  40

  466

  126

  27

  203

  44

  Gloucestershire

  240

  5

  77

  82

  34

  13

  97

  110

  46

  150

  46

  31

  68

  45

  Greater Manchester

  3,000

  128

  1,193

  1,321

  44

  109

  1,051

  1,160

  39

  614

  240

  39

  208

  34

  Hampshire

  1,012

  58

  320

  378

  37

  68

  339

  407

  40

  330

  108

  33

  128

  39

  Hertfordshire

  477

  16

  151

  167

  35

  21

  179

  200

  42

  211

  56

  27

  104

  49

  Humberside

  547

  35

  226

  261

  48

  38

  161

  199

  36

  256

  70

  27

  108

  42

  Kent

  728

  26

  202

  228

  31

  54

  264

  318

  44

  425

  82

  19

  231

  54

  Lancashire

  776

  36

  262

  298

  38

  21

  273

  294

  38

  274

  63

  23

  116

  42

  Leicestershire

  560

  26

  134

  160

  29

  34

  251

  285

  51

  205

  76

  37

  71

  35

  Lincolnshire

  268

  13

  93

  106

  40

  12

  94

  106

  40

  198

  45

  23

  81

  41

  London, City of

  42

  —

  8

  8

  19

  1

  16

  17

  40

  29

  4

  14

  10

  34

  Merseyside

  907

  10

  372

  382

  42

  22

  320

  342

  38

  259

  119

  46

  84

  32

  Metropolitan Police District

  5,509

  91

  1,912

  2,003

  36

  188

  1,975

  2,163

  39

  1,738

  547

  31

  738

  42

  Norfolk

  320

  9

  114

  123

  38

  20

  83

  103

  32

  215

  44

  20

  93

  43

  Northamptonshire

  388

  27

  110

  137

  35

  24

  127

  151

  39

  194

  52

  27

  94

  48

  Northumbria

  1,089

  77

  293

  370

  34

  51

  409

  460

  42

  666

  194

  29

  264

  40

  North Yorkshire

  295

  29

  71

  100

  34

  21

  107

  128

  43

  187

  36

  19

  74

  411

  Nottinghamshire

  629

  37

  212

  249

  40

  39

  213

  252

  40

  408

  108

  26

  166

  41

  South Yorkshire

  914

  84

  267

  351

  38

  63

  315

  378

  41

  257

  70

  27

  110

  43

  Staffordshire

  380

  11

  96

  107

  28

  26

  160

  186

  49

  41

  13

  32

  11

  27

  Suffolk

  203

  8

  74

  82

  40

  14

  63

  77

  38

  119

  34

  29

  58

  49

  Surrey

  284

  17

  61

  78

  27

  34

  92

  126

  44

  96

  23

  24

  44

  46

  Sussex

  558

  8

  160

  168

  30

  33

  205

  238

  43

  295

  75

  25

  134

  45

  Thames Valley

  929

  74

  259

  333

  36

  74

  321

  395

  43

  495

  145

  29

  228

  46

  Warwickshire

  173

  38

  34

  72

  42

  10

  52

  62

  36

  123

  42

  34

  46

  37

  West Mercia

  494

  20

  136

  156

  32

  33

  176

  209

  42

  247

  105

  43

  78

  32

  West Midlands

  2,359

  206

  677

  883

  37

  91

  900

  991

  42

  881

  332

  38

  312

  35

  West Yorkshire

  1,493

  86

  468

  554

  37

  85

  500

  585

  39

  571

  164

  29

  228

  40

  Wiltshire

  313

  6

  123

  129

  41

  10

  115

  125

  40

  175

  42

  24

  79

  45

  Dyfed-Powys

  149

  1

  53

  54

  36

  1

  54

  55

  37

  162

  23

  14

  101

  62

  Gwent

  319

  14

  93

  107

  34

  19

  126

  145

  45

  40

  15

  38

  14

  35

  North Wales

  369

  11

  147

  158

  43

  13

  108

  121

  33

  177

  45

  25

  72

  41

  South Wales

  993

  46

  323

  369

  37

  53

  341

  394

  40

  254

  97

  38

  76

  30

  England and Wales

  32,079

  1,553

  10,370

  11,923

  37

  1,647

  11,311

  12,958

  40

  12,755

  3,806

  30

  5,240

  41

  Table 2

  Number and percentage of juveniles and young adults found guilty or cautioned for offences of theft of a motor vehicle, unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle 1987

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  858

  1—

  1—

  340

  40

  1—

  1—

  329

  38

  298

  131

  44

  103

  35

  Bedfordshire

  388

  1—

  1—

  147

  38

  1—

  1—

  165

  43

  245

  93

  38

  95

  39

  Cambridgeshire

  298

  1—

  1—

  89

  30

  1—

  1—

  127

  43

  219

  75

  34

  88

  40

  Cheshire

  669

  1—

  1—

  302

  45

  1—

  1—

  222

  33

  370

  101

  27

  145

  39

  Cleveland

  521

  1—

  1—

  235

  45

  1—

  1—

  187

  36

  65

  36

  55

  20

  31

  Cumbria

  298

  1—

  1—

  112

  38

  1—

  1—

  116

  39

  85

  43

  51

  25

  29

  Derbyshire

  454

  1—

  1—

  134

  30

  1—

  1—

  192

  42

  252

  89

  35

  89

  35

  Devon and Cornwall

  660

  1—

  1—

  165

  25

  1—

  1—

  290

  44

  213

  14

  7

  104

  49

  Dorset

  347

  1—

  1—

  122

  35

  1—

  1—

  143

  41

  119

  38

  32

  48

  40

  Durham

  468

  1—

  1—

  213

  46

  1—

  1—

  153

  33

  167

  60

  36

  65

  39

  Essex

  850

  1—

  1—

  310

  36

  1—

  1—

  350

  45

  570

  221

  39

  219

  38

  Gloucestershire

  258

  1—

  1—

  98

  38

  1—

  1—

  111

  43

  154

  59

  38

  52

  34

  Greater Manchester

  2,945

  1—

  1—

  1,156

  39

  1—

  1—

  1,190

  40

  894

  402

  45

  266

  30

  Hampshire

  1,036

  1—

  1—

  407

  39

  1—

  1—

  403

  39

  448

  223

  50

  136

  30

  Hertfordshire

  400

  1—

  1—

  134

  34

  1—

  1—

  167

  42

  298

  123

  41

  120

  40

  Humberside

  609

  1—

  1—

  287

  47

  1—

  1—

  207

  34

  308

  109

  35

  107

  35

  Kent

  741

  1—

  1—

  239

  32

  1—

  1—

  299

  40

  662

  256

  39

  253

  38

  Lancashire

  867

  1—

  1—

  292

  34

  1—

  1—

  367

  42

  312

  88

  28

  143

  46

  Leicestershire

  568

  1—

  1—

  221

  39

  1—

  1—

  228

  40

  739

  598

  81

  91

  12

  Lincolnshire

  285

  1—

  1—

  92

  32

  1—

  1—

  114

  40

  225

  67

  30

  95

  42

  London, City of

  40

  1—

  1—

  5

  13

  1—

  1—

  18

  45

  32

  3

  9

  13

  41

  Merseyside

  986

  1—

  1—

  373

  38

  1—

  1—

  383

  39

  341

  177

  52

  100

  29

  Metropolitan Police District

  5,031

  1—

  1—

  1,702

  34

  1—

  1—

  1,960

  39

  2,076

  928

  45

  731

  35

  Norfolk

  341

  1—

  1—

  117

  34

  1—

  1—

  127

  37

  289

  98

  34

  108

  37

  Northamptonshire

  430

  1—

  1—

  181

  42

  1—

  1—

  160

  37

  222

  72

  32

  94

  42

  Northumbria

  1,295

  1—

  1—

  515

  40

  1—

  1—

  506

  39

  696

  250

  36

  260

  37

  North Yorkshire

  272

  1—

  1—

  75

  28

  1—

  1—

  121

  44

  228

  90

  39

  80

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  705

  1—

  1—

  307

  44

  1—

  1—

  245

  35

  494

  214

  43

  160

  32

  South Yorkshire

  941

  1—

  1—

  369

  39

  1—

  1—

  388

  41

  342

  98

  29

  150

  44

  Staffordshire

  443

  1—

  1—

  133

  30

  1—

  1—

  195

  44

  89

  54

  61

  23

  26

  Suffolk

  264

  1—

  1—

  97

  37

  1—

  1—

  84

  32

  144

  51

  35

  62

  43

  Surrey

  367

  1—

  1—

  123

  34

  1—

  1—

  155

  42

  134

  63

  47

  38

  28

  Sussex

  516

  1—

  1—

  167

  32

  1—

  1—

  231

  45

  380

  130

  34

  155

  41

  Thames Valley

  1,061

  1—

  1—

  427

  40

  1—

  1—

  390

  37

  544

  161

  30

  247

  45

  Warwickshire

  217

  1—

  1—

  79

  36

  1—

  1—

  96

  44

  199

  65

  33

  75

  38

  656 657

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  West Mercia

  528

  1—

  1—

  171

  32

  1—

  1—

  220

  42

  273

  144

  53

  77

  28

  West Midlands

  2,460

  1—

  1—

  925

  38

  1—

  1—

  1,057

  43

  1,246

  582

  47

  390

  31

  West Yorkshire

  1,754

  1—

  1—

  716

  41

  1—

  1—

  679

  38

  949

  404

  43

  302

  32

  Wiltshire

  223

  1—

  1—

  81

  36

  1—

  1—

  77

  35

  234

  82

  35

  81

  35

  Dyfed-Powys

  166

  1—

  1—

  47

  38

  1—

  1—

  71

  43

  148

  57

  39

  41

  28

  Gwent

  339

  1—

  1—

  126

  37

  1—

  1—

  131

  39

  61

  33

  54

  23

  38

  North Wales

  385

  1—

  1—

  148

  38

  1—

  1—

  152

  39

  176

  62

  35

  61

  35

  South Wales

  1,117

  1—

  1—

  403

  36

  1—

  1—

  445

  40

  354

  136

  38

  103

  29

  England and Wales

  33,411

  1—

  1—

  12,382

  37

  1—

  1—

  13,281

  40

  16,294

  6,780

  42

  5,638

  35

  1 Not available separately

  Table 3

  Number and percentage of juveniles and young adults found guilty or cautioned for offences of theft of a motor vehicles, unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle 1988

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  877

  1—

  1—

  332

  38

  1—

  1—

  327

  37

  375

  173

  46

  127

  34

  Bedfordshire

  326

  1—

  1—

  122

  37

  1—

  1—

  149

  46

  307

  95

  46

  68

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  337

  1—

  1—

  142

  42

  1—

  1—

  98

  29

  221

  115

  52

  56

  25

  Cheshire

  652

  1—

  1—

  279

  43

  1—

  1—

  248

  38

  315

  98

  31

  118

  37

  Cleveland

  665

  1—

  1—

  283

  43

  1—

  1—

  268

  40

  144

  58

  40

  71

  49

  Cumbria

  327

  1—

  1—

  139

  43

  1—

  1—

  114

  35

  79

  34

  43

  28

  35

  Derbyshire

  390

  1—

  1—

  131

  34

  1—

  1—

  154

  39

  385

  159

  41

  142

  37

  Devon and Cornwall

  713

  1—

  1—

  229

  32

  1—

  1—

  297

  42

  107

  14

  13

  49

  46

  Dorset

  274

  1—

  1—

  82

  30

  1—

  1—

  102

  37

  136

  57

  42

  39

  29

  Durham

  385

  1—

  1—

  134

  35

  1—

  1—

  159

  41

  203

  117

  58

  45

  22

  Essex

  801

  1—

  1—

  315

  39

  1—

  1—

  303

  38

  457

  160

  35

  184

  40

  Gloucestershire

  233

  1—

  1—

  101

  43

  1—

  1—

  80

  34

  182

  78

  43

  73

  40

  Greater Manchester

  2,761

  1—

  1—

  1,125

  41

  1—

  1—

  1,098

  40

  839

  442

  53

  258

  31

  Hampshire

  967

  1—

  1—

  382

  40

  1—

  1—

  388

  40

  463

  205

  44

  162

  35

  Hertfordshire

  465

  1—

  1—

  165

  35

  1—

  1—

  190

  41

  283

  124

  44

  112

  40

  Humberside

  662

  1—

  1—

  297

  45

  1—

  1—

  252

  38

  349

  163

  47

  95

  27

  Kent

  716

  1—

  1—

  248

  35

  1—

  1—

  292

  41

  1,082

  707

  65

  238

  22

  Lancashire

  865

  1—

  1—

  271

  31

  1—

  1—

  371

  43

  786

  601

  76

  116

  15

  Leicestershire

  494

  1—

  1—

  203

  41

  1—

  1—

  174

  35

  339

  108

  32

  153

  45

  Lincolnshire

  272

  1—

  1—

  95

  35

  1—

  1—

  109

  40

  275

  127

  46

  103

  37

  London, City of

  28

  1—

  1—

  3

  11

  1—

  1—

  7

  25

  12

  3

  25

  5

  42

  Merseyside

  1,018

  1—

  1—

  359

  35

  1—

  1—

  435

  43

  359

  190

  53

  104

  29

  Metropolitan Police District

  4,119

  1—

  1—

  1,513

  37

  1—

  1—

  1,506

  37

  1,555

  641

  41

  544

  35

  Norfolk

  357

  1—

  1—

  131

  37

  1—

  1—

  140

  39

  271

  137

  51

  80

  30

  Northamptonshire

  345

  1—

  1—

  107

  31

  1—

  1—

  139

  40

  214

  78

  36

  86

  40

  Northumbria

  1,240

  1—

  1—

  471

  38

  1—

  1—

  511

  41

  681

  244

  36

  251

  37

  North Yorkshire

  293

  1—

  1—

  94

  32

  1—

  1—

  142

  45

  242

  100

  41

  86

  36

  Nottinghamshire

  700

  1—

  1—

  276

  39

  1—

  1—

  262

  37

  537

  229

  43

  172

  32

  South Yorkshire

  1,024

  1—

  1—

  361

  35

  1—

  1—

  442

  43

  449

  187

  42

  177

  39

  Staffordshire

  641

  1—

  1—

  220

  34

  1—

  1—

  242

  38

  264

  237

  90

  14

  5

  Suffolk

  213

  1—

  1—

  85

  43

  1—

  1—

  68

  32

  183

  112

  61

  39

  21

  Surrey

  327

  1—

  1—

  107

  33

  1—

  1—

  137

  42

  150

  65

  43

  50

  33

  Sussex

  494

  1—

  1—

  156

  32

  1—

  1—

  194

  39

  142

  100

  29

  152

  44

  Thames Valley

  931

  1—

  1—

  349

  37

  1—

  1—

  374

  40

  458

  156

  34

  211

  46

  Warwickshire

  268

  1—

  1—

  103

  33

  1—

  1—

  116

  43

  197

  97

  49

  55

  28

  West Mercia

  489

  1—

  1—

  192

  39

  1—

  1—

  205

  42

  367

  260

  71

  63

  17

  West Midlands

  2,158

  1—

  1—

  785

  36

  1—

  1—

  937

  43

  1,207

  628

  52

  337

  28

  West Yorkshire

  1,758

  1—

  1—

  664

  38

  1—

  1—

  709

  40

  1,216

  762

  63

  296

  24

  Wiltshire

  287

  1—

  1—

  94

  33

  1—

  1—

  113

  39

  227

  104

  46

  66

  29

  Dyfed-Powys

  172

  1—

  1—

  45

  26

  1—

  1—

  74

  43

  141

  89

  63

  34

  24

  Gwent

  328

  1—

  1—

  134

  41

  1—

  1—

  127

  39

  123

  63

  51

  40

  33

  North Wales

  381

  1—

  1—

  139

  36

  1—

  1—

  142

  37

  214

  84

  39

  73

  34

  South Wales

  1,309

  1—

  1—

  477

  36

  1—

  1—

  566

  43

  421

  207

  49

  130

  31

  England and Wales

  32,062

  1—

  1—

  11,940

  37

  1—

  1—

  12,761

  40

  17,057

  8,408

  49

  5,302

  31

  1 Not available separately.

  658

  659

  Table 4

  Number and percentage of juveniles and young adults found guilty or cautioned for offences of theft of a motor vehicles, unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle 1989

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  861

  70

  254

  324

  38

  53

  312

  365

  42

  273

  74

  27

  123

  45

  Bedfordshire

  365

  26

  116

  142

  39

  23

  126

  149

  41

  152

  45

  30

  68

  45

  Cambridgeshire

  263

  39

  51

  90

  34

  42

  58

  100

  38

  157

  52

  33

  67

  43

  Cheshire

  590

  28

  205

  233

  39

  40

  176

  216

  37

  258

  40

  16

  142

  55

  Cleveland

  623

  54

  253

  307

  49

  35

  196

  231

  37

  215

  69

  32

  108

  50

  Cumbria

  260

  12

  87

  99

  38

  12

  92

  104

  40

  104

  49

  47

  33

  32

  Derbyshire

  415

  24

  132

  156

  38

  20

  150

  170

  41

  333

  62

  19

  176

  53

  Devon and Cornwall

  562

  10

  157

  167

  30

  42

  193

  235

  42

  151

  29

  19

  57

  38

  Dorset

  259

  6

  105

  111

  43

  11

  71

  82

  32

  104

  40

  38

  34

  33

  Durham

  344

  32

  91

  123

  36

  30

  120

  150

  44

  193

  43

  22

  93

  48

  Essex

  758

  73

  232

  305

  40

  50

  215

  265

  35

  361

  90

  25

  187

  52

  Gloucestershire

  262

  14

  109

  123

  47

  16

  69

  85

  32

  123

  28

  23

  57

  46

  Greater Manchester

  2,782

  83

  1,011

  1,094

  39

  116

  1,007

  1,123

  40

  711

  294

  41

  246

  35

  Hampshire

  854

  33

  269

  302

  35

  73

  291

  364

  43

  328

  103

  31

  136

  41

  Hertfordshire

  370

  18

  129

  147

  40

  22

  118

  140

  38

  195

  38

  19

  109

  56

  Humberside

  723

  77

  303

  380

  53

  70

  179

  249

  34

  356

  134

  38

  132

  37

  Kent

  605

  64

  155

  219

  36

  55

  173

  228

  38

  422

  113

  27

  204

  48

  Lancashire

  830

  24

  260

  284

  34

  41

  297

  338

  41

  258

  103

  40

  100

  39

  Leicestershire

  574

  23

  229

  252

  44

  28

  177

  205

  36

  323

  127

  39

  129

  40

  Lincolnshire

  297

  7

  104

  111

  37

  17

  94

  111

  37

  236

  70

  30

  99

  42

  London, City of

  12

  1

  1

  2

  17

  —

  3

  3

  25

  10

  4

  40

  3

  30

  Merseyside

  1,046

  23

  363

  386

  37

  24

  423

  447

  43

  325

  213

  66

  62

  19

  Metropolitan Police District

  3,467

  88

  1,068

  1,156

  33

  92

  1,245

  1,337

  39

  1,443

  550

  38

  561

  39

  Norfolk

  328

  17

  109

  126

  38

  21

  91

  112

  34

  182

  52

  29

  83

  46

  Northamptonshire

  318

  13

  69

  82

  26

  22

  117

  139

  44

  128

  12

  9

  75

  59

  Northumbria

  1,211

  62

  414

  476

  39

  57

  459

  516

  43

  659

  210

  32

  285

  43

  North Yorkshire

  231

  7

  61

  68

  29

  17

  75

  92

  40

  155

  42

  27

  59

  38

  Nottinghamshire

  823

  42

  292

  334

  41

  53

  276

  329

  40

  440

  125

  28

  196

  45

  South Yorkshire

  895

  102

  231

  333

  37

  95

  270

  365

  41

  329

  107

  33

  147

  45

  Staffordshire

  578

  18

  226

  244

  42

  25

  190

  215

  37

  121

  79

  65

  22

  18

  Suffolk

  226

  17

  73

  90

  40

  19

  55

  74

  33

  125

  34

  27

  50

  40

  Surrey

  304

  24

  90

  114

  38

  12

  98

  110

  36

  87

  23

  26

  38

  44

  Sussex

  487

  44

  123

  167

  34

  16

  174

  190

  39

  248

  49

  20

  136

  55

  Thames Valley

  1,030

  68

  415

  483

  47

  47

  328

  375

  36

  402

  135

  34

  180

  45

  Warwickshire

  246

  18

  68

  86

  35

  15

  93

  108

  44

  112

  20

  18

  62

  55

  West Mercia

  474

  34

  187

  221

  47

  25

  146

  171

  36

  175

  99

  57

  47

  27

  West Midlands

  2,083

  152

  730

  882

  42

  102

  691

  793

  38

  857

  462

  54

  239

  28

  West Yorkshire

  1,666

  132

  547

  679

  41

  131

  541

  672

  40

  868

  409

  47

  265

  31

  Wiltshire

  288

  22

  88

  110

  38

  20

  90

  110

  38

  140

  39

  28

  59

  42

  Dyfed-Powys

  164

  2

  48

  50

  30

  4

  64

  68

  41

  65

  30

  46

  21

  32

  Gwent

  317

  17

  114

  131

  41

  14

  109

  123

  39

  129

  48

  37

  55

  43

  North Wales

  362

  19

  104

  123

  34

  15

  121

  136

  38

  134

  45

  34

  52

  39

  South Wales

  1,147

  37

  41,8

  455

  40

  55

  384

  439

  38

  348

  154

  44

  129

  37

  England and Wales

  30,300

  1,676

  10,091

  11,767

  39

  1,677

  10,157

  11,834

  39

  12,735

  4,544

  36

  5,126

  40

  660

  661

  Table 5

  Number and percentage of juveniles and young adults found guilty or cautioned foroffences of theft of a motor vehicle, unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and theft from a vehicle 1990

  Police force area

  Theft of and unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Juveniles

  Young adults

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Theft

  Unauthorised taking

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Total all ages ( = 100%)

  Theft

  Theft

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Avon and Somerset

  755

  54

  174

  288

  30

  45

  288

  333

  44

  312

  82

  26

  168

  54

  Bedfordshire

  456

  50

  122

  172

  38

  31

  172

  203

  45

  180

  65

  36

  82

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  317

  42

  64

  106

  33

  35

  91

  126

  40

  211

  61

  29

  109

  52

  Cheshire

  738

  16

  319

  335

  45

  53

  218

  271

  37

  312

  95

  30

  141

  45

  Cleveland

  670

  61

  228

  289

  43

  49

  232

  281

  42

  246

  97

  39

  113

  46

  Cumbria

  300

  11

  97

  108

  36

  12

  102

  114

  38

  84

  42

  50

  31

  37

  Derbyshire

  434

  25

  127

  152

  35

  24

  146

  170

  39

  332

  115

  35

  141

  42

  Devon and Cornwall

  658

  20

  167

  187

  28

  35

  225

  260

  40

  195

  52

  27

  80

  41

  Dorset

  267

  19

  78

  97

  36

  19

  83

  102

  38

  96

  29

  30

  37

  39

  Durham

  400

  42

  85

  127

  32

  47

  133

  180

  45

  271

  82

  30

  121

  45

  Essex

  747

  99

  208

  307

  41

  77

  193

  270

  36

  398

  121

  30

  201

  51

  Gloucestershire

  208

  6

  67

  73

  35

  17

  72

  89

  43

  161

  50

  31

  70

  43

  Greater Manchester

  3,041

  133

  1,227

  1,360

  45

  87

  1,052

  1,139

  37

  904

  417

  46

  301

  33

  Hampshire

  987

  50

  330

  380

  39

  62

  324

  386

  39

  544

  186

  34

  205

  38

  Hertfordshire

  462

  52

  143

  195

  42

  28

  150

  178

  39

  259

  93

  36

  127

  49

  Humberside

  668

  96

  267

  363

  54

  43

  167

  210

  31

  371

  134

  36

  144

  39

  Kent

  717

  83

  143

  226

  32

  111

  187

  298

  42

  481

  99

  21

  248

  52

  Lancashire

  865

  34

  241

  275

  32

  57

  309

  366

  42

  263

  105

  40

  102

  39

  Leicestershire

  694

  29

  239

  268

  39

  46

  252

  298

  43

  304

  89

  29

  158

  52

  Lincolnshire

  316

  18

  107

  125

  40

  17

  102

  119

  38

  218

  59

  27

  102

  47

  London, City of

  21

  —

  1

  1

  5

  2

  8

  10

  48

  9

  4

  44

  3

  33

  976

  9

  314

  323

  33

  20

  441

  461

  47

  261

  147

  56

  78

  30

  Metropolitan Police District

  3,517

  81

  1,345

  1,426

  41

  91

  1,191

  1,282

  36

  1,733

  844

  49

  523

  30

  Norfolk

  336

  23

  106

  129

  38

  30

  89

  119

  35

  189

  62

  33

  91

  48

  Northamptonshire

  287

  8

  32

  40

  13

  17

  129

  146

  49

  103

  15

  15

  70

  68

  Northumbria

  1,242

  71

  443

  514

  41

  77

  432

  509

  41

  662

  244

  37

  273

  41

  North Yorkshire

  277

  19

  69

  88

  32

  22

  93

  115

  42

  225

  61

  27

  102

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  988

  57

  365

  422

  43

  55

  344

  399

  40

  474

  140

  30

  227

  48

  South Yorkshire

  968

  95

  243

  338

  35

  90

  351

  441

  46

  506

  137

  27

  240

  47

  Staffordshire

  621

  56

  167

  223

  36

  46

  231

  277

  45

  179

  121

  68

  43

  24

  Suffolk

  273

  14

  99

  113

  41

  25

  71

  96

  35

  142

  43

  30

  67

  47

  Surrey

  257

  17

  84

  101

  39

  16

  79

  95

  37

  82

  23

  28

  39

  48

  Sussex

  455

  50

  96

  146

  32

  14

  185

  199

  44

  318

  63

  20

  160

  50

  Thames Valley

  1,204

  91

  419

  510

  42

  79

  383

  462

  38

  375

  158

  42

  155

  41

  Warwickshire

  270

  36

  64

  100

  37

  33

  75

  108

  40

  143

  30

  21

  79

  55

  West Mercia

  539

  43

  161

  204

  38

  41

  175

  216

  40

  141

  58

  41

  57

  40

  West Midlands

  2,375

  182

  838

  1,020

  43

  89

  833

  922

  39

  864

  540

  63

  192

  22

  West Yorkshire

  1,886

  133

  629

  762

  40

  112

  635

  747

  40

  855

  404

  47

  299

  35

  Wiltshire

  292

  17

  88

  105

  36

  14

  117

  131

  45

  142

  30

  21

  69

  49

  Dyfed-Powys

  174

  4

  54

  58

  33

  14

  58

  72

  41

  52

  25

  48

  21

  40

  Gwent

  330

  12

  127

  139

  42

  25

  98

  123

  37

  98

  34

  35

  46

  47

  North Wales

  292

  13

  84

  97

  33

  8

  104

  112

  38

  156

  51

  33

  64

  41

  South Wales

  1,302

  38

  486

  524

  40

  55

  507

  562

  43

  349

  145

  42

  144

  41

  England and Wales

  32,592

  2,009

  10,747

  12,756

  39

  1,870

  11,127

  12,997

  40

  14,200

  5,452

  38

  5,723

  40

  Ronnie Kray
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what treatment Ronnie Kray received at Heatherwood hospital, Ascot on 15 October; how many members of staff from Broadmoor hospital escorted him there on his visit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the treatment of individual patients is confidential between the hospital and the patient concerned. The provision of escorts for special hospital patients is an operational matter about which the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, Dr. David Edmond.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on training and retraining magistrates in the financial years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and the planned expenditure for 1992–93.
  662
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statutory responsibility for providing training and retraining magistrates lies with the 105 magistrates courts committees in England and Wales. This is funded 80 per cent. from central Government grant and 20 per cent. from local funds. At this stage it is not possible to identify the amounts that have been spent by magistrates courts committees on training and retraining magistrates in the years in question, but measures are in hand to ensure that this information is recorded in future.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the names of those responsible for choosing magistrates for the borough of Sandwell and their length of service in each case.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The ultimate choice is that of the Lord Chancellor. He is advised by the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees, the members of which are as follows:

  Name

  Date of Appointment

  Warley Advisory Committee

  Mrs. D. Cox, JP (Chairman)

  1985

  D. L. Crump, Esq. JP

  1987

  Mrs. W. V. Dyke, JP

  1991

  Miss B. Fletcher, JP

  1991

  Mrs. F. J. Groves, JP

  1981

  663

  Name

  Date of Appointment

  F. D. Head, Esq., JP

  1987

  Miss J. E. H. Marshall, JP

  1987

  H. E. Nottingham, Esq., JP

  1991

  C. G. Simmonds, Esq., JP

  1991

  J. Southall, Esq., JP

  1981

  R. G. Trigg, Esq.

  1991

  West Bromwich Advisory Committee

  P. J. Elliott, Esq., JP (Chairman)

  1977

  Dr. A. R. M. Evans, JP

  1991

  D. A. Hamilton, Esq. JP

  1991

  A. Mandley, Esq., JP

  1988

  J. A. Neale, Esq., JP

  1984

  J. F. Nicklin, Esq.,

  1988

  D. Parish, Esq, JP

  1981

  D. B. Peakman, Esq.,

  1991

  A. Pitt, Esq., JP

  1988

  Mrs. S. M. Smith, JP

  1991

  Mrs. M. Wilkes, JP

  1984

  Mrs. D. M. Wills, JP

  1991

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the political balance of magistrates for the borough of Sandwell.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The political allegiances of the magistrates, at the time of their appointment, were as follows;

  Number

  Warley

  Conservative

  70

  Labour

  54

  Liberal Democrat

  15

  Independent and not known

  16

  West Bromwich

  Conservative

  79

  Labour

  43

  Liberal Democrat

  11

  Independent and not known

  13

  The Lord Chancellor has asked the West Bromwich advisory committee to seek additional appointments to improve the political balance.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to undertake public consultations about substituting the channel tunnel high speed link running between Stratford and King's Cross for the North London line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government expects to receive the report of Union Railways on the channel tunnel rail link by the end of December. We shall consider carefully its proposals and options, and will then announce a route for public consultation. We shall aim to do this as soon as possible.

  M20
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in connection with the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5(a) how many dwellings he has
  664
  acquired under the discretionary power in section 62 of the Planning and Compensations Act 1991, (b) how many dwellings he has agreed to acquire under section 62 but where completion has not yet taken place, (c) how many applications to purchase under section 62 are still awaiting his decision and (d) what is the average acquisition cost to his Department per dwelling of the houses acquired under section 62.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  (a) one dwelling has been acquired under the discretionary power contained in section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; (b) further 17 are in the process of acquisition following acceptance of their application for discretionary purchase; (c) there are 32 outstanding applications for discretionary purchase awaiting decision; (d) the average cost per dwelling is expected to be in the region of £92,000.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in connection with the widening of the M20 between junctions 3 and 5(a) how many dwellings he has acquired under the blight notice procedures, (b) how many dwellings he has the acquisition still to complete under those procedures, (c) what is the average acquisition cost to his Department per dwelling and (d) how many of the dwellings already acquired, and to be acquired, are on land that is now actually required for this road widening scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  (a) 264 dwellings have been acquired to date under the blight provisions; (b) a further 28 are in the process of acquisition following acceptance of blight notices; (c) the average cost per dwelling is in the region of £92,000; (d) 57 dwellings are on land that is expected to be physically affected by the widening scheme.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake that after the privatisation of British Rail the British Transport police will remain as a unified force, independent of the metropolitan and county forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have no plans to end the present arrangement under which the British Transport police, as a separate service independent of the county police forces, have responsibility for security and the enforcement of law and order on the railways.

  Railways, United States
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which railways' rapid transports he visited in the United States of America this summer.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Unfortunately I had to cut short my visit to the United States, and so could not undertake my planned visit to see commuter services provided by the private sector in the Chicago conurbation.

  Norbreck Parade, London
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement detailing the reasons why his Department directed the local planning authority to refuse the application for permission to construct an access to Norbreck parade, London NW10, from the north circular road, and which was the subject of appeal proceedings on 14 October at the Ealing town hall.
  665
  Mr. Norris
  The Department directed refusal of this application in order to safeguard the safety and free flow of traffic on the north circular road.

  Marshalling Yards, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with British Rail concerning the future of Doncaster's marshalling yards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail.

  Jubilee Line
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now authorise the construction of the Jubilee line extension.

  Period of appointment

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Mr. R. M. Hastie-Smith CB

  1 July, 1992–30 June, 1994

  Mr. P. D. Jones

  1 June, 1992–27 December, 1992

  Mr. N. F. Ledsome CB (reappointed)

  1 May, 1992–30 April, 1994

  Mr. J. Pennington (reappointed)

  15 August, 1992–14 August, 1994

  Mr. A. Stem

  15 August, 1992–14 August, 1994

  All Board members are appointed on the basis of their past experience of Civil Service personnel matters.

  Members receive a fee of £110 per day of attendance, plus expenses.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Professor T. Mansfield FIBiol, PhD, FRS (reappointed)

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1993

  Mr. David George, OBE (reappointed)

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1994

  Members receive an honorarium of £4,420.

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Professor Victoria Bruce PhD

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Mr. William W. Daniel BA(Hons), MScTech

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Mr. Norman Glass BA, DIP, ICES (Amsterdam)

  1 August, 1992–31 July 1996

  Dr. Jeremy Harbison BA, MSC, DPhil

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Dr. Paul Judge BA

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Ms. Jennifer Abramsky, BA(Hons)

  1 October, 1992–31 July, 1995

  Members receive an honorarium of £4,420.

  Medical Research Council

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge MD, FRCP, FRSE

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Professor J. R. Pattison MA, BSc, DM, MRCPath

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Professor Sir David Weatherall MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRS

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Members receive an honorarium of £4,420.

  National Environment Research Council

  Dr. I. J. Graham-Bryce DPhil, FRSC (reappointed)

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1995

  Dr. R. J. Pentreath PhD, DSc, FRS

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1995

  Professor J. R. L. Allen DSc, FRS

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1995

  Dr. G. W. Robinson BSc, PhD

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Members receive an honorarium of £4,597 with the exception of Dr. Robinson who receives no remuneration.

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Professor A. W. Wolfendale BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FRAS, FRS (reappointed)

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1993

  Professor Oxburgh PhD, FRS (reappointed)

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1993

  Dr. G. W. Robinson BSc, PhD

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Professor R. Smallman FRS, FEng

  1 August, 1992–31 July, 1996

  Professor Wolfendale receives an honorarium of £5,900. Professor Smallman receives an honorarium of £4,420. Professor Oxburgh and Dr. Robinson receive no remuneration.

  Advisory Board for the Research Councils

  Professor R. L. Gardner, FRS (reappointed)

  1 July, 1992–31 March, 1994

  Sir Eric Ash, CBE, FRS (reappointed)

  1 July, 1992–31 March, 1993

  Professor David Currie BSc, MSocSci, Econs, PhD

  1 July, 1992–31 March, 1994

  Members receive an honorarium of £4,420.

  666
  Mr. Norris
  No. Discussions with the private sector continue.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The information, listed by public body, is as follows

ENVIRONMENT

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to separate the leasehold enfranchisement elements of the Housing, Land and Urban Development Bill from the other parts of the Bill and to present them as a separate Bill.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet Stoke on Trent city council to discuss its response to the Urban Regeneration Agency consultation paper.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The consultation exercise on our proposals on the Urban Regeneration Agency closed on 21 September. The Department took note of Stoke-on-Trent's response, along with the many others we received, in preparing the details of the agency in the Housing and Urban Development Bill which was introduced to the House on 22 October. It is too late to take receipt of further formal comments but I would be happy to discuss our plans for the agency when I visit Stoke-on-Trent on 13 November.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it is policy that any future arrangements for the proposed Urban Regeneration Agency will not discriminate against those authorities currently in receipt of derelict land grant but currently without assisted area and other status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Housing and Urban Development Bill makes provision for a new unified grant regime for the Urban Regeneration Agency which will replace derelict land grant and the other grants to be transferred to it. The Government will take account of the current priorities for these grants, including derelict land grant, when constructing the new unified regime.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of home improve-ments in valuation of households for the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The band shown in the valuation list compiled on 1 April 1993 should reflect the size, layout and character of each dwelling on that day. If there has been a change to a dwelling since it was valued, and before 1 April 1993, the banding of the dwelling may be reconsidered by the listing officer. In all cases, the banding will reflect the open market value of the dwelling, including any subsequent improvement, as at 1 April 1991.

  After 1 April 1993, home improvements and other factors which lead to a material increase in the value of a dwelling will only be taken into account when it is subsequently sold.

  Eco-labelling Scheme
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in implementing the eco-labelling scheme; and how it will be funded in 1992–93.
  668
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have laid regulations before both Houses of Parliament which are due to come into force on 1 November establishing the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board as a non-departmental public body and giving it responsibility for administering and promoting the EC eco-labelling scheme in the United Kingdom.

  The board was set up in an advisory capacity in July under the chair of Dr. Elizabeth Nelson. It has already made a good start in preparing the ground for implementation of the scheme and developing plans for a communications strategy. On 23 October the board and European Commission jointly hosted in the first meeting of competent bodies from EC member states, in London, to discuss issues of common interest.

  Unfortunately there have been delays at the Commission in setting in place the necessary administrative arrangements for the scheme. The United Kingdom has played and will continue to play a leading role in the development of the eco-labelling scheme. Through our presidency of the European Community we are pressing the Commission to implement the scheme speedily and asking that other member states show the same commitment to it as we are showing. The board remains hopeful that the first eco-labels will start appearing on goods in the shops in the early part of 1993.

  Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the central environmental services vote—class VIII vote 5. Pending the approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £550,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Transfer of Undertakings and Acquired Rights
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the advice he has issued to local authorities over the transfer of undertakings and acquired rights directive.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Directive was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. We are at present consulting interested parties on a draft of guidance to be issued under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992, which states our view that it would be most unusual for the Regulations to apply to a normal contract let under the compulsory competitive tendering legislation. However the interpretation of the law in individual cases is a matter for the courts.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out for the period since 9 April(a) each tender issued by his Department for projects requiring the supply of (i) computer hardware and (ii) computer software, (b) a description of the services required, (c) the number of companies who were invited to tenders, (d) the number of companies who submitted a bid without prior invitation by his Department, (e) which company was awarded the contract, (f) the value of each contract and (g) the length of period over which the contract will run.
  669
  Mr. Howard
  The following major contracts have been awarded by my department since 9 April 1992 for the supply of computer hardware and software. No companies submitted a bid without prior invitation.

  (a) Provision of computer hardware

  Description of services: Provision of hardware and software to enable the department to perform automatic security back ups of its computer bureau systems.

  Number of companies invited to tender:—3

  Company awarded the contract: Digital Equipment Corporation

  Value of contract:—£116,736

  Duration of Contract:—Not applicable

  (b) Provision of computer software

  (i) Description of Services: Provision of a personal computer version of library periodicals software formerly provided by Comshare as part of their bureau service.

  Number of companies invited to tender:—1

  Company awarded the contract:—Comshare Ltd.

  Value of contract:—£36,450

  Duration of contract:—4 months

  (ii) Description of services: Provision of computer system design software.

  Number of companies invited to tender:—1

  Company awarded the contract:—LBMS

  Value of Contract:—£24,300

  Duration of contract:—Not applicable

  (iii) Description of services: IEF software

  Number of companies invited to tender:—1

  Company awarded the contract:—JMA Information Engineering

  Value of contract:—£8,500

  Duration of contract:—Not applicable

  (iv) Description of services: Helpdesk software for VAX VMS system.

  Number of companies invited to tender:

  Company awarded the contract:—Intercom Data Systems

  Value of contract:—£l7,000

  Duration of contract:—Not applicable

  (v) Description of services: Diskeeper Plus Software (defragmentation)

  Number of companies invited to tender:–1

  Company awarded the contract:—Executive Software

  Value of contract:—£4,700

  Duration of contract: Not applicable

  In addition, during the same period my department issued 1,471 orders for minor items of computer hardware, software and associated consumables, over half of which were from "call-off" contracts that were placed before 9 April 1992. The combined value of these orders is £1,238,000.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution United Kingdom nuclear fuel cycle experts have made to the International Atomic Agency's RADWASS programme on developing safety standards for nuclear waste management.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom plays a major part in the planning a nd development of the Radioactive Waste Safety Standards programme of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the reply to the right hon Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe of 3 July,Official Report, column 719, what information is available to him on the numbers of disabled people who receive no disabled
  670
  facilities grants because the income or capital or family members is deemed excessive; what proportion of these do not consequently obtain the adaptations they require; if all such cases are automatically referred to the Department of Social Security for consideration of their duties under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not collect details of applicants for disabled facilities grant who do not qualify for assistance under the means test, because of the financial circumstances of family members, and who subsequently do not obtain the adaptations they need. There is no automatic referral procedure to social services departments. However, the Department jointly with the Department of Health, has reminded social services authorities of their responsibilities under the 1970 Act to provide financial assistance in cases where a disabled person will otherwise face hardship in meeting their share of the cost of adaptations.

EDUCATION

  Funding
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will reconsider the fifth report of Session 1990–91 from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, and the first report of the School Teachers Review Body and take steps to clarify the arrangements for the funding of education.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government do not accept that there is any lack of clarity about the current arrangements for funding education. Under these arrangements the great bulk of central Government support for local authority expenditure is through revenue support grant which is not earmarked for particular services. Central Government are accountable for its overall support for local government spending through revenue support grant, while individual local authorities are accountable to their electorates for the decisions they take both about their overall spending and the balance of that spending between and within services.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response he has made to the evidence submitted to his Department by the Association of County Councils on the likely vulnerability of shared local education authority/funding agency transitional arrangements.

  Mr. Forth
  The ACC's comments on the proposals in the White Paper have been carefully considered. In addition, my right hon. Friend has had a meeting with representatives of the ACC.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what guidance he has issued to grant-maintained schools on leakages of chlorofluorocar-bons and other ozone-destroying chemicals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to advise local education authorities on replacing halons in school fire extinguishing systems with non-ozone depleting substances; and if he will make a statement.
  671
  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not at present issue specific guidance on the use of ozone friendly or CFC-free materials in school buildings. However, the Department is currently reviewing the scope and content of its guidance on environmental standards for educational buildings.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from Birmingham local education authority about parental choice and grant-maintained schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No recent representations have been received from Birmingham local education authority specifically about parental choice and grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the sources and evidence on which the statement made at paragraph 13.3 of the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", that grant-maintained schools secure better value for money is based.

  Mr. Forth
  Her Majesty's inspectorate has observed that grant-maintained schools have generally deployed their resources to good effect. The majority of respondents to a survey of grant-maintained schools conducted by the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre reported increased ability to focus spending on delivery of education in the classroom.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Forman
  The details requested are given in the table. Information on the qualifications of appointees is not kept centrally, but we are satisfied that the qualifications of appointees to this Department's public bodies fully meet the standards required.

  Names of appointments to public bodies

  Period of appointment

  Remuneration

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  Mr. D. A. L. Every1

  3 years

  —

  Dr. R. Rix1

  4 years

  —

  Mrs. S. Greenfield1

  4 years

  —

  Mr. R. Bailess1

  2 years

  —

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Mr. J. Beale1

  2 years

  —

  Ms. J. Little

  2 years

  —

  Ms. M. Ryan

  2 years

  —

  Professor G. Thomas1

  2 years

  —

  Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

  Professor A. J. Alexander1

  2 years

  —

  Mr. J. Burn1

  2 years

  —

  Sr. V. Duggan

  2 years

  —

  Dr. M. Frazer, CBE1

  2 years

  —

  Professor A. O'Hear1

  2 years

  —

  Education Assets Board

  Sir Tom MacDonald1 (Ch. PT)

  1 year

  £23,365 pa

  672

  Names of appointments to public bodies

  Period of appointment

  Remuneration

  Mr. H. S. Hoare1 (Ch. Ex. FT)

  2.5 years

  £46,000 pa

  Mr. B. C. Arthur1

  2.5 years

  2£153

  Mr. K. J. Bridge1

  3 years

  Ms. K. Buckley

  3 years

  Mr. H. E. Couch1

  2.5 years

  Mr. J. M. Edwards1

  3 years

  Miss A. Lees1

  3 years

  Mr. P. S. Lewis

  3 years

  Mr. G. Locke

  3 years

  Mr. A. N. Solomons1

  2.5 years

  Fulbright Commission

  Professor M. Edwards1

  4 years

  —

  Higher Education Funding Council, England

  Professor C. Campbell

  3 years

  4£4,000

  Professor B. K. Follett3

  2 years

  Mr. R. Gunn3

  2 years

  Professor Kay Tee Khaw

  3 years

  Sir Idris Pearce3

  2 years

  Sir David Phillips3

  2 years

  Professor J. Shaw3

  2 years

  Sir Robert Scholey

  3 years

  Dr. R. Telfer

  3 years

  Miss J. Trotter

  3 years

  Further Education Funding Council

  Mr. N. Bennett

  3 years

  5£4,000

  Mr. A. Cann

  3 years

  Dr. J. Capey

  3 years

  Mr. A. Close

  3 years

  Mrs. M. Davey

  3 years

  Mrs. P. Haikin

  3 years

  Mrs. M. Hobrough

  3 years

  Mr. C. Jonas

  3 years

  Cllr. L. Lawrence

  3 years

  Mr. M. Lickiss

  3 years

  Mr. M. Rowarth

  3 years

  Dr. A. Wright

  3 years

  The Further Education Unit6

  Mr. A. Ainsworth1 (Ch.)

  4 years

  —

  Mr. M. Cross1

  4 years

  —

  Mr. K. Franklin1

  2 years

  —

  Ms. A. Limb1

  1 year

  —

  Mr. G. M. Rowarth, OBE1

  1 year

  —

  Mr. C. K. Rowland1

  1 year

  —

  Ms. J. Scribbins1

  1 year

  —

  Mr. B. D. Short1

  6 years

  —

  National Curriculum Council

  Mr. D. Pascall1 (Ch. PT)

  1 year

  7£285 pd

  Mr. J. Burn

  3 years

  —

  Dr. J. Marks

  3 years

  —

  Professor A. Smithers

  3 years

  —

  Mrs. J. Wisker1

  1 year

  —

  National Council for Educational Technology

  Mr. J. Richards (Ch.)

  3 years

  —

  Ms. S. Davies

  2.5 years

  —

  Dr. D. Laurillard

  2.5 years

  —

  Ms. U. Malik

  2.5 years

  —

  Ms. L. Menon

  2.5 years

  —

  Mr. K. Satchwell

  2.5 years

  —

  Mr. R. Scarth

  2.5 years

  —

  Mr. J. Young

  2.5 years

  —

  School Examinations and Assessment Council

  Dr. J. Marenbon

  3 years

  —

  Dr. S. Nepaulsingh1

  3 years

  —

  Mr. A. Pellegrini

  3 years

  —

  Lord Sidelsky

  3 years

  —

  Ms. K. Tattershall

  3 years

  —

  Mr. P. Wood

  3 years

  —

  1 Members of public bodies who have been re-appointed.

  2 Members receive an honorarium of £153 paid for attendance at

  673

  each monthly board meeting.

  3 Members who have previously served on the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.

  4 Membership of the Higher Education Funding Council, England carries with it an honorarium of £4,000 per annum.

  5 Members of the Further Education Funding Council receive an honorarium of £4,000 per annum.

  6 Members of the Further Education Unit have had their periods of office extended from the original expiry date of 31 March 1993 (30 April in the case of Mr. Ainsworth) to 31 March 1994.

  7 Mr. Pascall receives remuneration of £285 per day for the time spend on National Curriculum Council business. This is reimbursed to his employer.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils obtained three or more A-levels in(a) 1982 and (b)

  Mr. Forman
  The estimated number of school leavers in England who obtained three or more A-levels was 72,600 in 1982 and 86,700 in 1991, the latest year for which information is available.

  Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is current per capita spending on education in schools in England and Wales; and what it was in 1982.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest year for which actual spending information is available is 1990–91. In that year, school-based funding available per nursery, primary and secondary pupil in England was some £1,620 per pupil. This figure includes unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management schemes. In 1981–82, school-based funding in England was some £740 per pupil, which represents some £1,240 per pupil at 1990–91 prices. There was a real-terms increase in funding per pupil between 1981–82 and 1990–91 of 31 per cent. Expenditure on schools in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Teachers Pensions Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the Teachers Pensions Agency.

  Mr. Forth
  The Teachers Pensions Agency was established on 1 April 1992. Since that date, the following papers and guides have been issued:

  The TPA Business Plan and Framework documents

  A guide to Teachers Superannuation for Further Education and Sixth Form Colleges

  Two Teachers' Superannuation Scheme Fact Sheets

  A Guide for employers to the TPA

  A Guide for teachers to the TPA

  The first TPA newsletter

  In addition, many of the explanatory and option leaflets in daily use by employers and scheme members have been redesigned and reissued.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of coal were imported from the Netherlands in 1991; what was the pithead cost of that coal; and if he will make it his policy to impose an anti-dumping duty on such coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Netherlands has closed all its mines and now produces no coal. In 1991 the statistics recorded 6,000 tones of coal originated in the Netherlands. It is assumed that these 6,000 tonnes were first imported into the Netherlands from other countries, processed there, and subsequently re-exported to the United Kingdom. The statistics also record that in 1991, 4.713 million tonnes of coal, destined to the United Kingdom, passed through the Netherlands in consignment.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each port in the United Kingdom, the tonnages of coal imports by year for the last four years; and what were the points of origin.

  Mr. Eggar
  Breakdowns of coal imports by port of entry, and by country of origin, for the last four years and for the current year to date, are as follows:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Port of entry

  Med way

  565

  652

  855

  1,989

  2,249

  Immingham

  999

  1,268

  2,182

  3,177

  2,206

  Middlesbrough

  2,570

  2,812

  2,385

  2,894

  1,914

  Port Talbot

  1,997

  2,610

  2,885

  2,655

  1,716

  London (including Tilbury)

  743

  782

  2,104

  3,016

  1,596

  Greenock

  1,164

  1,162

  1,027

  1,209

  1,363

  Liverpool

  31

  286

  948

  1,308

  1,152

  Belfast

  192

  182

  332

  387

  536

  Hull

  1

  44

  152

  416

  322

  Cardiff

  294

  229

  410

  491

  292

  Swansea

  92

  134

  162

  422

  140

  Others

  3,036

  1,975

  1,340

  1,527

  983

  Total

  11,685

  12,137

  14,783

  19,491

  14,469

  Country of origin

  United States of America2

  4,073

  4,874

  6,176

  8,132

  5,375

  Australia2

  3,416

  2,676

  3,044

  4,654

  3,304

  Colombia2

  574

  874

  1,506

  2,447

  2,505

  Canada

  553

  729

  986

  760

  653

  South Africa

  276

  346

  356

  579

  621

  Poland

  1,270

  1,055

  1,043

  557

  588

  USSR

  375

  181

  592

  900

  574

  China

  319

  450

  69

  294

  162

  Germany3

  191

  288

  249

  220

  160

  Venezuela

  92

  86

  169

  230

  160

  Belgium

  122

  78

  60

  231

  12

  Others2

  425

  501

  533

  488

  354

  Total

  11,685

  12,137

  14,783

  19,491

  14,469

  Because of rounding the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the totals shown.

  1 January to August.

  2 Some imports previously recorded by Customs and Excise as originating in the Netherlands have been re-allocated to the other countries indicated or, where revised country or origin data is not available, included in the residual entry "Others". This re-allocation has been carried out for 1991 and estimates of such imports previously classified to the Netherlands have been included for 1990. Figures for earlier years have not been re-allocated to individual countries.

  675

  3 Includes imports previously recorded separately for the German Democratic Republic.

  Source: Customs and Excise.

  Coal Stocks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to sell existing coal stocks(a) in the EEC and (b) outside the EEC at a reduced price to ease the burden on the Exchequer;

  (2) what proposals he has to auction the entire stock of coal above ground to the highest overseas bidder.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale of coal stocks is a matter for the owners of the stocks. More generally as my right hon. Friend indicated to the House on 21 October, I will report on the level of coal stocks and whether plans to run them down are sensibly phased as part of the current review of coal policy.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to re-examine the recommendations numbered 13, 23, 36, 43, 44, 45, 48 and 49 in the second report of the Energy Committee, Session 1991–92, on the consequences of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend announced on 26 October,Official Report, columns 522–23, the scope of the review which we will be conducting of the proposed closure of 21 pits, within the context of the Government's energy policy.

  Divisional Papers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the heads of division of(a) the business task force 1, (b) the companies investigation branch, (c) the competition policy division, (d) the financial services division, (e) the insurance division, (f) the manufacturing technology division and (g) the telecommunications and posts division, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  The details1 are as follows:

  Business Task Force 12

  None

  Companies Investigation Branch

  (Investigations under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985)

  The Milford Docks Company

  BOM Holdings plc.

  Blue Arrow plc.

  Competition Policy Division

  (Various Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports)

  Havas/Brunton Curtis

  Unichem/McCarthy and Lloyds/McCarthy

  AAH Holdings/Medicopharma

  Hillsdown/ABF

  Allied Lyons/Carlsberg

  Sara Lee Corporation/Reckitt and Colman

  Bond/British Helicopters

  Scottish and Universal Newspapers Ltd./Trinity International Holdings plc.

  EMAP/United Newspapers

  Supply of Indirect Electrostatic Photocopiers

  Supply of Cross Solent Ferry Services

  Supply of Matches and Disposable Lighters

  Supply of New Motor Cars

  676

  Supply of Motor Car Parts

  Television Broadcasting Services

  The Commonwealth Development Corporation

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Insurance Division

  Insurance Annual Report 1991

  (CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENTS)

  Implementation in the United Kingdom of the Second Council Directive on Direct Life Assurance

  Implementation in the United Kingdom of the EC Council Directive on the accounts of insurance undertakings Implementation in the United Kingdom of Council directive 90/618/EEC of 8 November 1990, amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC, particularly as regards Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance

  Implementation in the United Kingdom of Second Council Directive on Direct Life Insurance—The Life Services Directive—Draft Regulations

  Manufacturing Technology Division2

  Industrial Materials for the Future? (Jointly sponsored by SERC and DTI)

  Five-year Forward Look for Measurement Technology and Standards Work in Materials

  (Papers were also circulated to consult industry on EC proposals to remove technical barriers to trade, and to inform industry of new or impending Directives and UK regulations to implement them).

  Telecommunications and Posts Division

  (CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENTS)

  Telecommunications Terminal Equipment: Draft UK Regulations

  The Satellite Broadcasting of Television Signals Regulations 1992: Draft UK Regulations

  Responsibility for the former DTI financial services division was transferred to Her Majesty's Treasury earlier this year.

  1 Publicity and promotional publications excluded.

  2 Much of the Business Task Force 1 has been subsumed within the Department's Environment Division, and the Manufacturing Technology Division within the Information and Manufacturing Technology Division.

  Coal Exports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each port in the United Kingdom, the tonnages of coal exports by year for the last four years; and what were the points of destination.

  Mr. Eggar
  Breakdowns of coal exports by port and by country of destination, for the last four years and for the current year to date, are as follows:

  Exports by port

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Swansea

  277

  187

  410

  616

  189

  Sunderland

  39

  78

  82

  149

  71

  Irish Land Boundary

  90

  81

  95

  117

  63

  Leith (including Granton)

  90

  99

  213

  118

  56

  Blyth

  392

  442

  192

  279

  52

  Workington

  326

  242

  108

  32

  38

  Tyne

  270

  607

  869

  285

  33

  Others

  255

  336

  338

  217

  156

  Total

  1,737

  2,072

  2,307

  1,813

  658

  Country of destination

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Irish Republic

  359

  331

  248

  268

  154

  France

  256

  210

  271

  346

  102

  Belgium

  13

  46

  103

  106

  95

  Spain

  —

  33

  138

  256

  81

  Denmark

  426

  521

  366

  175

  60

  677

  Exports by port

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Norway

  106

  128

  145

  73

  55

  Germany2

  107

  93

  214

  244

  48

  Portugal

  170

  154

  190

  118

  33

  Morocco

  144

  282

  282

  103

  11

  Others

  155

  274

  351

  124

  18

  Total

  1,737

  2,072

  2,307

  1,813

  658

  1 January to August.

  2 Included imports previously recorded separately for the German Democratic Republic.

  Source: Customs and Excise

  Because of rounding the sum of the constituent items may not agree with the totals shown.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the initial instalment of RECHAR programme moneys to be specifically allocated to the projects; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the payments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the standard procedure for the European Community structural funds, the allocation is made by 11 area committees, each of which includes central and local government and European Commission representatives. So far, grant of £11.6 million has been committed to 129 projects, and a further £29.5 million of grant has been approved in principle to 359 projects. Further committee meetings will be held shortly.

  In accordance with the standard procedures grant is, for financial control reasons, not generally paid on to final beneficiaries until they certify their own expenditure. So far grant of £96,000 has been paid to two projects.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he has used in his Department's monthly publication,Energy Trends, to exclude natural uranium, enriched uranium and plutonium from the table of imports and exports of fuels.

  Mr. Eggar
  The exclusion of natural uranium, enriched uranium and plutonium from the data on imports and exports of fuels in Energy Trends follows internationally accepted practices for the compilation of energy statistics. There are difficulties in compiling aggregate energy statistics that include nuclear fuels, including the technical problems associated with converting data to a common unit of measurement that can be compared with other fuels.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investments his Department, and predecessor Departments, have made annually since 1979, to support research, development and demonstration projects in clean coal technology; and if he will make a statement on the criteria adopted in deciding upon investment.

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimated annual investment by my Department and the former Department of Energy in support of coal research and development is as follows:678

  1991 prices

  £ million

  1979–80

  5.3

  1980–81

  5.7

  1981–82

  8.3

  1982–83

  6.0

  1983–84

  5.3

  1984–85

  1.3

  1985–86

  1.1

  1986–87

  2.5

  1987–88

  1.7

  1988–89

  1.1

  1989–90

  2.2

  1990–91

  11.8

  1991–92

  5.1

  Total public sector expenditure on coal R and D over the period 1981–92 was approximately £1,000 million, at 1991 prices, of which around half was associated with the development of clean coal technology.

  The Department's coal R and D programme is primarily focussed on the development of new clean coal technologies that improve the environmental performance of coal utilisation. The criteria for assessing the desirability of specific project proposals are set out within a document prepared by the Department's coal task force in August 1991. Factors include the degree of novelty, relevance to the overall objectives of the R and D programme, and the potential for exploitability. If the objective of the work is commercial, the potential benefit to United Kingdom company competitiveness is also taken into account.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of natural gas is currently consumed annually in the United Kingdom(a) by electricity generators and (b) by other customers; and what quantity his Department estimates will be consumed by electricity generators and other customers in (a) 1995, (b) 2000, (c) 2010, (d) 2020, (e) 2030, (f) 2040 and (g) 2050, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  Natural gas sales to(a) electricity generators and (b) other customers in 1991 and for the first half of 1992 in Gigawatt hours were as follows:

  Electricity generators

  Other customers

  1991

  13,686

  581,072

  1992 (January-June)

  7,239

  305,556

  Source: Energy Trends (Table 9).

  An indication of the likely range of gas requirements in some possible future energy scenarios can be obtained from "Energy Paper No. 59", which was recently published by this Department. A copy of this paper has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of natural gas in the British sector of the North sea his Department estimates(a) is in gas fields currently being exploited, (b) is in gas fields identified as economically exploitable but not currently being exploited and (c) is yet to be discovered in economically exploitable gas fields.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's most recent estimate of recoverable gas reserves remaining in the United Kingdom
  679
  were published in the Brown Book—"Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—in April 1992. Reserves so far identified as economically exploitable are as follows:

  Billion cubic metres

  Proven

  Proven plus probable

  Maximum possible

  Fields in production and approved for development

  540

  805

  985

  Other discovered fields identified as economically exploitable

  0

  430

  820

  Total

  540

  1,235

  1,805

  In addition, reserves in unappraised discoveries and undrilled prospects are estimated at between 395 and 1,557 billion cu m.

  Electricity Costs
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the current costs of producing a unit of electricity by(a) coal, (b) gas, (c) nuclear and (d) wind, respectively: and what are the projected costs over the next decade.

  Mr. Eggar
  The comparable capital and full fuel costs per kilowatt-hour of power stations using coal, gas and nuclear fuels depend significantly upon the contractual terms of fuel purchase, and the contractual terms under which the power station is to be constructed and operated. These are commercial matters for the companies concerned. As far as electricity is concerned it is up to the Director General of Electricity Supply to ensure that the regional electricity companies comply with their economic purchasing obligations. My Department will, however, be assessing the evidence available on the comparative economics of coal as against other sources as part of the Government's review.

  Cost data for wind energy are likely to be given in the report of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, which I hope to receive shortly, and which I expect to be published soon afterwards.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of electricity for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom and in each of the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 26 October, Official Report, columns 518–20.

  Boreholes
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will direct British Coal to provide information to the British Geological Survey about its 1958 to 1965 and 1973 to 1985 drilling programmes to establish the undersea extension of the Northumberland and Durham coalfield; and if he will ensure that the academic community has access to this information.
  680
  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that British Coal already provides information to the British Geological Survey in accordance with statutory requirements.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the number of boreholes drilled between Acklington Whin Dyke and the Grange Park fault in the Northumberland and Durham coalfield; and if he will list the borehole numbers, their co-ordinates, the coal sections and the depths to each coal section.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not keep information on boreholes. This is a matter for British Coal.

  Sectoral Divisions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the sectoral divisions he has created in his Department; for each what are their current work programme priorities and recent contacts; and if he will list the studies, projects and research reports they have commissioned.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the reorganisation of the Department which my right hon. Friend announced on 3 July he said that the Department would be adopting a more directly sectoral approach in the industries for which it is responsible. Seven new sectoral divisions were created to cover the key sectors not previously dealt with in this way:

  Chemicals and biotechnology

  Steel, metals and minerals

  Vehicles (also covering shipbuilding)

  Aerospace

  Electronic and electrical engineering

  Mechanical engineering

  Textiles and retailing

  The sectoral divisions, both new and old, have been given the explicit role of sponsoring their industries, not uncritically, but as the basis for an informed dialogue and a constructive partnership between the Government and business. In addition, the new industrial competitiveness division is examining what lessons can be learnt from the leading industrialised countries and ensuring that policies of all Government Departments take due account of the need to promote the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and commerce.

  All sectoral divisions are taking forward my right hon. Friend's initiative and developing their contacts with their industries. My right hon. Friend will be reviewing their current work priorities and progress made during the MINIS discussions which he will be holding with his officials over the next few months.

  Halons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research or evaluations his Department has conducted or commissioned on new gases which could replace ozone-destroying halons in fire-fighting applica-tions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. My Department and the Department of the Environment are willing to consider requests from industry for support for collaborative research into alternative gases and technologies. However, halons are only one of five commonly used fire extinguishing media and many businesses are finding that they can use water, foam, powder or CO2 instead.

  Electricity
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total capacity of electricity supplied to the United Kingdom from French sources in the years 1990, 1991 and to the third quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quantity of electricity supplied to the United Kingdom from French sources in the years 1990, 1991 and in the first three quarters of 1992 is set out in the table.

  Electricity supplied from France (Gigawatt hours)

  1990

  11,990

  1991

  16,422

  First three quarters of 1992

  12,412

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics and Energy Trends.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total capacity of electricity supplied to France from United Kingdom sources in the years 1990, 1991 and to the third quarter of 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The quantity of electricity supplied to France from United Kingdom sources in the years 1990, 1991 and in the first three quarters of 1992 is set out in the table.

  Electricity supplied to France (Gigawatt hours)

  1990

  47

  1991

  15

  First three quarters of 1992

  20

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics and Energy Trends.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to the Government of maintaining output at the 31 pits scheduled in his announcement of 13 October to be closed; whether this includes the market value of the coal being stockpiled; and whether he will publish a table showing exactly how the £100 million per month referred to in that announcement is made up by item of expenditure.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 27 October 1992] British Coal has said that it cannot expect to sell more than 40 million tonnes of coal to the electricity supply industry next year. This is 25 million tonnes less than in the current year.

  The cash operating costs of the pits concerned are about £100 million per month. This excludes stocking costs.

  The coal produced could only be sold at distressed prices, over an extended period, if at all.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many pits have been subject to the consultative review procedure on redundancies in the last decade; and how many have remained open following the review.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The issue which the hon. Member has raised is a matter for British Coal.
  682
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request National Power and PowerGen to announce no further station closures during the moratorium on pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The procedure governing power station closures by National Power and PowerGen is prescribed by a licence condition. The Director General of Electricity Supply announced last week that he has decided to appoint an independent assessor to examine the issues in relation to their power station closures.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expected rate of depletion of reserves of natural gas within United Kingdom or European Community ownership, at those volumes of gas contracted to be burned by gas-powered power stations in operation, or likely to be approved, stated in approximate volume, time and percentage terms.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 October 1992] My Department's latest estimates of United Kingdom gas reserves are set out in the Brown Book "Development of Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom". The rate at which gas reserves are depleted will depend on many factors including demand, development costs, prices, levels of imports and technological developments. I am not aware of any plans to import gas from European Community countries.

  As my right hon. Friend told the House on 21 October, we will be producing for the House the conclusions we draw from our estimates of reserves, and will report on the scale of gas-generated power stations in production, in build and in the planning process.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Premium
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the arrangements for payment of beef premium from 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Curry
  Commission legislation giving effect to the new premium scheme is still in the course of preparation and arrangements for its application in the United Kingdom cannot therefore be finalised. I recognise the need for some form of transitional arrangement so that the provision of animals for slaughter is not interrupted in the early months of the year, but this is still to be negotiated.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 26 and 27 October.

  Mr. Gummer
  I chaired the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 October. My hon. Friends the Minister of State in my Department and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland represented the United Kingdom.

  Following a short discussion on GATT I confirmed on behalf of the Community, that the Commission should

  683
  attempt urgently to seek an accommodation with the United States on the Uruguay round and the oilseeds dispute following the mandates already given by the Council and using the Commission's powers under the treaty of Rome. I understand talks will resume shortly.

  Progress was made on a wide range of other issues dealing with the implementation of CAP reform and of the single market. Decisions will be needed on these before the end of year.

  Bananas
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the relationship between the single market for bananas and(a) the Lome convention and (b) GATT negotiations in the Uruguay round.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are determined that the arrangements for the single market in bananas should meet its Lomé convention obligations, whilst being compatible with a successful outcome to the GATT Uruguay round.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the division of licences on the single market for bananas amongst(a) Latin American producers, (b) the Association of Caribbean Producers and (c) European Community producers.

  Mr. Curry
  Negotiations are continuing on single market arrangements for bananas. No agreement has yet been reached. The Commission proposal would require licensing of all fruit from non-EC and non-ACP sources and of imports from ACP origins that exceed traditional volumes of trade. The detailed provisions for licence allocation are complex but would broadly distribute 66.5 per cent. of the total on the basis of past trade in non-EC and non-ACP fruit; 30 per cent. would be available to operators who undertook to market a related quantity of EC or ACP fruit; 3.5 per cent. would be available to newcomers to the trade.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the level of banana exports to the European Community in 1993 from(a) Caribbean exporters and (b) Latin American exporters.

  Mr. Curry
  The precise level of banana exports to the European Community in 1993 will depend on many factors. Negotiations on the bananas dossier are continuing and it is therefore not possible, at this stage, to forecast the level of imports in 1993 from either the Caribbean or Latin America.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent(a) Caribbean, (b) Latin American and (c) European Community producers will have access to banana markets under the single market system.

  Mr. Curry
  Negotiations are continuing on single market arrangements for bananas. The Commission's proposals would apply a quota to all imports of bananas from non-EC and non-ACP sources, including Latin America; non-traditional volumes from ACP sources would also be covered; EC and ACP supplies would continue free of duty; all others would face a 20 per cent. duty. No agreement has so far been reached regarding the single market arrangements.
  684
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the maintenance of an orderly market at the start of 1993 if the single market for bananas is not fully in place.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are working hard to secure agreement on a common organisation of the market in bananas by the end of this year. We shall be discussing with the Commission and other member states what arrangements may be necessary at the start of 1993 in the light of developments in the negotiations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government to Commonwealth banana exporters as a result of the Lomé convention.

  Mr. Curry
  The Lomé convention imposes obligations on all EC member states. In particular, article 1 of protocol 5 of that convention states:"In respect of its banana exports to the Community markets, no ACP State shall be placed, as regards access to its traditional markets and its advantages on those markets, in a less favourable situation than in the past or at present."

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the establishment of a quota system under the single market for bananas.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has proposed a system for the common organisation of the Community banana market based on an absolute quota on imports from non-EC and non-ACP sources, and on ACP supplies above traditional levels. This proposal provides the basis for the negotiations between member states that are currently under way.

  Geopathie Stress
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently carrying out into geopathic stress; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department currently spends about £50 million a year on agricultural research relevant to environmental problems. Details are given in the MAFF publication "Scientific Research and Development: The Environment", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  CAP Reforms
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consideration was given to introducing the common agricultural policy reforms over more than one year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when more information about the detail of the common agricultural policy reforms will be made available to farmers;

  (3) what representations he has received about the speed of the common agricultural policy reforms.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry is in regular contact with representatives of consumer, farming and environmental organisations to discuss all aspects of the common agricultural policy reforms, which are being phased in over a four-year period. An explanatory booklet on the arable
  685
  scheme was sent to farmers at the beginning of September; a copy was placed in the Library of the House. Discussion of detailed rules for the reformed beef and sheepmeat regimes is still continuing; farmers will be given information on these as soon as it is available.

  Eggs
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce salmonella testing on eggs imported into the United Kingdom from the EC and marketed in the United Kingdom as packed in the United Kingdom, before such eggs are introduced into the retail market.

  Mr. Soames
  Imported eggs are already subject to salmonella testing and where positive results are found these are pursued with the exporting member state. To delay the distribution of such eggs would be a clear breach of European Community law.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to fix a date for ending salmonella testing on laying flocks to bring the United Kingdom into line with the rest of the EC.

  Mr. Soames
  The package of' measures introduced by the Government to combat salmonella in poultry, including the testing of laying flocks, has been an important factor in helping to restore confidence in British eggs.

  We shall continue to keep these measures under review, taking account of the progress being made in Brussels towards the introduction of Communitywide measures for the control of salmonella in poultry.

  Suckler Cows and Sheep
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the base year for suckler cows and sheep used to establish the quota for herds and flocks.

  Mr. Curry
  For suckler cow premium, the Government have chosen to base quotas on claims in respect of the 1992 marketing year.

  For ewe premium, individual producers will receive quota equal to their eligible sheep numbers in 1991, provided they also made a valid claim in 1992. However, the total quota available to the United Kingdom industry will be based on the number of eligible animals in the national flock in 1990. The difference between the 1991 and 1990 numbers—some 320,000 ewes—will be used to create the national ewe premium quota reserve.

  These decisions provide the United Kingdom suckler cow and sheep industries with the maximum quota permitted under the Council regulations.

  Milk
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he intends to make to fund the individual farmer for milk recording under the new system in place of the milk marketing board.

  Mr. Curry
  I understand that the Milk Marketing Board envisages that its proposed successor co-operative would continue to offer a milk recording service. This would be available to non-members on a commercial basis. It will be open to other organisations to offer competing services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush over the circumstances surrounding the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations against Libya; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to raise the issues surrounding Lockerbie at the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have worked closely with the American administration on all aspects of the Lockerbie case, including United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

  Bloodstock
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute an interdepartmental review of the case for reducing the level of value added tax on bloodstock in the United Kingdom to reduce the difference between the United Kingdom rate and the rates levied in France and Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The Government recognise the regional economic importance of the bloodstock industry. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has worked hard with industry representatives to ensure that it is not significantly disadvantaged by the continued difference in VAT rates between member states. The introduction of the flat rate farmers' scheme and a 0.75 per cent. cut in betting duty in the 1992 Budget will help to secure the right environment in which the industry can compete successfully.

  Ministers receive many well-argued cases for tax relief, many of which appear at least as deserving of a reduced rate as bloodstock. The Government believe that their long-standing policy of a VAT system based on a zero rate and a single positive rate is simple for all traders and cheap to administer.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the General Secretary of the TUC about pit closures; and what reply he is sending.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Following British Coal's announcement of pit closures on 13 October the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. Willis, wrote to me on 15, 17 and 20 October.

  In replying, I noted that the issues he raised had been addressed in Parliament on a number of occasions and that we looked forward to the TUC's contribution to the widespread consultation announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Mr. Willis also wrote to me twice on 26 October. I shall reply to these letters shortly.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about(a) the timetable, (h) the location, (c) the space requirement and (d) the cost of the provision of new office accommodation for his Department.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend is considering the future location of the Department, which requires approximately 70,000 sq ft of useable space. He expects to make an announcement on the matter in due course and the Department will then move to its new headquarters as soon as possible.

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointee and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. Key
  The Department of National Heritage is still in the process of setting up central records and the information required to answer this question is not yet centrally available.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether a national lottery will be classified by the Government as gambling.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Tower of London

  2,289,400

  2,181,700

  2,214,000

  2,298,700

  1,923,500

  Hampton Court

  590,600

  533,000

  538,800

  521,000

  502,400

  Cutty Sark, Greenwich

  375,700

  401,000

  360,100

  411,000

  437,500

  National Maritime Museum, Greenwich

  442,000

  707,400

  423,800

  563,000

  587,900

  Figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  There are no projected figures for the period 1992 to 1994.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Home Carers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to exempt home carers from obligations for classified business miles payments, for education purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am very much aware of the important and valuable service provided by home carers. If carers receive motor mileage allowances in respect of business journeys or volunteer driving, no tax is payable if the allowances do no more than cover their costs. The allowances are liable to tax only if the allowances exceed actual costs and so result in a profit. If, however, the hon. Member is concerned about the tax treatment given in a particular case, I would be happy to look into it if he would let me have the usual details.
  688
  Mr. Brooke
  The Government made it quite clear in the White Paper "A National Lottery: Raising Money for Good Causes", Cm. 1861, that lotteries, including the national lottery, represent the "softest" form of gambling. Properly regulated, the national lottery will provide a harmless form of entertainment.

  Exhibition, Upper Waiting Hall
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Royal Armouries' new museum in Leeds to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Key
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 26 to 30 October 1992.

  Tourism
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many(a) foreign and (b) domestic visitors are estimated to have been to (i) the Tower of London, (ii) Hampton Court and (iii) Greenwich in each of the years from 1987 to 1991; and how many are expected to visit each in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Key
  The figures for estimates of the number of visitors to the Tower of London, Hampton Court and Greenwich are published annually by the British tourist authority and the English tourist board. These figures, which are set out in the table, are not compiled on a foreign/domestic visitor basis.

  Fraud
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Such information is not available. But in the year 1991–92 the direct yield from Inland Revenue counter-evasion work was some 1.4 billion, excluding any future or deterrent effects.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of people prosecuted for fraud by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of successful Inland Revenue prosecutions for false accounts or returns of income, false claims to personal allowances, deductions or repayments, false PAYE returns, and sub-contractor exemption certificate frauds, in the year 1991–92 was 167.
  689
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of whole-time equivalent staff employed by the Inland Revenue to detect and prosecute fraud; and what is the cost of their employment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During the year 1991–92 a total of 3,600 staff units were employed by the Inland Revenue in the detection and prosecution of possible or actual tax evasion, including fraud. The cost of their employment was some £115 million.

  Mortgages (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of mortgages in England with negative equity, and the number who will benefit directly from the recently announced changes in limits to unsecured loans and MIRAS entitlement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of the number of households with negative equity have varied considerably. A figure of around 1 million for the United Kingdom was published in the August edition of the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin".

  The number of those who will benefit directly from the measures recently announced by the Government will depend on a range of factors, including the proportion of them who wish to move; the way in which they choose to go about it; their personal circumstances; the attitude of their lender; and the extent to which mortgage indemnity insurance can be transferred. In practice, the number of potential beneficiaries is likely to be in the tens of thousands.

  EC Contributors
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the net contributors to the EC and the amount they each contribute; and if he will list the net recipients of funds from the EC and how much each receives.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 22 June 1992, at column 5.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount currently being spent on all forms of research and development excluding defence; and what were the comparable figures for 1982 and 1972.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available information for 1990 is given in table 2.2.2 of the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development 1992", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Figures for 1989 were published in the 1991 edition. Information for 1982 and 1972 on a comparable basis is not available.

  Housing Associations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations about the retention of the £2 billion grant for housing associations; and if he will make it his policy that no cuts in expenditure will be made to the budget for the west midlands.
  690
  Mr. Portillo
  It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to respond in detail to representations in advance of his autumn statement on 12 November.

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what were the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, Central Statistical Office and Valuation Office executive agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. McLennan chief executive of the Central Statistical Office to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992.
  I have been asked to reply direct to question No. 49, which you tabled for answer on 26 October 1992.
  Neither I, nor my predecessor, Sir Jack Hibbert, have made any official fact-finding visits in the last twelve months.

  Letter from R. R. B. Shutter, chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992

  In your question to the Chancellor ref: 3/0470 you ask for a note of the factfinding visits made in the last year by Chief Executives:

  The principal factfinding visits made by me are as follows:

  Visit

  Objective

  Visits to Annual Conference and other meetings of the Trade Unions representing Agency staff.

  To hear staff views on pay, conditions of service and other issues, and to make "state of affairs" speech at the Conference.

  Visits to regional meetings of managers and staff in the network

  To give an account of issues facing the Agency and to hear staff views.

  Visits to meetings of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, other professional bodies and management seminars.

  To give an Agency view on technical and management matters; to present prizes and awards and give advice to students.

  Visits to meetings of other Chief Executives.

  To give an Agency view on public sector management issues and to hear views of colleagues.

  Visits to (and with) various Management Consultants.

  On customer relations (attitude survey of VO customers), on Council Tax (tendering ar-rangements and also financial appraisal of tendering firms) and on pay and performance management (in preparation for new pay agreement with Unions).

  I am at your disposal if further assistance is required.

  Letter from A. D. Garrett, chief executive of the Royal Mint, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to respond to your Written Questions.
  I can confirm that I have made no factfinding visits and have published no papers in the last 12 months.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible.
  691
  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, Central Statistical Office and Valuation Office executive agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R. R. B. Shutter, chief executive of the Valuation Agency, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992.
  In your question to the Chancellor ref: 3/0458 you ask for a note of the papers given or published by Chief Executives during the last year.
  Apart from speeches to professional bodies, the only articles or papers written by me are:

  "Keeping an eye on the recession" (advice to students) GTI Surveying Journal

  "Spread of experience" (article for students on career progression) GTI Surveying Journal

  (GTI = Graduates to Industry)

  Valuation Office, Business Plan 1992–93 (my plans for the Agency, the current year)

  Annual Report 1991–92 (my appreciation of the outturn for last year)

  Please let me know if I can assist further.

  Letter from W. McLennan, chief executive of the Central Statistical Office, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992.
  I have been asked to reply direct to question no. 75 which you tabled for answer on 23 October 1992.
  2. A paper titled Official Statistics in the UK: is there cause for concern, by my predecessor Sir Jack Hibbert, was published in Statistical News No. 96, Spring 1992.

  Letter from A. D. Garrett, chief executive of the Royal Mint, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to respond to your Written Questions.
  I can confirm that I have made no factfinding visits and have published no papers in the last 12 months.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the loss in tax revenue, based on average income figures and direct taxation, resulting from unemployment in the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The loss in tax revenue would depend on the particular circumstances of the people concerned. It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate.

  Inland Revenue (Information Technology)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the provision of Inland Revenue information technology services in response to the White Paper "Competing for Quality", Cm 1730.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have authorised the Inland Revenue to proceed with a competitive tender to test the benefit available from a strategic contract with a major private sector computing supplier. If the tender reveals benefit to the Inland Revenue the aim will be to have a contract in place by the end of 1993.

  Taxpayers Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations were undertaken with service users in the course of the production of the taxpayers charter (Inland Revenue) and the taxpayers charter (Customs and Excise).
  692
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The taxpayers charter was issued to provide a public statement of the standard of service at which the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise aim. There were no formal consultations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Building
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the revised timetable for construction of the proposed Comber bypass; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the revised programme for the Forter Green road junction scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Any revised timetable for the implementa-tion of these schemes will only be known after the outcome of the current annual review of the Government's expenditure plans has been determined.

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Newtownbreda
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to re-open Newtownbreda road following the recent bomb explosions at the forensic science laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  The explosion at the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory cratered the road which was subseqently closed in the interests of public safety and to facilitate forensic examinations. These examinations have now been completed and the road is currently being repaired.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why no crèche facilities are provided for vistors to the women's section of Maghaberry prison; and why the visiting room is smaller than the men's section.

  Mr. Mates
  The provision of a crèche facility in the female visits area is presently under consideration. The decision will await the result of an efficiency scrutiny into childcare services in Maghaberry prison.

  The size of the visits room reflects the overall requirements of Maghaberry prison—317 male prisoners and 42 females at 26 October 1992. Major improvements are, however, under way to construct a second visits room on the female side.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the men's section of Maghaberry prison is subject to different evening exercise arrangements from the women's section.

  Mr. Mates
  Unlike the male section of Maghaberry prison, where the exercise yards are immediately adjacent to the living accommodation, allowing easy access and supervision, the exercise yards in the female section are slightly apart. For security reasons, the yards on the female side are not available for evening association periods during the winter months.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why there are fewer recreational facilities available for women in Maghaberry prison than there are for men.
  693
  Mr. Mates
  Both male and female prisoners have access to the gym on a regular basis and participate in a wide range of recreational pursuits. An exercise bike and pool table for each association room in the female section of Maghaberry prison is under consideration.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why evening classes have been withdrawn from the women's section of Maghaberry prison, while remaining available to prisoners in the men's section.

  Mr. Mates
  Reassessment of evening classes showed that the classes were too small to be viable. However, the day programme for female prisoners has been enhanced to take account of the non-provision of evening classes.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why no inter-wing association beween women prisoners in Maghaberry prison is permitted, as compared with men.

  Mr. Mates
  The privilege of inter-wing association was withdrawn from female prisoners in July 1991 for operational reasons. However, it has now been reintroduced for some prisoners and will be kept under review.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the number and ranks of officers presently serving in the RUC 694
  fraud squad; what formal qualifications such officers have in accountancy and law; and what further expertise in these fields would normally be available to them.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: I understand that at present the established strength of the squad is 17 officers. Their ranks are as follows:

  Number

  Chief Inspector

  1

  Inspector

  2

  Sergeant

  5

  Constable

  9

  Fraud squad officers are not required to have formal qualifications in accountancy or law, although one officer has a degree in accountancy; but those in and selected for the squad must have an aptitude for this type of investigatory work. All officers attached to the RUC fraud squad receive the training necessary for their duties and members of the squad regularly attend comprehensive training courses organised at United Kingdom level.

  Expertise from other relevant professional organisa-tions, including the accountancy and legal professions, is drawn upon whenever necessary to ensure the fullest possible investigation of suspected fraud.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Indonesia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom maintains friendly and constructive relations with Indonesia. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State paid a successful visit there earlier this month.

  Latin America
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Latin America to discuss regional security in that area.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs looks forward to visiting Latin America again soon and to discussing a wide range of issues.

  East Timor
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the state of human rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to monitor the situation in East Timor. During my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's visit to Indonesia earlier this month, he stressed the importance we attach to full respect for human rights in East Timor. We welcome the resumption of dialogue between Indonesia and Portugal about East Timor.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reconsideration he has given to the imposition of sanctions against Libya, and the issue of the origins of the Lockerbie crime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Security Council reviewed the sanctions against Libya on 12 August, and agreed that there was no justification for lifting them. The Lockerbie investigation continues, but no evidence has come to light which would justify the issue of further warrants.

  Yugloslavia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current circumstances surrounding the peace-keeping role of the United Nations in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UNPROFOR. the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the former Yugoslavia is mandated to carry out a number of specific tasks. These include ceasefire monitoring in Croatia—Security Council resolution 743—overseeing the demilitarisation of the Prevlaka Peninsula—SCR 779—reopening and securing Sarajevo airport—SCR 764—support for the United 696
  Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' efforts to deliver humanitarian relief throughout Bosnia—SCR 776 —and monitoring compliance with the ban on military flights in Bosnia—SCR 781. The United Kingdom is contributing forces to UNPROFOR operations in both Croatia and Bosnia.

  "An Agenda for Peace"
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a copy of the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, "An Agenda for Peace"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace" was published on 17 June this year. In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September he welcomed the report on behalf of the EC and its members as a very important collection of proposals which all United Nations bodies, but notably the General Assembly and the Security Council, should follow up swiftly. I have asked for a copy of this speech to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Benda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, to discuss the situation in Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to meet the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, who claims to be the head of a state which we do not recognise. We have regular contacts with him at senior official level.

  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position with regard to the talks on Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash held a series of separate meetings with the United Nations Secretary-General from 15 July to 11 August. Sufficient progress was made to allow a change of format to direct negotiation between the two, under the Secretary-General's chairmanship, from 12 to 14 August.
  697
  These talks reconvened in the new format in New York on 26 October. Security Council resolution 774 makes plain that the international community expects this round to lead to the agreement of an outline settlement on the basis of the United Nations Secretary-General's "set of ideas" as set out in his report of 21 August.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In line with Security Council resolution 541, we do not recognise the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Nor does any state other than Turkey. We support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General in seeking a solution to the Cyprus dispute on the basis of a single, federal, bizonal and bicommunal state.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the talks on Cyprus recently held in New York under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  Mr. Hurd
  Direct negotiations, under the United Nations Secretary-General's chairmanship reconverted in New York on the 26 October. Security Council resolution 774 makes plain that the international community expects this round to lead to the agreement of an outline settlement on the basis of the United Nations Secretary-General's "set of ideas" as set out in his report of 21 August.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review with his counterparts in the European Community the methods by which member states are ratifying the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. Article R of the treaty states that member states shall ratify the treaty in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. These requirements differ from one member state to another.

  India
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our relations with India are excellent.

  Central America
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with the countries of central America.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom enjoys good relations with all the countries of central America. We support their efforts to consolidate democracy and promote economic development, primarily through our active participation in the San José dialogue between the European Community and its member states and the central American countries.

  Occupied Countries
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge Israel to withdraw from all of the territories it has occupied since 1967 as part of a lasting and binding peace settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have constantly restated our policy that Israel should withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 as part of a comprehensive peace settlement, and meanwhile administer them in compliance with international law and human rights standards.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco on the western Sahara.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have taken every opportunity to underline the need for the parties to the dispute to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in the implementation of his settlement plan. This continues to offer the best hope for a fair and lasting solution.

  Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representa-tions to the Council of Ministers encouraging the inclusion of the main European lesser-used languages within the Lingua programme.

  Mr. Forman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to encourage an increase in number of the languages covered by the Lingua programme.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to what diplomatic measures he is taking to force India to implement the resolutions of the United Nations and the European Parliament calling for a peaceful settlement in Kashmir; and if he will consider imposing(a) economic sanctions and (b) an arms embargo.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are deeply concerned to see a resolution to the Kashmir dispute and are ready to help if both sides would like us to play a role. We take every opportunity to urge India and Pakistan to agree a peaceful means of resolving the dispute as they committed themselves to do in the 1972 Simla agreement. The United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949 set out a possible framework, but neither side fully implemented those resolutions and they have, to some extent, been overtaken by events.

  United Nations (Members' Participation)
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements his Department has made to assist right hon. and hon. Members to participate in the working of United Nations institutions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the participation of parliamentarians in the work of the United Nations. There
  699
  are particular areas in which the extensive experience and tradition of democracy of the hon. and right hon. Members of this House can be of benefit. I am thinking of the growing significance of the United Nation's role in election monitoring and in providing support to emerging parliaments. We are pleased to see an example of this in the assistance the Inter-Parliamentary Union has given to the United Nations Development Programme. We remain willing to assist hon. Members of this House to participate in such areas. In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office arranges an annual visit for Members of Parliament to the United Nations General Assembly. The next visit will take place early in 1993.

  Aku Suki Maru
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will inquire of the Governor of Hong Kong the reasons for the invoking of legislation prohibiting the plutonium ship Akat Suki Maru from entering its territorial waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Hong Kong Government have not invoked legislation prohibiting the ship Akat Suki Maru from entering Hong Kong waters. Hong Kong is aware of its international obligations as regards navigation through its waters. There is no reason to expect that the ship will enter Hong Kong waters.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 409, which aspects of the common commercial policy of the European Community are not contained within its policy for a single market; and what aspects of the single market programme are not contained within the EC common commercial policy.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The common commercial policy was established by a separate chapter—articles 110 to 116—of the treaty of Rome. It governs the Community's trade relations with third countries, as distinct from the single market provisions, which deal with intra-Community trade.

  Although the functioning of the single market depends, among other things, upon the existence of a common customs tariff, the articles of the treaty, as amended by the Single European Act, which govern the establishment of the single market have no direct bearing on those governing the common commercial policy.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent assessment of the economic and political situation in southern Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Despite tragic setbacks, the countries of the region are still going through potentially a most hopeful period of political and economic change. This difficult process is worsened by the worst drought in living memory. However, we remain optimistic.

WALES

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what policy considerations will govern the choice of priorities for capital projects in his departmental budget in the year 1993–94(a) if the Barnett formula is continued and (b) if it is discontinued;

  (2) what evaluation he has carried out of the priority to be given to all of the capital expenditure projects in his departmental programme in relation to the proposed impact of the Barnett formula agreements.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 October,Official Report, column 149. In due course, I shall allocate the resources of the Welsh Office block to individual programmes and projects according to my assessment of priorities.

  Environmental Network
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies from(a) north Wales, (b) south-west Wales and (c) south-east Wales which have joined his Department's environmental network to date; and if he will list both the events organised to date by the network and proposed events for the future.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since the launch in July, 51 organisations have joined the environmental managers network. Of these, 15 are from north Wales, six are from south-west Wales and 30 are from south-east Wales, as detailed in the list. I expect many more to join shortly and arrangements are in hand for updated lists of the network's members to be placed in the Library of the House every three months.

  MEMBERSHIP LIST

  ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS NETWORK

  North Wales Region

  Kimberly Clark Ltd.

  Simon Petroleum Technology Ltd.

  Pilkington Insulation products

  Peboc Ltd.

  Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd.

  Ferodo Caernarfon Ltd.

  Alfred McAlpine Quarry Products Ltd.

  Celtest Ltd.

  Castle Cement Padestow Ltd.

  Envirocheck

  Hotpoint Ltd.

  Deeside Titanium Ltd.

  Hoya Lens (UK) Ltd.

  GS Packaging Ltd.

  Continental Can (Europe) Ltd.

  South West Wales

  Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd.

  Wynnstay and Clwyd Farmers plc

  Kaye (Presteigne) Ltd.

  Ina Bearing Co. Ltd.

  Marine and Port Services Ltd.

  3M (UK) Ltd.

  South East Wales

  Parke Davies and Co. Ltd.

  Hoover plc

  ENVOTEK Chemical Environmental Consultants

  Arjo Wiggins Carbonless Papers Ltd.

  England Environmental Ltd.

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  Western Labels

  BP Chemicals

  Amersham International plc

  701

  Dow Chemical Co. Ltd.

  MEP Ltd.

  Scott Manning Associates

  EMMS Wales Ltd.

  Monsanto plc

  Sheer Pride Ltd.

  Purolite International Ltd.

  Sony (UK) Ltd.

  Anacomp Data Products Ltd.

  Touche Ross and Co.

  Severnside Waste Paper Ltd.

  South Wales Electricity plc

  Allied Steel and Wire plc

  Plastics Engineers Ltd.

  IEP Doncasters Ltd.

  Rockwool Ltd.

  Star Sheet Metal Works Ltd.

  Pilkington Insulation Ltd.

  Biotal Ltd.

  Oakdale Batteries Ltd.

  Since the launch, a seminar on environmental auditing has taken place. Others are planned on wast minimisation, technology transfer, grant assistance, product appraisal and life cycle analysis and environmental awareness.

  Welcome Host Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have undertaken training under the welcome host scheme to date.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To date 3,564 individuals have undertaken training under the welcome host scheme.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the effect the plan to eliminate surplus school places in Wales will have upon the Government commitment to support parental choice in education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government remain committed to the principle of parental choice. The elimination of surplus places will release resources that may be deployed elsewhere in the education service to improve facilities and raise educational standards in schools, both of which are key considerations in parents' exercise of their choice of school.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he will apply in considering the removal of surplus school places by implementing school closure.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My criteria for considering proposals for school closures by local education authorities are set out in Welsh Office circular 20/88, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will grant additional resources to the Welsh Development Agency specifically to develop urban regeneration programmes in conjunction with local authorities in the south Wales valleys.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have already approved a record budget for 1992–93 of £19 million for the WDA's urban development programme. This represents a 90 per cent. increase on the previous year's budget.

  Birds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites in Wales currently qualify for protection under the EC birds directive; and how many of these sites have been designated to date.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To date, eight sites in Wales have been designated as special protection areas (SPAs) under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC). In addition, a further six sites are proposed SPAs and as such are afforded similar protection to designated SPAs.

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total local authority housing stock in each local authority area in Wales; and if he will indicate the proportion of the stock which is(a) wheelchair standard and (b) mobility standard in each instance.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total local authority housing stock is given in the table. Information on the stock of local authority dwellings which are(a) wheelchair standard and (b) mobility standard is not available.

  Total Local Authority stock at 1 April 1992

  Number

  Aberconwy

  2,468

  Alyn and Deeside

  4,873

  Arfon

  4,802

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,626

  Brecknock

  2,559

  Cardiff

  18,125

  Carmarthen

  3,275

  Ceredigion

  3,169

  Colwyn

  2,432

  Cynon Valley

  4,760

  Delyn

  4,454

  Dinefwr

  2,386

  Dwyfor

  1,396

  Glyndwr

  2,727

  Islwyn

  5,723

  Llanelli

  6,490

  Lliw Valley

  4,697

  Meirionnydd

  1,915

  Merthyr Tydfil

  6,383

  Monmouth

  4,613

  Montgomeryshire1

  3,741

  Neath

  5,188

  Newport

  12,739

  Ogwr

  8,888

  Port Talbot/Afan

  5,298

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  5,121

  Radnorshire

  1,110

  Rhondda

  4,505

  Rhuddlan

  2,604

  Rhymney Valley

  9,357

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,619

  Swansea

  15,682

  Taff-Ely

  6,586

  Torfaen

  12,424

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,700

  Wrexham Maelor

  14,718

  Ynys Mon

  5,194

  Wales

  218,347

  1 Includes 1,111 rented new town dwellings in Newtown.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time taken by each local authority social services department in Wales to(a) assess and (b) implement and deliver applications for house renovations to disabled persons' households.
  703
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hip and Knee Joint Operations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the request made in September for quotations from the South Birmingham health authority for artificial hip and knee joint operations for residents of South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have had no consultations with South Glamorgan district health authority regarding this matter.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what weight will be attached to examination performance in assessing whether a school should be closed.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Each case is considered on its merits taking all relevant considerations, including examination performance, into account.

  Cadw
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for the last 12 months, the titles of papers published by the chief executive of the Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments).

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under its chief executive, Mr. John Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Mr. J. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated October 1992:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent PQ which asked if he would list for the last 12 months the titles of papers that I have published as Cadw's Chief Executive.
  The principal document published by me in this period has been Cadw's first Annual Report and Accounts for the years 1991–92. I attach a copy. A copy is also available in the Library of the House.
  In addition to its Annual Report the Agency has produced a wide variety of publications ranging from guidebooks in respect of monuments in the care of the Secretary of State to lists of buildings afforded statutory protection under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
  If you would like details of any of these I would be glad to provide this.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the last 12 months the fact-finding visits the chief executive of the Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments) has made; what were his findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question had been delegated to Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under its chief executive, Mr. John Carr. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Mr. J. Carr to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated October 1992:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question which asked if he would list for the last 12 months the fact finding visits that I have made and my findings.
  704
  You will have seen that the Agency's first Annual Report which I have sent you sets out the mission statement of the Agency which is to protect, to conserve and to promote the built heritage of Wales. As part of my responsibilities as Agency Chief Executive I made a number of visits in Britain and occasionally overseas to help further promote these objectives. As the Annual Report highlight, a key responsibility I have as Chief Executive is to encourage greater numbers of visitors particularly from overseas to visit the monuments of outstanding international importance that are in Cadw's care. In December 1991 I made a visit to the United States, and participated in a workshop sponsored by the Council of Europe in Romania in September 1992.
  In the day to day conduct of my responsibilities I have not as such undertaken fact finding missions but as Chief Executive of the Agency since April 1991, and Director of Cadw prior to that, I have established close associations with other built heritage managers and with others involved in Britain's tourism industry.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy at the Development conference on 18 November to seek the amendment of the EC White Paper on development to ensure that the chief aims of the development policy are the elimination of poverty and the fostering of sustainable development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hope to see adopted by Ministers on 18 November a resolution setting out as the central objectives of development co-operation policy, the sustainable social and economic development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them; the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy; and the campaign against poverty in developing countries.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made in the United Nations with regard to securing a coherent and sustainable long-term policy supported internationally to preserve rain forests in those countries where they are now under threat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At the United Nations conference on environment and development in June we played a leading role in getting agreement to a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests. This is the first international consensus on their value. We are working to ensure that it is followed up by an effective international review process. We are proposing in the United Nations General Assembly that this should be through the sustainable development commission.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he, another Minister or Foreign Office official intend to visit the area of the former British Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Neither the Foreign Secretary nor other Ministers have any plans at present to visit the area
  705
  of the former British protectorate of Somaliland. The British ambassador to Ethiopia is likely to do so in the near future, though no date has yet been set.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the performance of the UN and its agencies, the EC and Her Majesty's Government in response to the crisis in Somalia; and whether he has any proposals for improvement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have visited Somalia recently as part of EC Troika missions. While there is general recognition, including by the UN itself, that the relief effort was slow to get off the ground, both were generally impressed by the excellent work being done in extremely difficult and often harrowing circumstances by the UN agencies and non-government organisations. The most urgent need is to improve the security situation. We have continued to press the UN to take the further action necessary to ensure the prompt distribution of relief supplies and the safety of aid personnel. The Government have given almost £27 million to the relief effort.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the decision was taken by the United Nations Security Council to send 500 troops to Somalia; and when these troops were actually deployed in Mogadishu.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UN Security Council agreed in principle to the deployment of troops in Mogadishu on 24 April 1992, subject to further discussion between the UN and local military factions. The Security Council on 14 August agreed that deployment should proceed. The first troops arrived on 14 September.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action(a) the World Health Organisation and (b) the Food and Agriculture Organisation have taken in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During the first half of 1992 the World Health Organisation (WHO) funded medical and health supplies to a value of US$1.744 million for international and local non-government organisations in Somalia. WHO is raising an additional US$6.1 million to strengthen and expand its activities. The Food and Agricultural Organisation is providing an emergency supply of seeds, tools and pesticides and assistance for animal health projects.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions were given to his Department's staff in Nairobi about visits to Somalia; and what were the reasons for those instructions in the period since the end of the civil war.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since January 1991, the Foreign Office has advised British nationals against visiting Somalia. British officials have been required to follow this advice, and have only visited Somalia when there was a specific need to do so. Humanitarian aid issues have been fully dealt with in Nairobi, Geneva and elsewhere. A member of the British High Commission staff in Nairobi has special responsibility for liaison with non-governmental organisations in the south of Somalia, and visits as necessary.
  706
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the UN conference on Somalia held in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development attended the conference of donors to Somalia held in Geneva on 13 and 14 October. The conference formally established the UN 100-day action plan to accelerate the relief effort to Somalia. The Government strongly support the plan. The new pledge of £7.5 million of humanitarian aid for Somalia which we announced in September is being used to support the aims of the plan.

  EC Overseas Development Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been taken recently by the EC on the size of its future overseas development budget; and what are the real and constant price change from the budget for the current year and in 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  EC Development Aid is financed partly by the European development fund and partly by the EC budget. The draft 1993 EC budget, including the provisions for development cooperation, is still under discussion. We expect a final decision by the end of the year. The information for 1991 and 1992 is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  Current prices (mecu)

  Commitment

  1,477

  1,770

  Percentage increase

  19.8

  Constant (1991) prices

  Commitment

  1,477

  1,689

  Percentage increase

  14.3

  Note: In 1991, 500 mecu aid was also provided for countries most affected by the Gulf crisis.

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance given to assist other countries to fulfil their obligations arising from agreements made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The biodiversity and climate change conventions were each signed by over 150 countries at Rio. We have contributed over £40 million to the global environment facility, the interim funding mechanism for the conventions. Our contribution was separate from and additional to our aid programme for developing countries. We want to see the GEF established as the permanent funding mechanism for both conventions.

  Poland (Know-how Funds)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to spend the balance of the know-how fund for Poland; for what purposes it will be spent; what sum of money is involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the inception of the know-how fund for Poland in 1989, expenditure has
  707
  amounted to £24 million of our £50 million know-how fund pledge. On current plans the large part of the remainder will be spent by the end of the 1994–95 financial year. The bulk of the money is committed in the priority areas of banking and financial services (including accountancy and privatisation), management development and assistance with economic and industrial restructuring. There are also substantial initiatives in the areas of energy efficiency and local government.

  Famine in Africa
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EC ministers regarding the famine in Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We discuss the continuing crisis in Africa and humanitarian needs regularly with other Community Ministers. We were prominent in discussions culminating in the Community's decision to launch this year's special food aid programme and have recently led EC troika fact-finding missions to Africa, including Somalia. EC Ministers will review the situation on 18 November at the Development Council, which will be chaired by my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.

  United Nations World Population Conference
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations have been made for the United Kingdom input to the 1994 United Nations world population conference; which Government Department will be responsible for these preparations; and what plans there are to draw on non-governmental organisations contributions to this conference on the lines of the NGO involvement in the June 1992 Earth summit.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will participate fully in preparatory meetings for the United Nations 1994 international conference on population and development. We will also participate in the European population conference in March 1993 which will provide a European regional contribution to the preparations. The questions of which Government Department will take the prime responsibility for the preparations and the arrangements for drawing on NGO contributions are under consideration.

DEFENCE

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has agreed a contract with Westland for the additional six Sea King helicopters announced by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 19 February.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following the successful conclusion of negotiations with Westland Helicopters Ltd., a contract for six new Sea King MK3 helicopters has been placed today. The contract is worth some £60 million.

  Euroflag
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends further involvement in the Euroflag consortium in relation to United Kingdom tactical military transport requirements; and if he will act to ensure the involvement of United Kingdom companies in potential projects resulting from the work of the consortium.

  Mr. Aitken
  We will continue to follow developments on the European future large aircraft project, and will consider aircraft which may result from the Euroflag consortium alongside other available options when we need to update our transport fleet.

  Research Programmes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of personnel in, the number of projects in and the value of MOD contributions to LINK and EC research programmes in the Defence Research Agency for the last three financial years and projected for the current year.

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

  Letter from Mr. John Chisholm to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 23 October 1992:
  In his written reply of Wednesday 28 October the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to the following question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the number of personnel in, the number of projects in and the value of MOD contributions to LINK and EC Research programmes in the Defence Research Agency for the last three financial years and projected for the current year.
  The information you requested is set out below:

  EC Research Programmes

  Year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number of Projects

  8

  9

  10

  17

  Number of Personnel

  5.8

  11.6

  10.5

  13.0

  Value of DRA Contribution £K

  220

  550

  510

  700

  LINK Programmes

  Number of Projects

  0

  2

  3

  6

  Number of Personnel

  0

  2.1

  3.1

  4.9

  Value of DRA Contribution £K

  0

  150

  220

  320

  Note: The number of projects shown is cumulative so if a project runs for three years it has been shown in three columns.

  I hope you will find this helpful.

  Filipino Entrants
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Filipino wives/fianceés have entered the United Kingdom with the Gloucestershire regiment which has recently returned from Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no records of any members of the Gloucestershire regiment being married to Filipino women. Records of fianceés are not held.

  Romania
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contacts the United Kingdom has with the defence forces of Romania; and what liaison or help is extended over training and exchange visits.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In keeping with the Government's policy of building closer ties with all the countries of central and eastern Europe, the Ministry of Defence has over the past 12 months established contacts with the Romanian armed forces, mostly about hydrography. We have also recently agreed a modest training package which includes English language training and attendance at selected courses run by the three services.

  Operation Granby
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount of money received to date from each country towards the cost of Operation Granby; if he will give the amounts due from each country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government received generous support from a number of countries towards Operation Granby. Contributions in cash, amounting to some £2,049 million, were given as follows:

  £ million

  Belgium

  15

  Germany

  274

  Hong Kong

  16

  Japan

  192

  Kuwait

  660

  Saudi Arabia

  582

  South Korea

  18

  United Arab Emirates

  278

  Other

  14

  In addition to these cash contributions the United Kingdom also received considerable host nation support and various types of assistance in kind from 20 countries, including some countries which also made cash contributions, for operations in the Gulf.

  Operation Grapple
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the amount allocated by his Department for Operation Grapple for 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the amount involved in setting up the initial deployment; whether the overall budget for his Department has been increased for 1992–93 for this operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is estimated that the additional cost of Operation Grapple for the first 12 months amounts to some £110 million, VAT exclusive, of which 17.5 million relates to the initial deployment. It is too early to provide an accurate breakdown of costs between financial years. Although costs initially fall to the defence budget they are subsequently refunded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which, under the normal rules, has vote responsibility for such operations.

SCOTLAND

  Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects relating to research into paralytic shellfish poisoning and associated problems to which his Department has contributed in the last three years or plans to support in the present financial year; and if he will indicate the amount contributed or to be contributed in each case.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Two projects relating to research into paralytic shellfish poisoning—PSP for short—and associated problems are undertaken at my Department's marine laboratory, Aberdeen. They are:

  1. Monitoring of algal blooms and microbiological factors in respect of fish and shellfish monitoring.

  2. Nitrogen cycling in coastal ecosystems.

  The full economic costs met, or to be met, by my Department between April 1989 and March 1993 amount to £132,000 for the PSP toxin monitoring component of the first project, and £1.321 million for the second project which deals with the basic processes which give rise to algal blooms.

  Feus
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the law relating to the rights of feu superiors when a feu has been bought out.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Law Commission is currently reviewing property law in Scotland. As part of this review, the commission published a discussion paper in July 1991 seeking comments on various proposals for reform of the feudal system. The commission is now analysing the responses to the discussion paper and will submit a report in due course. I will wish to have an opportunity to consider the report in detail before determining whether any change in the law may be required.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of plans to replace East Fortune hospital with a new unit for continuing care at Roodlands hospital in Haddington.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer of 27 October 1992]: The progress of plans for the replacement of East Fortune hospital is a matter for Lothian health board.

  Roads
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects of the traffic calming measures at Gateside, Fife.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer of 27 October 1992]: Traffic speed surveys carried out prior to and following installation of the traffic calming measures at Gateside indicate a slight decrease in the speed of traffic. It is signifiant, however, that in the three-year period before the traffic calming measures were introduced there were two serious injury accidents and 12 non-injury accidents at this location whereas in the year since the

  711
  traffic calming measures were completed there has been one slight injury accident and one non-injury accident. Early indications, therefore, are encouraging although the situation will continue to be monitored.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the expected annual costs of administering the council tax in each local authority in Scotland; and what costs have been incurred to date.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: It is for local authorities themselves to determine the expenditure required to administer the council tax, although the Government expect the costs involved to be significantly less than those for administering the community charge. Overall authorities budgeted to spend £7.5 million in the current financial year preparing for the tax. Their budget estimates for 1993–94 will not be available until next spring.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to date of the consultation exercise for local government reforms in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The costs incurred to date by the Scottish Office on the current consultation exercise on local government reform amount to approximately £170,000.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to halt the loss of the jurisdiction of the Commissioners for Local

  Great Britain training expenditure (cash prices)1

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  YT2

  1,008

  1,020

  1,002

  844

  846

  ET3

  380

  615

  1,107

  1,076

  842

  Enterprise allowance scheme/business and enterprise support4

  193

  250

  212

  184

  184

  1 The figures quoted are cash prices. The data necessary to adjust these figures for inflation (ie retail prices index—all items) can be found in table 6.4 of the Employment Gazette for April 1992 and in table 26 of the annual supplement to Economic Trends for April of earlier years. These publications are available in the Library.

  2 Youth training includes expenditure on training credits from April 1991.

  3 ET was introduced from September 1988. Figures for the period prior to that date include expenditure on training measures which were replaced by ET, but do not include employment measures such as the community programme.

  4 It is not possible to distinguish expenditure on EAS from other enterprise and business support programmes delivered since 1987–88.

  Average seasonally adjusted unemployment figures

  Great Britain

  Thousands

  Number

  1987–88

  2,554.9

  1988–89

  2,030.4

  1989–90

  1,599.4

  1990–91

  1,660.3

  1991–92

  2,346.8

  The Department's employment and training programmes are aimed at supporting economic growth by promoting a competitive, efficient and flexible labour market. Our commitment to helping unemployed people through the opportunities provided will continue to be met through the employment service and through the training and enterprise councils.
  712
  Administration in Scotland following the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering and the provision of local government services by outside agencies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Although the commissioner has no jurisdiction over the activities of private companies undertaking local authority services, the ultimate statutory responsibility for the provision of such services rests with local authorities. In such circumstances the powers of the commissioner to investigate complaints by members of the public are not diminished. The Government keep the commissioner's powers under regular review.

  Forth Valley Health Board
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will dismiss the chairperson of the Forth Valley health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 October 1992.]: No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment and Training
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will state the individual programme costs at constant prices, for each of the years 1987–88 to 1991–92 for employment training and its predecessor programmes youth training and the enterprise allowance scheme and the numbers out of work for each of the years during the same period; and if she will make a statement on the Government's future intentions for Government employment and training measures.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is contained in the tables:

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of constituencies in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England has lower percentage unemployment than in June 1987; and what proportion of constituencies that have had coal mines closed in the past six years has lower percentage unemployment now than in June 1987 compared with other constituencies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Unemployment rates are not available below the level of travel-to-work area (TTWA). In September 1992, the latest date for which claimant unemployment figures are available, the proportions of travel-to-work areas that had lower percentage rates of
  713
  unemployment than in June 1987 were as follows: 100 per cent. in Northern Ireland, 97 per cent. in Wales, 97 per cent. in Scotland and 51 per cent. in England.

  Information categorising coal mine closures by their TTWA is currently available only for the past four years; 95 per cent. of TTWAs which have had coal mines closed over the past four years had lower unemployment rates in September 1992 than in June 1987. The corresponding proportion for other TTWAs was 62 per cent.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will publish the average percentage rate of unemployment for 1991–92 for each travel-to-work area in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if she will publish the average percentage rate of unemployment during the five-year period commencing August 1987 to August 1992 for each travel-to-work area in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Disability (Training)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will take steps to make disability equality training a compulsory component of training undertaken by careers advisers, careers officers and teachers responsible for careers information.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local education authorities are required by statutory guidance given under the Employment and Training Act 1973 to make arrange-ments to identify the training needs of their careers service staff and make arrangements to meet those needs.

  This guidance requires careers officers to obtain the diploma in careers guidance. The diploma covers equal opportunities training, including provision for people with disabilities.

  The training of careers teachers is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and for Wales as appropriate.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what efforts are currently undertaken by her Department to ensure that all publicity material produced by her Department concerning training programmes relating to disabled people promotes positive images of disabled people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Department no longer produces national publicity material on training programmes. This is now the responsibility of individual training and enterprise councils (TECs). TECs are responsible for the planning and delivery of training programmes and are contractually bound to ensure equality of opportunity for all trainees.

  The Employment Department, however, produces advisory material on a range of issues for TECs, and others. Material concerning people with disabilities is quality checked by a specialist team in the Department.

  Fraud
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people were prosecuted for fraud by her Department in the latest year for which figures are available;
  714
  (2) what is the number of whole-time equivalent staff employed by her Department and its agencies to detect and prosecute suspected fraud; and what is the cost of their employment;

  (3) how much her Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 28 October 1992:
  As the Employment service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Employment:

  i. how many people were prosecuted for fraud by the Department in the latest year for which figures are available,

  ii. what is the number of whole time equivalent staff employed to detect and prosecute suspected fraud, and what is the cost of their employment,

  iii. how much the Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available, and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year.

  The latest year for which figures are available is that of the financial year ending 31 March 1992 during which a total of 2,265 people were prosecuted for fraud. We currently have 1,300 people, of whom 780 are Inspectors, employed in the detection and prosecution of benefit fraud. The total cost of our fraud operations amounted to £13.34 million. The net savings from our investigations into benefit fraud amounted to £34.34m. We do not set targets for benefit savings accrued from benefit fraud investigation. Our performance is measured by the number of claims withdrawn following investigation by Inspectors and our target is for 58,000 such claims to be withdrawn by the end of the present financial year.

  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.

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many appeals by firms against paying the industrial training levy demanded by the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board were heard by an industrial tribunal in(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d) 1991, respectively; and how many were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Prior to July 1991, engineering construction was covered by the Engineering Industry Training Board (EITB). That board was re-named the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) on 23 July 1991 when the engineering manufacturing sector moved its training arrangements to a non-statutory basis.

  In 1988 one appeal against the EITB was heard and was successful. No further appeals have been heard against either the EITB or the ECITB.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will place in the Library a list of all the
  715
  companies who paid the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board levy in (a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available to me. It is held only by Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and I have no power to require the board to supply me with such information.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what future plans she has for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the previous Secretary of State, appointed the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board in July 1991 for a three-year period up to 22 July 1994. As with all non-Departmental public bodies, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shall review the need for its continuance before any decision is made on its reconstitution.

  Financial Services
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on trends in employment in the financial services sector between now and the end of 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not publish predictions of employment in particular sectors.

  Disabled People (Careers Guidance)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring is currently undertaken by her Department on the quality of careers guidance given to disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The careers service inspectorate of the Department undertakes inspections of LEA careers services and pays particular attention to the quality of careers guidance given to people with special needs.

  "Hard Labour"
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration her Department has given to implementing the recommendations of the 1990 report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, entitled "Hard Labour".

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have considered the recommendations of this report. We have already announced our intention to introduce legislation to confer additional rights on individual employees, including extending the right to receive written particulars of employment terms to all employees working at least eight hours a week, which is in line with the report's recommendations.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will estimate the range of employment effects of abolishing wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 14 July 1992,Official Report, column 626.
  716
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many respondents to the 1988 consultation document on the future of wages councils then supported the retention of wages councils, either wholly or in some form; whether the Government have recently contacted these respondents to inquire whether their views have altered; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the 1988 consultation 320 respondents favoured the retention of a wages councils system. Over 60 per cent. of employers and employers' organisations, who responded, supported abolition of the councils. There has been no exercise to contact those who responded in 1988, but employers have continued to make clear the damage done by the councils.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the oral answer of the Minister of State on 7 July,Offical Report, column 169, if she will publish evidence to show that two-thirds of the people covered by wages councils are paid more than the minimum wage set by the councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The estimate is based on an analysis of employers' wage records checked by the wages inspectorate.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list those individuals or organisations who have written to her concerning the proposed abolition of wages councils indicating which are for the proposal and which against.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received 71 written representations about the future of the wages councils from April to September 1992. Of these, 17 favoured abolition, 50 supported retention and four did not come down clearly on one side or the other. It would not be appropriate for me to publish the names of those who have written to the Department.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of people with disabilities whose employment is covered by a wages council order.

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

  Appointments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all the names of public appointments that she has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees, and what remuneration each currently receives.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not held centrally within the Department. We will, however, collect the information and my noble Friend Viscount Ullswater will write to the hon. Member.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places are currently available in the Doncaster area; and what was the figure(a) six months and (b) 12 months ago.
  717
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  At 13 September 1992 there were 3,865 young people on youth training in the Barnsley and Doncaster area. Six months and 12 months previously, the figure was 3,676 and 4,403 respectively. These figures reflect seasonal fluctuations and the demographic downturn in school leavers.

  Barnsley/Doncaster TEC is confident that the Government's guarantee of a training place to eligible young people will be met.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will now introduce legislation to remove Crown immunity in respect of infringements of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No decisions will be made about introducing legislation until the Health and Safety Commission has considered the review of current procedures and put any proposals to Ministers.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to increase the enforcement powers of the wages inspectorate.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The wages inspectorate has adequate powers to enforce wages council orders effectively.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many agreements have been made with employers to operate the job interview guarantee scheme since it was extended nationally in April 1991; how many unemployed people have taken part in the scheme in each area; and how many participants have secured full-time employment with their sponsoring employer.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms. Clare Short, dated 28 October 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 Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) initiative. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You asked for each Region and for Great Britain as a whole how many agreements have been made with employers to operate the job interview guarantee scheme since it was extended nationally in April 1991, how many unemployed people have taken part in the scheme in each area, and how many participants have secured full-time employment with their sponsoring employer.
  We no longer ask regions for information on the number of agreements made with employers as we do not require it to monitor the success of the programme.
  Information on people taking part in the scheme, and those securing full-time employment is shown at Annex A. The information is broken down by region. At a national level we do not collect information by area.
  718
  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.

  Annex A From April 1991 to 2 October 1992

  Region

  Unemployed people assisted

  Unemployed people placed

  Northern

  10,484

  3,170

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  11,762

  4,027

  East Midlands & Eastern

  12,704

  4,178

  London & South East

  87,435

  27,159

  South West

  18,910

  6,408

  Wales

  15,121

  4,875

  West Midlands

  24,542

  7,379

  North West

  18,555

  7,747

  Scotland

  25,839

  10,665

  Total

  225,352

  75,608

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole since April 1991 how many people have joined job clubs, and how many have left; how many leavers got jobs, and how many entered another positive outcome; and if she will give the information broken down by the ethnic origin and gender of participants.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 28 October 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about how many people have attended a Restart Interview since 1 April 1991; and what were the results of those interviews.
  Mike Fogden last wrote to you on this subject on 25 February 1992. However we have changed the way we collect some of our statistics which means that although the information on the number of people joining and leaving Jobclubs is available up to September 1992, the breakdown by ethnic origin and gender of participants is only available up to March 1992. The figures for 1992–93 will be collected at the end of the operational year.
  Table 'A' attached shows for each region and nationally the numbers who have joined Jobclubs between 1 April 1991 and 27 March 1992 together with the same period of those members leaving. Leavers who are shown as going into other positive outcomes have gone on either to training, full-time education or self-employment.
  Table 'B' attached shows the estimated performance between 1 April 1991 and 27 March 1992 for male and female Jobclub members and by ethnic origin separated on a regional basis and for Great Britain as a whole. This has been derived from the quarterly surveys which were carried out during the period.
  Table 'C' shows similar statistics to 'A', but covers the period 30 March 1992 to 25 September 1992. On the ethnic background and male/female characteristics of Jobclub leavers is now collected on an annual sample survey basis. As a result of this change, Service programmes and which should improve accuracy, the breakdown of male and female membership and ethnic origin is not yet available for the 1992–93 period.
  I hope this is helpful.
  719
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written

  Table A Jobclub Entrants & Leavers Information 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  Region

  Jobclub entrants

  Jobclub leavers

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Leavers into positive outcomes

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Northern

  12,659

  12,379

  4,731

  38

  1,444

  50

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16,115

  15,314

  6,463

  42

  2,349

  58

  East Midlands

  16,807

  15,193

  7,355

  48

  2,625

  66

  London and South East

  51,840

  46,048

  17,826

  39

  7,253

  54

  South West

  13,034

  11,954

  5,986

  50

  1,866

  66

  Wales

  11,165

  10,400

  5,179

  50

  1,397

  63

  West Midlands

  19,285

  16,931

  7,669

  45

  3,006

  63

  North West

  29,298

  28,176

  12,576

  45

  3,468

  57

  Scotland

  19,914

  19,745

  9,046

  46

  2,674

  59

  Nationally

  190,117

  176,140

  76,831

  44

  26,082

  58

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  National

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  67,544

  21,285

  153,167

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  3,889

  1,804

  8,856

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  4,170

  2,444

  10,966

  None of the above

  816

  472

  2,196

  Preferred not to say

  412

  77

  955

  Total

  76,831

  26,082

  176,140

  Male

  58,853

  20,593

  140,470

  Female

  17,978

  5,489

  35,670

  Totals

  76,831

  26,082

  176,140

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  Northern

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  4.641

  1,393

  12,140

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  12

  31

  68

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  48

  10

  114

  None of the above

  12

  0

  23

  Preferred not to say

  12

  10

  34

  Total

  4,731

  1,444

  12,379

  Male

  3,728

  1,249

  10,432

  Female

  1,003

  195

  1,947

  Totals

  4,731

  1,444

  12,379

  720
  Parlimentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report.I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  5,905

  2,070

  13,883

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  73

  63

  219

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  376

  216

  1,032

  None of the above

  73

  0

  141

  Preferred not to say

  36

  0

  39

  Total

  6,463

  2,349

  15,314

  Male

  4,972

  1,955

  12,602

  Female

  1,491

  394

  2,712

  Totals

  6,463

  2,349

  15,314

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  East Midland and Eastern

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  6,710

  2,170

  13,600

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  139

  202

  379

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  491

  202

  1,088

  None of the above

  15

  51

  110

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  16

  Total

  7,355

  2,625

  15,193

  Male

  5,792

  1,969

  12,211

  Female

  1,563

  656

  2,982

  Totals

  7,355

  2,625

  15,193

  721

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  London and South East

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  12,241

  4.405

  31,731

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  2,941

  1,236

  6,587

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  1,970

  1,221

  5,627

  None of the above

  446

  360

  1,494

  Preferred not to say

  228

  31

  609

  Total

  17,826

  7,253

  46,048

  Male

  12,739

  5,344

  34,697

  Female

  5,087

  1,909

  11,351

  Totals

  17,826

  7,253

  46,048

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  South West

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  5,705

  1,709

  11,420

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  146

  13

  182

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  90

  131

  279

  None of the above

  45

  13

  73

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5,986

  1,866

  11,954

  Male

  4,670

  1,459

  9,529

  Female

  1,316

  407

  2,425

  Totals

  5,986

  1,866

  11,954

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  Wales

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  5,018

  1,357

  10,097

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  40

  27

  101

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  67

  13

  130

  None of the above

  54

  0

  72

  Preferred not to say

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5,179

  1,397

  10,400

  Male

  4,132

  1,209

  8,453

  Female

  1,047

  188

  1,947

  Totals

  5,179

  1,397

  10,400

  722

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  West Midlands

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  6,524

  2.264

  14,189

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  310

  195

  882

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  716

  487

  1,655

  None of the above

  95

  36

  133

  Preferred not to say

  24

  24

  72

  Total

  7,669

  3,006

  16,931

  Male

  5,796

  2,349

  13,332

  Female

  1,873

  657

  3,599

  Totals

  7,669

  3,006

  16,931

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male/female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  North West

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  11,910

  3.282

  26,706

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  174

  37

  357

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  376

  125

  879

  None of the above

  58

  12

  110

  Preferred not to say

  58

  12

  124

  Total

  12,576

  3,468

  28,176

  Male

  9,740

  2,844

  23,107

  Female

  2,836

  624

  5,069

  Totals

  12,576

  3,468

  28,176

  Table B Jobclub leavers information by ethnic group and male)female characteristics 1 April 1991 to 27 March 1992

  Scotland

  Leavers into jobs

  Leavers into other positive outcomes

  Total leavers

  White

  8,884

  2,635

  19,401

  Black/Afro Caribbean

  54

  0

  81

  Indian/Pakistani/ Bangladesh/Sri Lanken

  36

  39

  162

  None of the above

  18

  0

  40

  Preferred not to say

  54

  0

  61

  Total

  9,046

  2,674

  19,745

  Male

  7,284

  2,215

  16,107

  Female

  1,762

  459

  3,638

  Totals

  9,046

  2,674

  19,745

  723

  Table C Jobclub Entrants & Leavers Information 30 March 1992 to 25 September 1992

  Region

  Jobclub entrants

  Jobclub leavers

  Leavers into jobs

  leavers into jobs Per cent.

  leavers into other positive outcomes

  Leavers into positive outcomes Per cent.

  Northern

  6,826

  7,182

  3,018

  42

  828

  54

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,251

  9,152

  4,383

  48

  1,359

  63

  East Midlands

  9,468

  9,934

  4,827

  49

  1,590

  65

  London and South East

  33,163

  31,906

  13,273

  42

  4,708

  56

  South West

  7,683

  7,893

  3,889

  49

  1,155

  64

  Wales

  6,324

  6,108

  3,296

  54

  842

  68

  West Midlands

  10,877

  10,945

  4,756

  43

  1,790

  60

  North West

  15,718

  16,086

  7,269

  45

  1,897

  57

  Scotland

  10,683

  10,731

  5,288

  49

  1,479

  63

  Nationally

  109,993

  109,937

  49,999

  45

  15,648

  60

  Actively-seeking-work Test
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether claimants or their representatives are entitled to a copy of the UB672 form completed by Employment Service officials when there are doubts about an unemployed person's availability for work or whether they are actively seeking work; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Ms. Clare Short, dated 28 October 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer parliamentary questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Employment about whether claimants or their representatives are entitled to a copy of the UB672 form completed by ES officials when there are doubts about an unemployed person's availability for work or whether they are actively seeking work.
  Form UB672 is an internal document used by the Employment Service when acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, to refer a claim for benefit to the independent adjudication authorities for a decision on entitlement. As a matter of policy the form is not supplied to a claimant at that stage. If however the claim is disallowed and the claimant appeals against the adjudication officer's decision, a copy of the form would be included in the appeal papers copied to the claimant by the Appeals Tribunal.
  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.

  Employment Service
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the employment service has made in meeting the targets outlined in the 1992–93 agency agreement; and if she will show for the latest possible date the(a) total unemployed job placings and variance from target, (b) long-term unemployed job placings and variance from target, (c) people with disabilities job placings and variance from target, (d) inner-city job placings and variance from target, (e) number of claims not pursued following initial contact and variance from profiled annual reference level, (f) number of claimants moved from unemployment benefit to another benefit and variance from annual reference level and (g) number of
  724
  people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators and variance from annual reference level.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am informed by the chief executive of the Employment Service that in the period April to June 1992, the Employment Service placed a total of 350,000 unemployed people into jobs, against an annual target of 1.425 million. 24.6 per cent. of these placings were long-term claimants, 2.8 per cent. were people with disabilities and 33 per cent. were unemployed people in inner cities against annual targets of 19 per cent., 2.5 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively. Over the same period new claims not pursued following initial contact were at the annual target level of 10 per cent. The number of people who withdrew their claim to benefit after contact with fraud investigators was 17,100 against an annual target of 58,000. The number of claimants helped to move from unemployment benefits to a more appropriate benefit is not a reference level under the annual performance agreement for 1992–93.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is taking to reduce long-term unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have in place a wider than ever range of measures to help unemployed people find jobs as quickly as possible. We are firmly committed to helping long-term unemployed people in particular get back to work, and offer special help for them, including help with finding a job through job clubs and the job interview guarantee, training, and opportunities to undertake temporary work of benefit to the local community.

  State Redundancy Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will provide total spending figures from the state redundancy fund for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The redundancy fund was merged with the national insurance fund in February 1991. Total spending under the redundancy and insolvency provisions of the employment protection legislation amounted to £144 million in 1990–91 and £283 million in 1991–92.

HEALTH

  Health Service Mergers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding proposals to merge(a) Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority and Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley health authority and (b) Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale community health council and Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley community health council; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received no such representations. Any merger proposals would be the subject of public consultation.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are laid down by her Department regarding the necessary consultation procedures involved in(a) mergers of community health councils and (b) mergers of health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) wrote to regional chairmen last year stating that where district health authorities are being merged regions should not consider merging community health councils (CHCs) without first consulting them and other local community interests. Regions should consider whether maintaining the existing CHCs will help promote better accountability, local sensitivity and local responsiveness and so outweigh any advantages to be gained from merging. Although the region's decision will be final, it is expected to take the CHC's views fully into account.

  Where the merger of district health authorities is envisaged, there is agreement that regional health authorities consult, first informally, then if the Secretary of State agrees, formally with all relevant parties. Formal consultation normally runs for about three months, and should provide opportunities for public debate.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will amend community care proposals to allow local authorities to make direct payments to disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from local authorities seeking power to make direct payments to disabled people.

  Mr. Yeo
  No such representations have recently been received.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring procedures have been established by her Department to check on the application of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, by local authority social services departments.

  Mr. Yeo
  Prime responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Act rests with local authorities themselves, to ensure that their policies are compatible with their legal obligations. The Department receives regular returns on certain services provided by local 726
  authorities under the Act, as well as information from other sources including the social services inspectorate. We follow up specific cases, referred to the Department, where it is alleged that a local authority is in breach of its statutory duties.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will now publish her Department's report on the effect of advertising on tobacco consumption; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report by the Department of Health's economics and operational research division is being published today as a discussion document. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  The report raises a good many questions which interested parties will want to consider. I am therefore inviting comments on the methodology, analysis and content of the report over the next three months. We shall take all comments into account as we work towards the tough targets for reducing smoking set out in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation".

  Information Technology
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the actual and budgeted annual expenditure, by region, on the training of NHS staff in the use of information technology systems in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many skilled computer staff are employed in each national health service region and in total by the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed information as requested is not held centrally. Based on sample information of staff receiving automatic data processing allowances, we estimate that there was a total of 3,800 skilled computer staff directly employed in the NHS in Great Britain at June 1992.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to monitor the number of NHS staff receiving information technology training each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which pilot projects for hospital information support systems have now been evaluated; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  All hospital information support systems (HISS) projects include a project evaluation framework as part of the standard project management processes. Evaluations are conducted at appropriate project stages. These regular evaluations include a general review of timeliness and budgetary compliance, as well as relevant detailed assessment of, for example, quality and completeness of data capture, adequacy of procedures and training, and system outputs.

  No end of project evaluation has as yet been possible, since all sites are still, as planned, in the implementation

  727
  phase. Mid-stage assessments have been conducted, and have in some instances resulted in changes in scope, phasing or resourcing of the project. The end of implementation evaluations will include assessment of timescales, total costs, benefits already realised, further potential benefits, organisational impact, technical adequacy and lessons learned.

  The economics and operational research (EOR) division of the Department of Health is considering some of the work already conducted on evaluation by the three original HISS projects at Darlington memorial hospital, Greenwich district hospital and Nottingham city hospital NHS Trust, with a view to developing national guidance material on project evaluation.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to monitor the expenditure on computer hardware and software and related management salaries and consultancy fees for trust hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Management Executive does not intend to monitor expenditure on computer hardware and software or associated consultancy fees separately from the general arrangements for accounting for capital expenditure in trusts. Trusts determine their own capital investment strategies but have to make business cases to support them which are reviewed by the NHS Management Executive to ensure they are appropriate and affordable by purchasers. Trusts account for actual capital expenditure in their annual accounts which are subject to audit and published. I am satisfied that these arrangements provide a suitable framework for ensuring that all capital investment by trusts is properly controlled.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on consultancy fees in connection with the purchase of information technology systems by each regional health authority in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether the purchasing procedures and audit mechanisms operating in the NHS are adequate to ensure the efficient and effective use of NHS funds for the purpose of purchasing and developing information technology systems; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national health service bodies have standing orders and standing financial orders to follow to ensure that they comply with best practice in public procurement policies. To ensure better use of national health service resources for purchasing and developing information technology systems, the existing advice on procurement has been reviewed and updated by NHS Supplies. This thorough assessment has resulted in the development and introduction of new guidelines, procurement of information systems effectively (POISE). These will be issued to those responsible within the NHS for IT procurement and will help hospitals, trusts, units and health authorities match systems accurately to their individual needs in a cost-effective manner. These 728
  guidelines, in addition to others encompassing information management and technology, will be launched later this year and will improve further the NHS's utilisation of information technology.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of hardware, software, and consultancy fees for the CARE information system purchased by Guy's hospital in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Griffiths, the chief executive of the Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of hardware, software and consultancy fees for the GIANT information system purchased by Guy's hospital in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Griffiths, the chief executive of the Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the contracts for the supply of information technology systems to the NHS of a value of more than £2 million in each year since 1987–88 by region, title of the project and supplier.

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

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress made towards the implementation of the targets for the development of information systems in the NHS established in the document, "Framework for Information Systems: The Next Steps".

  Mr. Sackville
  Good progress has been made in taking forward the wide ranging objectives set out in "Framework for Information Systems: The Next Steps".

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the anticipated expenditure on computer hardware and software in each NHS region, in each of the years from 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are required to produce annual accounts which are submitted to the Department. These accounts do not incorporate details of anticipated expenditure.

  The monitoring of health authorities' anticipated expenditure is restricted to broad measures, in which computer expenditure is not separately identified.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health information support systems projects have been initiated; and what is the cost of each project to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  A large number of hospital sites have been implementing computer systems that provide integrated facilities. It is estimated that some 40 sites have either procured, or are in the process of procuring health information support systems (HISS) solutions. In addition, there are perhaps another 60 or so sites who have already achieved a degree of integration amongst their operational systems. Often, this reflects regional initiatives, and the situation is therefore localised rather than evenly spread.
  729
  Information as to the cost of HISS within the national health service at large is not held centrally. Under EC legislation, however, there is a requirement for all purchases made under competitive tendering rules to be published in the Official Journal of the European Community within 48 days of contract award.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since 1985 the purchase of information technology systems by regional and district health authorities and hospital trusts has been the subject of audit inquiries by the district audit service, the National Audit Office or other auditors appointed by Her Majesty's Government or regional or district health authorities for that specific purpose; and whether she will list(a) those published and (b) those yet to be published.

  Mr. Sackville
  Auditors selectively review expenditure, including that on information technology, as part of their annual certification process. It is therefore not possible to provide figures on the number of inquiries carried out. Where inquiries by statutory auditors have led to formal reports, these have been recorded centrally. Reports in which procurement of information technology was identified as a main criticism were issued in respect of the following health authorities:

  North Western RHA

  Tunbridge Wells HA

  Wessex RHA

  South Western RHA

  The former Leeds Eastern HA

  The list refers to statutory audit reports issued in respect of financial years 1985–86 to 1991–92. In some cases, the auditor issued more than one report on the same authority. Reports by internal auditors are excluded.

  The National Audit Office published a report entitled "Managing Computer Projects in the National Health Services" in November 1990. This included a review of procurement arrangements in a sample of health authorities.

  We do not have comprehensive information on matters under examination by statutory auditors.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will make a statement on the report of the district audit service on the purchase of the regional information systems plan by the Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The district audit service undertook an investigation of the regional information systems plan at the request of Wessex regional health authority. Its report acknowledged that the regional health authority has taken both comprehensive steps to deal with the consequences of past decisions and remedial actions to improve its budgetary, financial and management arrangements.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the regional health authorities and hospital trusts which have transferred operational responsibility for, information technology systems to private or arm's-length companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Five regional health authorities have wholly transferred the operational responsibility for their information technology systems to private or arm's-length companies. They are Northern, Yorkshire, Trent, East 730
  Anglian and Wessex. Six regions—North East Thames, South East Thames, South West Thames, South Western, Oxford and North Western have set up separate NHS trading arms to operate their information technology systems. North West Thames, West Midlands and Mersey regions have transferred only part of their operational responsibility to private companies. We do not hold information centrally for NHS hospital trusts.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff in each year have been trained in the use of information technology systems since the launch of the NHS training authority strategy in 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has taken to remedy the low level of existing information technology skills and knowledge, especially among senior managers in the NHS, which was identified by the National Audit Office in 1990; and if she will make a statement on the level of such skills and knowledge amongst NHS staff.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are a number of measures currently being taken to address the IT training and awareness needs of national health service senior managers. One example is the information management and technology for managers programme. This has been developed and is now being delivered by the Institute of Health Service Management, the NHS training directorate and the information management group of the management executive, working closely with NHS staff at all levels. The programme is successfully reaching chief executives, general managers and chairs through briefing events, focused learning sets and training courses.

  Another example is the development and dissemination of NHS specific computer-assisted learning (CAL) packages designed to equip managerial and clinical staff with knowledge and skills in information management and systems.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the information strategy for the NHS; how much it will cost to implement; and what additional funds will be made available to the NHS to cover the cost of implementation.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information management and technology strategy for the national health service will be published very soon and follows an extensive period of consultation both within the NHS and with suppliers. The implementation of the strategy will be a local responsibility. A major thrust of the strategy will be to ensure that maximum benefit is gained from existing levels of local investment in information management and technology. The availability of any additional funds to support priority areas is dependent upon the outcome of PES negotiations with Treasury.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she will list those contracts associated with the Wessex regional health authority/regional information systems plan project which have been identified by the district auditor as having been associated with overcharging, having exploited weaknesses in the management of the Wessex regional health authority, or having undertaken work under contracts which were possibly unlawful or not validly authorised;
  731
  (2) how much was the annual expenditure on the Wessex regional health authority/regional information systems plan project in each of the years from 1985–86 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Robin Buchanan, the Wessex regional health authority chairman for details.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she is satisfied that Wessex regional health authority has taken all necessary steps to recover funds from all companies which undertook work on the regional information systems plan project and have been identified by the district auditor as having been associated with overcharging, having exploited weaknesses in the management of the Wessex regional health authority, or having undertaken work under contracts which were possibly unlawful and not validly authorised; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that Wessex regional health authority has already concluded an agreement with AT&T (Istel) following legal action and subsequent negotiations. Legal action is under way in respect of the WIS contracts. The authority's legal advisers are examining all relevant material to decide whether further steps should be taken.

  Islington and Camden Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she proposes to announce the new health authority for Islington and Camden; and who will be the new members of it.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proposed merger of Bloomsbury and Islington health authority and Hampstead health authority is the subject of a public consultation exercise which ends on 30 November. The Secretary of State will consider the results of this exercise before taking any decision on the proposal. The appointment of a chairman of any new authority is a matter for the Secretary of State; non-executive members of a district health authority are appointed by the appropriate regional health authority.

  Unregistered Children's Establishments
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of(a) the current number of unregistered children's establishments and (b) the number of children placed in such establishments.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information on the number of children's homes still to be registered has been collected as part of the Children Act monitoring survey, the results of which are due to be the subject of a report to Parliament in the new year. Some information on the numbers of children placed by local authorities in homes which fall to be registered has now been collected and will be available in time for inclusion in the report to Parliament. Information on the number of children in unregistered establishments is not collected centrally.

  Tomlinson Inquiry
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost of the Tomlinson inquiry into London's health needs; and what fee has been paid to Sir Bernard Tomlinson and other members of the inquiry.
  732
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The direct cost of the inquiry by Sir Bernard Tomlinson into London's health services, medical education and research will amount to about £250,000. Within that sum, fees totalling £23,660 will have been paid to Sir Bernard Tomlinson—equivalent to the remunera-tion of a regional health authority chairman—and fees totalling £8,750 to the team of advisers who have assisted him.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who she plans to consult over the Tomlinson report's proposal to close St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There will be wide consultation on any proposal for the closure of a hospital site arising from Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what directions she has given to the Tomlinson implementation team regarding ring fencing of moneys saved from hospital closures to community care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. I have not yet constituted the London implementation group.

  Hospice Services
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the value in cash and percentage terms of the contributions of all NHS purchasing authorities towards the revenue costs of hospice services in 1991–92 and in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the amounts of central funds allocated to regional health authorities in 1991–92 and 1992–93 for the specific purpose of enabling purchasing authorities to increase their contributions to the revenue costs of hospices for adult patients run by voluntary organisations. Additional sums of £3.2 million in 1991–92 and £5.5 million in 1992–93 were allocated to regional health authorities as part of a trial scheme to enable hospices to obtain drugs for their in-patients free of charge.

  Purchasing authorities also contribute to the revenue costs of hospices from their main allocations. For 1991–92, it is estimated that combined Department of Health and NHS funds met 41 per cent. of the revenue costs of adult hospices. We remain committed to reaching a position where the value of health authorities' contributions to hospices' agreed revenue costs matches that of voluntary giving.

  Regional Health Authority

  Allocation 1991–92 £ million

  Allocation 1992–93 £ million

  Northern

  1.124

  2.052

  Yorkshire

  1.276

  2.409

  Trent

  1.603

  3.109

  East Anglian

  0.672

  1.491

  North West Thames

  1.263

  2.094

  North East Thames

  1.478

  2.332

  South East Thames

  1.395

  2.582

  South West Thames

  1.102

  2.046

  Wessex

  0.979

  2.157

  Oxford

  0.774

  1.462

  South Western

  1.128

  2.493

  West Midlands

  1.798

  3.353

  Mersey

  0.890

  1.551

  733

  Regional Health Authority

  Allocation 1991–92 £ million

  Allocation 1992–93 £ million

  North Western

  1.478

  2.592

  Total

  16.960

  31.723

  Value of child support1 for each child in standard rate tax—paying families expressed at April 19922

  Prices (£)

  Date3

  Children under age 11

  Children aged 11 to 15

  Children aged 16 and over

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child

  1st child

  2nd child

  3rd child

  April 1962

  7.73

  10.51

  11.34

  9.58

  12.47

  13.19

  11.54

  14.33

  15.15

  April 1963

  8.69

  11.41

  12.22

  10.50

  13.43

  14.04

  12.42

  15.25

  16.04

  April 1964

  8.51

  11.19

  11.97

  10.29

  13.16

  13.75

  12.17

  14.94

  15.64

  April 1965

  8.53

  11.16

  11.72

  10.41

  12.94

  13.60

  12.28

  14.82

  15.48

  April 1966

  8.24

  10.77

  11.31

  10.05

  12.49

  13.13

  11.86

  14.31

  14.94

  April 1967

  7.94

  10.46

  10.78

  9.76

  12.13

  12.74

  11.51

  13.89

  14.51

  April 1968

  7.65

  9.59

  10.18

  9.34

  11.27

  11.78

  11.02

  12.88

  13.46

  April 1969

  7.26

  9.49

  10.04

  8.85

  11.09

  11.64

  10.45

  12.68

  13.16

  April 1970

  6.87

  8.99

  9.51

  8.38

  10.49

  11.02

  9.90

  12.00

  12.46

  April 1971

  8.01

  10.15

  10.63

  9.25

  11.45

  11.94

  10.55

  12.70

  13.18

  April 1972

  7.53

  9.54

  10.00

  8.70

  10.77

  11.23

  9.93

  11.94

  12.40

  April 1973

  6.83

  8.56

  8.98

  8.08

  9.75

  10.17

  9.09

  10.76

  11.17

  April 1974

  7.84

  9.29

  9.65

  9.03

  10.38

  10.78

  10.01

  11.36

  11.76

  April 1975

  6.87

  9.50

  9.50

  7.84

  10.48

  10.48

  8.70

  11.37

  11.37

  April 1976

  7.21

  9.45

  9.45

  8.03

  10.27

  10.27

  8.77

  10.99

  10.99

  April 1977

  6.92

  7.93

  7.93

  7.62

  8.62

  8.62

  8.23

  9.20

  9.20

  April 1978

  8.25

  8.25

  8.25

  8.90

  8.90

  8.90

  9.43

  9.43

  9.43

  April 1979

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  10.23

  November 1980

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  9.49

  November 1981

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  9.36

  November 1982

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  9.82

  November 1983

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  10.41

  November 1984

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  10.45

  November 1985

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  10.13

  July 1986

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  10.10

  April 1987

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  9.89

  April 1988

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  9.51

  April 1989

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  8.80

  April 1990

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  8.04

  April 1991

  8.60

  7.56

  7.56

  8.60

  7.56

  7.56

  8.60

  7.56

  7.56

  October 1991

  9.50

  7.71

  7.71

  9.50

  7.71

  7.71

  9.50

  7.71

  7.71

  April 1992

  9.65

  7.80

  7.80

  9.65

  7.80

  7.80

  9.65

  7.80

  7.80

  1 The combined value of child tax allowance after clawback and family allowance/child benefit.

  2 Based on the movement in the general index of retail prices at April 1992.

  3 Child tax allowance ceased after the 1978.79 tax year and uprating dates are shown from 1979 onwards.

  4 And subsequent children.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the organisations and individuals who responded to the Government's proposals for the child support regulations.

  Mr. Burt
  The list is as follows:

  APACS

  Association of Magisterial Officers

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Bar of Northern Ireland

  Barnardos

  Belfast Law Centre

  Bolton Magistrates' Court

  Borders Regional Council

  British Bankers Association

  The Building Societies Association

  Cardiff Gypsy Site Group

  Catholic Family Care Society

  CBI

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the value of child support for each child in a standard rate tax paying family, expressed in 1992–93 prices, for each year from 1962 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. While child benefit helps all families with children, there is a comprehensive range of other social security benefits which can provide additional help for some families according to their circumstances.

  CBI—Northern Ireland

  C Croydon

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Child Care

  Child Poverty Action Group

  The Children's Society

  Citizen's Advice Bureau

  Citizen's Advice Scotland

  City of Manchester Welfare Rights Unit

  Commission for Racial Equality

  The Committee of Scottish Clearing Banks

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council on Tribunals P T Dawes

  Department of Economic Development—Netherleigh Northern Ireland

  DSS—Benefits Agency, Five Ways Complex

  DSS—Benefits Agency, Newbury Office

  DSS—Benefits Agency, South Gwent and Islwyn District

  DSS—Clyde Valley District Office

  735

  DSS—Eston Local Office

  DSS—Highlands and Islands District Office

  DSS—North Tees District

  DSS—Nottingham

  DSS—West Notts District Office

  Dudley Magistrates' Court

  Earl Russell

  Faculty of Advocates

  Families Need Fathers

  Family Law Bar Association

  The Forum of Private Business

  Gillian Cumberlidge—LRO—South Derbyshire District Gingerbread

  Greater Manchester Probation Service

  D Green—Solicitor

  Hammersmith and Fulham Council for Racial Equality

  P Hancock—Benefits Agency, Dudley, West Midlands Justices Clerks Society

  The Law Society

  The Law Society of Northern Ireland

  Law Society of Scotland

  Leicester City Council

  Lincolnshire Magistrates' Court Committee

  The Lord President of the Courts of Session

  The Magistrates' Association

  MENCAP

  NACAB

  NaCOPF

  National Council of Women of Great Britain

  Northern Ireland Resident Magistrates' Association

  Northern Ireland Solicitors Family Law Association

  Northumbria Probation Service

  Norwich City Council

  NSPCC

  Office of the Master for the Enforcement of Judgements —Northern Ireland

  Payroll Alliance

  Peterborough Software

  The President of the Social Security and Medical Appeal Tribunals—Northern Ireland

  The Principal Registry of the Family Division Relate

  Relate—Northern Ireland

  RSSPCC

  Scottish Association of Family Conciliation Services

  Scottish Child Law Centre

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Women's Aid

  A. M. Shelley

  Single Parent Action Network

  P. Small

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Social Security Commissioners—Northern Ireland

  South Manchester Law Centre

  Dr. D. Spiegelhalter

  J. Spragg

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  T. J. Sullivan

  R. P. Tinsdell

  TUC

  TUS

  University of Leicester—Faculty of Law

  Wages for Housework Campaign

  Women's Aid Federation

  Women's National Commission

  A. Yates

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the likely expenditure in 1992–93 on the payment of mortgage interest for households in receipt of income support, the number of households receiving such assistance, and the average monthly payment per household.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest available information is contained in the Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry for May 736
  1991. The total amount was £949 million for 411,000 customers. The average weekly amount for those receiving full mortgage interest was £46.34, and for those receiving half mortgage interest (to which payments are restricted during the first 16 weeks of the claim for customers under age 60) was £35.61.

  Incomes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of persons and the percentage of the total population, who were living on incomes less than 60 per cent. of the national average, in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) the current year, respectively, or in those years nearest to these dates where information is available.

  Mr. Burt
  Such information as is available is taken from the Households Below Average Income series. Households Below Average Incomes does not cover 1985 and, at present, only goes up to 1988–89. The available years closest to those requested are 1981, 1987 and 1988–89. The figures, both before and after housing costs, are in the table.

  Number and percentage of people in the United Kingdom with less than 60 per cent, of average income.

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  Before housing costs

  Number of people (millions)

  10.6

  14.6

  16

  Percentage of people

  19

  26

  29

  After housing costs

  Number of people (millions)

  11.9

  16.2

  16.8

  Percentage of people

  22

  29

  30

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the mean net disposable income for 1979 and for each of the two years 1988 and 1989, at April 1992 prices, of the richest and poorest 20 per cent. of households, based on the equivalised income data collected for the latest households below average income analysis, distinguishing between the mean and the median.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 16 July 1992,Official Report, columns 946–47.

  As recommended in the Households Below Average Income stocktaking report, only the median is used as the average measure for subdivisions of the income distribution.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 454, if he will list the factors which prevent the publication of 1990–91 data from the households below average income analysis before mid-1993; and how much delay is accounted for by each factor.

  Mr. Burt
  1991 Family Expenditure Survey data is received by the Department in a form suitable for HBAI data preparation in October 1992. Some four to five months are then needed to set up consistent data files and a further four to five months to produce accurate and robust results, tables and analysis.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the full value of free and subsidised school meals affects calculations of the mean, and the median, net
  737
  disposable income of the poorest 20 per cent. of (i) all households and (ii) households with children in each of the single years 1979 and 1989., using the information collected in the latest housholds below average income stocking report at April 1992 prices.

  Mr. Burt
  As recommended in the Households Below Average Income stocktaking report only the median is used to represent subdivisions of the income distribution and 1988 and 1989 are always combined. For part (i) of the question I therefore refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 16 July 1992,Official Report, columns 947–48. The table answers part (ii) of the question:

  Average equivalised income at April 1992 prices for the bottom 20 per cent, of individuals in households of families with children

  1979 £

  1988–89 £

  Before housing costs:

  Excluding free school meals

  96

  96

  Including free school meals

  99

  98

  After housing costs:

  Excluding free school meals

  78

  74

  Including free school meals

  82

  76

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was, for each type of household En the Family Expenditure Survey, the average disposable income at April 1992 prices, including the value of free and subsidised school meals, of the poorest 10 per cent. and poorest 20 per cent. of households, equivalised for household size and composition, after taking account of housing costs, for each of the two years 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 16 July 1992,Official Report, columns 947–48.

  Disability
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he can give about trends in the levels of disposable income of the 6 million people with disabilities, taking account of the latest households below average income stocktaking report.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest and most reliable information about the incomes of people with disabilities is contained in the reports of the OPCS surveys of disabled people carried out between 1985 and 1988, copies of which are in the library.

  The Family Expenditure Survey, the principal data source for Households Below Average Income, does not record whether an individual has a disability.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has for the number of persons seeking employment and not entitled to unemployment benefits in each month during 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Burt
  The table shows the Employment Department's seasonally adjusted Great Britain unemployment figures for each month of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92, together with the numbers of unemployed claimants for each quarter receiving neither unemployment benefit nor income support.
  738

  Month

  Unemployed Persons Thousands (Seasonally Adjusted)

  Unemployed Claimants receiving neither Unemployment Benefit nor Income Support Thousands (See note)

  1990/91

  April

  1,498

  —

  May

  1,503

  220

  June

  1,514

  —

  July

  1,527

  —

  August

  1,556

  253

  September

  1,585

  —

  October

  1,628

  —

  November

  1,681

  246

  December

  1,756

  —

  January

  1,796

  —

  February

  1,888

  295

  March

  1,990

  —

  1991/92

  April

  2,067

  —

  May

  2,133

  280

  June

  2,193

  —

  July

  2,262

  —

  August

  2,321

  302

  September

  2,356

  —

  October

  2,375

  —

  November

  2,415

  301

  December

  2,448

  —

  January

  2,503

  —

  February

  2,541

  328

  March

  2,548

  —

  Note:

  Source is the Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

  The figures include some persons who had claimed benefit but whose entitlement had not been established on the day of the count.

  No details are available of the numbers of job seekers who do not register unemployed, or of their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total numbers of(a) unemployed job seekers eligible to claim unemployment benefit and (b) persons seeking employment in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Burt
  The table shows the Employment Department's seasonally adjusted GB unemployment figures for each of the financial years from 1979 to 1991 together with the average numbers of persons receiving unemployment benefit:

  Financial year

  Recipients of unemployment benefit Thousands1

  Unemployed persons (seasonally adjusted) Thousands

  1979–80

  480

  1,019

  1980–81

  858

  1,501

  1981–82

  2

  2,210

  1982–83

  987

  2,518

  1983–84

  940

  2,715

  1984–85

  2

  2,840

  1985–86

  2

  2,935

  1986–87

  923

  2,950

  1987–88

  733

  2,555

  1988–89

  540

  2,030

  1989–90

  329

  1,599

  1990–91

  358

  1,660

  1 Source: Quarterly analysis of unemployed claimants.

  2 Data for more than one quarter not available due to industrial action in these years.
  739
  No details are available of the numbers of job seekers who do not register unemployed or whether they are eligible for unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the administrative costs for paying out national insurance unemployment benefits for each year since 1987–88;

  (2) what were the administrative costs for paying out social security benefits to unemployed families during each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Burt
  Details of the administrative costs of social security benefits, of which unemployed families may be in receipt are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The administrative costs of paying unemployment benefit for the years 1987–88 to 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, are as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  166

  1988–89

  172

  1989–90

  176

  1990–91

  182

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if applications for mobility allowance and attendance allowance, preceding the introduction of disability living allowance, are dealt with under legislation applicable at the time of application.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability benefits 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. David Hinchliffe, dated 27 October 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 if applications for Mobility Allowance (MobA) and Attendance Allowance (AA), preceding the introduction of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), are dealt with under legislation applicable at the time of application.
  I can confirm that all such claims made before 16 March 1992 were dealt with under the legislation appropriate to those benefits. Claims made on or after 16 March 1992 have been dealt with under the same legislation but using the new adjudication structure for DLA. All claims outstanding at 6 April 1992, regardless of when they were received, were dealt with under the new adjudication provisions, although the MobA and AA criteria apply.
  I hope this reply will be of help to you. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications were refused for(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) disability living allowance in 1992, to 30 September;

  (2) how many outstanding (a) applications, (b) reviews and (c) appeals were ongoing for attendance allowance on 1 April;

  (3) how many outstanding (a) applications, (b) reviews and (c) appeals were ongoing for mobility allowance on 1 April;
  740
  (4) how many persons were employed dealing with (a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) mobility allowance on 1 October;

  (5) how many applicants for (a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) disability living allowance have not received payment for a successful claim six months after their application, from 1 October 1991 to 1 October 1992;

  (6) how many persons were employed dealing with (a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) mobility allowance on 1 April;

  (7) how many persons have claimed (a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) disability living allowance in 1992 to 30 September;

  (8) what was the training budget for personnel involved in (a) disability living allowance and (b) disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability benefits is a matter for 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. David Hinchliffe, dated 27 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA) and Mobility Allowance (MOBA).
  It will perhaps be helpful if I explain a little about the changes which took place with the onset of the new adjudication structure. With the introduction of the DLA from 6 April 1992, all outstanding AA claims, reviews and appeals in respect of people under 65 were transferred to DLA for processing under the new adjudication system introduced at the same time. This was because any award of AA spanning 6 April for people under 65 would automatically become the Care Component of DLA at that time.
  Cases in respect of people aged 65 or over would not be subject to the change to DLA, but would continue to receive or apply for AA. The change in the adjudication system which applied to DLA was however also introduced for AA.

  Outstanding AA and MOBA claims, reviews and appeals
  The major transfer of work to DLA with its introduction in April involved in excess of 70,000 cases.
  Of this total there were approximately 23,000 claims to MOBA which were transferred to the DLA Unit for processing under the new rules, with a further 11,500 or so reviews and appeals.
  In the region of 20,000 claims to AA from people under the age of 65 were also transferred to the new adjudication structure along with just over 16,000 reviews and appeals.
  In addition to those cases which fell to be considered as DLA, there remain those cases from people aged over 65, which are still administered as AA. At the beginning of April, just over 101,000 such claims were outstanding in the DBCs, with around 30,000 appeals and reviews at the Fylde AA Unit.

  Number of claims made and refused
  I should first explain that claims to DLA are administered by ten Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) around the country and the DLA Unit at Fylde. Claim forms are specially designed to direct customers to return the claim to the DBC nearest their home address. The Centre is then responsible for the claim, obtaining any other relevant information and making the decision on entitlement.
  In addition there are also applications from people currently getting either AA or MOBA but who may also be entitled to an additional amount under the DLA rules. These applications, known as "Top-up" claims, are dealt with at a special unit at Preston.

  741
  The following table shows the number of claims received and the number refused from February to September:

  AA

  DLA

  Top-up

  Number of claims made

  386,000

  303,000

  195,000

  Refusals

  88,000

  86,000

  23,000

  Staffing and Training
  As part of the preparation for the launch of DLA and the introduction of the revised adjudication structure for AA, there was a major comprehensive training programme in 1991–92. Manpower costs for this programme were in the region of £2 million. For Disability Working Allowance, the comparative figure was just below £200,000.
  Although the Agency had expected the initial launch of the new benefits to generate large numbers of claims in the early months, the success of the advertising campaign and the widespread interest from disabled people meant that the numbers we received in total, exceeded our expectations in the early stages.
  This sudden surge coupled with the extensive recruitment and training programme, for staff who were still adjusting to the new benefit processes, meant that a backlog of cases built up in the weeks following the launch.
  In direct response to this situation, extra staff have been deployed, and overtime is being worked to a considerable extent. The staff in post numbers for all DLA and AA operations at the Fylde and DBC offices have therefore been increased from around 3,300 in April to over 4,600 at the beginning of October. These figures include all AA staff for dealing with claims reviews and appeals etc. from people over age 65 and work for MOBA and AA (below 65) which of course were subsumed within DLA from its introduction.

  Delays in payment
  You asked about the numbers of applicants who have not received payment for a successful claim six months after their application. This information is not available in the format you requested. I should explain, however, that payment authorization is despatched within 24 or 48 hours of the decision on the case being recorded.
  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. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response his Department makes to a complaint from an applicant concerning failure to respond to an application for mobility allowance or disability living allowance, where the applicant gives notice that he or she will contact his or her hon. Member if no response is received within 28 days.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Alun Michael dated 27 October 1992.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the response made to a customer who gives notice that they will contact their honourable member if their claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA,) or Mobility Allowance is not processed within 28 days.
  I wrote to all MPs on 19 October explaining in detail the significant problems encountered with the launch of DLA and the measures introduced to deal with the backlog which resulted.
  The extent and speed of the response to the launch of the new benefit has meant that we have been unable to process claims as quickly as we would have liked. In order to keep
  742
  customers informed of any delays we automatically send notification of progress 6 weeks after the claim is registered. I understand that customers may sometimes feel that contacting their MP will help to speed up the processing of their claim and whilst we appreciate their frustration, it is our policy always to deal with claims as quickly as possible.
  I regret that customers are experiencing delays and I am by no means complacent about the number of applications still to be processed. I am currently monitoring the situation closely and I am confident that we will have reached a steady state shortly for new claims and by the end of November for "top-up" claims.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number and percentage of requests for a medical examination by people claiming(a) disability living allowance and (b) attendance allowance since the introduction of the new self-assessment claiming system;

  (2) when he expects the target clearance rate for new disability living allowance claims to be met; what targets have been set for reviews of decisions on (a) new disability living allowance, (b) outstanding mobility allowance or(c) attendance allowance; and when he expects each of these targets to be met;

  (3) what was the total number and percentage of claims for disability living allowance where the adjudicating officer required further evidence; and what were the number and percentage requiring (a) an EMP report, (b) evidence other than an EMP report and (c) both;

  (4) how many requests for reviews of disability living allowance have been received by his Department; and what number and percentage of these (a) resulted in an increase in the amount of benefit payable, (b) resulted in an original award being maintained, (c) resulted in a reduction in benefit and (d) remain outstanding;

  (5) what is the number and percentage of (a) new claims and (b) top-up claims for disability living allowance to date that have either (i) resulted in an award or (ii) been rejected, broken down by whether (1) EMP evidence was provided and (2) the claim was decided solely on the statement of disability evidence provided by the claimant;

  (6) how many (a) new and (b) top-up claims for the disability living allowance have been received by his Department to date; if he will provide a breakdown by (i) the number and percentage of these that resulted in an award, (ii) the number and percentage of these that were refused broken down by grounds for refusal and (iii) the number and percentage of these that are awaiting a decision; and if he will provide totals for the country as a whole and by each of the regions covered by the 10 disability benefit centres;

  (7) what are the national average clearance times for (a) new and (b) top-up claims for disability living allowance for (i) each month since February and (ii) the period from the beginning of April to September inclusive; and if he will provide a breakdown by disability benefit centre.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability benefit 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. Richard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 1992:

  743
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about claims to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and requests for review of DLA and Attendance Allowance (AA) claims. I will deal with each of your points in turn:

  Numbers and percentage of requests for a medical examination by people claiming DLA and AA
  One of the primary aims of the introduction of DLA and AA for people aged 65 or over was to reduce the need for medical examinations. New self assessment procedures place more reliance on information provided by customers. The DLA and AA claim packs do not direct applicants to request an examination. The information you require as to the number of cases where people have opted to undergo a medical examination is therefore not available.

  Claims adjudicated upon on receipt and those requiring further medical evidence
  From February to the end of September almost 190,000 decisions on new claim were made, over 117,000 of the decisions made were awards with around 72,000 unsuccessful. A breakdown of the numbers of decisions based upon the information provided on the claim form and those requiring further medical evidence or opinion is at Annex 1.

  Number of claims made, decided and outstanding
  You asked for the number of new claims and "top-up" claims that have been made to DLA, together with the number and percentage of awards and refusals. A breakdown of claims received, decided and the numbers outstanding at each of the Disability Benefit Centres (DBCs) is given at Annex 2. I should explain that it is not possible to show the figures for "top-up" claims in the same format as new claims as they are processed at a special unit in Preston. Figures for "top-up" claims are shown at Annex 3.

  National average clearance times
  The Benefits Agency introduced a standard performance measure across benefits some time ago. This is expressed in terms of clearance targets days rather than average clearance times as was previously the case.

  Annex 1

  Claims adjudicated upon on receipt and those requiring further evidence

  Total number of decisions made

  Decision based on claim pack

  Reflected as a percentage of total

  Decision based on medical examination

  Reflected as a percentage of total

  Decision based on other evidence

  Reflected as a percentage of total

  New claims

  Awards

  117,300

  61,100

  52

  23,200

  20

  33,000

  28

  Rejections

  72,500

  29,600

  41

  14,600

  20

  28,400

  39

  Top-up claims

  Awards

  98,000

  78,000

  80

  12,000

  12

  8,000

  8

  Rejections

  21,100

  15,600

  74

  2,200

  10

  3,300

  16

  Annex 2

  Analysis of adjudication officer decisions on new claims (February to September)

  Figures rounded to nearest hundred

  Total received

  Total awards

  Rejections

  Total rejections

  Total adjudication

  Total cleared

  Number outstanding

  Medical grounds

  Lay grounds (1)

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Edinburgh

  36,300

  10,300

  28

  7,200

  20

  1,300

  4

  8,500

  23

  18,800

  52

  18,500

  51

  17,800

  49

  Newcastle

  19,800

  7,500

  38

  8,100

  41

  700

  3

  8,800

  44

  16,300

  82

  16,000

  81

  3,800

  19

  Leeds

  34,900

  16,700

  48

  8,600

  25

  1,400

  4

  10,000

  29

  26,700

  77

  26,900

  77

  8,000

  23

  Manchester

  24,300

  8,500

  35

  9,900

  41

  900

  4

  10,800

  45

  19,300

  79

  19,500

  80

  4,800

  20

  Bootle

  26,400

  11,100

  42

  6,000

  23

  900

  3

  6,900

  26

  18,000

  68

  17,700

  67

  8,800

  33

  Birmingham

  46,000

  17,000

  37

  7,400

  16

  1,400

  3

  8,800

  19

  25,800

  56

  25,200

  55

  20,800

  45

  Bristol

  17,800

  9,200

  52

  4,300

  24

  800

  5

  5,100

  29

  14,400

  81

  14,400

  81

  3,400

  19

  Cardiff

  24,400

  11,000

  45

  6,900

  28

  900

  4

  7,700

  32

  18,700

  77

  18,500

  76

  5,800

  24

  Wembley

  36,100

  18,000

  50

  7,400

  21

  1,800

  5

  9,200

  26

  27,300

  76

  26,800

  74

  9,200

  26

  744
  Since the launch of DLA in February 1992 the performance to date has shown a 31 % clearance rate against the primary target of 30 days. The latest performance for the month of September also shows 31 % of claims cleared within 30 days. The table at Annex 4 shows the clearance times for each DBC between February and September inclusive for new DLA claims, but not those made under the special rules, for both the primary target (60% in 30 days) and secondary target (95% in 55 days). The clearance of "top-up" claims is shown at Annex 5.

  The success of the advertising campaign and the policy initiatives surrounding the launch of the benefits, attracted a much larger number of applicants in the early stages than was expected. Backlogs of work arose as a result and this has undoubtedly affected our ability to meet the clearance targets which are intended to represent the on-going situation.

  Significant inroads have now been made into these backlogs and whilst there will always be a certain number of cases in action at any one time, I would expect this to reduce to manageable proportions shortly.

  Reviews of decisions on DLA, and outstanding MobA and AA.
  You asked how many requests for review of DLA have been received, the outcomes of those determined, and the numbers still outstanding. Since the benefit's launch in February, just over 18,000 requests for review have been received, with less than 15,000, which represents approximately 80%, remaining outstanding at the end of September.
  I should explain, however, that over 6,500 were received in September alone. These review requests relate to decisions on new DLA/AA and MobA claims and to requests for reviews of existing MobA and AA awards. The targets for clearance of all types of reviews are to clear 60% in 55 days and 95% in 75 days. For the continuing AA scheme, the comparable figures are 60% in 61 days and 95% in 81 days. Reliable information is not yet available about the outcome of applications for reviews. These targets are intended to represent the situation in stable running; currently much effort is being channelled into clearing these unadjudicated cases outstanding at April 1992. As I said in my letter of 19 October to all Members, these cases will be cleared by the end of December, and I would expect that clearance times of applications for reviews will improve thereafter.
  All figures quoted are provisional and may therefore be subject to amendment.
  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.
  745

  Total received

  Total awards

  Rejections

  Total rejections

  Total adjudication officer decisions

  Total cleared

  Number outstanding

  Medical grounds

  Lay grounds (1)

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Number

  As a percentage

  Sutton

  31,400

  14,400

  46

  7,900

  25

  1,600

  5

  9,400

  30

  23,800

  76

  23,800

  76

  7,600

  24

  All regions1

  297,400

  123,700

  42

  73,800

  25

  11,500

  4

  85,300

  29

  209,000

  70

  207,300

  70

  90,100

  30

  Great Britain

  303,400

  126,100

  42

  74,300

  24

  11,900

  4

  86,200

  28

  212,000

  70

  213,800

  70

  89,700

  30

  1 Figures differ from national due to business conducted at North Fylde.

  Annex 3

  Analysis of adjudication officer decisions on top-up claims(February to September)

  Figures rounded to nearest thousand

  Total received

  195,000

  Total awards

  98,000

  as percentage

  61

  Total rejections1

  23,000

  as percentage

  12

  Total AO decisions

  121,000

  Annex 4

  Performance indicators for new claims by DBC (Percentage)

  Days

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Overall

  Edinburgh

  30

  99

  96

  42

  14

  9

  10

  12

  22

  19

  55

  99

  99

  98

  78

  33

  34

  28

  41

  44

  Newcastle

  30

  99

  96

  67

  25

  19

  26

  20

  35

  37

  55

  99

  99

  99

  87

  56

  50

  48

  63

  69

  Leeds

  30

  99

  98

  78

  37

  6

  7

  30

  44

  33

  55

  99

  99

  99

  90

  42

  55

  64

  66

  66

  Manchester

  30

  90

  95

  58

  23

  11

  25

  26

  38

  32

  55

  99

  99

  99

  88

  54

  52

  53

  60

  62

  Bootle

  30

  99

  97

  44

  9

  10

  7

  18

  27

  21

  55

  99

  99

  99

  76

  31

  28

  52

  52

  51

  Birmingham

  30

  99

  98

  69

  29

  12

  17

  19

  21

  25

  55

  99

  99

  99

  83

  47

  38

  41

  39

  49

  Bristol

  30

  99

  97

  75

  38

  17

  6

  11

  32

  31

  55

  99

  98

  98

  91

  64

  22

  50

  69

  62

  Cardiff

  30

  99

  97

  63

  13

  13

  13

  27

  34

  30

  55

  99

  99

  99

  82

  62

  44

  56

  60

  63

  Wembley

  30

  99

  97

  70

  34

  23

  36

  34

  36

  44

  55

  99

  98

  98

  85

  65

  66

  63

  63

  73

  Sutton

  30

  99

  97

  78

  36

  19

  28

  35

  33

  40

  55

  99

  98

  99

  92

  57

  57

  58

  59

  66

  Annex 5

  Performance indicators for top-up claims conversion unit (percentage)

  Days

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Sept

  Overall

  55

  99

  99

  95

  55

  14

  6

  6

  15

  21

  70

  99

  99

  98

  92

  43

  17

  12

  22

  35

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the average fees paid by his Department to doctors for(a) mobility allowance and (b) attendance allowance claims; what was the total amount spent by his Department on payment of such fees to doctors; and what were the numbers of cases involved in each of the previous three years;

  (2) how many doctors are currently employed by his Department for dealing with disability and attendance
  746

  Figures rounded to nearest thousand

  as percentage

  62

  Total cleared

  137,000

  as percentage

  70

  Number outstanding

  58,000

  as percentage

  30

  1 These are almost all medical; 108 for other reasons.

  Note:

  No regional figures available since all conversion done at North Fylde.

  allowance claims; and how many doctors were employed by his Department for dealing with mobility and attendance allowance claims in each of the previous three years;

  (3) what is the average fee paid by his Department to doctors for an examination required by a claim for disability living allowance or attendance allowance; and in how many cases an examination has taken place and the total amount spent on such fees to date.
  747
  Mr. Scott
  The use of doctors to examine claimants and the cost of gathering medical evidence for social security benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning doctors employed by the Department who are dealing with claims for Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance (AA) and Mobility Allowance (MobA). I will answer each of your points in turn. Average fees paid to doctors for MobA and AA claims.

  The average fees paid for combined MobA/AA examinations including an average for travelling expenses is as follows:

  Over 2.5 hours

  1989

  88

  1990

  81

  1991

  75

  The total amount spent on fees in 1991–92 was £27 million. It is not possible to identify the specific administrative costs incurred in paying these fees. Similarly, the figures for the number of cases involved in each of the last three years are not readily available and could only be obtained at dispropor-tionate cost.

  Average fees paid to doctors for examinations on DLA or AA claims.
  The average fee paid for DLA/AA65 + examinations is £83 per 3.5 hours which includes an average for travelling expenses.
  To date the total amount spent on such fees is £4 million and examinations have occurred in approximately 52,000 cases.

  Number of doctors employed

  There are currently 66 doctors employed by the Agency for DLA/AA65 + claims. The number of doctors employed for AA/MobA claims at the end of each of the previous three years is as follows:

  Number of limes subject covered in calls

  Percentage of total subjects

  1 Number of calls abandoned

  Month

  Disability living allowance

  Attendance allowance

  Disability living allowance

  Attendance allowance

  February

  49,431

  8,249

  66

  11

  37,943

  March

  55,230

  7,247

  68

  9

  11,474

  April

  57,455

  20,983

  52

  19

  11,370

  May

  33,133

  16,159

  45

  22

  10,438

  June

  45,917

  20,350

  45

  20

  11,019

  July

  30,233

  10,979

  44

  16

  11,551

  August

  25,010

  9,065

  44

  16

  9,290

  September

  23,460

  8,880

  40

  15

  8,793

  1 The number of abandoned calls are relevant to the whole service provided by the Benefit Enquiry Line.

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

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional resources, excluding any redeployment of existing resources the Benefits Agency has at its disposal, have been made available to the Benefits Agency to enable it to clear the backlog of disability living allowance claims and reviews and any outstanding reviews and renewal claims for mobility allowance and attendance allowance.
  748

  Number

  1989–90

  39

  1990–91

  39

  1991–92

  41

  The reason that full-time Medical Officer requirements increased for DLA/AA65 + was partly due to the higher workload forecast compared to AA/MobA, and partly by the use of full-time Medical Officers instead of fee paid doctors. I should explain that this has resulted in a net saving of £865,000.

  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. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and percentage of all inquiries received by the benefits inquiry line related to disability living allowance and attendance allowance in each month since February; and how many calls were recorded but not able to get through on this line over the same period.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 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 what number and percentage of all enquiries received by the Benefits Enquiry Line related to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance in each month since February; and how many calls were recorded but not able to get through on this line over the same period.
  The information requested is shown below:

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability benefits 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. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 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 what additional resources are available to clear the backlog of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

  749
  claims and reviews and any outstanding reviews and renewals claims for Mobility Allowance (MobA) and Attendance Allowance (AA).
  The Agency launched DLA in February, with an extensive publicity campaign. As part of this campaign, we wrote to all existing MobA and AA beneficiaries, in the region of 1 million, explaining the changes and, where appropriate, inviting them to claim extra money under the new DLA rules. In the meantime other take up campaigns were being run outside the organisation to encourage claims.
  We had expected the initial launch of the new benefit to generate large numbers of claims in the months surrounding the benefit's introduction, and we calculated that around 2,000 staff would be required to process the claims for DLA. However, whilst we had planned for some increase in applications, the success of the advertising campaign and the widespread interest from disabled people, attracted a much larger number of applications in the early stages than was expected. There was also a huge increase in the numbers of claims to AA during the same period.
  This sudden surge coupled with extensive recruitment and training programmes of 2,000 staff who were still adjusting to the new benefit processes meant that a backlog of cases built up in the weeks following the introduction of DLA. The transfer of outstanding MobA and AA renewal claims, reviews and appeals from 6 April to a completely new adjudication structure, was in itself, a major exercise.
  As a result, over 800 extra staff have been recruited and trained and are now in place dealing with DLA and AA. There has been extensive overtime working across the ten Disability Benefit Centres and the DLA Unit at Fylde. As I am only given the resources to cope with the forecast workload, and this has in total been exceeded, I have had to find these resources from elsewhere in the Agency.
  In addition the backlog of cases has generated further enquiries from customers seeking advice and information about their claim. Extra staff have therefore been taken on to handle telephone enquiries received at the DLA Central Enquiry Handling Service at Fylde.
  As a result of these and other measures, significant inroads have been made into the backlog of work. Of course, there will always be a certain number of cases in action at any one time, but I am now confident that this will shortly have reduced to manageable proportions.
  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. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims to date for the disability living allowance have been completed(a) with the assistance of telephone calls and (b) with the assistance of visits made by the forms completion service staff in the disability benefits centres.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 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 claims to date for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) have been completed (a) with the assistance of telephone calls and (b) with the assistance of visits made by the forms completion service staff in the Disability Benefit Centres.
  Since the launch of the benefit on 3 February until 25 September 1992, nearly 43,000 claims were completed with the assistance of telephone calls and approximately 1,650 visits had been made by the Forms Completion Staff in the Disability Benefit Centres.
  This information differs from that I provided in my letter to you of 13 July 1992.
  750
  I hope that you will find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will hold an inquiry into the extent to which the administrative delays experienced by applicants for mobility allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance are incompatible with the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No. The chief executive of the Benefits Agency is responsible for the assessment of claims, reviewing entitlements to and arranging payments of social security benefits. He wrote to all hon. Members on 6 July and again on 19 October setting out the progress that has been made in this area by the agency.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional capital resources have been made available to introduce disability living allowance.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 27 October 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 what additional capital resources have been made available to introduce Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  A total of £19m has been made available for the introduction of DLA. This sum takes account of expenditure on the purchase of computer equipment, telecom equipment, office machines and furnishings and the refurbishment or redevelopment of the ten locations throughout the country within which are housed the staff administering DLA.
  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.

  Agoraphobia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made for those who suffer from agoraphobia to apply for sickness benefit provided they satisfy the benefit eligibility rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of sickness benefit 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. Max Madden, dated 27 October 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 what arrangements are made for those who suffer from agoraphobia to apply for sickness benefit providing they satisfy the benefit eligibility rules.
  There are no specific arrangements for dealing with customers who are agoraphobic. Existing procedures allow for claims to Sickness Benefit to be dealt with through the post, although home visits can be made upon request. Every effort is made to make home visits to those customers who, for one reason or another, are unable to leave their homes. Any customer who is agoraphobic should receive a home visit from one of our staff if requested.

  751
  Customers who are agoraphobic normally need to complete a self certificate (form SCI) which can be obtained from Benefits Agency offices by post, or from their doctors' surgery. If they need to obtain a Doctors' statement, then they will need to arrange to see their Doctor in the normal way.
  I should explain that it is the aim of the Agency to identify and respond, wherever possible, to its customers' needs. Our Customer Charter states that we want to make it easier for our customers to contact us, whether they choose to call in at one of our offices, phone or write. The Charter states that "Where it is necessary for you we can visit you at home".
  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.

  Deaf Claimants
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been issued, or is planned to be issued to the Benefits Agency in respect of provision of appropriate communication support/technical device to assist deaf and hard of hearing claimants attending local benefit offices.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of service in local benefit offices for deaf and hard of hearing customers 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. Keith Bradley, dated 27 October 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 concerning guidance in respect of provision of appropriate communication support/technical devices to assist deaf and hard of hearing claimants attending local benefit offices.
  The Agency is committed to an equal opportunities policy. For our customers with disabilities, this means that wherever possible we will ensure that their dealings with us should not be limited by reason of their disabilities. Training packages on customer care take account of awareness of the needs of disabled people.
  We have set up an effective liaison with the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, and we are looking at a number of their services with a view to publicising them through our network of District Information Officers and Customer Service Managers in local benefit offices. For example, we hope staff will be able to make use of the RNID's Deaf Awareness Courses.
  We are compiling a database of customer service initiatives, and this will be made available to all local offices. For example, some offices have sent staff on training courses to learn sign language. In one office nine members of staff have completed a 20 week course (two hours a week), and refresher meetings have been arranged. The scheme has been so successful that a further seven volunteers have come forward. The office has informed all local welfare groups and advice centres about the initiative. In another office, two volunteers have attended a local school for the deaf, while some offices have run their own training sessions about sign language.
  The Manchester South District, which falls within your constituency, has made particular progress in this area; all the receptionists have attended night school classes in signing.
  Other initiatives are being taken forward at a local level to improve service to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. For example, many offices—including those in the Manchester South District—have installed induction loop systems. This provides a link between the interviewer and the customer, and eliminates background noise. Most hearing aids can easily be switched over to the loop.
  The Agency subscribes to the Sympathetic Hearing Scheme, and information packs have been distributed to all
  752
  offices. Some offices have an electronic visual display unit which, sited in the reception area, has proved useful for getting messages over to the hard of hearing. Others use a portable terminal with a display screen and a memory facility for creating and storing messages.
  We have issued a video for the deaf and hard of hearing giving information about benefits.
  We are also interested in the Minicom system, although this is only available at present in a small number of offices, together with our freephone Benefit Enquiry Line service for disabled customers. The RNID advocate Super-tel, an advanced Minicom system. As a long term aim, we would like to be able to offer this facility at local offices, although clearly resources are a factor.
  Research is currently under way into the service and information needs of disabled customers. The findings and recommendations will be fed into our overall equal opportunities strategy.
  As the Agency's Customer Charter makes clear, we are committed to providing a service which is accessible for all our customers. We recognise that disabled people may have particular needs and we will continue to look for ways to make our service easier to use.
  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.

  Benefits, Newham
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the latest annual figures for the London borough of Newham for the number of recipients of income support, direct payments, social fund, child support and housing benefit; and what were the comparable figures for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support 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. Ron Leighton, dated 27 October 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 what were the latest annual figures for the London Borough of Newham for the number of recipients of Income Support, Direct Payments, Social Fund, Child Support and Housing Benefit; and what were the comparable figures for each of the past 10 years.
  The complete range of information is not available except at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics of a local nature are destroyed at regular intervals in accordance with standing instructions.
  I have listed below the information available on each subject requested.

  Housing Benefit
  The administration of Housing Benefit is a matter for Local Authorities. The tabled information shows the number of cases in receipt of Housing Benefit in the London Borough of Newham. The data has been obtained from the Housing Benefit Management Information System. The figure for February 1990 includes 2,877 customers in receipt of a rate rebate which altered to Community Charge Benefit by February 1991.

  Number of recipients of Housing Benefit

  February 1990

  February 1991

  February 1992

  32,000

  28,193

  30,139

  Income Support
  The figures quoted are for the areas covered by the

  753
  Plaistow, Canning Town and Stratford offices, which make up the Benefits Agency's Newham District. It is not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown because the District boundary does not correspond with that of the Borough of Newham.

  February 1991

  February 1992

  Recipients of income support

  37,692

  41,628

  Direct payments made from benefit to third parties

  3,116

  5,132

  Social Fund
  Social Fund statistics relate to the number of applications made rather than the number of actual applicants.

  March 1991

  March 1992

  Number of applications

  1,156

  2,282

  Number of awards

  709

  1,235

  Child Support
  Child support statistics relate to the number of Income Support cases in which there may be a liability to child support rather than the actual numbers where child support is actually in payment.

  February 1991

  2,752

  February 1992

  3,225

  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.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efficiency savings were made by the Benefits Agency during its first year of operations; and what target for savings has been set for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Burt
  The achievement of efficiency savings in the Benefits Agency 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 Mr. Richard to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 27 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the efficiency savings made by the Benefits Agency during its first year of operation; and what target for savings has been set for the financial year 1992–93.
  The Benefits Agency made a total of £116m of efficiency savings in 91–92, mainly through the implementation of our computerisation programme. This, together with £80m carried forward from previous years, made a cumulative total of £196m compared with the target of £182m set for the Agency.
  The Agency has been set a target of £53.7m for 92–93 which we expect to achieve, again, mainly through computerisation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Fraud
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much his Department has saved from the investigation of fraud in the latest year for which figures are available; and what are the targeted savings for the next financial year;
  754
  (2) what is the number of whole time equivalent staff employed by his Department to detect and prosecute suspected fraud; and what is the cost of their employment;

  (3) how many people were prosecuted for fraud by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available.

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

  Letter from M. Bichard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 27 October 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the investigation of social security fraud.
  You asked how much has been saved from the investigation of fraud and how many people were prosecuted for fraud in the latest year for which figures are available; what are the targeted savings for 1992–93; and what is the number and cost of whole time equivalent staff employed to detect and prosecute fraud.
  In the year ending 31 March 1992 the estimated savings that accrued from the investigation of fraud totalled £427 million. During the same period there were 4,379 people prosecuted by the Agency which led to 3,916 convictions.
  The number of staff employed to detect and prosecute fraud in the year ending 31 March 1992 was 2,873 at a cost of £62.5 million.
  The targeted savings from the investigation of fraud for the year ending 31 March 1993 is £460 million.
  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.

  Terminal Illness
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has issued to doctors, required to identify persons under special rules payments, who have not advised their patients of a terminal condition, or duration of a terminal condition.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of special rules payments 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. David Hinchliffe, dated 27 October 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 advice given to doctors in connection with claims made under the special rules procedures.
  As you know, the term "Special Rules" refers to the arrangements under which persons who are terminally ill can claim Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA). The procedures ensure that people with a limited life expectancy of six months or less are automatically awarded the highest rate of the care component of DLA or the higher rate of AA.
  A claim for payment under the special rules procedures may be made by the sick or disabled person or by a third party on their behalf. The claim form requires the person applying for the benefit to indicate that the claim is being made under Special Rules procedures and to ask their local doctor to complete a form DS1500, which provides factual medical evidence in order to streamline the process and avoid delays in payment.

  755
  Doctors were advised of these arrangements when they were introduced. The DS1500 report is brief and easy to complete asking only three questions, it does not mention terminal illness nor does it ask for an opinion on prognosis. No specific advice is given to the doctor about what he should tell his patients about their illnesses. This must be a matter for his own judgment.
  It is appreciated that this is an area which causes considerable distress to patients when they realise that Special Rules apply to people with a limited life expectancy. It is also difficult and distressing for the relatives and the doctor involved. The Benefits Agency in consultation with the Department has accordingly tried to make the claims process as easy and as sensitive as possible within the necessary legal constraints.
  756
  In order for Special Rules cases to be recognised at the outset and therefore processed quickly it is essential that the claim form identifies that the claim is made under these Rules and is accompanied by a DS1500 from the doctor treating the terminally ill person. If the claim has not come in as a Special Rules claim, or in some cases, a Special Rules claim is not accompanied by a form DS 1500, it is necessary to contact the doctor concerned to obtain confirmation as to whether or not the patient is terminally ill and whether they are claiming under Special Rules.
  I can assure you that the aim of both medical and lay staff is to deal with these cases in a caring and prompt manner.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of the reply will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

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

Lord Clark of Kempston
The Right Honourable Sir William Gibson Haig Clark, Knight, having been created Baron Clark of Kempston, of Kempston in the County of Bedfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wakeham and the Lord Harmar-Nicholls.

Lord Ridley of Liddesdale
The Right Honourable Nicholas Ridley, having been created Baron Ridley of Liddesdale, of Willimontswick in the County of Northumberland, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hesketh and the Baroness Thatcher.
Lord Barnard—Took the Oath.

Rio Summit: Agenda 21
3 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the implementation of Agenda 21, agreed at the Rio Summit, and what additional funds have been made available through the British overseas aid programme towards the costs involved.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Sustainable Development Commission will be established by the United Nations General Assembly this autumn. It will have a central role in securing the effective implementation of Agenda 21. Sustainable development is already the central aim of our aid programme. We will ensure that our overseas aid activities and resources are increasingly focused on Agenda 21 priorities.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that significant reply. However, does she agree that when the Prime Minister claimed such success at Rio, that success was dependent on generating additional funds for all the new action endorsed by him as part of Agenda 21? Does she also agree that at no point was it then suggested, as her Answer implies, that that should be at the expense of ongoing work in the battle against world poverty? At a time of unprecedented need in Africa, the Gulf, Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, will she now explain to the House precisely what will be cut in the battle against need in the world in order to finance the promises made at Rio?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in a way the premise of the noble Lord is rather silly because he
1114
knows that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the public expenditure survey which will be announced as usual in the Autumn Statement. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are firmly committed to maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is deep anxiety among those non-governmental organisations which followed the Rio Conference and which are anxious about its follow up as to what the Government will do to fulfil the fine pledges made by the Prime Minister? I refer in particular to the earth increment, the UN global environmental facility, and bilateral aid. All three are essential to fulfil the objectives of Agenda 21. Will the noble Baroness give the House and other organisations some assurance that the Government have not in any way reneged on the commitments made by the Prime Minister in Rio?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government value very highly the contribution made by NGOs to Britain's overall aid effort. ODA channelled over £100 million-worth of aid through NGOs in 1991–92. I cannot prejudice the outcome of the current PES round. However, I repeat—I shall repeat it again if necessary—that the Government are firmly committed to maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the real contribution made to NGOs will not be decreased owing to devaluation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, everything I say boils down to the same thing. I repeat that the Government remain committed to maintaining a significant aid programme, to playing a full part in the international effort to promote sustainable development, which has always been part of our aid programme, and to improving the global environment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, forgetting the boiling down, will the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ennals? Is the Prime Minister, and are the Government, committed to the assurances which he gave at Rio or are they going to renege on them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already answered that question. In my original Answer I said that we were committed to ensuring that our overseas aid activities are increasingly focused on Agenda 21 priorities and that we are fully involved, as the Prime Minister said, in securing the effective implementation of Agenda 21.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House exactly how much—I hope that the figures are in the brief—has been paid out by this country in overseas aid?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in 1991–92 we spent a total of £1,786 million in aid to developing countries. That was 3 per cent. more in real terms than

1115
in 1990–91. The aid programme has risen in real terms since 1987–88 by 8 per cent. and in 1991 we had the fifth largest aid programme in the world.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the first priority of this Government is to develop the economy of this country and not to impose further costs on our economy which might make our industry less competitive in world markets?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that the Government hold strongly the view that we should continue to support the programme which the Prime Minister has already endorsed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not consider it strange and odd that we should be spending £1,700 million per year in helping the poor nations of the world while we are spending £2,600 million per year in contributions to the EC in order to subsidise the rich countries of the world?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord by outlining what the EC has done in following up the Rio Summit. The EC broadly endorsed the Prime Minister's eight-point plan at Lisbon. At Rio the EC and member states announced a commitment of 3 billion ecu, including new and additional resources, for projects in key Agenda 21 sectors. We shall contribute our share.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in paying tribute to the voluntary agencies, will the Minister accept that the magnificent spontaneous public response to recent appeals closed the gap between need and the Government's contribution and that it would be regarded as the ultimate in cynicism after such a spontaneous public response if the Government were to cut their aid programme?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I repeat that I can in no way anticipate or speculate. Next year the Government will host an international conference bringing together about 500 participants in order to enable voluntary bodies, local government, business and industry to exchange views on the practical implementation of sustainable development. A consultation note will be issued in the next few weeks setting out the proposed objectives and outputs. I suggest that that will be a forum for discussion of some of the points raised by the noble Lord.

Food Safety Regulations: Charitable Sales
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to relax food and safety regulations in respect of home-made food on sale at charitable events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern that food safety regulations can be inappropriately applied without proper regard to the degree of potential risk to the consumer. The Government are considering what might be done through changing regulations and in the advice given to environmental health officers.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But is she aware that certain environmental health officers have been over-zealous in their approach to inspections and that in one case an uncertain officer insisted that cold and hot water should be installed in an open market?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Food Safety Act 1990 has been described to me as a haven for little Hitlers. I cannot actually agree with that, but there have been occasions when the environmental health officers, I do believe, have been over-zealous in their enforcement.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is some reassurance in her reply? Does she agree with me that there is absolutely nothing that the bureaucrats of Brussels can teach to the ladies of the British Women's Institutes about home economics and hygiene and that the sooner they are told not to interfere in those matters the better it will be?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as one whose strawberry jam is second to none, I concur with that.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the regulations affecting home-made foods are also home made or whether they come from Europe?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are two aspects to this. There is the Food Hygiene General Regulations 1970 and there are also regulations coming from the EC. I should tell your Lordships that when I am asked to consider a change in regulations I ask two questions. Where are the bodies—that is, show me the evidence that a change is necessary? Secondly, what is the effect of that proposal on the industry or business concerned in terms of its continuing viability?
Lord Carter: My Lords, while we are all concerned about the safety of the national supply of jam and chutney from bazaars and church fetes, is the Minister aware that my neighbour in Wiltshire who delivers meals on wheels and who has no involvement in food handling or preparation was required to attend a four-and-a-half hour seminar on food safety, with five speakers from the local authority? The seminar was entitled "Eat Up, It is Perfectly Safe". The first lecture was "How To Poison Your Clients". Has this not all gone a bit too far?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I think we are over-egging the pudding.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while this question relates to the

1117
safety of food, all legislators should remember that in the end legislation depends upon the common sense and discretion of those who have to administer it? When we are passing legislation we should keep that in mind.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Of course that is what we are trying to do now.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the House should congratulate the—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I do not suggest that the Government should go as far as the French Government in disobeying regulations whenever it suits them, will the noble Baroness cause to be transmitted a message to Brussels on this particular point and tell them to get stuffed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would not be as presumptuous as that. I am sure that there is an answer here about sage and onion but I am not going to go into it.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the House should congratulate the noble Baroness on her replies because this is the first chink of light that I have seen in this Chamber for some time about beating back those busybodies from Brussels.

Guy Fawkes Night: Collections
3.13 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the custom of collections for Guy Fawkes day in public places appropriate in modern Britain.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is a long tradition of collections for Guy Fawkes night celebrations, but we would urge parents to give the highest priority to the safety of children and to ensure adequate supervision at all times. We would also urge parents to ensure that their children's activities do not become a nuisance to other members of the public.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer with which I agree. In these days we need to celebrate jolly occasions, no matter how dimly understood may be their historical origins. However, as regards the specific matter of collections, known quaintly as,"penny for the guy", does the noble Viscount not agree that against the background of ever-rising crime particular care needs to be given to young children in the street collecting money for whatever cause? I see from the news tape situated outside the Chamber that crime has risen by 11 per cent., and violent crime by 9 per cent. Wherever possible, adults should accompany children when they are carrying out collections.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The Home Office issues advice to parents on the safety of their children. That is included in both a handbook and a classroom pack
1118
on children's safety which is used by police schools liaison officers and crime prevention officers. There is clearly a risk to children's safety when they are allowed by their parents to call at strangers' houses after dark. There has been some anxiety as regards that practice. We suggest that parents should always know where their children are going and with whom. To ensure that children are safe, a responsible adult should accompany the group, and a responsible person should make sure also that the children do not threaten or annoy residents, particularly elderly people living on their own.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, it is understandable that your Lordships' House should take a more generous view of Guy Fawkes and his activities. But is it not going rather too far for your Lordships' House to be wasting time discussing little children pursuing a practice which has gone on since I have been active? I did it, and I plead guilty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are anxious about the safety of children because there have been instances which have been extremely distressing. We are concerned about the effects of what may be described as aggravated begging, especially on people living on their own.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, bearing in mind the recent hideous murder of a seven year-old child in Sunderland, would the Minister agree that the prevalence of children begging in public places—because that is what we are talking about—throughout the year and not only in early November, is deeply regrettable and a bad side of our society? What plans do his department have to control that nuisance and to safeguard the children who are often so gravely at risk?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there has been a case in Manchester on which I cannot comment as it is before the courts. It is for parents to ensure that their children are not put at risk and do not cause a nuisance. However, it is for the police to respond to any complaints made by members of the public.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has my noble friend ceased to be as astonished as I am at the extraordinarily illiberal suggestions which emanate from the Benches opposite? Does not this ancient custom provide a welcome opportunity to the very young to learn an extremely important lesson in life; namely, that people generally in the mass are particularly unattractive?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. It is important that we celebrate Guy Fawkes night, and it is celebrated throughout the country. Of course, it is disturbing when children are collecting long before Guy Fawkes night or, indeed, after it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is not this Question a very great tribute to my noble friend's liberal and forgiving sentiments? Was not Guy Fawkes in favour of blowing up the House of Commons—not, I think, the House of Lords? Is it not a fact that my noble friend's ancestor was slaughtered by the forces of the

1119
parliamentary army? Does it not show an extraordinarily fine nature that this matter should be raised by one who might be thought to be in favour of Guy Fawkes?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Gunpowder Plot was a conspiracy to blow up James I and the Houses of Parliament at the opening of Parliament on 5th November 1605. It was planned by a number of pro-Spanish fanatical catholics with Robert Catesby at their head. Perhaps they were the early Europhiles of their day. The conspirators hired a house adjoining the House of Lords and began tunnelling in 1604. In 1605 they obtained possession of a vault under the House of Lords and stored 36 barrels of gunpowder there. The plot was discovered when one of the conspirators warned his relative not to attend the opening of Parliament, who in turn warned the authorities, which, in those days, were led by the ancestors of my noble friend Lord Cecil.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that a particular search will be made under the cellars of this House since the government in exile seem now to govern here?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am glad to report to your Lordships that on the morning of every State Opening of Parliament the Queen's Body Guard of the Yeoman of the Guard, captained by my noble friend Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne conducts a search with a detachment, under the command of his lieutenant, Colonel Alan Pemberton, and searches the cellars beneath your Lordships' Chamber.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that in a modern Britain, as conceptualised by the noble Viscount, if there is no room for annual skylarking by the young then so much the worse for modern Britain?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we probably all agree with some of the noble Earl's sentiments.

Armed Forces: Complaints Procedure
3.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint a Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) for the Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, there are no plans to appoint a parliamentary ombudsman. Service personnel are more aware than ever of the avenues open to them within the chain of command should they wish to make a complaint.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, service personnel are aware of the avenues but some of them are afraid of reprisals and that is the reason they do not complain. We all recognise the need for strong, tough, well-trained soldiers. We recognise that the Ministry of Defence is against bullying and brutality.
1120
Nevertheless, it still goes on, as recent events have shown, and we therefore need a fresh approach. Instead of waiting for the Special Investigation Branch to investigate and for courts martial to be initiated following horrific events can we not do more to prevent such acts? We could provide to young servicemen a new channel of approach for complaints without the fear of reprisals. An armed services ombudsman—a man of authority and impartiality—may well be a major step forward.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord is well known for his advocacy of that specific device. Service personnel already have access to independent and impartial advice from a number of sources. In particular, of late the Ministry of Defence has placed special emphasis on the representatives of the WRVS,89 of whom are in place in service establishments all over the world. The initial reports of that initiative support the view that the effects the noble Lord describes as flowing from a potential ombudsman's appointment are already beginning to take effect from the efforts of those admirable ladies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I believe he indicated that he is—that the present organisation inside the defence forces is perfectly adequate? To create a special ombudsman, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite, would be a waste of everybody's time.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps I may point out to him and to the noble Lord opposite, as I have many times before in your Lordships' House, that the number of sustainable charges of bullying, which is something that particularly concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has substantially decreased over the past three years. In 1989 there were 25 substantiated cases of bullying; in 1990,11; eight in 1991, and I am glad to say that in the year so far there have been five.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Viscount's answer, am I right in thinking that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, as he now is, is able to consider matters of maladministration in connection with the armed forces? The noble Viscount may recollect the case of the people in Sachsenhausen. A report to the House of Commons was finally produced in connection with the armed forces which found against the then Foreign Secretary.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. He is as aware as I am of the rules that govern the present parliamentary commissioner. All of us in our time in the other place have used his services.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that he is somewhat less than accommodating to my noble friend today than he is on other occasions? Would he recognise that members of the armed forces are servants of the Crown and understandably they have to have a certain discipline? But within that there may be difficulties in enforcing

1121
discipline within the bounds in which it should be enforced. If they are servants of the Crown, as they are, and if enforcing discipline or offences go outside what is properly established as being a requirement for the armed forces, should not those men have appeal to the organisation that represents the Crown in Parliament and sets up a standing army, as we know, every year? I refer to a parliamentary commissioner. What is wrong with that?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the support of the noble Lord for his noble friend is always entirely admirable. I do not in any way impugn the motives behind his question. However, the existing chain of command has many, and in our view adequate, steps which a serviceman is able to take. I admit that for a young soldier of, let us say, 19 years of age to go over the head of his sergeant major to his colonel is an enormous step and would seem to be a high mountain to climb. It is for that reason that I place specific emphasis on the efforts made for outside bodies to be available to the soldiers. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, we received good reports of the reaction of servicemen to the efforts of the WRVS in particular in that regard.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the face of that admission, should we not then ask ourselves what recourse is available for the young soldier, sailor or airman which will not reflect on him?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the procedures within the existing chain of command are available to the soldier. The advice he is given outside the chain of command at the moment seems to be working well. I am sure that your Lordships will be aware that increasingly the amount of publicity given to the smaller number of cases of bullying, for instance, within the armed forces—which we enormously regret and deplore—is an additional guarantee to the forces that in practical terms proper measures will be observed to ensure that any residual practices of that kind are stamped out.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that the case for an ombudsman for conscript armed forces is a good deal stronger than for volunteer professional services? May I ask whether he has made inquiries among the ranks of the services as to whether there is a demand for an ombudsman?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have not made inquiries of that kind. But the principal personnel officers of all three services have kept a close watch on the question, particularly as it is an extremely topical one—as your Lordships made clear. At the moment there appears to be no demand. Certainly in my office, which is responsible for this aspect of service discipline, I have received no representations from the forces. The only representations I have received so far are those from the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister consider the matter again? The Ministry of Defence is modern and up to date. It is a completely different Army from
1122
that of years ago. It is a different world. There is nothing wrong with an ombudsman. We have nothing to hide. Why do we not arrange it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I would be the first to agree that the world is changing and changing extremely fast. Certainly social attitudes have changed dramatically, notably as a result of the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. We must be practical and pragmatic in these matters. We keep a close watch on the anxieties expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Mellish and Lord Ashley. If there appeared to he a demand and a justification for the solution proposed by the noble Lord I would not oppose it in principle. At the moment we are satisfied with what is in place.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I warmly appreciate the noble Viscount's reply. It was constructive and concerned. But I regret that he could not accept my suggestion. Will he accept that simply quoting numbers of complaints is misleading? Many soldiers who are bullied and brutalised are afraid of reporting that fact. The letters I receive prove that fact. Please do not be taken in by the numbers. On a point of independence, the WRVS plays only a peripheral role. The central body judging the problem is the Army itself. Just as doctors should not investigate doctors, nor the police investigate the police, the Army should not investigate the Army. It should be an independent body like the ombudsman.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I understand clearly the noble Lord's point. However, a number of procedures are in place which are usable and regularly used, as he is aware. Should it become plain that they are not working, that justice is not being done and above all that young soldiers are not being protected, I shall be the first to re-examine the matter. Should the noble Lord then wish to return to the charge on this matter I would be the last person to stand in his way.

Business
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: 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 Lord, Lord Carter, 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 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would he doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Lord Carter set down for today shall he limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Care in the Community
3.31 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to call attention to the need for a coherent and properly funded system of care in the community; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion in my name on the Order Paper calls for a coherent and properly funded system of care in the community. Coherent means consistent and well-knit. I believe that we can all agree that without proper funding the system will not work and could become a financial and demographic time bomb at the heart of social policy. It must be care in the community and not care by the community. Indeed, community care, although it is a phrase which we must use, is something of a misnomer. What we should be talking about is individual care, examining individuals' needs and planning the services required to meet them.
Every one of your Lordships who is to speak today does so with expertise and authority in a particular aspect of community care. But I know that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that no speech will be more keenly awaited than the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Jay who comes to the House with great experience in the subject that we are discussing. Perhaps I may also say that I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his place after his recent serious operation. I believe that he is in fact defying his doctor to be here today. That shows the very great interest which he takes in this subject.
Community care is such a vast subject that in opening the debate I shall try to set out a broad over-view while my noble friend Lady Hollis, in winding up from these Benches and with her great knowledge of local government and social security, will deal in detail with the financial aspects of the subject.
Your Lordships will know that the implementation of community care was delayed from April 1991 until April 1993. Whatever we may think about the reasons for the delay it did at least provide two more years to get the community care plans into place and well thought out. My first question to the Minister concerns the quality of the plans which have been prepared by local authorities. Are the Government generally satisfied with the quality and the depth of the plans? Do they have a mechanism for ensuring that the planning has been done properly? Will there be machinery in place after April 1993 to see that the delivery of community care matches the requirements which will be set out in the various plans?
Information from different areas of town and country indicates a fairly wide range of performance, at least in the planning. For example, the London Voluntary Service Council examined 17 London boroughs to see how far the local authorities concerned have taken on board the concerns of the voluntary sector. There was a wide range in the quality of the response, but a constant theme was that
1124
planning in its fullest sense has not really happened. Needs assessments did not reveal the full demand for community care and there was little commitment to change or to increase the service provision. What did become clear was that the users of services, the carers and the community groups, must be involved in identifying the local needs and designing the appropriate services. There was a very clear impression that what planning there was had been very much a top-down exercise.
The social services department of one county council which wrote to me gave what was quite an upbeat assessment of its progress in planning for community care in its area, which is largely rural, although revealing concern about funding levels. The community care involvement network in the same county gave a rather different impression. There was no money for preventive and support work to keep people in their homes. There was also a lack of resources which meant that people with learning disabilities were being asked to move from one supportive residence to a much cheaper one. This is a county where spending over the next 18 months is to be cut by £18.6 million to stay within the Government's spending limits. It is a county which is facing a sizeable increase in the number of elderly people and a dramatic increase in the number of very elderly over 85 years of age. It is also a county with over 6,000 people with some degree of dementia.
We can all agree that finance is clearly at the heart of the problem. We can all understand the current pressures on public expenditure. There seems to be a real danger that high expectations in advance of April 1993 will be disappointed because of the lack of resources. Without attempting to go into the detail of financing, it is clear that the funds made available to local authorities in the coming public expenditure round must be sufficient at least to maintain the social services at their present level. I can tell the Minister that there is at least a suspicion that Treasury sleight of hand will take away some or most of the benefits of the ring-fenced funds which have been allocated from the social security budget. I can tell the Minister that we will watch the details of the public expenditure round like hawks to expose that if it happens.
For example, there is already a substantial care gap, as it is called, between the fees charged for residential care and the support available to users. Arthritis Care puts it at £100 a week. Finding sums like that can put an intolerable strain on relatives and carers. It is estimated by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that likely funds available will leave about 12,000 people in need of residential care, but unfunded in 1993–94. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that figure. Do the Government accept that estimate?
The Campaign for People with Multiple Disabilities, known as Challenge, has analysed the community care plans of 114 social services departments. It found that 56 per cent. of all community care plans do not have detailed, planned services for people with multiple disabilities; 42 per cent. of all plans do not even make reference to people with multiple disabilities; and 14 per cent. of plans,

1125
although they refer to people with multiple disabilities, do not plan to provide specific services to meet their needs.
Perhaps I may quote briefly from the excellent report prepared by Challenge and the words of the mother of a blind young woman with a hearing impairment and cerebral palsy:
"In my fight for proper social worker care and support from my local authority I have had more problems with Social Services than my daughter will ever give me".
She continues:
"They say that if she was slightly less disabled, they could provide something, but … ".
It would be too easy to produce a litany of complaints but that would not be constructive. Implementation of the plans in the new system provides something of a culture shock for service providers with the change from a service-led to a needs-led system. If that change is recognised—there has been a valiant attempt to do so in some areas—the planning of community care with the users' needs paramount could introduce some rationality into a system which previously has certainly lacked coherence. But community care must be founded on planning which is based on participation and a sense of ownership of plans by users and deliverers.
What has also become clear is the paucity of standards which set out what should be expected. There seems to be no clear statement of the required minimum level of service. Where there are targets they are largely financial and do not much relate to the quality of service or expected outcomes. It appears that targeting is very often a euphemism for rationing. That is hardly surprising when we know that 50 per cent. of social services departments have had to cut their budgets in 1991–92 through fear of capping. The NCVO estimates that £44 million will be cut from local authority grants and contracts with the voluntary sector this year. That is before the full effects of the council tax are known.
The whole question of assessment, which is an essential part of preparing individual care plans, illustrates extremely well the dilemma of those preparing an assessment on the basis of needs, while being very well aware of the limitations on resources. I ask the Minister: once a user has been assessed as needing a service, does that user have the right to receive it? If the user has such a right, and resources are limited, is there a danger that assessment will subtly reflect available resources rather than individual need? As regards assessment, do the Government have any figures for the waiting times for assessment? We hear figures of up to 12 months or longer being quoted in some areas. Does the department attempt to monitor that in any way?
The full effects of, to use the jargon, a "user-friendly, and needs-led" system are now becoming apparent. Where planning has failed to recognise need, the results are obvious. As I said earlier,56 per cent. of community care plans have no detailed planned services for people with multiple disabilities. There is still a large area of unrecognised and thereby unmet need across the whole spectrum of community care. Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, who was then the Minister of State for Health, stated in the
1126
foreword of the Government's excellent policy guidance, Community Care In The Next Decade And Beyond:
"If implementation is to be effective, there must be close working links between all agencies social services departments, NHS bodies, housing authorities and associations, voluntary organisations and private sector service providers. These working links must take full account of the views and needs of those being cared for and their carers".
As users' needs become more clearly identified, so the lack of resources to meet those needs will become more apparent. The Government and the service providers will then find, I fear, that "their mouth will be where their money isn't".
Turning now to more specific points, although my noble friend Lady Hollis will deal with the detail of the financial aspects of community care when she replies to the debate, there is a very important point regarding the new ring-fenced funds which has been missed. Indeed, some of the briefings that I have received seem to have missed it. Can the Minister confirm that the money which is ring-fenced in each of the next three years drops out of ring-fencing in the following year; that is to say, does the amount that is ring-fenced in 1993–94 disappear into the revenue support grant in 1994–95 and the same happen in the next two years? In other words, the proposed ring-fencing is not cumulative.
This may seem like a rather arcane point on local authority financing, but its practical effect will be considerable. It means that out of a total budget of some £5 billion, barely 10 per cent. will he ring-fenced and protected by specific grants. Add to this the requirement that 75 per cent. of the total ring-fenced amount must be spent in the private sector, and this will mean that after meeting all the other costs of setting up the new system there will be virtually nothing left from the ring-fenced funding for local authority-provided care.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House how sacrosanct is the requirement to spend 75 per cent. of the total ring-fenced money in the private sector? Are the Government prepared to negotiate on this point? If they laid down a requirement to spend 75 per cent. of some figure less than the total grant or less than 75 per cent. of the whole figure, that would give the local authorities much more flexibility when planning community care as, I am sure, the Minister is aware.
The Government claim that they want a "mixed economy" of care involving both the private and the local authority sector, but they are certainly not providing a level playing field at the outset. The balance of funding raises another important question. The private sector is not particularly good at providing domiciliary care, especially for the frail and the elderly. It is hard see how local authorities will be able to find the money to provide that care which is, in fact, a very good investment as it helps to keep people out of residential care.
Another aspect of ring-fencing is causing concern. What has happened to the ring-fenced money for the voluntary organisations that provide services for drug and alcohol misusers? I am sure that a number of your Lordships will wish to raise this matter, but as a curtain-raiser, perhaps I may remind the Minister of

1127
the undertaking that was given in another place on 27th June 1990 by the then Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, at col.404. Mr. Clarke stated:
"That is why our amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should be able to make specific grants to local authorities for use in helping voluntary organisations with the services that they provide for people who are dependent on drugs or alcohol … that money will be ring fenced and local authorities will be able to spend it only on grants to such bodies".
I should like to ask the Minister whether that is still the case.
In the same speech—at the same column—the then Secretary of State for Health, also said that that was,
"Alongside the commitment that we have already given to make specific grants for the services for mentally ill people".
What has happened to the money that was ring-fenced in 1991–92 for mentally ill people? Is that system still available under the new financing arrangements?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that that concession was made as a result of a vote in this House which called for the ring-fencing of all community care money, and that that assurance was given to this House as the response from another place?
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. In fact, my name was on the amendment which led to the agreement of this House to ring-fencing, but I was much too modest to say so.
I have referred already to the lack of a level playing field between the private sector and the local authority sector. This highlights an ideological problem that the Government have. Their commitment to the concept of the "internal market" sits rather uneasily in a system which is based almost entirely on a planning mechanism. The Government have already discovered with the Tomlinson report that the internal market has very little to offer when it comes to solving the problems of the health service in London. In fact, we know that Tomlinson has, in effect, recommended a strategic planning mechanism.
Tomlinson has also illustrated extremely vividly what happens when primary and community care are poor and the effect that that has on hospital services. It is clear that good primary care, linked to good community care, is both cost-effective and efficient. Talking to general practitioners, I find that there is still very little involvement or feeling of belonging among them in relation to community care.
The boundaries of responsibilities between health authorities and local authorities must be better defined. It is still unclear who is responsible for providing nursing care to residents in private homes. Professionals employed by the health authorities have a very important role in community care. I understand, however, that there is still confusion about who pays for them. Is a hospital able to discharge a patient who no longer needs hospital care if the social services department cannot provide the optimum community care support? The British Medical Association has calculated that providing
1128
only two weeks of respite care for those carers who spend over 20 hours a week on their care responsibilities would require 100,000 hospital beds.
In their policy guidance, the Government have set out the need for close liaison between all the bodies involved in both the public and the voluntary sectors. Health, housing, education, social security and the provisions of the Children Act all have direct effects on the demand for social services. Are the Government satisfied that there has been sufficient liaison between all the bodies involved in creating the demand to ensure that the supply of services is adequate?
Many noble Lords wish to speak in this debate and I shall not take up all of the time available to me but, even then, the time available does not allow me to cover all of the many aspects relating to the issue of community care. I am, however, sure that they will be covered as the debate proceeds. I should have liked to spend some time on the problems of carers, including the extraordinary situation whereby 10,000 children nationally are acting as a hidden work-force of primary carers.
The future of the Independent Living Fund is causing great concern. Is there still not time for the I LF, with all its expertise and experience, to act as the agent for local authorities in delivering the very specialised care to the severely disabled which it currently provides?
There is a very strong argument for allowing direct payments to disabled users so that they can manage their own care programmes. Have the Government taken a view yet on the Private Member's Bill of Mr. Andrew Rowe which seeks to solve this problem? I am sure that all these and many more aspects of this issue will be raised this afternoon.
I conclude with a most useful definition of community care which was provided by Kathleen Jones, the Professor of Social Administration at York University. She has said:
"to the political, 'community care' is a useful piece of rhetoric; to the sociologist it is a stick to beat institutional care with; to the civil servant, it is a cheap alternative to institutional care which can he passed to Local Authorities for action or inaction; to the visionary, it is a dream of the new society in which people really do care; to the social services departments it is a nightmare of heightened public expectations and inadequate resources to meet them. We are just beginning to find out what it means to the old, the chronically sick and disabled people".
One must hope that the implementation of community care in April next year is not a nightmare but will exemplify what was said by Mr. Roy Griffiths in his seminal report which led to the changes in the Government's plans. He said that,
"caring for one's neighbour is a 2,000 year-old moral imperative".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating this debate we can begin on a point of agreement—that we need a coherent and properly funded system of care in the community. That is precisely the Government's goal. We wish to see care provided in a way which enables

1129
people to live as normal a life as possible in their own homes or in a homely environment in the local community. This will he achieved by providing the right amount of care and support to help people retain maximum independence, and by giving them a greater say in how they live their lives and the services that they need to help them do so.
The policy of caring for people wherever possible in the community rather than in institutions has long been advocated and enjoys widespread and all-party support. One of the main visible manifestations of progress in this direction has been the increasing move within the NHS from reliance on outdated long-stay hospitals towards integrated local provision. However, care in the community in the way in which it is generally understood goes very much wider than this. It encompasses care and support in the community for all those people who need it, whether because of frailty, disability or illness.
It is also most important to remember that care in the community is by no means the preserve solely of statutory authorities. It is maintained by a network of very many different people in the statutory, private, voluntary and indeed volunteer sectors. Above all, it depends on the commitment of the millions of informal carers who from day to day and hour to hour look after their relatives, friends and neighbours.
Care in the community is not a construct of government, nor something that legislative or administrative action will by itself secure. However, there is a very important role for government in setting the framework within which it can develop and flourish. It was a concern with this framework that led to the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper Caring for People, published in November 1989. These proposals were given legislative force by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which, as noble Lords will remember, was the subject of detailed debate and consideration in this House.
The key objectives of the proposals are set out in the White Paper. They aim to give authorities the freedom and flexibility at local level to develop effective individual solutions. They place the emphasis of care where it rightly should be—on the proper assessment of individual needs of users of services and the design of a package of care that will meet those needs.
The Government's commitment to this policy is quite clear, and I do not think your Lordships require me to repeat it. It is true that implementation has not been to the timetable originally proposed. Nevertheless much of the groundwork in the White Paper has already been done, and we are on course for its full implementation from April next year.
In 1991 local authorities introduced new "arms length" inspection units and complaints procedures for users of their services. Both steps have improved the mechanisms for ensuring that users receive a service of the quality which they have a right to expect. Also in 1991 we introduced specific grants to local authorities to promote the development of community care services for people with a mental illness and for
1130
voluntary sector services for alcohol and drug misusers. In the current year these grants have risen to £31.4 million and £2.1 million respectively in England.
In April of this year local authorities published the first of their annual community care plans. This is the first time that authorities have been required to publish comprehensive plans for their community care services. Authorities are required to consult widely on their plans in order to ensure a coherent approach. It was encouraging too that many produced plans jointly with their partner health authorities. Perhaps I can address the noble Lord's point here. The Social Services Inspectorate is at the moment assessing and will continue to assess the quality of these plans.
April next year will see us put in place the final pieces of the framework when local authorities assume in full the responsibilities given to them by the 1990 Act. Their most important new responsibility will be the assessment of individuals' needs. People who need care and support will now have a statutory right to assessment by their local authority. These assessments should be carried out in collaboration with health and housing professionals as necessary, and should aim to determine the whole range of a person's need for care and support. In turn, these assessments will form the basis of packages of care that should increasingly be individually tailored to the individual needs of each person. These care packages will draw on what is available in statutory, private and voluntary sectors. I agree with the noble Lord that assessments should be undertaken promptly. We are urging local authorities to set standards which can be monitored locally.
The second major change to take effect in April will underpin this process of assessment and care management. From that date the primary responsibility for funding residential and nursing home care for people who cannot themselves afford it will pass to local authorities. Placements will follow assessment. Local authorities will as a result now have the primary responsibility for purchasing and arranging both residential and non-residential care for people. This will mean that all the options can now be considered as ways of responding to an individual's needs on an equal basis. The current system of higher rates of income support has created a perverse incentive for people to chose—or be encouraged—to enter residential care even though they might prefer to remain at home and could, with additional support, do so.
These are the outlines of the Government's policy for community care: co-ordinated services which meet assessed needs. I have made quite clear our commitment to this policy. Just as clear is the commitment properly to fund it and our record to date.
Since 1978–79 spending on social services has increased by nearly 67 per cent. in real terms in England. Similarly, between 1978–79 and 1989–90 hospital and community health services spending on care for elderly people alone has risen by £1.8 billion. Social security spending on residential and nursing home care has risen from £10 million to around £2 billion. The Government have made available specific grants to local authorities to develop services for

1131
mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and alcohol and drugs misuse. The grants for next year will be announced shortly. The specific grant for social services training in England has risen this year by £4.2 million to £29 million. We have provided over £2 million in support for national carers' organisations and carers' initiatives since 1990 and social security benefits for carers have risen from £4 million in 1978–79 to £213 million this year. The Department of Health has spent £2 million over three years on the "Caring in Homes" initiative to promote and improve quality of life in residential homes. In the housing field the Department of the Environment is providing nearly £3.5 million support to local authorities for 115 home improvement agencies in England.
For the future, our commitment fairly to fund new community care arrangements is a matter of record, and one by which we stand. We have always said that we would transfer to local authorities the amount that the Department of Social Security would otherwise have spent on supporting people in residential care and nursing homes. Earlier this month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced the amounts to be transferred over the next three years. For Great Britain as a whole this will rise from £467 million next year to over £1.8 billion in 1995–96. My right honourable friend was also able to announce—in advance of the full local government finance settlement—a further £140 million for local authorities in England next year to enable them to take on their new responsibilities.
However, the policy's success requires much more than just simply money. At the heart of the provision of a coherent network of care in the community is close collaboration in the provision of services locally. If services are to be provided at the highest level possible then the resources of all involved need to be harnessed and co-ordinated. This includes social services, health and housing authorities, providers of all types of care in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors.
Ultimately, this co-operation and collaboration needs to be developed and pursued locally. The Government believe that it is only at local level that needs can be assessed and appropriate responses developed. Their policy is to give people at local level the flexibility that they need to do this.
In summary, therefore, I believe that we are on course to have in place next April new arrangements which will significantly enhance the further development of care in the community. That is neither the end nor the beginning of a process. Care in the community has been with us for many years and has the Government's fullest support.
4 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must first apologise most sincerely for the fact that I have to catch a train at 8.30 this evening in order to attend a conference. Although I know that it is most undesirable for people to leave before the end of a debate, especially Front
1132
Bench spokesmen, I felt as president of the Carers' National Association that it was incumbent upon me to say something during today's debate.
Community care is an archetypal case of motherhood and apple pie. Everyone is enthusiastic about it, are they not? But the Government must be aware that that enthusiasm may well change to anger and disillusionment unless the plans that have been laid out before us are in fact properly carried out when at last the time comes for the full introduction of the community care programme. We were all disappoint-ed that it was delayed for a period of two years—with the exception of matters dealing with mental health cases. However, we hoped that those two years would mean that the preparations would be more full and more comprehensive and that we would then be able to embark on a really satisfactory programme of community care.
The Minister gave us some indication of what has been going on. But there are a number of points on which I should like further clarification. When the Griffiths report was being discussed, and during those long months of delay, we knew that there was considerable conflict between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security as to where responsibility should lie. The Minister said—or, at any rate, she implied—that those matters have now been satisfactorily ironed out. However, I should like to know, at every level, what will be the relationship between the health service and social security. We all know that when it is necessary to deal with more than one government department one is likely to be in trouble very quickly. What has been happening at national level between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security to ensure that community care really is effectively operated?
At ground level—that is the local authority level—responsibility is with the local authority. But it is vital that the nursing service for the whole of the medical service, but especially the community nursing service, should be so closely integrated into what goes on at local level that there is no question of a running in parallel and the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. There is evidence that that is still going on. It is vital that it should not do so. It is also vital that there should be a sufficient supply of community nurses to show that, when we have the collaboration, the people are there to do the very necessary work at local level.
Of course, not all people needing care need nursing care all the time; but, sooner or later, most of them will. A proper supply of community nurses working closely with the local authorities is absolutely essential if community care is not to be a mockery. Although we all want as many people as possible to be looked after in the community—and we have repeated that fact again and again—full residential accommodation will be available. But there have been many question-marks put over such accommodation: for example, who gets into it and why; who will bear the full cost and what will be the system of independent inspectors which will ensure that those institutions are properly checked and investigated and that continuous investigation and inspection takes place?

1133
People who find their way into residential institutions in old age are very ill-placed to take up issues themselves when things go wrong. Unless the inspectorate is well trained and adequate in supply then, indeed, there will be, as there has been in the past, very unsatisfactory situations in some of those residential institutions. I should very much like to know what the system of inspection is to be.
If we are to do what we say we want to do and have people looked after in the community, in the great majority of cases that means that they will be looked after in their own homes. As noble Lords know, I speak in no small part, although not entirely, from the point of view of the people who have to do the caring. Of course, both the people needing care and those doing the caring are of great importance. But, given current resources and the scale of the problem, there is no likelihood that the 6 million people who are undertaking caring at present are likely to be increased in number. It is surely much more likely that the number will be very considerably reduced. Unless those people are given adequate support, the whole scheme and the carers will break down.
I suppose that most people in your Lordships' House have had some experience of trying to look after people who are sick over a long period of time. I have been fortunate; I have only had to do it for a short period of time. However, I think that we all know that a caring task that carries on for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks of the year is a killer, unless real support is given to such people.
First and foremost, there must be adequate domiciliary care; that is, home-help care. What has happened to the home-help service? Some home helps have been upgraded to counsellors. For my part, I could manage without counselling if I had someone to do the washing-up and keep the floors tidy. It would make a good deal of difference if there was a good supply of home helps. But it is not unknown that if the daughter of the house is looking after the person in need of care, however heavy the demands upon her may be, it is regarded by local authorities as quite unnecessary to provide any additional help, because, "She can cope, can't she?"
It is essential for the person being cared for to be taken out of the house at least from time to time. Incidentally, it is essential for the person being cared for and absolutely vital for the person doing the caring. We need good day centres and respite care on an adequate scale. Why on earth have we been shutting down small hospitals which could be excellently used for day centres and respite care? I have visited small hospitals, loved—and that is not an exaggerated term—by people in the neighbourhood, which are threatened with closure. Small hospitals are ideal for the purpose of day centres and for respite care. Not all old people are sweet old things; indeed, they can be extremely tiresome.
Lord Parry: Like us?
Baroness Seear: Like us, my Lords.
In such circumstances, it is the carer in the home who has to carry the can all the time. Such people may refuse to go into respite care. But if they have been
1134
going to that small hospital to attend the day centre, then, when the opportunity for respite care arises, they may be prepared to take it if it is in the same place.
For all those reasons I urge the Minister to look again at what is happening on the ground and to look especially at the issues of respite care, day centres and home helps. Without that assistance, in reality, the task that we are giving, whatever the fine words, to the women and men—because men also undertake this work—in their own homes will be one which will, in the end, break them.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how grateful I am for being allowed to speak so early in this most important debate. I should like to apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as it is unlikely that I shall be able to last the full five hours. As the noble Lord explained, I have recently been in a theatre of a different kind from that to which I was accustomed: I had two cardiothoracic surgeons in the prompt corner rather than two assistant stage managers. I should also like to apologise for the fact that the anaesthetic seems to have had a deleterious effect on my short-term memory. Therefore, I shall have to refer to my notes perhaps more often than is acceptable or customary in this House.
As your Lordships may know—it was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale in a supplementary question only yesterday—on Monday, MENCAP relaunched its image and restated its commitment to people with a learning disability, producing manifestos setting out its campaign agenda into the 21st century. Your Lordships will note the use of the words "learning disability", because these have now been adopted by the Department of Health to describe mental handicap. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, also mentioned this yesterday in his supplementary question. The words "learning disability" are used even though many of us do not believe that the phrase encompasses the condition suffered by so many of our sons and daughters.
The purpose of the re-launch was to show people with learning disability in a more positive light, and to campaign for the full recognition of their rights in all aspects of life. How badly this focus is needed. In a survey of public attitudes which MENCAP commissioned for the re-launch, it is easy to see views reflected that may appall many noble Lords, because they certainly appalled those of us who are working in the field. Over half of those questioned believed that people with learning disability can be violent and unpredictable, whereas the actual numbers who show such traits are almost certainly less than in the population as a whole. One in four still believes that long-stay subnormality hospitals are the best places for the care of those with learning disability—a view that nobody who has visited our declining hospitals and seen the alternatives can possibly support.
These views, regrettably, appear not to have improved for at least a decade, in spite of all Mencap's efforts in this direction and taking into account that the majority of the media has been in the main

1135
reasonably helpful in the recent past; so let us never be complacent about the future. On Monday, at the MENCAP conference Tim Yeo, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, took the opportunity to produce a long-awaited circular on social care, as well as health service guidelines on health services for people with learning disabilities.
The circular and the guidelines are to be welcomed. They state essential principles of service provision and remind health and local authorities of their responsibilities, but they do not set standards and they do not deal with the problem of resources. Without high-quality standards being set, and then matched by funding, I fear that people with learning disabilities will continue to have the same halfhearted and often inadequate service that they have at present. I was interested to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said at Question Time yesterday that,
"good practice is disseminated widely by the national development team".—[Official Report,27/10/92; col.1013.]
That is true, but the noble Baroness failed to mention that whereas once the national development team could be called in free of charge by health or local authorities, now it must be paid for. In these recessionary times, how many authorities are going to bother to call in this expert team? Very few, I'll be bound!
However, two interesting points came out of the publications. The Government circular and the guidance reveal that there has been a tendency to underestimate the number of people with severe learning disabilities and to ignore the evidence that in all age groups severity of disability is becoming a major concern. I welcome, therefore, the Government's recognition that the number of adults with severe learning disabilities is between 120,000 and 160,000, and the number is growing as people live longer. MENCAP has been saying that for some time. But who are these people and what are their needs?
Let me tell your Lordships about Amanda, a 16 year-old girl with Retts Syndrome. She is very severely handicapped and can neither walk nor talk. She has just undergone surgery on her hip because her condition causes curvature of the spine. Amanda has to be dressed and undressed by her mother and changed regularly because she is doubly incontinent. Because she cannot chew or swallow easily or quickly, it takes more than an hour to feed her. She is only 16 and so she still receives full-time education, allowing her mother to work part-time. But what will happen when she leaves school?
Indeed, what happens to all the individuals living with parents all their lives when they finally leave school? Is it not shocking that in this day and age there are many hundreds of families with no services available to lessen the strain? And the hopelessness of the situation bears down on those concerned more and more as each year passes. Many elderly parents in their 70s, 80s and even 90s—often single and often
alone—go to bed not knowing what will happen to their son or daughter sleeping in the next room if they
1136
go to meet their Maker during the night. Surely their plight, and the plight of all families without services, must not be ignored.
The Government guidance recognises, and I quote:
"Sometimes such difficulties can be overcome without additional resources; in other cases additional resources will be necessary to enable people with learning disabilities to use the services satisfactorily".
So here we have it at last: the recognition that if people with learning disability are to benefit under community care, it will take money—new money. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also said yesterday, referring to the guidelines:
"Without new money, they certainly will not work."—[Col.1013].
Extra resources are essential if parents are to be relieved of these pressures and if adults with learning disability are to have a chance to develop their own lives independently. I am greatly disappointed that the Government do not indicate any additional relief for these families. To date, about 2,000 new residential places have been created annually. This has just kept pace with the movement of people out of long-stay hospitals. What do the Government intend to do to address the much greater numerical problem of those people who live in the community now, not only with elderly carers but with parents, across a wide range of ages, income and housing?
The money being transferred in April from the Department of Social Security to local authorities does not take into account the large difference which already exists between levels of income support payments and the actual cost of residential care. Without extra resources, the gap between the real needs and the reality of service provision will be glaringly obvious. Ultimately, that may be to our benefit, but in the meantime people with learning disability and their families are caught between Scylla and Charybdis and continue to lose out daily. As was said long ago of the Athenians, governments recognise virtue but they are regrettably slow to practise it.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is a very great honour to become a Member of your Lordships' House and I am of course particularly privileged to be here and to be welcomed in such a helpful and warm way. I had been led to suppose that I would be met with friendship but I was not prepared for such warmth and I am delighted by the way in which I have been greeted. Perhaps your Lordships will indulge me for a moment of family sentiment. As you can imagine, it is for me a particular privilege to have the honour and the opportunity to serve in Parliament with my father and noble friend, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. It is, of course, a particular privilege that simply by being in this House as a Member I am contributing another unique record to his historic political life.
I have ventured to speak in the debate today, not to try to contribute to the masterly overview of all the community care issues which was provided by my noble friend Lord Carter, but to draw attention to the

1137
special needs of the growing number of people in this country with HIV disease; those who are HIV positive or who have AIDS. They have special needs for,
"a coherent and properly funded system of care in the community."
We are now entering the second decade of the AIDS epidemic in Britain and we now understand far more about how HIV disease progresses and how it is most appropriately handled, both medically and socially. To date,6,500 people have been diagnosed as suffering from AIDS and it is authoritatively estimated that approximately 30,000 people are now HIV positive.
It is also now known that the average time between someone being found to he HIV positive and developing symptoms of full AIDS is eight years. During those eight years most people who are HIV positive will be, for most of the time, fit and well. But they will need the regular medical supervision and social and psychological support that, ideally, is provided by community care. Even when they go on, as many of them will, to develop the full symptoms of AIDS, they will need to be in hospital only at times of acute illness. They need the well-funded and coherent community care plan that we are discussing today. But, as yet, among those who are infected and affected by the virus, there is little confidence that many of the services can be generally provided.
Most of the people in this country who are HIV positive are young and vulnerable. They have little experience of dealing with statutory authorities. They are often unsupported by families or the informal network of what we describe as informal carers. Many lose their jobs and their homes when they are known to be infected, and become even more isolated. Their needs are deep and complex.
At the moment, the first port of call for most of those people is the out-patient department of an acute sector hospital. We find that the majority is still being looked after in London by the major teaching hospitals. At the risk of raising a controversial issue, I must say that if Sir Bernard Tomlinson's proposals for reducing London's teaching hospitals are implemented, the threat to HIV/AIDS services as they exist will he considerable. The HIV/AIDS situation illustrates precisely the general point about the Tomlinson plan: before it becomes any sort of reality—before it is implemented and not after—we must have new and extensive community-care provision to fill the service gaps caused by any hospital closures.
The London magnet for HIV care exists because many young people who are HIV positive, or who suspect that they may be, drift to the capital because they are anxious about the care that they may receive in their home communities. Every person who has an HIV positive diagnosis confronts not just a tragic health problem but often a crushing burden of stigma and prejudice. GPs may still resist looking after a patient with HIV. We have heard reports of home helps who refuse to visit people with AIDS or who will perhaps not go into the house; of people who will leave meals-on-wheels on a doorstep; or HIV positive expectant mothers who are delivered by midwives in
1138
so-called space suits. Sadly they are not stories from the dark days of the mid-80s but stories that I have heard and confirmed in the past year.
If a broad base of good community care across the country is to be established it will need to spread far beyond those teaching hospitals which have already established practices with local and voluntary agencies and the few metropolitan boroughs which have been in the vanguard of creating appropriate care packages.
The appalling situation in New York City, which I have seen recently, where homeless people with AIDS are literally dying on the streets has not happened here, but the community care net will have to be reinforced strongly to prevent even the possibility of such shameful tragedies.
Everyone in this country who has been involved with AIDS recognises the invaluable role that has been played by the voluntary sector. Organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, Positively Women and the London Lighthouse have provided a wide range of care for people who may be intimidated by statutory services or who may need extra help such as "buddying" or alternative therapies. Those organisations are now alarmed by what they see as a serious threat to the AIDS support grant to local authorities in the coming year. They fear that if the grant is cut local authorities will concentrate upon their own services and reduce their grants to local voluntary organisations. I urge the Minister to ensure that the grant is maintained and that local authorities are monitored carefully to ensure that they spend at least the Department of Health's suggested 20 per cent. of the AIDS support grant on aiding the voluntary sector.
Voluntary sector work for people with AIDS has spread far beyond the organisations that were set up to deal with the issue. Just this morning I attended a conference entitled Women, AIDS and Social Change at which Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was present and at which the Minister spoke. That conference was organised partly by well-established women's organisations such as the National Council of Women, the Standing Conference of Women's Organisations and the Soroptomists.
There is an enormous reservoir of skill to be drawn upon from such organisations, and it will be critical, if effective packages of community care are to he created—here I echo my noble friend Lord Carter—that the whole voluntary sector should play a full and equal part with local and health authorities in planning and delivering that care.
In conclusion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the global theme for this year's World AIDS Day which takes place on 1st December. The theme this year is "AIDS—A Community Commitment". I hope that in this country we will ensure that our commitment is both coherent and properly funded.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to congratulate, on behalf of your Lordships, the noble Baroness, on her maiden speech. One or two of us in your Lordships' House have followed our

1139
fathers into the House, but for slightly different reasons from those of the noble Baroness. Many of us will hope that our fathers are as proud of us as I have no doubt her noble father is today. Her speech showed the enormous expertise that she has in the field of AIDS and HIV which she has gained as chairman of the National AIDS Trust. The House will also be aware of the tremendous work she does for other charities and in the National Health Service. I believe that the whole House will join me in hoping that we shall hear a great deal more from her in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I should like to thank, as other noble Lords have and no doubt will, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for bringing this subject to our attention today. However, I am somewhat sad and perplexed that it has taken Her Majesty's Opposition to put down this Motion for debate today and not the Government whom I support. I should have thought that the Government would have been happy to share with your Lordships their new plans for community care. I am sad too that they saw fit to bring those plans forward in a Statement made a week before Parliament reconvened and not here on the Floor of the House, bearing in mind as I do the enormous amount of work that was put in on all sides of the House during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. An enormous part of the work done to ensure that community care was viable and was a plan with which people could work was done in this House. It could even be described as a discourtesy to your Lordships' House that the Government did not see fit to debate the matter here before they made their announcement.
It will not surprise your Lordships to know that I shall confine most of my remarks to drug and alcohol treatment. It is an area in which I have an interest. I am connected with a variety of voluntary and commercial organisations which seek to provide that difficult area of care. In case your Lordships should think that I am biased in any way, I should say that in the past week or two I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to organisations with which I am not so closely connected to ensure that I have a full view of what they felt about the changes and how they would affect them.
It is worth looking for a moment at the plans for community care over the past two years. During the Bill's passage through the House we were able to convince my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who was at that time of course Secretary of State for Health that drugs and alcohol represented a special case. We managed to convince him to ring-fence the funding and to make, for instance, various other provisions relating to assessment. We managed to persuade him that drug and alcohol rehabilitation were low on the list of local authority priorities. He accepted that point. He made the changes. I should love to know what has persuaded the Government that he was so wrong and that my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State is so right.
1140
I am aware, of course, that under the new rules 25 per cent. of the grant must be spent on areas of care other than the care of old people. I am aware that of that 25 per cent. of grant,75 per cent. must go to the independent sector. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not happy that that will provide enough money for local authorities. I, of course, am not happy it will provide enough money for the independent sector. Certainly that matter needs to be more closely debated. My noble friend on the Front Bench has been in the Department of Health long enough—she was the chairman of a health authority before being appointed to the Front Bench—to know that the guidance to be issued is of no consequence as local authorities ignore or respect guidance as they choose. If that is the way that the Government wish to proceed, we shall need directives and not guidance.
We were assured that health authorities would contract out as regards the service we are discussing. So far only two have done so. Therefore that assurance did not come to pass. We were told that local authorities would consult over care plans, but my information is that less than 30 per cent. have done so as regards this area of care. Of those who have consulted, few have been included in the future care plans. The only issue that has been successful is that of extra contractual referrals—I congratulate the Government on that—although that matter is not strictly relevant to what we are discussing today. Extra contractual referrals have only worked because GPs have pushed for them, much against the will of various directors of public health in health authorities. Extra contractual referrals only work to a certain extent because the extra contractual referral budget is small and it runs out after about six to nine months of the year have passed. As that policy has been successful, I hope that the Government will extend it as it seems to be welcomed by patients and doctors.
The independent sector facilities that accept patients under the Department of Social Security will face various problems with the new plans as they are outlined at the moment. Many facilities accept patients, as there are so few of them, from many different areas. At the moment many of them are paid up to six months in arrears by local authorities. That is purely due to incompetence at local office level. In future the facilities will have to deal with up to 100 different authorities; indeed as many authorities as there are patients. One conjures up the vision of an administrative nightmare with facilities having to chase payments from many different authorities. That nightmare is too terrible and too inefficient to contemplate.
Further, funds for local authority budgets are to be assessed on the basis of the previous year's expenditure. However, currently the various independent sector facilities apply for funds in their local area regardless of where the patient has come from, and yet the budget will be assessed according to which authorities have paid for patients. Therefore many authorities which may have sent patients out of their geographical area for treatment—this applies to all

1141
fields of rehabilitation—will not be eligible for a share of the budget in future years. Such a process will make the whole scheme completely meaningless.
Another problem concerns assessment. I have a ghastly feeling of déjà vu when I talk about assessment. We spent long hours in this House, both in Committee and on Report during the passage of the community care Bill, discussing this issue. We came to a conclusion that assessment should be made in the facilities. We persuaded the Government to accept that conclusion. We decided assessment should he made in the facilities because the patients involved are difficult to get hold of and, once someone has got hold of them, they are likely to vanish overnight. The period between assessment, referral and admission must be as short as possible. If assessment is carried out by a local authority that period will be drawn out and patients will vanish.
Further, the Government accepted that all the expertise in this area exists within the independent sector and that there is relatively little expertise in local authorities. Clearly that position has not changed in the past 18 months. Therefore there is no reason for the assessment process to change. If local authorities undertake assessments, few patients will receive the help they need and, further, the assessments will have to be repeated when the patients reach the facility because most of the independent facilities do not trust the calibre or quality of assessment made by local authorities.
There is also a feeling in the independent sector, both voluntary and commercial, that the Government dislike the concept of residential care for those suffering from drug and alcohol related conditions. There is a case for saying that in future we need to provide more day care. We do not have enough day care provision and what we have does not offer great expertise and is not of first rate quality as yet. Day care provision will become better with time but it cannot be provided until it is backed up by good in-patient care. At this end of the market, as it were, many patients need to get out of their normal environments. Many of them have nowhere to live and many of them have no jobs. How are they to survive while they receive out-patient care? It is also worth noting that we are talking about 2,000 beds; that is one bed for every 122,000 of population. One cannot say that that figure constitutes surplus provision. The market is not flooded. Indeed it is safe to say that at the moment demand outstrips supply approximately four times over. I believe that I am right in saying that last year about 40,000 assessments were carried out but there was only provision for 2,000 beds. Therefore it is ludicrous to suggest that we have too many beds.
It must also be remembered that the price of care is based on the price of nursing home care, whereas the quality of nursing and expertise in the facilities that I am discussing is a great deal higher than that offered in nursing homes. Therefore the taxpayer is already getting a good deal. Like my friends in the voluntary independent sector I am unhappy. The Government have not produced a good reason why this sudden change should occur. I have no reason to believe that
1142
the new proposals will work. The Government should have the courtesy to explain in detail why they have suddenly decided upon this complete U-turn.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for enabling us to debate this huge subject. This is a wide-ranging debate as has been shown by the wide variety of aspects that have already been covered by noble Lords who have spoken. I am delighted that this debate has given us the opportunity to hear the most interesting, knowledgeable and thoughtful maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has given a wonderfully comprehensive outline of community care. I shall concentrate on three narrow issues that are particularly important to physically disabled people who cannot compete on an equal basis in society without control over their own personal assistance arrangements. There are problems which need to be ironed out so that they can lead their own lives successfully, happily and productively and thereby contribute to the life of the community.
The matter of direct payments has long been a thorn in the Government's side. I shall not bore noble Lords by giving many details about this matter as many noble Lords, and particularly the Minister, have heard it all before. The Minister smiles. She is relieved to be spared that ordeal. Basically the matter of direct payments concerns severely disabled people being provided with cash rather than services, if that is what both the local authority and the disabled person want. It does not require any further resources. The disabled person is assessed by the local authority as needing a given number of hours of personal assistance. Instead of the service being provided, cash is given to enable the disabled person to make his own arrangements.
A number of such schemes exist and work successfully. They are excellent examples of consumer choice, independence and equality for severely disabled people. In fact they constitute everything that the Government espouse in their community care proposals. The Minister outlined those principles clearly in her opening speech. The Government have said that the law does not allow such payments. However, it is not only disabled people who want the option of direct payments—one might say that they would want that option—but many local authorities also want them. At the end of September the Association of Directors of Social Services passed a motion that was unopposed calling upon the Government to empower local authorities to make the payments. Moving the motion Roy Taylor, the director of social services for Kingston-upon-Thames, said:
"The case for direct payments is overwhelming in terms of effective financial management, best community care practice, empowerment, coal-face quality control, on-site monitoring and sound common sense".
One cannot put it much clearer than that.
The ADSS is not the only body of people pressing the case for direct payments. The British Association of Social Workers, the Audit Commission, the Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability, Members of

1143
the other place and Members of your Lordships' House of all political complexions including Government Ministers, have all praised these schemes. The Department of Health has been somewhat intransigent and blinkered in its approach. In the light of the ADSS Motion—it is after all the directors of social services who will implement the policy—will the Government now reconsider their position and ensure that the Department of Health takes a clear look at what is working well in practice and takes steps to ensure that such schemes are allowed to flourish for all those who wish to use them and are eligible to do so?
I turn to the Independent Living Fund which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The ILF has been a tremendous support to many disabled people. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, put it in a debate on the ILF on 7th March last year:
" … the fund has been a success … not least because it has addressed a real need in the community in giving disabled people the opportunity to exercise control over their lives rather than having to submit to choices made on their behalf by experts. It allows individuals largely to choose the nature and extent of the care that they need in order to remain in their homes … ".—[Official Report,7/3/91; col.1504.]
The decision to wind up the ILF was strongly opposed by people with disabilities. In their election manifesto the Government gave a commitment to retain some form of provision for new applicants. No details have as yet been forthcoming. When the Minister comes to reply I very much hope she will respond to the following points. But if she cannot respond to all of them because time will not allow it I would be very grateful if she could write to me about them.
The first point is crucial. As I understand it, the present fund is not taking any applicants after December 1992. If no new scheme is to come in until April 1993 what provision will be made for those people who become disabled between December and April? Will they be catered for? Secondly, what consultation has taken place with disability organisations? A number of people have written to the government department asking for details and to be involved and have received no reply. Thirdly, it is important that provision continues to come from a central source of funding that goes directly to the individual. It cannot be assumed that after April 1993 local authorities will meet all personal assistance needs. The fundamental principle for funding is that personal assistance is a basic human and civil right providing equal opportunity. No one should be disadvantaged by the need for personal assistance in taking part in the social, economic or political life of the community. I urge the Government to involve disabled people in decisions made on future provision for the Independent Living Fund.
My last point concerns the disability living allowance and bed blocking. If we are talking about a coherent community care policy it is important to ensure that all the strands are co-ordinated. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about co-ordinated services which met assessed needs.
1144
Long-term hospital patients face a number of difficulties when returning home. For example, lack of communication and delays over alterations to their homes often mean that they have to stay in hospital longer than medically necessary.
A point that concerns a number of members of the Spinal Injuries Association is that in spinal units delays in processing DLA lead to delays in processing applications to the ILF because the latter body needs to know what level of DLA the applicant is getting before the claim can be assessed. That in turn leads to bed blocking in units as people are unable to go home until the ELF money starts to come through. The Spinal Injuries Association has asked that that be prevented by indicating on the DLA application form whether the applicant is awaiting a decision from the ILF. The benefits agency replied that that would not be possible. Is it really so difficult to do that? It would greatly assist people to get back into the community as soon as possible and free beds in hospitals. I realise that the DLA is a social security matter but it has a knock-on effect on social services matters. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talk to her noble friend Lord Henley about it? Will the Government stress the importance of ensuring that unnecessary delays do not occur?
Those particular issues are but small grains of sand in the vast arena of community care, but they are very important to those concerned. They are exactly what community care is about. Enabling people to lead their lives to the full not only enhances the quality of their lives but enables them to contribute to the life of the community. It also makes financial good sense. The Minister not only cares but is very knowledgable about these issues. I very much hope that when she comes to reply it will be in a positive and encouraging way.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in order to pack as much as possible into my 10 minutes my speech will consist largely of throwing to the noble Baroness the equivalent of half a dozen Starred Questions one after the other. In mitigation I plead that I have at least warned her of most of them.
Coupled with the announcement earlier this month of the sums to be allocated to local authorities for residential accommodation—and many local authority spokesmen have said they are much too low—is a requirement that 75 per cent. of the money should be spent in the private sector. How does that proportionate split relate to the current division of homes run by local authorities and the private sector? For example, there are very few private homes within the boundaries of the inner London boroughs because of the high cost of staffing them and property. Where more than 25 per cent. of homes are in the public sector will those local authorities be required to close or dispose of those above the quota however popular or well run they are, or will they simply not be funded so that the local authorities will either have to fund the entire cost themselves or take the blame if they are

1145
forced to close them? These questions are widely asked, and I am sure that the answer of the noble Baroness will be closely noted.
The director of social services for Camden told me that only 10 per cent. of the funds allocated to him in this tranche can be spent on accommodation for those under 65. Is that a general rule? Some boroughs, especially the inner city ones, have a much higher prevalence of drug, alcohol-related and mental health problems (as well as AIDS and HIV sufferers as so ably described by my noble friend Baroness Jay) than the national average. These problems affect young adults. Young people with problems gravitate to the cities.
The policy of closing down large mental hospitals requires more hostels and sheltered accommodation. This is not keeping pace with the problem, as has been described many times in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned in more detail than I can, residential rehabilitation units for those with drug and alcohol problems will have very special difficulties. That was recognised by the Government as a result of the amendment passed in your Lordships' House. It was agreed by the current Home Secretary when he was Minister of Health that special mechanisms would he found for funding them. Many of these units accept clients from all over the country. Clients come from a variety of referring agencies. Only a minority come through local authority social services departments. Because many clients do not have recognised or fixed abodes, getting funding from many different local authorities will be virtually impossible. Unless special arrangements are made, surely many of the units will have to close. The problem of drug and alcohol dependence is increasing, not decreasing, and I think it would be very irresponsible of the Government not to fund those units directly in some way. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to announce that the Government's undertaking to this House and the other place two years ago will be honoured.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and myself are very concerned about the arrangements for auditing the quality of care which will be provided by residential units in the country. Perhaps the noble Baroness can describe the state of play in that respect. Many units provide high-quality care, but many do not. I will be grateful if she could remind us what is meant by "arm's length inspection". Who will be carrying out the inspections to check whether agreed standards are being achieved? How often will they be carried out? Will inspection teams always include a qualified health worker such as a nurse or doctor? How independent does the term "arm's length" make them?
In January this year the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society produced a very useful document entitled High Quality Long-term Care for Elderly People. It spells out in some detail, but in a very practical way, acceptable standards, and it suggests how they could be achieved and maintained. I expect that most noble Lords have visited old people's homes which are pervaded by the unmistakable smell of stale urine. In some of them it
1146
seems to be almost accepted that that is the norm. It is not the norm, nor should it ever be. This report shows how that and a variety of other indignities, which I shall not mention, can be avoided, and how a dignified old age can be assured even for very frail people through the use of the CARE system of audit, described in that document.
Does the Department of Health recommend to local authorities the use of that document when it sends out advisory circulars? It would be very useful for both inspectors of homes and the owners and managers of homes because it is phrased very clearly and in non-technical language. I have spent much more time than I meant to do on residential care, and that is only part of the total package of care in the community, the bulk of which takes place in people's own homes assisted by day care units.
Speaking of day care units, perhaps I may diverge slightly at this point. A professor of psychiatry in old age—a psychogeriatrician—in Nottingham (whose name I shall not reveal), when discussing day units for old people once said that the ideal model for a psychogeriatric day centre was the House of Lords—your Lordships' own House. For instance, he said, Members come to the House and come to believe that they are rather important people. They can make speeches and ask questions about almost any subject they want to raise in front of a virtually captive audience. They have one restaurant and bar to which they can bring guests and another in which guests are not allowed. Above all, they have a Library with comfortable chairs, where they can ostensibly read about urgent and important matters while in fact having a quiet snooze. Visitors of course are not allowed to witness it. I suggest that far from abolishing your Lordships' House, as has been suggested by some on these Benches, it is clear that every town and every county should have one.
Having dealt with day centres, I return to home care. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers, that is largely dependent on the nursing professions, district nurses and community psychiatric nurses, who assess the needs of elderly and mentally ill people in their own homes. They are the ones who draw up practical management plans for them. The GP may initiate the process but nurses undertake the continuing burden. It is ideally a team effort, very much helped if a health adviser for the elderly or a geriatric health visitor, who again is a specially trained nurse, can be involved. There is a great need for a close working relationship between social services departments and the local health providers of community health care. Many other speakers have mentioned that aspect. I shall not elaborate on it.
Finally, with special reference to London, what practical steps are proposed to upgrade primary care in line with the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report? Poor primary care has been mentioned as one of the main reasons why average hospital stays in London are longer than in the rest of the country. London's needs are greater than elsewhere, as Sir Bernard himself points out in his report. I quote from paragraph 61:

1147
"the proportion of people with psychiatric problems is greater because of the flow into London of vulnerable people with mental illness, drug addiction problems, alcoholism and multiple social problems … but the provision of accommodation for the former residents of large mental illness hospitals has not met demand, and community-based care has been undermined in many parts of London by a lack of trained professionals including psychologists, occupational therapists, community psychiatric nurses and social workers".
I suggest that the £140 million which Sir Bernard recommends to be spent on improving primary health care services in London will hardly be enough. It is necessary not only to bring our primary health care services up to the national average level in London; but, in order to cope with the problems, they must be brought up to a higher level.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I want first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to speak on this subject, especially as the three youngest Members of the day centre are present. The issue of a coherent and properly funded system of care is one of increasing importance because, as has been stated by the British Medical Association, unless the community care provisions are funded fully, the consequences for the chronically sick, their carers, the hospital service and general practice will be disastrous.
The principle behind community care is that people should be able to live as independently as possible in their own homes or in a homely rather than an institutional setting. In April next year, when the final sections of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are implemented, the opportunity will exist for that principle to be carried into practice. However, if it is to be properly instituted, community care will not be a cheap alternative. If carers in the community are to take on the task of caring, adequate funding will have to be invested.
At the recent launch of Caring Costs, an alliance of voluntary organisations which aims to achieve an adequate income for all carers, a number of carers described the problems faced at present by carers. There was a real sense of anger that the main social security benefit for carers—invalid care allowance—is only £32.55 a week. It is hardly surprising that 26 per cent. of all carers are living in poverty. That is an estimated 1.5 million people.
In a survey carried out this year,81 per cent. of carers between the ages of 18 and 34 had experienced financial difficulties since becoming a carer. There are 6 million carers in Britain, a figure that is set to rise with the growth in the proportion of older people in society. The idea that carers should have to cope with what, for a high proportion of them, is a demanding and full-time job while suffering financial hardship is unacceptable and unquestionably will have an adverse affect on the person being cared for.
In many cases, it is impossible for carers who work more than 35 hours a week also to go out to work. Many carers therefore subsist on the invalid care allowance or their own savings. It has been estimated that carers save the Government up to £24 billion a year. However, there is little remuneration for their
1148
work. Indeed some carers who spend many years caring for a sick relative find themselves in a position of not qualifying for a pension, with the further problem that if the person the carer is caring for suddenly dies, the invalid care allowance is withdrawn from that day, removing possibly the only source of income which that carer receives.
My own experience in this field is through volunteer work and residential holidays, where I have acted as a helper. It is only through such experience that it is possible to understand the intensity of such work. It is both physically and mentally exhausting. The residential holidays in which I took part were not only a break for the children but also, and perhaps more importantly, a break for their families left at home. Those holidays only lasted a week at a time. I am afraid it usually took me more than a week to recover. I therefore have the greatest respect for those who are carers in the community and fulfil the task of caring for 52 weeks of the year. Seven out of 10 people with mental handicaps or, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out with a learning disability, are already living in the community in their parents' homes. The figure includes middle-aged adults who are now being cared for by parents in their 70s,80s and even 90s.
As MENCAP has highlighted recently in its manifesto on family life for people with a learning disability, increasingly more is expected of those parents as their sons and daughters become older, in particular when they reach the age of 19 when schooling stops. As many as a third have no jobs, no training, no further education and no day service of any kind. I have a friend who is handicapped. It was devastating for him when he left school because he had nothing to do with his time and no ability to do anything without help. At a time when most parents are able to begin to think of themselves again, parents of sons or daughters with learning disabilities find themselves having to care for and find stimulation for their adult offspring day in and day out.
The Government circular issued on 26th October emphasises the importance of the role of carers. However, assurances are needed that appropriate day service and respite care will be provided. Even when children are young, those with severe multiple handicaps require far more support than other children. The intensive care which children under the age of two demand does not end for those children and their parents. The usual milestones are never reached. Parents still have to feed and change the nappies of their 10,20 or 30 year-old sons and daughters. Is it right that a parent in his 70s is still providing total care for his children who may be aged 30 or 40?
Only 17 per cent. of the most severely handicapped children receive any respite care, with the figure for adults being too low to record. MENCAP has identified respite care as a top priority among its members. However, evidence suggests that rather than expanding to meet need, fewer respite opportunities now exist and those are continuing to decrease. As the figures illustrate, respite care provides a break for the parents/carers as well as introducing new experiences into the life of a person with a learning disability. That is especially important. Often for such a person the

1149
first knowledge of leaving the security of the home is when the parents die; and the ability to cope with that loss is intensified with the loss of familiar surroundings. Respite care is a first step to independence and it is hoped that it will lead to people moving out of the home before a crisis necessitates it.
MENCAP estimates that 4,000 new places in appropriate housing will be needed in each of the next five years. But the current provision is just 2,000, which barely covers the needs of those moving out of hospitals. The Government's recent announcement does not indicate any increase. For 60,000 adults with learning disabilities and their carers, community care will mean absolutely nothing unless their needs are properly addressed through honest assessments and the availability of resources to meet those needs.
The Minister states that it will need more than money to make care in the community work. However, without the money it will not work in the first place.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the debate. It is a comprehensive debate with most speakers concentrating on a particular issue.
I remind the House that in the late 1980s it was the rundown and closure of long stay mental hospitals which formed the centrepiece of community care policy. How successful that policy has been I leave to noble Lords to judge. However, I wish to dwell upon that problem for a few moments.
Voluntary organisations in the community face an acute dilemma in being challenged to provide an increasing range of accommodation, containment and treatment for growing numbers of mentally disturbed, socially maladjusted persons. They do so without adequate resources of revenue income. Figures relating to that problem may easily be gained from the Salvation Army, as I know from my personal knowledge of the Trinity Centre, which operates in the Birmingham area.
Considerable confusion exists as to where accountability lies for people with aggravated and complicated needs. Have the Government a master plan? Have government policy documents been formulated? I am not aware of that, but the noble Baroness may be able to tell me that they exist. The problem has to be tackled comprehensively; we have to get to grips with it. The problems are there for all to see. They exist on the streets of London and of our major cities. Care in the community is not apparent. If the Government believe that community care is best for the mentally ill, they must provide adequate resources. Otherwise, as other noble Lords have said, the community programme will be exposed as a sham and a cost-cutting exercise, as we know that many of the exercises that the Government operate are.
For a number of years I have had a particular interest in the blind. People with sensory disabilities are found in large numbers in hospitals for the mentally handicapped. They have the greatest difficulty in achieving resettlement into the community. They wait for long periods. Pioneering approaches
1150
have been made. In that respect one has to compliment the organisation Sense which has been trying to maintain some form of accommodation in the community. Does the Minister agree with the necessity for service planners to make sure that they develop appropriate services for the blind handicapped client group which is a specialist group of persons?
The consultative document, The Health of the Nation, refers to psychiatric hospitals as providing an outmoded pattern of care. That might be so. If it is, what alternative forms of in-patient care do the Government expect to be developed by the NHS to provide sanctuary for those whose mental illness or learning disability (whatever we wish to call it) is too severe to be managed in the community? Are mental hospitals encouraged to use part of the land that is available around their hospitals to provide secure housing units in the small clusters which are much favoured, with perhaps a section being used for respite care for many of the schizophrenic patients who require their treatment to be regularly updated?
Proper community care can be provided but I do not believe that it will he cheap. It worries me that the Government's proposals will be for community care on the cheap. Community care needs family support, back-up services and financial support for carers. It needs to provide respite care. The Government must recognise that the provision of adequate housing must also form the basis of any successful care programme. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Housing Corporation is allocating special money to housing associations in order to permit the building of accommodation, which in many cases must be new? Local authorities are unable to use their money to build any houses.
My concluding remarks relate to young homeless people. I have a personal involvement at St. Basil's Centre, which is a well-known organisation catering for young homeless people. It is known in the department as being worthy of government support and receives support from the Inner City Partnership in Birmingham. It has a long history of helping those in need of short-stay and long-stay accommodation, thereby completely rehabilitating young people into the community.
It has been brought to my attention that serious incidents have happened during the past 12 months. Indeed, during the past two months there have been 10 attempted suicides by people under the age of 20. They have involved mostly wrist slashing and drug overdoses, but at present the centre is dealing with the serious case of a young girl who is determined to hang herself. Hostels for helping the young homeless do not cater for such people. The staff at the centre are all well-trained in counselling and so forth but they are not well-qualified to deal with the seriously emotionally disturbed young people who are now going to the centre. They can receive little support in the community. The duty psychiatrists and the social welfare departments offer help but only on assessment. The matter needs to be drawn to the

1151
Minister's attention because something is going wrong if young people are missing out on necessary psychiatric care.
I express my admiration for the positive work that is carried out in the community by the voluntary organisations and charities. Their contribution can be described as innovative; they are willing to try new solutions to problems and their staff are really involved in caring for young people. We are well aware of the many appeals for donations to such worthy bodies. That helps with capital projects but all those organisations face problems because the real costs occur in daily and weekly work and revenue costs. One of the problems that is holding back many voluntary organisations is that capital becomes available but often revenue is non-existent. That problem should be readily understood by the Government and some means should be found to allay the mounting concern involving revenue costs. The voluntary bodies will then be able to play an increasing role in care in the community in partnership with local authorities.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, when I visit friends in hospital and look around I wonder how some of the patients will cope when they are discharged. That is not a particularly intelligent question because I suspect that for every thousand people discharged from hospital, there are a thousand different needs. However, they will share some anxieties as regards their individual futures. They will hope to find a place to live that is physically suited to their condition after discharge from hospital, and I hope that they will be successful. All must be able, with or without outside help, to manage the ordinary tasks of life. Many will have to cope with loneliness and depression and perhaps the fear of growing old. Those conditions may be harder to overcome than the physical challenges which they must meet.
All those challenges have been given greater relevance by the added emphasis which the Government have given to care in the community. I have no doubt that that decision is right. At home, surrounded by familiar things, is basically where people belong. We all know of friends and relations who became confused and disorientated by being uprooted and put into institutional care. Indeed, many of us have seen comparable disorientation among men and women in hospital for only a short time. There appear to be other strong reasons for making a patient's stay in hospital as short as possible. In my opinion, hospital care of acute cases, often the gravely ill, is beyond all praise. However, the attention given to patients needing not acute care but that different and rare commodity "tender loving care" appears to be less evident. That further strengthens my conviction that people who need such care are better returned as soon as possible to their own surroundings.
In saying that I am well aware that the challenge to the services outside hospital will be enormous. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), made that
1152
almost horrifyingly clear. GPs will need all that the Government can arrange for them, particularly in the wake of the Tomlinson Report. An immediate need which is not at present met is for hospitals to tell GPs when patients are discharged and to provide them with details of the hospital treatment. Without such support, GPs cannot be expected to play their part—which in my view is an exceptional part—in the reorientation of men and women after leaving hospital. Many patients, especially those with a residual disability, will need information about the various agencies which will be able to help them to cope. It has appeared to me for some time that GPs, who are so closely and almost uniquely in touch with their patients, are well placed not to give the information sought for but to point the way to those well qualified to give it.
Responsibility for providing a suitable home environment is, and must continue to be, shared by many. I am profoundly distressed to hear of patients unnecessarily kept in hospital because the physical improvements which need to be made to their homes have not been carried out. While the necessary work may and probably will fall to the local authorities, the initiative must belong to the hospitals concerned if such disheartening delays are to be prevented.
I believe that my noble friend has already shown herself to be sympathetic as regards the question of quick assessments. I know that it is asking a great deal of whatever multi-disciplinary team takes charge of the individual case. However, if the future home environment is to be satisfactorily matched with the patient's needs, then an immediate assessment must surely take place as soon as possible after admission to hospital, leading to early decisions about the shape of those needs, in order to make possible discharge as soon as the acute care is over.
Others will speak with much greater authority than I can about the central role of carers in the community. Indeed, many noble Lords have already done so. I am glad to say that the Government seem rightly to recognise the carers as the foundation of the whole concept of care in the community. I hope that I shall be forgiven for entering a plea which is close to my heart for basic equipment essential to many leaving hospital and preparing to return to live at home. It is not an inspiring or exciting item of equipment but it is one which is used by more than half a million people at present and it is completely indispensable to a considerable proportion of that half million. The issue of wheelchairs is now broadly the responsibility of the district health authorities. Until next spring, part of the budget allocated to regional health authorities is specifically earmarked or ringfenced for that service. We have already heard about ringfencing in another connection. Thereafter, because of the end of ringfencing, the wheelchair service is less secure. Unless the Government can make certain that the service is maintained, any system of care in the community will be gravely handicapped.
I go further. Even though I understand that this is not a time for uncontrolled optimism, I ask for greatly improved funding for that service. Our whole concept

1153
of caring for the old and handicapped makes little sense unless we are prepared to provide the means to enable them to live as full a life as possible.
Finally, certain aspects of caring in the community—and my noble friend Lady Darcy mentioned the independent living fund—present a formidable financial challenge. However, there are other opportunities within community care which need cost very little. My concept of a civilised country and a relatively affluent nation, if this country can be considered to be both, suggests an environment in which individuals have the leisure to help other individuals, not in complicated tasks but in ordinary everyday pursuits which is what most of life is about. Hundreds of people are ready to help with those simple tasks, and although such an effort may be difficult to organise, I suspect that the main obstacle to its implementation is the suspicion and distrust which exists in certain quarters and a lack of confidence in those ready to give their time voluntarily.
I am encouraged to hear in this debate that there is already a certain amount of support for the suggestion that we should draw more deeply on that fund of available help, because many, including myself, doubt whether any financial resources available will be adequate for the National Health Service. The service always looks likely to need more than is provided and that is probably equally true for community care. While considerable expertise is necessary in both cases, certain aspects of community care offer wide opportunities to those without medical expertise. I do not believe that we shall succeed in reaching the objectives of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, without being willing and ready to harness all resources, including those which hundreds of our fellow citizens are already offering, and which thousands more are pressing to imitate.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has given his name is extremely timely, particularly in view of the fact that final sections of the National Health Service and Community Care Act are to be implemented next April.
I wish to focus my remarks on the implications for community nursing to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has already referred. I want to talk about four matters: the increasing importance of community nursing; the need for partnership in care planning; consideration of manpower needs and skill mix in community nursing; and consideration of the training needs of community nurses.
I also think it does well for us to have a sense of history as we enter the future. Many of the community nursing services had their origins in voluntary organisations. We remember respected organisations such as the Queen's Nursing Service and the Ranyard Nurses. We remember the advice that Florence Nightingale gave to William Rathbone on setting up community nursing services in Liverpool. Those of us who come from the North West delight in the fact that health visitors originated there in the Salford Ladies Sanitary Reform Association. I understand that in
1154
those days both doctors and nurses became what were called health missionaries and visited homes with sachets of carbolic and religious tracts!
One might imagine that we should move on in organisation and role from those days. Yet it is good to look at those origins of Victorian philanthropy and Christian ideals which have informed the community nursing service.
We remember how the voluntary organisation work was taken over by local authorities in their community nursing services and then became integrated into the health service in that rather ungainly tripartite service which we first had. Those of us who worked in that service can remember the difficulties of communication between the health services in the hospital sector and health services in the community sector, and particularly the difficulties as regards communications for effective discharge planning for patients coming out of hospital.
We would now expect the community nursing services to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as to quality and value for money as other aspects of the service are subject. There can be no doubt that community nursing services are becoming more and more important in the care given in the community. We only have to look at the emphasis on early discharge from hospital and the increasingly intensive and often specialised nursing care which needs to be given in the community. We must look at the demographic trends and the number of elderly in the community, and we have already heard a great deal about that. We must look also at the Government's own papers on the health of the nation. It seems to me that within that and the need to promote health and prevent disease, the health visitor has a key role in the community's services of the future.
Under the Act the local authority will again take the lead role in the provision of community services. There will be a wide range of need. I believe that it is difficult to make strict demarcations between health care needs and social needs. It is necessary to emphasise the importance of partnership in planning for care. The district nurse and the health visitor come with the skills acquired through experience in hospital nursing and in further education in making assessments of health care needs in the community. It is most important that that should be married to the assessment made by social workers. The object is a seamless robe of service.
I see examples of some authorities which are making great strides in making their plans for partnerships in assessment and planning explicit. Regrettably I see other authorities that have not made their plans explicit. I believe that it is now a matter of urgency that those plans should be made specific if we are to provide effective partnership in planning. I understand that already some discharge planning is being interrupted by hospitals referring discharges directly to the local authority and bypassing any reference to the district nurse. It is that kind of anxiety that we must overcome.
I pass on to a matter of great concern; that is, manpower needs in district nursing and the skill mix that is required. I am disturbed by what I find to be an

1155
increasingly prevalent view that money can be saved on community services by cutting down, for instance, the number of health visitors and certainly cutting down on highly qualified district nurses—some from grades G or H have been made redundant. That appears to be a good way of liberating money to train and employ care assistants, but it obviously has the effect of diluting the skills of a community nursing service.
I understand that one region recommends cuts in student intake across the nursing specialisms and points to what it calls,
"gross over-training of district nurses in the past".
I understand that the Value for Money Unit, having surveyed one area, estimated that the numbers of qualified district nurses could be cut by 60 per cent. The mind boggles at the effect that that would have on the quality of service. Yet there is another report just published, from the University of Leeds, that indicates that the quality of care and the outcome for patients is improved when there is a better skill mix with more rather than fewer registered nurses. I suggest that we need an assurance that before precipitate action is taken by purchasing authorities and provider units, there needs to be a national appraisal of manpower and skill-mix needs and how they affect the quality of care.
I turn briefly to the numbers of health visitors and district nurses in training. Health visitors and district nurses tend to be a relatively stable population. But when one looks at their age structure, they fall more in the higher age end of the nursing population than the hospital nurses. The number of district nurses and health visitors coming into training has decreased over the past few years. The intake to district nursing courses was down by 6.4 per cent. between 1985 and 1988. We need to look at the implications for the future of qualified manpower in the community nursing service, if that is to continue.
In summary, I believe that for those and for many other reasons it is necessary to rebuild the morale of community nurses who at the moment feel threatened by the uncertainty of the future and in some cases the lack of acknowledgment of the skills that they bring to that important aspect of the work.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, we were reminded several times this afternoon, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—to whom I am sure we all pay tribute as president of the Carers' National Association—that without carers in the community there can be no coherent system of care. I make no apologies for returning to that theme. For far too long these people have been taken for granted. The duties that they undertake are literally a labour of love—they care because they care. Many find in caring a deep fulfilment and satisfaction. But many, often the same people, are frustrated, tired and resentful. Because they are resentful they feel guilty.
The carers I refer to particularly are single people caring for one or more parents, couples caring for parents or parents-in-law, one of a couple caring for a
1156
spouse or, as we were reminded, single persons or couples caring for an adult disabled son or daughter. There are around 6 million such carers and around 1 million care for more than 35 hours a week. What is more, many carers are themselves getting on in years. For many people caring begins in the third age, between 50 and 74. For many the onset of caring means forced early retirement; for others, particularly women, it means that after bringing up children, without a break they move into caring for adults—parents or an in-law.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, emphasised the case of younger carers. I want to emphasise the case of the older carers. A recent study by the Age Concern Institute of Gerontology undertaken on behalf of the Carnegie Inquiry into the Third Age suggests that nearly half of all carers (about 3 million people) are in the age group 50 to 74. The number of people needing care has increased and, as we have already been reminded, will continue to increase as the numbers in the third and fourth ages rise.
I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Carter, for introducing the subject this afternoon. I join him and perhaps also my noble friend Lord Rea in declaring my own interest in the matter.
While there will be an increase in the number of people requiring care, there may well be a fall in the number of potential carers. The fact of more divorces will reduce care by spouses and children. The growing employment of women may well reduce their ability or even willingness to care.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the cost of providing a public service would be up to £24 billion a year. I do not know how the statistics are worked out. It is not a particularly meaningful figure. Caring is a deeply personal service. No professional service, however devoted, can be an adequate substitute for personal care. The price paid by carers is extremely heavy. In the Age Concern Institute of Gerontology survey to which I referred two-thirds of carers felt that their physical and mental health, or both, had been affected. Many older people have great difficulty in caring physically for a spouse or a disabled son or daughter. Many carers suffer from depression; they feel trapped. In particular, caring frequently leads to isolation as a result of losing contacts at work and in social activities and leisure pursuits.
Having to give up a job is not the end of the story. Losing a job means losing pension rights. It means having to use up one's savings before reaching the normal age of retirement. As we have been reminded, disability itself creates special costs and increases ordinary costs such as heating, laundry and transport. So on the grounds of equity alone we must do more to relieve carers of some of their mental and physical stresses and financial worries. Even on the grounds of keeping down public expenditure—and one cannot find a lower motive than that—we should be spending a little more on enabling people to accept the responsibility of caring in the home and encouraging them to go on.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said, but this means more action by the Government to improve

1157
financial help. It also means more action by local government, health authorities and other agencies to provide services. Anyone who looks at the benefit provisions for caring at home and for carers must be totally bemused by the byzantine complexity of the system. Perhaps the first need is to provide better advice services than those available at present and to mount a take-up campaign to ensure that people actually receive their entitlement.
I shall limit myself to one glaring anomaly and to one plea. The anomaly relates to the severe disability premium. Many people who get through all the tangled hedges come up against a blank wall ultimately in that the premium cannot be paid to people who live with a close relative. That must restrict the ability of disabled people to live in the community. The case for removing that restrictive condition is overwhelming.
My plea to the Government is not to shoot themselves in the foot by insisting on transferring the Independent Living Fund responsibilities to local authorities, as has been said this afternoon. That fund is a real success story. I say with great respect that the Government have not got so many great success stories that they should wantonly throw this one away. I very much echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said on that subject. This scheme has been enormously successful.
But from April 1993 new applicants are being transferred to local authorities. Reference has been made to the fact that in any event local authorities cannot make cash payments. I hope that that will be put right by the Government supporting the Private Member's Bill put forward by Mr. Andrew Rowe in another place. Even if that is done, local authorities are going to be very short of cash. Also it is pointless to make local authorities institute new systems of assessment and monitoring, thereby reinventing the wheel, when these measures can perfectly well be implemented through continuation of the ILF. I join with my noble friend Lord Carter, the Disability Alliance and other carers' organisations in begging the Government to think again. I ask them to maintain and extend the principle to other areas of caring.
Equally important—it has been so well emphasised that I do not need to go over the ground again—is the need to provide adequate services to carers. I underline the point of respite care. It means the difference between life and almost living death for many carers. Tributes have been paid to various organisations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to bodies such as Winged Fellowship which provide holiday respite care for disabled people. I underline the point that, whereas local authorities have been able to fund many of these activities in the past, they are beginning to make charges for many of the services such as meals on wheels, home helps and respite care. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, has said in this context. If the Government will the end that people should be cared for in the community, they must will the means to make that possible.
Finally, there is the need to give more carers the chance to keep or to get a job. For some time now
1158
employers and unions have accepted the need to make better provision for working mothers. Solutions have been found to problems that were once thought to be insuperable. Now they should address their minds to helping other carers such as those we are discussing by the provision of more part-time work, job sharing, flexible hours, extra leave and access to a telephone, which is very important indeed. Older people should also be enabled to return to work after a period of caring. I hope that the Government will complement these measures by raising the earnings limit for carers' benefit payments.
Action on these lines, not only by the Government and other public bodies but by employers, trade unions and the rest of us, will demonstrate that we genuinely care about carers and recognise the value of what they do.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating this timely debate and giving us the opportunity to bring to your Lordships' attention some aspects of community care which are causing great concern to the users and providers of the service. I hope with an understanding Minister such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that she will be able to alleviate some of the anxieties.
When I heard this week that St. Bartholomew's and St. Thomas's Hospitals were on the hit list it made me think that the next two institutions to be mentioned in this light might be Eton and Winchester colleges. Is this what the classless society is all about? Are we no longer to aim for excellence? I mention Bart's and St. Thomas's in this debate on community care as one who lives in a rural part of North Yorkshire with few services. I have a GP trained at St. Bartholomew's hospital. The ripples from the medical school go far and wide.
At St. Thomas's Hospital there is a unique unit named after the late Lady Lane-Fox who raised so much money for the unit. It looks after high risk respiratory patients from across the country. There is a unique, highly-trained team, including technicians and a service of Danish au pairs who look after people in their homes, many of whom have to use iron lungs as a result of polio. That unit is a lifeline to these patients. They must now be feeling very frightened and vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will find time to visit this most interesting and vital part of our National Health Service.
I am sure that all noble Lords speaking in this debate applaud the principle of providing the services and support to enable people to live as independently as possible in their own homes or in a homely rather than an institutional setting. If there is to be a consensus that the needs of the user should be the driving force, then the help needs should be forthcoming when they are required. Many people go into a hospital for acute patients for an operation or they become disabled in their homes through injury or illness. The link with hospital and home, or alleviating incapacity in the home, can be helped by the advice

1159
and useful aids which come by having an adequate supply of occupational therapists and physiotherapists.
These professionally trained people are the vital link, but it is far from adequate at the moment because of the quick through-put of patients in hospitals. The physiotherapists and occupational therapists are overworked and overstressed. The slowness of the community services and the time it takes to assess needs are matters which I would like the Minister to address today.
I have letters from frustrated people with disabilities who have written to me as a last resort. I have letters from the North of Scotland, Wales and from all over the place. So often relationships have broken down because a generic social worker who does not really know what a severely disabled person really needs has been dealing with the case. Increasing the load on the community of people with severe disability without a massive increase of occupational and peripatetic physiotherapists is asking for trouble.
Academic achievement has been a priority for many therapists in recent years. While this is important for self-esteem and research, it is the basic grades doing the work in the hospital departments and in the community who give most benefit to the patients and enable them to live in the community. If an adequate, suitable house is available and the correct equipment can be afforded, such people will survive.
Yesterday I heard a rumour that local authorities might not be able to afford to keep some of their severely disabled people in the residential home at Putney. They have lived there for years and it has become their home. May I ask the Minister to look into this and to find out what the alternatives would be? These severely disabled people have to live somewhere. The so-called "community" is not a cheap option. They need care 24 hours a day. If local authorities panic and the money runs out, I shudder to think what may happen.
As a member of a family health service authority, I think it is important that people get to know and trust each other, that barriers are not put up and that everyone tries to do the best with what they have. It is difficult when local authority boundaries differ from those of the health authorities. Could the Minister say to what the community and district nurses will be attached? If they are working closely with general practitioners, should they not come under the umbrella of the FHSA? They need to belong to the community they serve. Highly skilled, expert nurses from hospitals could then resettle in the community patients who may have ongoing specialised needs and could also teach the community nurses how to cope. This is being done with community mental health nurses and in some districts works very well indeed.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need to teach the community at large, which wants to help, about the needs of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I sometimes wonder what one can do when one reads in the local press, as I did a few months ago in the Yorkshire Post, that
1160
"A Member of Parliament says he has no regrets for saying that mentally handicapped people should be evicted from a housing estate because they were causing house prices to plummet".
An excellent group of caring, well-informed people have formed the Continence Foundation which is to be launched in Parliament shortly. The Department of Health has recognised the problems and has responded by carrying out a report on incontinence, the results of which were published in Agenda for Action on Continence, but it is of considerable concern that incontinence was left out of the Health of the Nation document despite the fact that it was included in the Green Paper. It is an easy area in which to establish targets. What is the reason for this omission?
A major concern is that continence services may fall between two stools under the new arrangements as there can be health service and social service interests. Is this an issue for joint planning? It is essential that users of services are involved in planning and monitoring them. There are going to be more people with continence problems living at home and in the community. If community care is to work in reality, continence services are a key element. Can the Minister say who is going to be responsible for providing the products that are needed'? Incontinent people need information, expert individual assessment and advice, access to specialist investigation when needed, treatment options and support to manage the problem.
Anyone working in the drug and alcohol treatment field knows how much opposition there is from local people when a residential rehabilitation home is set up. The work is not easy and addiction of various sorts is on the increase in our complex society. Drug and alcohol abuse damages family life. Children are put at risk and crime increases. Many dedicated and skilled people are striving to treat those who have decided to get clean and to live life within society.
It was with utter dismay and frustration that people learned two weeks ago that the Government had decided to go back on their word that the funds for this service would be ring-fenced, as was assured in 1991. It is the complex and difficult nature of collecting the funds and the high proportion of such people who are homeless that make this a special case. If the present residential homes have to close, the option may well be prison, which is expensive and has the added risk of encouraging the spread of AIDS because of needle sharing. The drug and alcohol treatment agencies have been thrown into crisis. I hope that the Minister will understand the misery and deprivation of this abuse. She has only to look at the success of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is shortly to become a father, to see what successful treatment can do.
An added concern is that since 1986 the number of UK alcohol research projects has declined by nearly 40 per cent. from 400 projects in 1986 to 253 projects now. To give an example of what is happening, an alcohol researcher from Oxford went to Copenhagen to work for the World Health Organisation and a researcher from Dundee is now a professor in Sydney. No wonder addiction is on the increase.

1161
Having attended the World Conference on AIDS in Amsterdam in July of this year I can assure your Lordships that HIV and AIDS are truly a world disaster. Our Government should be congratulated on the preventive measures that they have taken. Even so, it is estimated that between 25,000 and 30,000 people in Britain may be HIV positive. I hope that the Minister will ensure the confidentiality of such services as genito-urinary medicine despite cross-boundary accounting. AIDS sufferers need careful medical monitoring as there are many complicated conditions such as drug-resistant TB. I end by saying that some of the kindest and most generous volunteers work in the field of AIDS and need to be congratulated. They are an example to all.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate which was so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Carter. I make no apology for returning to the subject of carers which has already been dealt with so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and by my noble friend Lord Murray. I do so because I think that it is most important. I am closely involved with some of the organisations active in this field, notably, Age Concern, and I was for a number of years a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has also worked on behalf of carers. I pay tribute to the work of the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants, which is so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I know that carers can be either men or women but, the way things are, the overwhelming majority are women. In the types of work where women predominate, that work tends to be undervalued and underpaid—and sometimes not paid at all. As we have heard this afternoon,1 million people in this country provide care and support for at least 35 hours a week for a relative or friend who is elderly or frail or who has a disability. Great sacrifices are demanded of the people who do this work. Many of them have had to give up any thought of a career at reasonable levels of pay or with good prospects—or often of any kind of work at all, even part-time, and we all know how badly paid and unprotected part-time work is. Their career becomes a matter of caring for their elderly or disabled relative.
Many are outside our system of social insurance, which is based on the concept of people working for an employer for a particular number of years, followed by retirement on a state pension, often supplemented by an occupational pension. Such prospects are not for the woman who spends a large part of her life looking after elderly or infirm parents only to find that when she herself reaches retirement age there is no one to look after her and that she has no pension entitlement due to her after years spent outside the labour market.
Of course there is some social security benefit—invalid care allowance, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has already referred—but this is only £32.50 a week, the equivalent of about 12 per cent. of national average earnings. Even so, only 17 per cent.
1162
of full-time carers actually receive ICA Many thousands of older carers receive nothing at all to help with the extra costs of providing care and support in old age. In 1990 a House of Commons Select Committee recommended increases in the ICA, raising it to the level of state retirement pension. That would have been something—not exactly munificent—but nothing so far has happened.
There is no doubt at all, from the research undertaken by voluntary organisations, including my own organisation, Age Concern, that a very large number of carers currently live in poverty. A survey conducted by the Department of Social Security in 1991 found that two-thirds of carers reported that caring had an adverse effect upon their standard of living. It is not only a matter of elderly relatives receiving care in the home. There are children with disabilities, many of whom require a great deal of attention. I well remember the case of a former colleague of mine several years ago. He and his wife had a Down's syndrome child to whom they were absolutely devoted. The boy was quite badly handicapped. That couple had never had a holiday and one year they decided to have one. They were able to make arrangements for their son to be looked after in a residential home. When they came back, however, they told me that they would never go away again. They were distressed to find that the boy, removed from familiar surroundings, had pined, had refused to eat and had lost weight.
I refer to this because respite support is very necessary for carers, but it needs to be flexible and on a regular basis in order to meet the needs of' the carers and those being cared for. Proper respite care can he expensive. Nevertheless, it is absolutely vital if carers themselves are not to suffer from the enormous strain involved in daily caring for relatives who may need a great deal of' attention. Often—this point has been referred to by other noble Lords—such charges can become demanding and difficult. They are not all nice old things. Many carers themselves become ill with the strain of constant work and worry, added to which arc the concerns that inevitably arise when there is simply not enough money to meet normal needs, let alone the special needs of ill or disabled people.
People who have given their lives to caring for relatives in this way frequently feel that they have been abandoned. I was at a meeting recently at which a number of carers spoke about their experiences. One woman had spent a lifetime looking after a severely disabled child only to find that when she reached retirement age she had no entitlement to a pension in her own right. Others spoke of the constant strain involved in what they were doing and the hopelessness they felt because no one seemed to understand their plight. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Murray said, the work they do saves this country about £24 billion a year which otherwise would have to be provided by state institutions.
The Government's policy, as we know. is for "care in the community". The intention is to provide services and support to enable people to live as independently as possible in their own homes rather than in an institutional setting. It sounds fine. Who

1163
could disagree with that as an objective? But it is not at all clear that the Government have understood that community care is not a cheap option—it is very expensive.
In April 1993 local authorities will have the lead responsibility for ensuring that people needing community care services in their areas actually receive them. There must be adequate numbers of district nurses and health visitors. They must be adequately trained. I question whether this need is being addressed by those concerned. The Royal College of Nursing fears that without an increase in resources for community nurses the full burden will fall on informal carers—friends and family who will simply not be able to cope.
My own stepdaughter is a health visitor in the Brighton area. She is now actually in charge of the work in her area. I spoke to her on the telephone last night and told her that I intended to participate in this debate. She told me that she is very concerned that the number of trainees is diminishing, whereas, with the increase in the numbers of elderly, she believes that more health visitors are needed rather than fewer. That was confirmed in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane.
The BMA has said that unless community care provisions are funded fully, the consequences for the chronic sick, their carers, the hospital service and general practice will be disastrous. The BMA also demands more financial assistance for carers. There should be a safeguard, it says, that a carer is entitled to retain the benefit for a specified period if, after some years of caring, their relative dies or moves into residential or hospital care. I fully support that view. However, ominous sounds have been emerging from government sources about the need to cut public expenditure because of the recession. The Prime Minister has talked about going for growth. I support that and I support the call for more investment in capital projects. If it is a U-turn it is a welcome one, but not if it means that the disadvantaged and those who care for them are going to have to pay for it. This is perhaps not the appropriate debate to talk about public sector pay, but the professionals who work in the health and community services are by no means overpaid as things stand. Whatever is done in that area I hope that there will be no cuts in the pay of people providing those essential services.
My noble friend is right to put this matter down for debate at this time as community care is due to be implemented next April. Now is the time to say to the Government that they must ensure that it is properly funded and that the many informal carers are properly valued and paid.
6.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating this debate today. I shall confine my remarks to alcohol and drug care. I pay tribute to the excellent speech on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He dealt with a great many points and he covered in detail some of the points which I would have found difficult
1164
to cover myself; for example, the way he visualises the difficulties of local authorities in coping with the new government arrangements.
During the progress in 1990 of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill I was among those noble Lords who argued, in exactly the same way as Members of another place argued, that in order to safeguard residential care services for those suffering alcohol and drug problems we needed specific financial provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out, a great number of these sufferers are what one might call itinerant sufferers—that term has been used—many of whom are homeless and many are certainly without a fixed address.
We argued that the inevitable result of not reserving funds—I have to use the rather unattractive term "ring-fencing" because it has become common currency—would be the quite rapid closure of certain centres. This would bring hardship not only to addicts themselves but also to their families. It is calculated that for every person who goes for treatment—they are treated for relatively short periods, which is another complicating factor—there are perhaps up to 10 family members or friends who are affected by their illness, if I may describe it as such.
Such was the clear merit of our case and the clear support from all sides of the House that to our great delight, which has now turned to disappointment, the Minister gave assurances which we accepted in good faith, as always in this House, and we did not press the amendment to a Division. Indeed, it went further in another place as has been described. An amendment was produced by the Government which covered the very points we had argued and laboured over for so long and with such energy.
Perhaps I may briefly recap. What has happened now is that the Secretary of State has announced that all community care funds will be ring-fenced. Local authorities are to have total discretion for that ring-fenced amount and will, accordingly, arrive at their priorities. The overall principle of ring-fencing all community care funding is good news for many involved in community care generally. It is good to see that that money is safeguarded; but it is extremely bad news for those of us who are involved in the area of providing residential services for drug addicts and alcoholics. They, again, face the prospect of being left out of local authority priorities, which I can well understand with the pressing needs, the shortage of money and the inevitability of treatment centres being forced to close.
It seems to me that Ministers and departments have never really understood the actual nature of the problem of drug addicts and alcoholics or the problems of local authorities which have to deal with such people. They are often not able to provide services within their own area. There are many cross references and delays. Delay for people who have been compelled or who have volunteered to go into treatment is a dangerous thing, because such people may change their minds or all kinds of things can happen. It becomes increasingly difficult properly to deal with them.

1165
So we are back to square one. I am most eager to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will say on the matter. Unless the Government can be prevailed upon to change their mind before April 1993, I do not see how we can view with any optimism the future of patients and their families in the field. Indeed, they face a bleak future. The situation as I see it—and I am not an alarmist by nature—could be unparalleled in, at least, any developed nation. As I said, these people are by nature often homeless and distressed. Any delays would cause further problems and make it a very dangerous area. There is already a severe shortage of places for such sufferers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave the relevant figure. Certainly somewhere in the region of three-quarters of all applicants are refused because of lack of space. Therefore, to further decrease the available treatment is absolutely counter to the stated objectives of the Government in The Health of the Nation. I shall be pleased to hear the views of the noble Baroness on that document, which was presented to us with a clarion call.
In summary, perhaps I may point out that the purpose of a spell in a residential home for a drinker—which is my principal area of interest, although drinkers and drug addicts overlap in terms of treatment and most often attend the same centres—is to relieve him or her of the stresses of a difficult family life or of the pressures of living daily with the problems of a drinking environment.
The options left to clients who are abandoned, as seems likely many will be if the Government's plans go through, is that they will end up on the streets, continuing to drink heavily. They will thus further damage their own health and possibly pose a threat to the health of others, with little prospect of returning to a normal life. We all know that they can be a public nuisance. That is one of the many reasons why many local authorities are not keen to deal with them in the first instance, quite apart from the constraints imposed by a shortage of money. That leaves the police in a very difficult position, given the pressures that are already upon them. We have spoken many times in your Lordships' House about the difficulties faced by the police in respect of those who suffer from alcohol abuse.
It means that those who still have a family—many are abandoned by their families but I have to say that many are supported by families whose fortitude is truly admirable—will find themselves in extremely difficult situations. Indeed, earlier this week we debated the topic of domestic violence. I took a rather critical view on one aspect of the document that we were discussing; namely, a report on domestic violence. I did so because that document of about 100 pages gave the causes of domestic violence, but there was no mention of the connection between alcohol and violence. I have information from organisations like Turning Point and Alcohol Concern which states that on a conservative estimate, in cases of domestic violence—that is, attacks on women by men, whether married to them or in other kinds of less formal relationships-40 per cent. are alcohol related. I find it extraordinary that when people get together to
1166
discuss such social problems they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the fact that alcohol plays a very strong part.
We talk about denial, which is the term used by those who suffer from such problems and who cannot be brought to realise the illness that they have, but there seems to be a kind of denial in our society about such problems. That does not help. I very much look forward to hearing the Minster's response. I hope that she says something cheering to us, otherwise the prospect is bleak indeed.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, this House has a proud record on the subject of community care. It has achieved a great deal. I should like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Carter, on initiating this further debate. I should also like to congratulate him on his impressive and persuasive speech. Many speakers have concentrated on finance and I am very glad that they did so. That is the nub of the problem; without adequate finance—and I personally believe that the Government's provision is inadequate—we shall get nowhere and the people who require community care will suffer.
April 1993 is supposed to be the beginning of a new era for old people, disabled people and all those who need community care. It is supposed not only to give them care, but also to provide choice and dignity for them. If there is a shortfall in funds, there will be no dignity or choice and there will be inadequate care. The foundations of the structure will be damaged without adequate cash. It is rather like sending a rocket into space with an inadequate engine. It will just not get there if the funds are inadequate.
I hope that the Government will look seriously at the amounts of money being provided. Ministers seem quite satisfied with the £539 million which will go to local authorities next April for the newly old and disabled people who require help. But that satisfaction flies in the face of the opinion of many authoritative commentators and many organisations concerned with old and disabled people.
The Association of Municipal Authorities has said that the shortfall from the Government may well result in 12,000 people at risk of no care-I repeat, of no care. The association says that it is a "desperate situation". If that is so, it is a reason for very great concern. The Institute of Health Services Management says that at least £750 million is required to implement the reforms properly. That is £750 million compared with the £539 million allocated by the Government. The director of that institute has added that it is a,
"reasonable settlement in a tight spending round".
Of course, it is not reasonable. We cannot have an estimated shortfall of £300 million and then say it is reasonable. It is very unreasonable, given that degree of shortfall. And it is not a marginal deficit, £300 million: it is half as much again. So it is a very serious shortfall, for which the Government are responsible. In my view, that shortfall makes all the difference in the world between care and neglect. I think it is the difference between responsible change and the

1167
irresponsible chaos which will result from that lack of funds. I see no reason why defenceless people like disabled people should bear the brunt of the burden of the Government's miscalculation or refusal to finance properly.
I welcome the ministerial announcement about the funds being ring-fenced, but Ministers say that it will be a ring-fence for special transitional care. Why only transitional? I do not get the point of this. If it is necessary to ring-fence funds for the next two or three years, it must be necessary to ring-fence such funds permanently, because those recalcitrant local authorities who do not want to spend the money on disabled people or old people will not suddenly, at the end of the transitional period, give them a high priority. It is illogical to expect them to do that kind of thing, and certainly those local authorities with a bad record are not going to change at the end of the transitional period.
Those local authorities are only a small minority: I recognise that and acknowledge it freely. But it is important for the Government to ensure that no local authorities use the extra cash for popular local causes, designed to win votes. The money must be spent on disabled people or old people. We must prevent all local authorities from misusing it, and that is why I want all the money to be ring-fenced permanently and not simply for this transitional period. Of course some local authorities will be under pressure and some will be tempted, but the Government must make sure that they resist the temptation and the pressure so that local authorities spend the money only for disabled or old people.
I note that ring-fencing will apply only for the special grants, according to Ministers, and that the bulk of social service spending will not be ring-fenced. Why not? I think it is regrettable and I hope that the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, will be able to explain—the noble Baroness looks a little doubtful, but I am making a reasonable proposition. I know that they have to fight those local authorities about this, but it is a very modest proposal. I think that perhaps the Minister is a little taken aback, but I believe that it is something that the Government should take on board. I know that it will not be taken on board overnight; it will not be done very easily, but I want to put forward that programme for what will happen eventually.
I should like to conclude by saying that the changes proposed are very complex and very difficult. We shall have many units which are now answering to many different authorities. They will need to work together, to link together and to co-ordinate their activities. This is a major challenge involving new relationships, new attitudes and new lines of communication. As to the solution, first, there must be adequate funds from the Government. Secondly, there must be a Minister for community care. Thirdly, there must be regular monitoring. Fourthly, there must be full and regular accountability and, finally, perhaps above all—except for cash—there must be the involvement of disabled and old people and their carers in all those decisions.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am proud to recollect that the concept of care in the community was, in a substantial measure, pioneered in my own county of Kent by the Reverend Nicholas Stacey and Professor Bliddon Davis of the University of Kent. It is an exciting concept, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, nobody can really be against it. It has so many advantages. It is less costly, and if properly carried out it gives greater happiness and, I believe, longer life to the beneficiaries. The trouble is that it has to be properly carried out. It is not enough for the Treasury to say,"Hip hip, hooray!"to the aspects of community care which enable them to save money and then not to spend the necessary money on doing that community care properly. Without adequate support services, neither branch of community care will work.
A number of noble Lords have already spoken about the problems of old people living at home and of their carers. I would just want to draw your Lordships' attention to the other branch of community care, relating to the disabled and particularly to the mentally handicapped, who are being moved out of institutions. In some cases I am afraid that proper care is not being provided for them. This is particularly the case in London today. I have recent evidence that although many hospitals for the mentally ill have been closed, the private homes and hostels into which the people move—if they do not move on to the streets—are not able to cope with the acute phases of their problems.
The Salvation Army told me today that of their total hostel population,43 per cent. are now people with mental handicap; and of those at least a significant proportion need medical help. The difficulty is that the gateway to medical help is through the general practitioner, and the general practitioner does not always like having in his waiting room many people who fall into this category, particularly if they have been living on the streets, are dirty and ragged and do not look very attractive. The practice therefore is to send them to the casualty wards of hospitals. Those wards do not have any facilities to deal with that sort of patient: they are concerned only with acute cases. I have been told that referrals under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act who are sent to hospital are in practice very often back on the streets 24 hours later. Indeed, I was told that in one borough the police are now booking mentally ill people whom they find on the streets for minor offences which they would normally have overlooked, simply to get them into the courts and so that they get the care that they need.
I was particularly happy therefore to read in Hansard that community care funding is going to be ring fenced. I should like to ask the Minister one or two rather specific questions about the ring-fencing. The first is this. What plans do the Government have to ensure that local authorities deliver the quantity and quality of support services for community care for which the taxpayer will be paying? Have they laid down minimum standards for that care? What are the provisions for quality assessment, inspection and

1169
verification? As a farmer, I am very conscious of the nature of a ring fence. I should like to ask the Minister what groups fall within the ring fence. For example, is a group in which I have particular interest—18 year-olds coming out of children's homes and foster homes—included? That group has enormous pro-blems in making the transition from the over-protection of the children's home into independ-ence and the world of work—a transition for which they are very often ill-prepared and for which very often they have no support whatever.
I should like to read to your Lordships a quotation from a paper written by Shelter in the context of a seminar that it held this summer on the Foyer project. It states:
"What young people need is no different from what they have always needed: the social and economic skills to become responsible adults. Without a base from which to develop these skills we arc setting them up to fail. In the process we pay a high price, the symptoms of which are rising levels of incarceration and the symptoms of alienation visible in every town or city".
My experience in one London borough is that when a young person in care comes up to the age of 18, the social services department heaves a sigh of relief. It sends the name down to the housing department which groans and tries to find a grotty flat on some estate in which to put the young person. I could show your Lordships, not more than three miles away from the House, young people in such flats where they are lonely and subject to the worst possible influences from other inmates of the block and the estate. Are those vulnerable young people within the ring fence? If not, do the Government have any plans to provide them with the support that they need?
6.31 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend Lord Carter for making the debate possible. It has given us the opportunity to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Jay who, with her singular authority, informed us about HIV and AIDS. We have also heard interesting speeches from speakers with specialist knowledge.
I rise as a newcomer to the subject of community care, and so I shall try to be brief. However, I shall begin with some familiar ground—numbers and expenditure. If care in the community is a better way to provide care, it is obviously desirable that that is what we should do. Of course, money spent on a service is not the best indicator of its quality. There is disquiet that that option has been chosen more because it will cost the Treasury less than because it is better. We should like to be assured that enough care will be taken by local authorities and other bodies to ensure that the services available are not just cheap but that they are better. Some services may be cheaper because there are hidden unpaid costs or costs passed on to the citizens. Many noble Lords have mentioned the position of the carers who are either unpaid or underpaid. If we cannot pay carers, we must ensure that we provide the supplementary services needed to assist the carers properly.
Estimates provided by the AMA indicate that there is likely to be a deficit. We should like to know from
1170
the Minister what the Government's view is about the shortfall estimated by the AMA. Is it as much as just under £300 million for 1993– 94, rising to nearly £550 million two years hence? Is it more, or less?
Secondly, I should like to know whether the grants that have been announced will be protected from the new round of public expenditure cuts which we are about to have. Can we be sure that these numbers are solid, as it were, and will not suffer the axe? While I agree that we should go for infrastructural investment, I do not agree that we should spend less or freeze public expenditure. If current expenditure is to be cut, I ask that money spent on community care is not cut, especially as we are starting the experiment and it is vital that it is successful.
There is a subsidiary problem which many people have experienced. Whenever people are due to receive payments from central government or a public body there are long delays. When we have the new institutional arrangement, will delays multiply because residential care centres may have to collect money from many local authorities and not just one? That may increase the delays. That causes cash flow problems for the hard-up, smaller establishments. We should like to know what care will be taken to ensure prompt payment.
I shall now deal with some general considerations about which I am less well informed. I shall try to risk some opinions. Many noble Lords have mentioned the fact that 75 per cent. of the money has to be spent on private sector arrangements. As my noble friend Lord Rea asked, will that restrict local authorities' right to spend money as they see fit? With residential care, there is a mismatch between where the people are and where the beds are. How will that mismatch be dealt with under the new arrangements? Previously, people who needed residential care carried their entitlement with them. They now have to be assessed by the local authorities. While care in the community is a good idea, people may not live in the community to which they are supposed to belong. We must be sure that the mismatch between the population and the beds is dealt with properly. It would be a great pity if we have the money but spend it so badly that we do not make the modest achievements that we can make if the money is spent efficiently.
I wish to talk about the problem of the elderly people in the ethnic minorities, which has not so far been mentioned. I mention it, not because I know much about it, but because I have been made aware that a serious problem arises in respect of the Asian elderly. It is one that the families themselves have not thought through. The cultural tradition was that the elderly would be looked after by their children. It is difficult in this country with the current economic climate to fulfil that cultural tradition. Many of the people thought that they would return to whichever part of southern Asia they belong. It may turn out that they cannot return. There will be a substantial problem about which some people—housing associations, for example—are thinking. Specialist skills may be required to look after the Asian elderly. I hope that someone is thinking about them.

1171
I shall finish by mentioning a subject in which I have just begun to take an interest. It is that of drugs and alcohol. Many noble Lords have spoken with greater authority than myself. I have just become involved with a drugs intervention agency called City Roads. There is a great deal of disquiet about the late change in the ring-fencing of the money available for dealing with drug and alcohol abuse. The agencies normally operate on a shoe-string. The problem is becoming worse. Cocaine use is increasing in inner city areas. That leads to different demands and different specialist needs. The demand will increase sharply. It would be a great pity if we were to lose the dedicated people who work in this area because of the late change—it may be technical—in the funding of work relating to drugs and alcohol.
6.40 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to be thanked for introducing this debate today and for his care in explaining his worries on this issue. He also outlined his constructive ideas for the success of the concept of care in the community. The county council social services department in North Yorkshire where I live has told me that it is grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement on resources available for community care from next April. Like all other bodies, my local county council had hoped for more money but it feels that the money offered constitutes a substantial amount. The announcement should enable local authorities to make clear and proper arrangements for the assessment of the needs of vulnerable people. That principle after all lies at the heart of the Caring for People White Paper.
The Government are also to be congratulated on changing their mind with regard to ring-fencing. I am glad to say that that means local authorities will be unable to solve other problems by diverting resources from their intended destination to other areas. I hope that the Government will therefore see their policies fully implemented. As the main funding agency for people with mental health problems and learning difficulties, local authority social services departments will be able to act with more flexibility, but resources will remain limited for those groups of people. The Government recognise that spending on community care for those with mental illness is limited. How therefore will they ensure that the needs of that client group will be met after the phasing out of the specific grant?
Care in the community is provided by a wide range of public, private and voluntary agencies. The elderly population is growing and the demands on social services departments are increasing. Therefore the need to harness all the sources of care is urgent. Many people think of community care as non-institutional care. Many people think of community care in terms of getting patients out of hospital. That is particularly true in the case of mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients. We need to make certain that local authority social services departments, district health authorities, family health service authorities and
1172
community health councils ensure that the necessary support services are in place before patients are discharged into the community.
The Government have recently announced that formerly ring-fenced resources for people with drug and alcohol related problems who need residential rehabilitation will, after April, be dealt with through the general community care grant. Does not the Minister agree that that goes against the principle of ring-fencing which has been established in the main programme? Can the Minister say whether the Government would reconsider their decision and allow ring-fencing of those resources again?
Alcohol abuse can cause death on the roads, as also can drug abuse. When the Government are trying to cut down the number of fatal accidents, would it not be a saving of overall government expenditure? They are not necessarily killed, but many are disabled as a result of these accidents.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has had to leave, as she has already spoken of the need for adequate support for carers, as has the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. They are indeed a very important support and an essential prop if care in the community is to succeed. They will especially need access to support services where the carer may be looking after a disabled person or a very frail relative.
Many of these carers, so Age Concern (England) tells me, find there is no respite care available. I am thinking in particular of those carers who are caring 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Respite care is surely one of the needs that must be looked at to see how best to provide this service for carers who, like the rest of us, need a break or holiday, even more so if they are unable to get out much because of their need to be on call.
One other no less important point is what happens to the carer—perhaps a daughter who is no longer young herself—when the parent or a relative dies. Should there not be a review of all the benefits made available to carers? This would perhaps help towards making sure that they have an adequate amount to live on for the rest of their lives to compensate for what they have missed when they could have been working. North Yorkshire social services are well advanced with their planning, so they tell me, and I am sure that your Lordships would all like to join me in wishing them well.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on the way in which he opened this important debate. April 1st next year will be an important date. I am sure the Minister already recognises the fact that throughout the country there is a great deal of concern as regards how local authorities will undertake their new responsibilities in 1993.
I am glad that in the current serious financial crisis—I believe that the Government brought it on themselves—the Government have not decided again to postpone the implementation of their community care plans. I give the Government credit for that. The

1173
issue of funding is very much at the nub of this debate. I must say that I do not agree with the view held by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, as regards the Government funding for community care. The Secretary of State has announced a figure of £539 million. I believe that most local authorities and most voluntary organisations consider that figure to be a tight one.
It was lovely to hear my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke take part in this debate. I realise how much we shall benefit from his presence in this House. My noble friend said that the Government funding is £300 million short of what is required. I believe the funding is £200 million short of what is required. Whatever figure one thinks is appropriate, the Government funding is inadequate in terms of enabling local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities in this area. The public expenditure round is upon us. Following that the Government will put pressure upon local authorities to keep within what the Government consider to be proper limits on expenditure. I fear that local authorities will be pressed not to spend the money they know should be spent on community care.
The other side of the cash coin is that there is now a rapidly growing number of desperately poor people. Over the years the gap between the rich and the poor in our society has widened greatly. I remind the House that one in four children is now living in real poverty and that 12 million people are living on an income that is below half the average income. That is the nearest definition that exists of an official poverty line. That figure is more than twice as high as the figure that existed when this Government came into power. The Government's figures show that 25 per cent. of all children are living below that poverty line compared with only 10 per cent. in 1979.
Those figures are relevant to this debate because most of the people for whom local authorities will have the responsibility of providing or contracting out community care are people living on low incomes. On average the income of the people who will be in receipt of community care will be well below half the average income. Those who suffer from financial pressures will have a much greater need of high quality community care to be provided by local authorities, the private sector or by voluntary organisations.
A report was published yesterday by the National Children's Home. That report stated that families receiving income support are now expected to live on about £100 a week. In addition, the Secretary of State for Social Security is planning to cut invalidity benefits by means of taxation. He also plans to attack other vulnerable groups in society. I must protest at that action. We are going through a difficult period and community care must be funded. The needs of poor people must be met. The poor should not be expected to suffer; rather the Government should put forward some bold tax proposals that would penalise high earners. The Government still have their priorities wrong.
Another aspect of funding that has been raised on all sides of the House is the effect of the ending of ring-fencing as far as alcohol and drug residential services are concerned. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and
1174
other noble Lords, this is an issue of concern to many in your Lordships' House who are involved in this field. I hope that we will have some rethinking from the Government.
During the course of my noble friend's speech I reminded him (though he did not need any reminding) that it was this House that decided that there should be a general ring-fencing and it was to satisfy the wishes of the House that special provision was made for services for those affected by alcohol and drugs. We have to recognise that traditionally these have not been local authority services. Many of those services fear that they will be facing the end of their lives. There are only about 2,000 beds in the voluntary sector for those with drug and alcohol problems. Over 20,000 people were referred to those bed spaces in 1989—the figure has gone up—5,000 of whom became resident. National demand severely outstrips supply.
This has never been a service that local authorities have been expected to provide. Now that resources are severely constrained with no previous history of involvement there is a danger that local authorities will not support this marginal sector. There are not many votes in it, but it is absolutely crucial for the welfare of these people and their families. One fears that they will be pushed to the wall. Under the new arrangements, services will need to trace virtually every "home" local authority of those referred to them to see if the funding will be released by those local authorities. An enormous burden will be placed on voluntary organisations all over the country in only a few months' time. Reference was made to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was until recently chairman of Phoenix House which is perhaps the pioneer in providing residential treatment for drug addicts. There is a real danger that several of the houses which are run will not be able to be maintained unless the Government come up with a new answer. I plead with them to look urgently at it again.
I refer to an issue in which I know the Minister has a great interest. I refer to the question of restrictive covenants preventing community care homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will remember that we both took part in a debate on 20th May 1991. She followed me and we both followed the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who was moving a Private Member's Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spoke of the current law which allowed a freeholder of property to create discriminatory covenants based upon the status rather than the actions of an owner/occupier. What we are talking about is a situation where lots of people say that they are going to leave their houses in their wills but they are not to be used for certain purposes—for example, for people moving from hospital, be they mental hospitals or not. On that very important issue the noble Baroness said:
"The key to community care is satisfactory housing arrangements, and residents must be protected from unjustifiable prejudice".— [Official Report,20/5/91; col.79.]
As the noble Baroness will know—and this issue can be picked up all over the country—there is a case going on in Worthing at the present time in which the neighbours are arguing that the presence and

1175
behaviour of mentally disturbed and addicted proposed residents will be a potential nuisance and danger and that such a home will cause a considerable diminution in the value of the objectors' property.
This area of the law is one that the noble Baroness has said needs to be attended to. It is wrong for community care policy to be said to he coherent when private prejudice can ride roughshod over government policy. The Minister has shown her interest in this matter from the Back Benches. I very much hope that now she is rightfully and satisfactorily on the Front Benches, this will be an issue that she will take up. In the mental health field this is very important indeed. I very much hope that she will respond to the points that I have made.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue a point in the mental health field which was referred to by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss; that is to say, the interface between the National Health Service and social security. The particular area about which I should like to make some brief remarks concerns the closure of the big mental hospitals. I do so with zest in view of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has such extensive experience in the health field.
One recalls that Sir Roy Griffiths in relation to the health aspects of community care stated that the question of closure of the large mental hospitals was dominant. He said that each closure needed approval, monitoring and control at the highest level. Is this monitoring, control and approval being carried out at the highest level? In principle there must be suitable facilities elsewhere for those who are evicted. Early last year the Minister in another place said that the department did not hold information centrally about the number of beds and patients in those hospitals planned for closure by 1996. Mrs. Bottomley repeated a similar statement last July.
The Department of Health has made plenty of fine statements. It said in an official circular that community-based services are only an improvement when those who have been hospital in-patients get satisfactory health care. What are the facts? We know that 20,000 beds in the large mental hospitals have been shut since 1985. The number now is greater than that. We also know that there is very little margin in the remaining large hospitals to take the acute cases that have been accommodated in the closed hospitals because there is already 96 per cent. occupancy of acute beds.
A committee in another place dealing with health affairs said recently that many in the National Health Service and other agencies appeared to have interpreted the policy of care in the community as first and foremost a directive to abandon hospital treatment. We all know that in principle there is no such intention but that is the widespread interpretation of those who have to pick up the hits. Closures seem to proceed with a momentum of their own, local authorities and regional health authorities disregarding the Government's injunctions. Apart from a tiny
1176
minority of local authorities, we know there is not a sufficiently serious effort being made throughout the country to tackle these problems which are almost on top of us.
Official statements indicate or suggest that Ministers are abdicating their effective responsibility for the rundown of the remaining mental hospitals. A kind of ethnic cleansing is going on. Those who have been in mental hospitals for years and come to regard them as their homes are losing their homes without other suitable homes or facilities being provided. These can only be provided in acute cases either by the construction of new, smaller, modern hospitals (which is extremely expensive and we know the tightness of funds) or by designating areas for acute cases in general hospitals.
There the authorities have run into problems with nursing staff and others because of the difficulties of caring in hospital for the mentally ill. I speak from experience of these difficulties. My late wife and I have had to tackle such difficulties in our own home when our son was temporarily released from a large hospital. I know the difficulties and they are formidable. There is a challenge. The crux is the timing of closures in the years ahead. The timing should surely be determined now in strict parallel with the provision of alternative hospital facilities for acute cases and for that very high proportion of cases that can be accommodated in the community from time to time but for whom, since the acute symptoms are recurrent, there is no alternative to frequent returns to hospital.
I ask the Minister from her great experience, first, for a repeated assurance—we have had such assurances before—that no closures will in future be made without the provision of suitable alternative beds and facilities. Secondly, and as a necessary companion of the repetition of that assurance, will the Minister give a clear undertaking that the Department of Health itself will monitor, control and approve at the highest level (as Sir Roy Griffiths recommended) the future individual closures of the big mental hospitals?
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, when he was very old Mr. Gladstone wrote to Cardinal Manning, who was also very old:
"As the road declines so it narrows. I am glad that we too should draw near together as we both draw near our end".
As this debate draws to its end, I am happy to think that I draw more closely to the last speaker, to the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Carter, and to other speakers. I should in particular like to express my strongest approval of the last words used by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. One can only hope that I shall he equally close to the speakers who follow me—I think I shall be so far as concerns the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I am more timid in expressing the hope that I shall be able to draw close to the noble Baroness who is to reply. She is so professional and at the same time so

1177
warmhearted, if those are not contradictory terms. I hope that if I cannot draw closer to her, she can draw closer to me.
Community care is certainly the most ambiguous term ever peddled. Up to now it has been somewhat damaging, on the whole. I still believe in that concept, which is a fine one. At some point or other it will prove to have been very valuable. However, up to now it has proved so ambiguous that it has produced a kind of smokescreen or alibi for inanition.
Noble Lords will forgive me for mentioning that wrote a book which came out in the spring which dealt with mentally disordered offenders. It is possible that it has got as far as the Minister opposite. I interviewed a great many people including leading forensic psychiatrists. That was not so difficult because there are not very many forensic psychiatrists—at least not as many as there should be. I subsequently wrote:
"of all the ambiguities, the concept of care in the community is the most blatant, because it can mean so many different things. Professor Wing of the Maudsley would like care in the community to be linked to existing mental hospitals. Others think of it as involving out-patient care in these hospitals; others see it as being provided primarily by local authorities. Others again think of it in terms of a mental patient returning to the community and being cared for by his family and neighbours".
Be that as it may—I wrote the book in the spring—I cannot find a doctor or anyone else who is satisfied with the progress made.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and mention a hospital in my own area which is well known to the Minister. Hellingly hospital at one point had 1,400 mental patients (I think the right figure should have been about 1,000). Last year—I not know that the position has altered much—the number was down to 100 and the hospital was to be closed altogether. One may ask what happened to the other patients. Two hundred of them were in smaller units and the rest had to fend for themselves. That was the situation. That is the kind of situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. Those were mental patients generally. Therefore in my conclusion to the book I said that up to now community care has been a farce. Many well qualified people have reviewed and criticised the book and no one has challenged that statement. That is where we are today. We have that concept which is both uplifting and confusing and the result so far is a farce.
When I mentioned Hellingly hospital I was referring to mental patients generally. When one considers patients who are mentally disordered matters become more complicated. Yet the sequence of events can be seen. Through the failure of community care to eventuate, a lot of people are kept in the few remaining ordinary mental hospitals who need not be there if they were in proper community care. As a result, the places are taken up and many people in special hospitals who do not need the security of those special hospitals are kept there when they could be in ordinary mental hospitals. As the places are taken up in special hospitals, people in prison who are mentally disordered are kept in prison. Therefore the evil sequence continues. It all begins with the failure of community care at ground level.
1178
I had wished to say more but I shall have the opportunity to speak further on the subject of patients in special hospitals since I intend to open a debate on an Unstarred Question on 18th November on Ashworth hospital. I am pleased that the noble Baroness will reply to that debate.
There is great disquiet about the future in the special hospitals. There was already disquiet because of the lack of resources, but the new legislation setting up community care officially places more responsibility on the local authority. At present those qualified to advise me with regard to special hospitals express their great disquiet. They believe that they are likely to obtain a raw deal when the funds available from local authorities are sorted out. That is their conviction. Perhaps we may have time to discuss that further when we debate Ashworth hospital.
Much of my information on special hospitals comes from my old friend Peter Thompson. I have referred to him in this House more than once as having done more for mental health than any other layman outside the caring professions—and more than most of those within the caring professions in recent years. At one point in his life he collapsed and went to Broadmoor. He is the only man I know—other noble Lords may put me right—who, having been in one of those awful places, has come out and done something big for the inmates. He has achieved a great deal through the Matthew Trust. He is closely in touch with the special hospitals. He would be the first to refer to the disquiet of the special hospitals that nothing is being done to protect their patients. Some of the funds appear to be earmarked for community care by local authorities. I gave the Minister short notice, which may not yet have reached her, of my intention to ask what can be done about special protection under the new arrangement for those who have been in special hospitals.
Professor Anthony Clare pointed out recently that of the large sums spent on mental health care—although the sums are not too large—the vast proportion goes to those in hospitals or attending hospitals. I believe that over 80 per cent. goes to the hospitals. There are 60,000 people in the hospitals. A much smaller proportion goes to the nearly 6 million people who suffer from some mental ailment or illness outside the hospitals. According to the figures given to me today, £72 a day is spent on an inmate in a mental hospital and 29p a day on someone who suffers from mental trouble in the community.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—he was so moved by my speech that he decided he could not bear to hear more that we must not sacrifice the most vulnerable members of our community. If the Government in their wisdom are setting out on some new economic course—it could not be worse than the present course so we must welcome a change—whatever the success or failure on the economic front, it would be a disgrace if we try to save money at the expense of the mentally ill.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Winstanly: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the long overdue opportunity—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord

1179
Mancroft—of debating this important and urgent matter. For months we have been nibbling almost daily at the subject at Question Time. It was time that we had a full debate. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for enabling us to do so.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, on her most eloquent maiden speech. I was particularly glad that she focused her words and our attention on AIDS, a subject on which your Lordships' House has great expertise. If the noble Baroness looks at the record, she will find that we have led the other place in ventilating some of the anxieties; and there are many who have expert knowledge of the subject in your Lordships' House. I am sure that all will be delighted that we now have the assistance of the noble Baroness. Needless to say, we shall be delighted to hear her speak on other subjects.
Most of what needed to be stated has already been said. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to be congratulated on attracting so many speakers with deep knowledge and wide personal experience of those matters. Some, including myself, are now in personal need of community care, which perhaps adds some weight to our words.
I would have found the Minister's speech immensely reassuring had I believed it. I know that the noble Baroness believes every word of it. I know that her heart and her head are in the right place on the issue. However, having spent almost a quarter of a century in one or other of the two Houses of Parliament, I have heard many reassuring speeches from Ministers for Health of both parties who have later found, for reasons entirely beyond their control, that they could not fulfil their commitments. The problem has always been resources.
The noble Baroness, in her battle for resources—she will have a battle—will have the full support of noble Lords on these Benches, and I suspect from noble Lords on all Benches in this House. I genuinely consider that your Lordships' House believes in community care and wishes to see it in action and working. Regrettably community care is now more of a concept— a very desirable one—than a reality. As my noble friend Lady Seear pointed out in a splendid speech, most of the burden is borne at present by carers. That does not belittle the splendid contribution of a host of voluntary bodies, the social services and other professionals. As has already been hinted in the debate, some resources could come from the report of Sir Bernard Tomlinson. As a true Liberal, I always welcome change although I tend to become suspicious when it arrives. When we had the report of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on London hospitals and medical schools, my first reaction was,"No flowers by request". However, on this occasion some of the proposals of Sir Bernard Tomlinson will have to be implemented. There will have to be changes in the hospital provisions in London. We on these Benches support those changes provided, and only provided, that the resources saved—which is the objective—will be poured into community and domiciliary care, as has been promised.
1180
On the size of the problem, I return to a question that I have often asked before. I suspect that I may have put it to this Minister, and to many others. It is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, referred recently. Some mentally ill patients will always require long term hospital care. How many long stay hospital beds will be retained? Where will they be? That is important because many of the patients discharged will have to be readmitted. At present, the catchment areas of the big mental hospitals are enormous. People come from all over Britain. When the patients are discharged, into which community will they be discharged? It may be a local community with which they have had no contact. That problem has to be answered. There must be some long stay permanent beds for mentally ill people. How many will they be and where will they be?
Part of the burden of patients who may need to be readmitted and who are later discharged but have difficulties in becoming re-established in the community will fall on general practitioners. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, raised that point, and he was absolutely right. Are general practitioners now able to shoulder that burden? During my time there have been changes in general practitioners' domiciliary care. In my practising days, home visits took the bulk of one's working time; but now they are becoming a thing of the past. Domiciliary now means the GP's domicile and not the patients' domicile, and everyone is expected to go to the surgery. Some patients, particularly the mentally ill, will be expected to attend the doctor's surgery. They will just not do so; they will get lost and finish up as do many either in a Salvation Army hostel or in prison. That was not the object of the exercise and somehow it must be avoided.
Many noble Lords have referred to the multiplicity of sources from which help in community care forms of one kind or another will come. I heard what the Minister said about the inspectorates which will carefully monitor what is happening. However, my experience has led me to believe that sometimes when many different people are responsible no one person accepts responsibility. Therefore, there will be a need in every district for a single named and well-known individual to act as a community care co-ordinator. That will not be a waste but a saving of resources. It will be necessary that in every district there is someone who can direct the traffic and ensure that all the people are pointed in the right direction. That will be necessary despite the assurances which the Minister has given about other forms of monitoring.
The debate has been interesting, and I too hope that community care becomes the kind of reality for which we have hoped. It could do so but we shall have some hard battles before the war is finally won. I tell the Minister yet again that in her many battles she will have the fullest support certainly of my noble friends and I believe of all noble Lords in this House.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the debate has been full of wisdom, compassion and experience. We have heard moving speeches especially about people with learning disabilities, those involved in

1181
substance abuse and, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Fisher, of the blind handicapped. I am sure your Lordships will join me in singling out the contribution of my noble friend Lady Jay. Hers was a truly memorable, elegant and informed speech on the problems of those facing AIDS.
The aims of community care are impeccable; that is, to empower clients and their carers to obtain the service they want and need at the time of their choice and in the style of their choice, and not to be pressed into institutional care simply because that is where resources lie. The Secretary of State has warned the Social Services Committee that community care is not a cheap option. Assessment, she said, will:
"expose areas of unmet need".
As the BMA stated in Priorities for Community Care:
"The key to the success of community care reforms is adequate money … underfunding is the source of the greatest concern to all agencies concerned with the organisation and provision of care".
So your Lordships will forgive me, I hope, if I talk about cash. As my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Desai have told us, without adequate funding care in the community will be well meaning, empty and ineffectual—and that is at best. At worst it will exploit yet further the carers, the middle-aged women, on whom it rests.
I wish to talk first about cash for clients. The disabled and the elderly rightly remind us that they do not always and necessarily need caring for. It is their lack of money as well as their disability that generates their dependency. They wish to be seen less as victims and more as citizens bearing rights and entitlements to benefits and to basic services which will allow them full and independent lives. In that respect I wish to make two points. First, as many noble Lords have said tonight, disability benefits are pitifully inadequate—two-thirds of the national average income—with which to meet the high outgoings of disability for heating, clothing, food and transport. Together they create a dependency on services which could often be met quite straightforwardly by more cash. In that context we need to reform the social fund. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), pointed out, many disabled and elderly people are capable of handling their own cash and care budgets. That has been shown by the Independent Living Fund. Such people tailor their own care packages and, like the adults they and we are, they take responsibility for their own decisions, including making mistakes. I join with other noble Lords in pressing the Minister to safeguard the future of the Independent Living Fund. Can we also save professional costs and empower clients by offering vouchers, perhaps, so that after assessment they become, to use the jargon, their own budget holders? In that way clients will regain control over their own lives.
Secondly, I wish to deal with cash for carers. As my noble friend Lord Murray has eloquently and fully reminded us, most caring takes place within the community. Many of your Lordships have noted that the need for carers is increasing at just the time when the availability and willingness of women to care is reducing. During the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 85 will increase by 50 per cent.
1182
and it will double in the next 40 years. One in four of them will have Alzheimer's disease. Yet carers receive little money and little support Their invalidity care allowance at £32.50 which is meant to be a full-time benefit for those offering over 35 hours a week of care, would buy only five hours of commercial care per week. Furthermore, that allowance is available to only 170,000 of the 1 million or so carers who are effectively full time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has reminded us. If the carers are over the age of 65 they do not receive it. If one carer offers 25 hours of care to each of two people she will not receive it. The allowance is mean, grudging, inadequate and inappropriate.
Most carers borrow, eat into their own earnings, bite into their own savings. Their own health suffers accordingly. As the Royal College of Nursing has stated:
"the quality of life for the carer can be more impaired than the person for whom they are caring".
As a witness to the Social Services Committee (5th Report) added:
"caring, of itself, isolates you … it locks you into this relationship. It does not enable you, yourself, to build up the kind of relationship, which in turn will give rise to you being cared for".
Carers face an old age of poverty, poor health and isolation. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Turner, said, we need to move to a carers' benefit at least equal to state pension, in addition to providing decent day, domiciliary and respite services.
Thirdly, I turn to cash for local authorities. It is worth reminding ourselves that care in the community is coming after three years of the poll tax, of cuts and of capping. To my certain knowledge most social service departments throughout the country have closed homes, sacked care staff, reduced grants to voluntary organisations, trimmed training and have halved sheltered housing schemes. There has been serious underfunding of social services for many years. Now, to fund care in the community, local authorities are to receive a special transitional grant made up of two elements: first, the transfer of DSS money which would otherwise have paid for residential care (some £399 million) and, secondly, an additional £140 million for other local authority costs. That is a total of £539 million during the first year of funding.
As many people, including my noble friends Lord Ennals and Lord Desai have reminded us, that sum is far too low. The DSS money transferred assumes a new intake of 20,000 clients per year but everybody, except the DSS, believes that there will be some 35,000 to 40,000 new clients per year. That will mean a shortfall of nearly £100 million almost immediately.
As regards the money for the local authorities, a grant of £140 million, the topping up of benefits to meet private charges will cost £145 million alone, to say nothing of funding the 155,000 new assessments, to say nothing of training and managing staff and to say nothing of developing home and domiciliary care. Therefore, where the Government are providing nearly £539 million, local authorities almost certainly need £828 million, a shortfall borne not by the local

1183
authorities but by the most frail members of our society. Incidentally, that is a shortfall in transitional grant which will grow larger each year.
Therefore, local authorities are being seriously and substantially underfunded by perhaps 40 per cent. That problem is compounded, as my noble friend Lord Rea said, by the fact that they are having to spend 75 per cent. of their entire grant in the private sector.
That has several perverse effects, some of which have already been mentioned this evening. Quality residential care costs money. If local authorities seek to push down the price by block purchase, as the Government have suggested, to avoid topping up benefit shortfall—whatever that may do to choice—then the private home will inevitably make its savings from shared rooms, from using YTS trainees as night staff, from using unqualified aides to dispense drugs, cheaper food, lower standards of cleanliness and perhaps the ultimate risk of neglect or abuse. And yet, if local authorities do not push down those prices they will have to pay to top up benefits from grants which nowhere match them.
The requirement to spend 75 per cent. in the private sector is perverse in another way because by privileging the private sector in that way it reinforces the use of residential care, for the private sector does not offer day or domiciliary support. Therefore, on the one hand there are residents with low dependency going unnecessarily, reluctantly, into expensive private residential care, who could and would prefer to be maintained at home, while at the same time clients with high dependency—for example, dementia—are refused admission to private homes because they cannot afford to care for them. Those people are wandering the streets.
It is worse than that. The DSS money for residential care for most metropolitan and London authorities will be less than 75 per cent. of the total grant. That means that the £140 million earmarked for local authority services—home care, assessments and so on—will be eaten away by payments to the private sector for costly and inappropriate residential care in order to comply with that 75 per cent. rule. Money will be thrown at residential care not because it is appropriate but because it is private. Will the Minister please agree that the 75 per cent. rule should apply only to DSS transferred monies and not to the entire grant?
For local authorities there is an underfunded grant; there is an underfunded grant perversely hijacked into private residential care. And there is a third problem; namely, the distribution of the grant itself. Many elderly folk from the inner cities are in private homes outside the boroughs; for example,22 per cent. of those over 85 from Hammersmith and 20 per cent. from Manchester. The authority from which those elderly people come must pay the bills but the authority in which the private residential homes happen to be situated will enjoy the benefit of the grant. That is deeply unfair and perverse. Will the Minister please correct the formula? As the Permanent Secretary was alleged to have said to his
1184
staff, "If you are not now confused by community care funding, that is because you are not thinking clearly enough".
Finally, community care is meant to be a seamless service interleaving hospital and social care. As hospitals prepare for trust status they seek to increase their efficiency and profitability by speeding throughput; in other words, by exporting their patients—and 43 per cent. of acute beds are occupied by the elderly—to social service care.
East Anglia's regional health authorities simulated the workings of the internal market in health care in an exercise called "Rubber Windmill". After only a couple of years of simulation that health market crashed, triggered by a cut in social service budgets, cuts which are occurring every day of the year. Hospitals fear that they will not be able to discharge costly patients: social services fear that their budget will be pre-empted by costly hospital discharges. Unbelievably, at just this point in time when we need a seamless service, the Government have seen fit to remove elected local authority members from district health authorities, fragmenting the planning of care at just the time when co-operation, co-ordination and joint planning are surely essential.
If, as Mrs. Bottomley rightly anticipates, the policies of care in the community will expose areas of unmet need—those are her words—then those needs can only be met by cash for clients, for their carers, for voluntary organisations and for local government. Will adequate funding be forthcoming? It seems unlikely and yet none of us should tolerate for the elderly and disabled of our community what we would not tolerate for our own elderly parents or handicapped children.
Properly funded care in the community could transform the lives of hundreds and thousands of our fellow citizens, some of the most frail and vulnerable in our society. In that case, we would welcome it with all our hearts—I know the Minister would too. Without adequate funding, we shall see care in institutions replaced not by care in the community but by little or no care at all. We have a choice. What choice will we make? What will the Government do?
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond to this debate.
I would like to thank noble Lords who have taken part. There have been many interesting, informed and detailed debates on the proposals contained in our White Paper Caring for People. Tonight was no exception. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his initiative in stimulating this debate and in attracting so many knowledgeable speakers. I too would like to pay my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, whose thoughtful and perceptive contribution concerning HIV and AIDS was, we know, based on a great depth of expertise. It was of no surprise to those of us who have worked with her to hear her speak so eloquently. Of course, we welcomed her to this House just a week ago. I shall take up her point with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ensure that AIDS and HIV

1185
services are included in the review of specialist services in London. I hear too what the noble Baroness has to say on grants to voluntary organisations.
Community care is a modern cliché for a reality that has been going for all time. It is a philosophy which has been preached and practised for many decades but the preaching has often been better than the practice. It began with Victorian compassion but more recently a realisation that old workhouses were not suitable places to care for vulnerable people.
Community care is now generally understood to encompass care and support for all those people who need it due to frailty, disability or illness. It also means giving individuals more say and choice over their care and ensuring that services are tailored to meet their needs.
The great difference between institutional care and community care, and more particularly care in one's own home, is privacy. When authorities are invited in the door must be knocked, the occupier must be able to say "Welcome","Wait","Come back later" or "I just don't need you today". In institutions people requiring help arc on the staff's territory and the tables are turned; however kindly the staff may be, there is that great difference.
The concept of the state looking after people from the cradle to the grave with barely a thought for individuality is outmoded. It was always patronising and intrusive and flew in the face of human nature. In more recent years there grew up a notion that people fulfilled themselves by casting off any problems that might impede their progress. Old, handicapped, ill or dying relatives and friends could be jettisoned in the pursuit of personal ambition. But this was to forget human nature. People are warm, generous and kind. They instinctively want to look after relatives and friends who are in need, but the time may come when they cannot continue alone. It is then that there is a sense of personal failure, and the Government with their agencies must assist, adopting a light touch, careful not to intrude on these very special relationships.
As with all care, the tortuous path to be trodden is between providing for the needs and wishes of the person and prescribing for the desires of relatives, friends and carers. That immensely difficult task requires agencies to work closely together, but the ultimate responsibility is for local government social services departments.
We are all foolish enough from time to time to try to advise people how to conduct their lives—and we are nearly always wrong. Social workers are well trained, but to arrange people's lives is not an exact science and they may well make mistakes; but we will minimise mistakes by having the individual, their carers and other professionals who can enhance the quality of the decision being made.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of carers and some of the speeches I found extremely moving—the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear, Lady Turner of Camden and Lady Hollis, the noble Lords; Lord Carter, Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Holderness.
1186
The Government recognise the important role played by informal carers in the community. That is why they feature strongly in the new Act. We have demonstrated our commitment by the enhancements we have made in benefit provision and in our support for carers' organisations. Apart from social security benefits, which have risen from £4 million in 1978–79 to £213 million this year—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—we have spent over £2 million in supporting national carers' organisations and carers' initiatives since 1990.
I hear the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, not to shoot ourselves in the foot and the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I shall read Hansard with great interest on that subject.
Reluctantly I shall have to pass over the issues of the inflexible working of the present system and the whole question of choice. I am anxious to answer the points made by your Lordships. There are two other aspects I want to highlight this evening. The first is work for the voluntary sector. The Government have never believed that local authorities are by any means the only appropriate body to provide the services that people want. Many innovations and advances have come from the private and voluntary sector. The Government believe that the best should thrive where people are free to choose. I join with noble Lords in my appreciation for the voluntary sector, which works so effectively in so many fields.
At the moment a high proportion of home care services are run by local authorities and we particularly want to see the private and independent sector develop a new range of services in home care. I cannot share the despairing views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Some doom scenarios were actually flaunted 10 years ago when we had a negligible private sector. But we have seen that sector grow in number. We have seen the quality improve. We have seen the scope expand. We know that the sector provides choice for people in many parts of the country and are confident that with the incentive we shall be giving, domiciliary services will grow in a similar way.
I turn now to funding. I listened attentively to the many fears expressed by your Lordships on the question of funding. But I am absolutely sure that whatever provision is made by any government, there will always be claims that it is inadequate. For those of us with experience of the social services, voluntary organisations and the health service, we know that the work attracts people of great compassion and humanity and we are filled with admiration for the work that they do. The more they do, the more they find needs doing. It is difficult to legislate the limits where the need begins and ends. Each person sees the threshold in a different place.
Without a doubt we have seen the budget burgeoning. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, felt that the £539 million secured by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was inadequate. But Peter Smallridge, the president of the

1187
Association of the Directors of Social Services, praised my right honourable friend for doing so well. He said,
"in the context of the present economic climate Mrs. Bottomley has done well to get this money and to give us specific funds for the second and third year of implementation".
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, proffered me a proposition which sadly on this occasion I shall decline. Perhaps I should have the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as a chaperone.
I should like to pay tribute to the great opus the noble Earl published in the spring. It is a truly remarkable book and should be on the shelves of all those interested in this subject. I look forward to the future debate on special hospitals which he is initiating in November.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a suggestion that ring-fenced money might disappear in the second and future years. Local authorities will buy care for people in the first year of the policy. They will need to continue to make payments for the same people in the second year of the policy, thus the first year's money will effectively remain earmarked for community care in future years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised the question of the so-called dispute with local authorities and the alleged shortfall. We have no evidence that there will be a shortfall. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, highlighted the difference in figures from local authorities even within this debate. The social security transfer represents a calculation of what the Department of Social Security would otherwise have spent supporting people in residential care and nursing homes if the current arrangements had remained. We do not know how many people will be needing care in the forthcoming year. The formula for making the calculation was discussed in some detail with the local authority associations and has been published. But we shall be publishing fuller details of the actual calculations when other details of the public expenditure survey have been announced.
I turn now to the question of long-term ring-fencing which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Desai and Lord Ennals, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. We believe that local authorities should have discretion to use their resources to meet the needs of local people to whom they are accountable. We do not therefore favour long-term ring-fencing. We are proposing a special transitional grant specifically to recognise the special circumstances that apply in the initial years of an authority's new responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked what groups fitted within the ring-fence. The ring-fence money must be spent on adult social services. That will cover all the groups mentioned by the noble Lord and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I shall write to the noble Lord, if I may, on his other detailed questions.
The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Ennals, my noble friend Lord Mancroft, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and others were concerned about the ring-fencing of the alcohol and drug misuse services. As the noble
1188
Viscount pointed out, the proposal to ring-fence the alcohol and drug services element of the social security transfer was taken at a time when no transitional ring-fencing was proposed for the totality of community care.
I know that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has grave concerns for the private and voluntary sector, and that is why we are introducing the requirement that 75 per cent. of the transitional money should be spent in the private and voluntary sector. We believe that local authorities have the same responsibilities for this client group as for any other. It is my belief that they will not be dilatory in their duty. However, we are issuing guidance to local authorities as a belt and braces measure. I have taken the opportunity to draw on the expertise in your Lordships' House to advise Ministers in that task.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has long been a champion of direct payment. I have no wish to be blinkered or intransigent, which I believe were her words. I am therefore going to raise the matter with my right honourable friend. But there are of course issues of financial control here.
Since its inception in 1988, spending through the Independent Living Fund has risen from some £5 million to a figure of £97 million this year. That illustrates the level of growth. The Government have made clear their commitment to maintaining a fund which supports the most severely disabled. Ministers are currently considering how this commitment will be implemented and will make an announcement in due course. Current beneficiaries will continue to receive payments from a successor body after April 1993. Higher payments may be made to individuals whose care costs rise, but it would not be reasonable to expect that these payments should meet all the costs of care in every case. On the detail of DLA, I shall certainly talk to my noble friend Lord Henley as the noble Baroness suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether the 75 per cent. proposal will mean local authority homes having to close. Local authorities already fund residents in their own homes. These will be unaffected by the changes next April. The additional funding is to meet authorities' new and not existing responsibilities. The noble Lord also asked if we have set a limit on the amount of new money which can be spent for those under 65 or in any client group. The present proposal is that there is no limit. It is the freedom of local authorities to decide
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Is it not the case that local authority homes gain from the housing benefit that the residents of those homes get from the Department of Social Security? Is not that part of the money which the department is passing over? I believe it was £399 million but now I understand it is £400 million plus which the Government, in their munificence, are passing over to the local authorities.
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords. The present proposals are that from 1st April it is only new people coming into the service who require special care in

1189
private nursing homes and residential homes. So that does not actually affect existing people in local authority homes. They are secure.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sorry to continue with this matter. Those people who are living there now will still need to be supported after 1st April next year. Who is going to pay for them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the social security department will do as it does now. We are talking about a transitional period of three years. The responsibility for the inspection of residential care homes, which was another point raised by the noble Lord, is one that local authorities have had for many years. This Government though have extended that responsibility since April 1991 when the new arm's-length inspection units were set up. Local authority-run care homes have been subjected to inspection in the same way. Having visited some of these inspection teams, I am very impressed with the independence that they are exercising.
The recruitment and training of community nurses is a matter for individual health authorities. We have drawn the attention of authorities to the implications of the Act. It is very pleasing to see the number of nurses, which has grown from 17,000 to 19,000 between 1981 and 1990. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was concerned also about the inspection of residential care homes, but I hope that I have covered that point to her satisfaction. She also raised the question of the relationship between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. I am pleased to tell her that there is a very close collaboration between my department and the Department of Social Security at all levels. She may have been referring to the social services and already I have addressed that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, as he told us, has had to leave early tonight. I should like to say how good it was to see him here. I did not actually witness any deleterious effects from his recent operations. I shall write to the noble Lord on the very specific points that he raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, whom I know as a doughty fighter for some of the most vulnerable people in society, raised several questions which I should like to take up personally with her. But with regard to the Housing Corporation, she may be unaware that it makes available substantial sums for special needs housing provided by housing associations. Revenue support has risen from £38.5 million in 1990– 91 to £95 million this year. It supports a total of 40,000 units.
My noble friend Lord Holderness so rightly focused our minds on the challenges of those leaving hospitals and particularly the whole issue of loneliness. Recent research though, which is described as the Taps Report, has shown that the social networks of those who have left hospitals—the study considered 498 long-stay patients—remain stable in size, but there was a great reduction in contacts with hospital staffs and patients. But there was an increase in the number of friends and the former hospital patients got to know ordinary members of the public often through pubs, social groups and meeting
1190
neighbours. Many of these people became friends. I believe that there is a lesson here for those local authorities to ensure, when they do suggest to long-stay patients that they should live in the community, that enough preparation is done. I am convinced that when that preparation is thorough then it is a very successful thing to be doing.
The noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Thurlow, shared their conviction that people leaving hospitals are abandoned. But all the evidence that we have is that homeless mentally ill people are not those who have been recently discharged from long-stay hospitals, but are people who have had little or no contact with psychiatric services. As regards general homelessness, this year we are committing £20 million to the homeless mentally ill initiative which is designed to offer accommodation and access to appropriate care to people with a mental illness who are sleeping rough in central London where the problem is most acute. We have, of course, also set up a task force which featured in yesterday's Starred Questions and which I hope will go a long way towards meeting the requirement suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for tackling the problems that he mentioned. I respect greatly his personal experience. If again he should feel that a meeting will be useful I shall be more than willing to offer one.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, spoke about nursing. I think it is so right not to forget our proud nursing history. This country has had a major impact on nursing services around the world, not least through the distinguished career of the noble Baroness. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are right to highlight the crucial role of district nursing and the need to ensure that this great resource is integral in community care planning. She may also be aware that we have a task force group now looking at many of the issues which she raised and also at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. That task force is due to report before Christmas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, quite rightly stressed the links between acute and community services. But for the purposes of today I plead the fifth amendment and I am going to reserve my views on London for another debate which I suspect is not too far away. I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, but perhaps I could endorse her point on preventing accidents which is a key area in the Health of the Nation White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked how many long-stay beds will remain and where will they be. It is impossible for me to answer that. It will depend on local circumstances and local decisions. But one thing I can assure the noble Lord is that they will be smaller, appropriate and knitted into the local community. There are plenty of examples of that happening already in the country. I share the noble Lord's aspirations for community care and I very much welcome his support. I hope that I have replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
To conclude, I must repeat the Government's firm commitment to community care. Their record and

1191
their proposals demonstrate that amply. I do not underestimate that care in the community presents very great challenges to very many people. It calls for flexible and imaginative thinking. It calls for a move away from familiar but perhaps unresponsive forms of service delivery. It calls for new ways of working together. The Government recognise that. By announcing now our proposals for funding over the next three years we are helping authorities to plan in the longer term. We are closely monitoring the progress of social services and health authorities in preparing for new arrangements. We have set up a multi-disciplinary support force of experts in the field to assist authorities to develop and share good practice.
The implementation of our policies will set the groundwork for the effective development of care in the community in a coherent responsive way. This will not happen overnight. It is a very long-term strategy, but not for nothing was our White Paper subtitled,"Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond". Over time, the benefits to people who need support, and those who care for them will, I believe, become increasingly evident.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she give a word of comfort to the 2,000 mainly voluntarily-run units around the country which provide rehabilitation services for those who suffer from drug and alcohol misuse? I gather that they will have to apply to multiple local authorities for their money which I think that they will find impossible. The Minister has not yet given us any answer on that point, so has she any comments to make on it now?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have tried to go as far as I could tonight. I have told your Lordships that we shall be sending out guidelines to local authorities to make them aware of some of the issues. I believe that they are aware, but I have involved some Members of your Lordships' House who have an interest in this subject and who have spoken tonight. I shall no doubt be addressing that particular subject in the months to come.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this excellent debate. We have heard an excellent maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and there have been notable contributions, not least in the wind-up speech from my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham.
I venture to suggest that no institution anywhere can discuss community care with greater expertise and authority than your Lordships' House, and today's debate has certainly borne that out. I should like to take up many points, especially those arising from the Minister's two speeches. I believe that I have some 30 minutes in which to reply to the debate, but your Lordships may relax because I am well aware of the conventions at this time in the evening. Therefore, I simply repeat my thanks to all those who have participated and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Damages (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.2 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly something of the background and purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission contained in its report The Effect of Death on Damages which was published earlier this year. The Bill makes amendments to the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 to deal with a pressing concern about the unintended effect of that legislation on claims which arise in particular from terminal industrial diseases and asbestos-induced disease.
The report published by the Scottish Law Commission followed a reference from the Secretary of State for Scotland who asked the commission:
"To consider the case for amending the law on damages in Scotland having regard to the possibility that there may be an incentive inherent in the present law for a defender to postpone making a settlement or reaching proof until after the death of the pursuer in order to minimise the amount of compensation paid".
As I have indicated, the reference to the commission reflected a growing concern in legal circles and in the public mind about the effects of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 on claims arising from terminal industrial diseases.
There are currently two main heads of damages under which an injured person has a right to claim. First, he is entitled to claim compensation for what is known as patrimonial loss, which is essentially an actual money loss and comprises such items as loss of past or future earnings and the outlay of medical expenses. The second main head of damages is known as solatium. This is compensation for pain and suffering, loss of faculties and amenities or loss of expectation of life.
Under the present law in Scotland, if the injured person dies before his or her claim is resolved, the right to claim damages by way of compensation for patrimonial loss suffered before death is transmitted to the executor. However—and this is the main point of the Bill—no claim can be made by the executor for patrimonial loss attributable to any period after the injured person's death, and the right to claim damages by way of solatium is completely extinguished on the death of the injured person.
Where the injured person dies as a result of injury, certain relatives may claim compensation for the loss they suffered through the death. Again, there are two heads of damages. The first is damages for certain forms of patrimonial loss—that is, money loss—comprising compensation for loss of support suffered since the death or likely to be suffered as a result of the death of the victim; payment in respect of reasonable funeral expenses; and payment of a reasonable sum in

1193
respect of the loss of personal services. The second head of damages available to the relatives covers non-patrimonial loss arising from deprivation of the deceased's society. Such an award is known as a "loss of society award" and, as the law presently stands, may be claimed by the deceased's immediate family. Under this head, compensation is given for grief caused by the death and for distress in contemplating the suffering of the deceased before death.
It will be appreciated from this brief summary that this is a complex area of the law. The principal criticism of the present law—and that which this Bill seeks to remedy—is that the injured persons's claim for solatium—that is, for pain and suffering and so on—is extinguished by death and cannot be taken up by an executor. The immediate family, who would normally inherit the injured person's estate, are therefore deprived of any benefit that they might otherwise have had from the solatium claim to which the deceased would have been entitled in a settled case during his or her lifetime.
Of course, as I have indicated, the deceased's claim for patrimonial loss to the date of death is not lost and, where death is attributable to the injury, new claims, including a loss of society claim, emerge which the deceased's relatives can pursue in their own right. Despite the claims available to the relatives which I have outlined, the injured person's family is at present and in practice likely to be worse off as a result of his or her untimely death. The main reason for this discrepancy is that, contrary to the expectations when the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 was enacted, loss of society awards to relatives tend to be less generous than awards of solatium to the surviving victims for serious injury.
Many believe that the present law encourages prolonged negotiations or legal proceedings where the defender has reason to anticipate the imminent death of the claimant. In preparing its report the Scottish Law Commission did not find any actual evidence that this had happened, but nevertheless concluded that the existing law could produce unjust and inequitable results for the relatives.
The principal change which the Bill, if enacted, would make to the present law of damages in Scotland is set out in Clause 3. This would enable the deceased's right to solatium to transmit to his executor for the benefit of the deceased's estate. Such a claim would be competent over and above any claim that relatives would be able to bring in their own right. By enabling the claim for solatium to transmit to the deceased's executor, the Bill would remove what has been perceived to be an injustice in the present law in Scotland and, indeed, as I understand it, it will bring the law into line with that in England which has existed for some time. It would also relieve claimants from the anxiety that they presently face from the harrowing knowledge that, if their claims are not settled before they die, their dependants will be financially worse off.
If I may illustrate this by way of an example, it might help to put into perspective what the Bill seeks to achieve. A man has worked for a large number of years in a working environment where asbestos has
1194
been widely used as an insulating material. He later becomes ill, finding difficulty with breathing and becoming tired after minimal exertion. After examination he is diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma and that the likely cause of this is the inhalation of asbestos dust. The injured person then raises an action against his employers or former employers for damages. However, it is the tragic nature of such an illness that once the illness has been diagnosed death is invariably inevitable, sometimes within a predictably short period.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the gathering of evidence over a large number of years and the preparation of a case by both the pursuer and the defender—that is, the victim and his employer or employers—can take some time to complete. Let us take the case where the injured person dies before a settlement for damages is made or agreed. The deceased's executor can recover damages for financial loss incurred prior to the death of the injured person and the family may claim compensation for the loss of society they have suffered through the death and for the loss of future financial support. However, the injured person's right—by then the deceased's—when alive to claim damages for his pain and suffering is terminated on his death and that substantial element of compensation dies with the victim. It follows that the overall result is that the family may receive considerably less than would have been paid if the injured person had survived to obtain decree or settlement of his own claim. Such a situation may clearly create an incentive for anyone defending a claim for damages to delay or prolong litigation where the claimant is expected to die.
Clause 3 of the Bill, by enabling the claim for solatium to transmit to the injured person's executor, removes that incentive and should therefore lead in such cases to the estates of the families of deceased persons receiving larger awards for damages than they would at present.
The Bill retains, but seeks to clarify, the non-patrimonial award, presently known as a loss of society award in Section 1(4) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976, for relatives of a deceased person. The loss of society award remains available to relatives over and above the transmission to the executor of a right to claim solatium which the deceased would have received had he survived. The loss of society award was conceived as being different from the traditional concept of solatium—for pain and suffering—for dependants. When the concept was introduced under the Damages (Scotland) Act in 1976, itself based on a Scottish Law Commission report, it was envisaged that the award would be made for reasons other than assuaging the grief and sorrow of the claimant and that its basis would be much wider. The underlying assumption was that the wider basis would encourage the courts to make more generous awards. In practice, this has not happened.
When a person dies through injury his immediate family may be said to sustain non-patrimonial injury in three ways. First, where to their knowledge the injured person has undergone suffering before death, they experience distress and anxiety in contemplating

1195
that suffering. Secondly, they suffer grief and sorrow at the death. Thirdly, they are deprived of the person's society and guidance in the future. Compensation is, however, provided in the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 only for the deprivation of the deceased's society. Notwithstanding the terms of the 1976 Act, all three sources of injury to feelings which I have outlined have probably in practice been taken into account by the court in most cases when awards are made for loss of society. Clause 1 of the Bill, by itemising these three elements, therefore seeks to provide a secure legislative foundation for the assessment of awards. In assessing an award the court will not be required to ascribe specifically any part of the award to any of the three elements—the stress and anxiety, grief and sorrow, and loss of non-patrimonial benefit—set out in the clause. But if the Bill passes, the award can be scrutinised in the light of the legislative foundation set out in the Bill.
A consequence of enacting Clause 1 is that it will no longer be appropriate to refer to a "loss of society award". The Bill accordingly provides for the removal of the reference to "loss of society" in the 1976 Act. More significantly, it is hoped that the very fact of reformulating the award may act as an incentive to the courts to make more generous awards than at present apply.
Clause 2 of the Bill inserts a new section into the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 and provides that the non-patrimonial award available to relatives of the deceased injured person shall be transmitted to the executor of the relative on his or her death. Clause 2 also re-enacts the present law with regard to the transmissibility of the relative's right to damages for loss of support and funeral expenses under Section 1(3) of the 1976 Act.
Under the present law loss of expectation of life attracts a small conventional award of solatium. Awareness of that loss by the injured person is not currently a prerequisite for entitlement to the award. This provision creates difficulties if claims for solatium are to be allowed to survive, as the Bill provides for. The executor to whom the right transmits would have the task of having to prove the extent of the deceased's suffering in disputed cases. This may be a difficult task on occasions in the absence of evidence from the deceased; and the shorter the period of survival after injury the more difficult it is likely to be. Clause 5 of the Bill therefore provides that no damages by way of solatium for loss of expectation of life shall be recoverable except where the expectation of life has been reduced and the injured person was or is likely to become aware of that reduction. Under the provisions proposed in Clause 5, the courts would, in assessing solatium, be required to have regard to the extent to which the injured person has suffered or is likely to suffer as a consequence of that awareness. Such loss would be compensated as an aspect of pain and suffering and claims for solatium in that regard will survive accordingly.
Those are the principal provisions of the Bill. Its other provisions are in the main of a technical nature which your Lordships may consider could most
1196
appropriately be considered at a later stage if your Lordships agree that the Bill receive a Second Reading today.
I should like to raise one final important matter. The provisions in the Bill relating to the transmissibility to the deceased's executor of rights to solatium have effect only where death occurs after the date of commencement of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, some of those who have contracted asbestos-related diseases will have only a very short time to live. Indeed there may be some who will not live to see the enactment of this Bill which I have introduced with the express purpose of providing some benefit to them and their family. To ensure that as many families as possible will benefit from the provisions of the Act, I propose to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage which, if accepted by your Lordships, will enable the new rights of transmissibility to executors to apply in cases where the death of the injured person occurred on or after the date of the introduction of the Bill—namely,16th July 1992—provided that these rights cannot be exercised if the claim is time barred, or has been settled, or judicially determined.
In all such legislation there must be a cut-off point which is normally the date of the passing of the legislation. Because of the nature of the diseases we are dealing with in this legislation I have thought it proper to introduce an element of retrospection which, among other things, will ease the burden on surviving victims and their families. I should advise your Lordships that I have held discussions with the noble and learned Lords, the Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the Lord Advocate, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who have informed me that they would support the principle of such an amendment. I hope that my amendment will gain your Lordships' support when it is brought forward in Committee.
In providing for the transmission of solatium to an executor of the deceased injured person and in reformulating the present loss of society award and allowing it to be transmitted to the executor of a deceased relative, the Bill will significantly improve the financial position of those unfortunate enough to lose a close family member through personal injury. By enabling a claim for solatium to transmit to the executor of the victim, the provisions of the Bill will help to relieve the added anxiety which he or she and the immediate family suffer in the knowledge that if the victim dies before the action for damages is settled or completed his family will be worse off. The report of the Scottish Law Commission on which the Bill's provisions are based has been widely welcomed and supported. I trust that the Bill will receive the support of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
8.21 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I rise briefly to thank my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar for introducing and moving the Second Reading of the Bill and taking us through its provisions. In another place I was sponsored by one of the major trade

1197
unions which has been involved in this field, especially in the asbestos-related diseases to which my noble friend referred. We should place on record not only personal gratitude but also the gratitude of many of the trade union members, particularly the full-time trade union officers who have had to deal with these very harrowing cases mentioned by my noble friend. I should like to point out how very much it is appreciated that the law is being brought into line with that which applies in the rest of the country and that this anomalous situation will be remedied.
I welcome my noble friend's suggestion about an amendment to be tabled in Committee. I hope that will be carried through. Given the background to the Bill, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to ensure that it passes through the House with the maximum speed.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I rise merely to say that the Bill before us has, so far as I know, been brought forward by the Scottish Law Commission, is supported by two distinguished QCs, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate also support it. Therefore, it is difficult for someone like myself as a non-legal person to make any comment on the Bill. However, I think that the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Macaulay will be a great help to laymen such as myself. As my noble friend said, the Bill covers a complex area of law. Listening to the speech, inevitably, a great deal of it seemed to be what I think we would call "lawyers' speak" in terms of people like me.
There is but one point I should like to raise. Again, it is possible that it may become even more complicated. As a layman, it seems to me that there is a possibility of a great deal of legal discussion. I have in mind Clause 5 as regards the solatium for loss of expectation of life. That struck me as being a matter which could raise a great deal of argument, discussion and debate. Of course, there may be legal precedents for it and if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate or my noble friend tells me so, then I shall accept it. However, I imagine that there must be a point at which the person who is claiming the damages becomes aware of the fact that he is likely to die relatively soon. I should like some clarification on that point. At what stage will this add or subtract from the final decision as regards the award given by the tribunal of the court? As I said, there may be a simple way of assessing the situation, but it seems to me to be one of the points that could cause a great deal of disturbance.
Otherwise, all the information that I have received from the Law Society and from some of the trade unions is that the Bill represents an advance on what we already have. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Macaulay has introduced it. Apart from the explanation to which I referred, I am happy that the Bill should proceed to the statute book.
8.25 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, the Government warmly welcome the Bill. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for his part in bringing the proceedings before the House tonight. It was largely as a result of representations from asbestosis sufferers, their families, representatives and support groups, and indeed from the trade unions to which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, referred, that the then Secretary of State for Scotland asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider the problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made clear, the Bill, which is based on the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission, will help improve the situation of those unfortunate enough to suffer from those dreadful industrial diseases—in particular, asbestos-induced diseases. However, I believe that it is right to point out that it will have a wider effect and that it will also help other people as its provisions can even apply, for example, to a simple case where someone dies after suffering pain due to injuries resulting from a car crash where the victim survives for some length of time. The Bill has a wider ambit, but undoubtedly the pressure came from the source that was indicated.
The Bill is designed to deal with certain specific matters which were considered by the Scottish Law Commission in that recent report. Like that report, the Bill is not meant to cover other wider issues in the law of damages. The main provision of the Bill is in Clause 3 which makes it possible for an executor to pursue a claim for damages for pain and suffering experienced by a victim before his death. I shall concentrate on this aspect in my remarks. My aim is simply to give some indication of the general context of the Bill.
In respect of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I believe it is right to add that Clause 5 seeks to deal with what is a very difficult head of damages; and, indeed, with the acuteness of the layman looking at the problem, the noble Lord has actually pointed out the very area which is most difficult and which has always given difficulty to the courts when assessing that particular head of damages. I say that because, for the very reason indicated by the noble Lord, it is difficult for a court to put a figure upon what the damages should be for the loss of expectation of life. One of the aspects of that difficulty is, for example, to decide to what extent the award should be made only when the person has been aware of the fact that he is losing life. That kind of aspect is dealt with in Clause 5. As I said, it is a difficult area and the clause is designed to try to clarify that aspect of the law.
I turn now to Clause 3 and the rest of the Bill. The first thing which may strike your Lordships—and it has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—is that the Bill is couched in rather complex and legal language. But although there are dry technicalities, the issues at stake are very important and affect the every-day lives of many men and women. Even in very legal language, the Bill is tackling an important and sensitive issue.

1199
It may seem somewhat surprising to your Lordships that Parliament is being asked to make an important change of principle in the law of damages which was set down as recently—I use the word "recently" as lawyers would—as 16 years ago. The reason behind that is that the provisions adopted in 1976 have given rise to criticism in practice. The key point is that under the 1976 Act any right to damages for pain and suffering dies with the victim and cannot be pursued by the victim's executor. That is a very strict and absolute rule. It means that even where the victim has raised proceedings for damages in respect of pain and suffering, his executor cannot pursue those aspects of the claim.
It is this provision which gave rise to the suspicion mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that defenders and their insurers could delay cases in the hope that the victim would die. I have to say that the Law Commission did not find any evidence that that actually happened, but clearly there is a potential inducement here. It is right to notice that that problem did not really exist in Scots law before 1976. Under the law which applied before 1976 an executor could pursue a claim for past pain and suffering in cases where the victim had raised proceedings before his death. It was the 1976 Act which changed that. So in allowing executors to continue such proceedings raised by victims, the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill really just restore Scots law to the position that existed before 1976 and remove a specific problem created at that time.
Actually, the Bill goes further and indeed it goes beyond anything which existed in Scotland before 1976. Clause 4 specifically allows an executor to raise an action for damages for pain and suffering even though the victim had not done so during his lifetime. Before 1976 the Scottish courts held that suffering of this kind was really personal to the victim and that, if he had not begun proceedings, then his executor should not be able to do so since in effect none of the beneficiaries of such a claim would themselves have suffered pain. Clearly there is some force in that argument and the Scottish Law Commission has rehearsed the issues on both sides of it, but in the end they have rightly said that it is simply a matter of policy. They have recommended that the policy be to allow executors to pursue all such claims, whether or not the deceased had begun proceedings.
As I have already indicated, the Government accept the Commission's closely-argued recommendations. However defensible the present provision may be as a matter of pure legal theory, there is no doubt that relatives of victims who have suffered grievous pain find it frankly offensive that the law seems to set that pain and suffering at nought just because the victim has died.
As has already been indicated to your Lordships, the position adopted by Scots law has also come to be compared unfavourably with that in English law. While in 1976 the Scottish Law Commission deliberately enacted a provision which was different from the comparable English law, a change introduced in an English statute in 1982 considerably
1200
improved the position of English relatives of a victim who died. The result therefore was to increase the gap between the damages which could be recovered, on the same facts, by the executor in an English action and by the executor in a Scottish action. Not surprisingly, therefore, especially in the sphere of asbestosis and other industrial diseases, especially where unions were involved in such matters, and where similar claims could arise in England and Wales or in Scotland, pressure grew for Scottish and English cases to be dealt with on a broadly similar, though not actually identical, footing. This Bill meets those concerns.
There is one other point which I would mention, and it has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. He indicated that he has discussed with my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and myself his wish to introduce a clause allowing the new rules of transmissibility to apply where the injured person has died since the date of introduction of the Bill. I think it is right that I should say a few words about that aspect.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations arguing that the Bill is somewhat unsatisfactory in its present form, in that it will mean that where a claimant dies after enactment his estate will enjoy the benefits of the Bill, but where the claimant has died prior to enactment, his estate will not. It has been suggested that such a state of affairs will lead to resentment and added distress for families who are continuing their claims for compensation under the previous rules and who are denied the benefits of the new provisions because of lack of retrospection.
I think it is right to say that we all deeply sympathise with such families. It is also right to say that, unfortunately, there is no easy and neat solution which will guarantee fairness in every case. Whether there is retrospective provision or not, I fear there will always be a degree of unfairness to someone where one case is viewed against another.
In seeking a solution which is fair not only to pursuers but to defenders, it is necessary to bear a number of factors in mind. First, it would be wrong in principle to reopen cases where a settlement has been reached either by agreement or by judicial determination. Secondly, to allow, say, the new rules to apply to any case which has not been settled or judicially determined, irrespective of when death occurred, would be a major departure from the legal principle that like cases should be treated in the same way. Such wide-ranging retrospection could produce unfairness where those who have brought forward and settled their claims quickly are penalised, whereas those who have delayed doing so could be rewarded. That would not seem to be fair or acceptable.
However, as a means of ensuring that as many families as possible can benefit from the new rules while keeping within the acceptable bounds of legal policy, we felt able to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that we would support an amendment to the Bill, as he has indicated. This would provide that, if the Bill passes into law, the new provisions relating to transmissibility of rights to executors will apply where the death of the person concerned occurred on

1201
or after the date when the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House (16th July 1992), provided of course that those rights cannot be exercised if the claim is time-barred or has been settled or judicially determined.
I can confirm to your Lordships' House that such a degree of retrospection would be of a type which is not unfamiliar and would not be objectionable in terms of legal principles. It also means that all the victims who are alive today can be sure that, if the Bill is enacted, their estates will be entitled to benefit from its provisions. Although I have touched on only a few points, the Government have considered the Bill as a whole, and I am happy to commend it to your Lordships' House.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have made a contribution to the debate from the various aspects of their experience. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that perhaps Clause 5 raises some difficult problems. That will be looked at closely again in the light of the observations he has made. Although this Bill is a short one, it is important, as must be obvious from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said. It will represent a progressive step forward in Scots law, and I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT REPORTS: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
  GOVERNMENT REPORTS: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
  CABINET COMMITTEES
  CABINET COMMITTEES
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: POST BOXES
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: POST BOXES
  KNOW HOW FUND
  KNOW HOW FUND