Sitting of 17 February 1993

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

    Two-stroke Engines
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom benefits from new two-stroke and orbital two-stroke engine technology.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Government believe that two-stroke technology could deliver significant commercial and environmental benefits. It is one of a number of alternative vehicle technologies which are being studied by the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that the once-ailing French motor industry has dragged itself forward by taking a technological lead in diesel development and that it is important that we do not allow ourselves to fall behind again? The French industry advanced through the Government working actively with industry to ensure that development. Will the Department have the necessary input into this new and exciting sphere of technology to ensure that this time round British industry takes advantage of it when it comes on stream in a few years' time?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the British vehicle industry is extremely competitive. Of course, like every other industry, it could improve, but it is definitely competitive with the French. I hope that he is also aware of the work done by the United Kingdom Engine Emissions Consortium, which has been substantially supported by my Department. Valuable work is also being done through a review by the Transport Research Laboratory, all of which will contribute to the industry. The vehicle industry spends substantial sums on research and development and it is the best judge of where R and D expenditure should be directed to the best commercial advantage.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we take advantage of the developments in orbital two-stroke engine technology we need to be able to do so within the stable framework of the European Community? I recognise that there may be short-term disadvantages for other countries with our social chapter opt-out, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the long term, our membership of the Community and our ratification of the
    304
    Maastricht treaty is essential for that technology, its exploitation and all the other industrial and commercial aspects of British life?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and find that there is near-universal agreement among business leaders in all sectors of the industry and all sizes of business that our continued membership of, and role in, the Community is vital for our prosperity—certainly for our vehicle industry.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the President of the Board of Trade undertake to ensure that his Department and British industry are fully aware of the outstanding achievements in two-stroke technology of Professor Gordon Blair and his team at Queen's university? Will the President of the Board of Trade seek to ensure that the benefits of that research and development create jobs in the United Kingdom and do not, as has happened in the past, export jobs elsewhere?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Professor Gordon Blair and Queen's university, Belfast, where there is well-recognised expertise in such technology. I think that I am correct in saying that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, in a previous role, was able to support the valuable work done by the team.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The total value of ERDF grants allocated to England since 1975 is approximately £3,900 million at 1993 prices.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those grants make an important contribution to strengthening the British economy? Is he satisfied that the public are aware of the scale of those grants?
    Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend that those grants provide important help to many parts of the country. I hope that the public are aware of them. The Government consistently represent Britain's case in achieving the maximum amount of grants to help the areas that need them.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What proportion of those grants is used to assist British industry with the development of technology? Many of our competitors receive Government assistance and various forms of grant to help them to develop their technologies and industry. I am sure that the Secretary of State will also bear in mind the fact that, in manufacturing, development costs represent a high proportion of overall costs.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one has to be extremely careful about following the logic of that suggestion, because other countries may be using the grants to subsidise or support their companies. That would put our companies at a significant disadvantage.
    Mr. Mans: What action has my right hon. Friend's Department taken in relation to the ERDF or any other

    305
    funds that might be available from Europe or from the British Government to help the survival of Leyland DAF in Lancashire?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that these grants apply to specific regions. We make representations to ensure that Britain maximises its entitlement. The case of Leyland DAF is still under close attention by my Department. We are watching and assisting—wherever appropriate—the actions of the receiver.

    Intervention Fund for Shipbuilding
    Mr. Byers: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further discussions he plans to hold within the EC on the intervention fund for shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: None at present, but I am keeping the situation under review.
    Mr. Byers: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain how the United Kingdom Government can agree to a 36 per cent. subsidy from the intervention fund for shipyards in Germany and yet deny access to the intervention fund for shipyards in this country? Does he agree that warship builders should have access to the intervention fund to help them to diversify into the merchant sector? Is not it about time that the Government put the British shipbuilding industry first and took positive action so that we can win new orders and keep jobs in our communities?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those arrangements were entered into as part of a reduction in capacity and it was decided in 1985 that the grants would not apply to warship manufacturers on privatisation. Their cost structures, with very high overheads because of the highly sophisticated products that they make, would not make them easily capable of competing in the merchant ship sector. In any case, there is already significant overcapacity in that form of construction.
    Mrs. Browning: In putting the interests of British shipbuilding first, will my right hon. Friend not make the mistake that the Labour Government made—of subsidising shipbuilding to the extent that ships were sold off cheap to Poland, thus flooding the marketplace? We were then unable to be competitive.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. I am also aware that once the Labour party had nationalised the warship builders, we secured no further export orders.
    Mr. Cousins: Is the President of the Board of Trade telling us that in no circumstances would he contemplate stepping forward to protect the interests of the 50,000 workers in naval shipbuilding at Lowestoft, Southampton, Belfast, on the Clyde and the Tyne, and at Barrow, or to obtain access to intervention or any other sort of funding permitted by the European Community?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear my reply—that I am keeping the matter under review. I do not believe, however, that access to the intervention fund would solve the acute problems of low demand that these companies face.

    Standing Charges (Pensioners)
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has in relation to the paying of gas, electricity and telephone standing charges by pensioners.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Government legislation has provided the regulators with full powers to regulate utility prices for supply to household customers and a duty to protect the interests of consumers. Utilities may decide on the form and scale of their charges, including standing charges, but must satisfy their regulator.
    Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister aware that a large number of pensioners have difficulty with their electricity, gas and telephone bills, and that standing charges often represent 50 per cent. or more of those bills? Does he realise that the profits of the privatised utilities have exceeded £35 billion during this unending recession? Will the Government therefore follow the example of the Irish and other European Governments by ensuring that a small part of those fat profits is used to abolish pensioners' standing charges?
    Mr. Hamilton: Of course, under nationalisation we were used to industries making not profits but losses, which were paid for by the community generally. If the hon. Gentleman wants to protect the interests of those on lower incomes, he has got the wrong end of the stick. Of those in the bottom one fifth of the income scale, only about 30 per cent. are pensioners. If, having phased out standing charges, we were to recoup that revenue by increasing prices, the poorest in society would be the losers.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing is for free and that standing charges are part of the charge made for having and using any service that is available? If there were no standing charges, other charges would have to be adjusted accordingly. The question is, on whom would those adjusted charges fall and who would be most greatly disadvantaged?
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Some standing charges have diminished over the years. Since privatisation, British Gas standing charges have reduced by 32 per cent., which reflects that company's success in paying its way by being efficient. That is a great British company, as many companies that were previously nationalised have become—earning income abroad which contributes substantially to their increased profits, from which tax revenue is paid rather than consumed.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way of alleviating fuel poverty is to increase the housing stock's energy efficiency and to assist the funding of such work? Is he prepared to instruct the electricity regulator to introduce an E factor similar to that employed by British Gas, whereby it is prepared to fund environmental improvements and conservation? [Interruption.] If the Minister has finished consulting his colleagues, perhaps he will give the House an answer.
    Mr. Hamilton: I prefer to ask those who know about the subject—unlike the hon. Gentleman, who prefers to rely on his colleagues' ignorance—and my hon. Friend the

    307
    Minister for Energy is the Minister principally responsible for such matters. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have no power to instruct the regulator in such terms. The regulator's powers are set out in Acts of Parliament He is obliged to consider a variety of factors, which are all defined in legislation.

    Trade Missions
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade missions abroad will be supported by Ministers in his Department in the foreseeable future; which countries they will visit; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): Ministerial participation is provisionally planned for at least 14 missions to 17 countries in the next year. It is likely that others will be arranged through the year.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Given the spectacular success of the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Saudi and Oman, when he secured 20,000 jobs—many in Labour-held constituencies—does my hon. Friend agree that the highest priority should be given to Minister-backed trade missions? Will he confirm that his highest priority is to get out and back British business abroad as well as at home?
    Mr. Needham: Of course, it is the highest priority of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to get out and sell. It is also vital that those who go out and sell know how to do so and the markets to which they go. I would not advise Opposition Members to go on Cook's tours because when they have set out their stall, 18 million potential customers have invariably said no.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that manufacturers of mining equipment, such as Oldham Batteries in my constituency, have regularly co-operated in trade missions, but that they want help from the Government to ensure that when they win orders they have the credits to fulfil them? They also need a home-based mining industry to support their export drives.
    Mr. Needham: That is why, in the autumn statement, we increased Export Credits Guarantee Department cover by £700 million and, during last year, reduced the premium rate. That is also why we are continuing to review the cover available to support our capital goods industries, to achieve our objective of doubling sales over the next five years.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend arrange an early visit to Japan, so that he can emphasise the importance of inward investment from that country to Britain, we can remain the principal recipient of Japanese inward investment among all the European countries and we can continue to talk up the enormous advantages of British industry—contrary to Labour, which always seeks to destroy its character?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and I are going to Japan next month—along with two hon. Ladies from the Opposition—to achieve precisely the objective that he wants.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Did the Minister note that the business men who accompanied the Prime Minister on his trade mission to India complained that the premiums charged by the British Government for export credits are still double those charged by the Governments of our competitor countries? Why does the Department's budget for next year show that it is to stop subsidising export credits and start making a profit from them? How does the Minister expect British exporters to win in the world market if they are saddled with the only Government in the world who are using export credits as a source of profit?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is nonsense. He knows that the ECGD has paid out in almost every year of its existence to top up the interest rate to which he referred. It so happens that, because interest rates in this country have fallen below the OECD average, it is possible—indeed, probable—that the ECGD will start to recoup some of the money that it has paid out. The hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat—or would be, if he were wearing one.
    As for the premium rates in India, given the losses suffered by the ECGD, we must accept the need to make a reasonable effort not to waste the taxpayer's money. If one compares British premium rates with those in Germany, one sees that one reason why we did so well in Hong Kong, in the face of German competition, was that our premium rates were lower.

    South-east Kent
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to visit Dover, Deal and south-east Kent to discuss opportunities for trade and industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I both visited east Kent last year. We both look forward to further opportunities to do so.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friends for the tremendous interest that they have shown in Dover and Deal and in the problems faced by the area. I am also grateful for the support given by the Department and the European Commission in allocating moneys to help customs clearance agents and freight forwarders.
    May I remind my right hon. Friend of our application for assisted area status? It is especially important, because the decision by all political parties in the House to proceed with the channel tunnel project will lead to tremendous change in my constituency. Some short-term help, along the lines of assisted area status, will be necessary if Dover and Deal are to succeed during that process of change.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall take careful account of the points that he has made, including the one about the short-term implications of the channel tunnel. I hope that he agrees, however, that the tunnel will also bring great opportunities to the area. I am happy to confirm that my Department is currently talking to the British International Freight Association and the east Kent initiative, with the aim of co-ordinating a United Kingdom bid for funds from the customs agent regulations that the European Commission has made available.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Having arrived in Dover, will the Minister board a ship and travel up to Tyneside? Will he tell the people there what his Department is doing to ensure the survival—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Most ingenious; I rather expected that one. Let us move on to question 7.

    Assisted Area Status
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in connection with the Bolton/Bury assisted area status; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My Department received a joint written submission from the metropolitan borough councils of Bolton and Bury and one from Inward, the North West Regional Development Organisation. Several letters of support were also received from local businesses. My noble Friend Baroness Denton met a deputation of council representatives, business leaders and local Members of Parliament on 27 October 1992.
    Mr. Sumberg: I appreciate that many new friends are knocking on my right hon. Friend's door—from Deal and Dover, from the mining communities and from London. Will he bear it in mind, however, that withdrawing assisted area status from Bury and Bolton would send entirely the wrong signal to the business community in my constituency?
    Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I assure him that I have taken careful account of what he said.
    Mr. Lewis: I welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) to the idea of intervention.
    While the Minister is considering his hon. Friend's remarks, may I point out that, over the past nine years, 72,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the Bolton and Bury travel-to-work area and four manufacturing closures have been announced over the past seven days? Assisted area status is needed and I add my support for it.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot add to what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). I know from our many conversations that he could not be more energetic in pursuing his constituents' interests.

    Magnox Nuclear Power Stations
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the future of the Magnox nuclear power stations.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My hon. Friend will be aware that my Department's coal review is nearing completion. The review is considering, among other issues, the impact of nuclear generation on the electricity market, including the position of the Magnox power stations.
    Mr. Whittingdale: As the Magnox nuclear power stations have the lowest avoidable costs of any form of electricity generation, does my hon. Friend agree that it makes sense, economically and environmentally, to keep them in operation for as long as it is safe to do so and that
    310
    this applies in particular to Bradwell power station in my constituency, which has just passed its long-term safety review with flying colours?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree that nuclear stations, including the Magnox stations, offer considerable environmental benefits and, as the recent Ernst and Young study showed, have the lowest avoidable costs. Bradwell has performed particularly well and since the completion of its inspection has been available for 97 per cent. of the time—a high record of availability indeed.
    Mr. Cunliffe: As the hon. Gentleman has probably now been convinced by his political colleagues that intervention is necessary to assist the 31 pits that are in jeopardy, does he believe that a genuine transfer of about half the nuclear levy for Magnox stations would help most of the collieries to survive? In the long term, if all the £1,270 million nuclear levy were transferred, it would assist all the 31 collieries to maintain production until supplies were exhausted.
    Mr. Eggar: Those issues are among a number that are being considered by the review. The hon. Gentleman's proposition makes sense only if one assumes that the liabilities that rest on Nuclear Electric are not genuine liabilities, which has not yet been established.
    Mr. Page: In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the avoidable costs of the Magnox stations are the lowest in the nuclear industry and that comparisons with other forms of energy production show that they are considerably cheaper, at 1.2p per unit? Has a calculation been made of the costs of production of CO2, by other sources of electricity and the effect on our environment?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right about the avoidable costs of Magnox stations, which are low. Their environmental impact is one of the factors that will be considered in the review.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister recognise that many of the Magnox stations are situated in some of the most remote areas of the country and are centres of high-paid employment in those areas? If he is going to announce the closure of Magnox reactors, will he ensure that he does not do so with the same ineptitude and thoughtlessness as he announced the pit closures?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of or against closing Magnox reactors, but he makes a valid point: employment is associated with nuclear stations in much the same way as it is with mining.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to encourage inward investment.
    Mr. Heseltine: My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau runs a comprehensive programme for promoting the United Kingdom overseas. Lord Walker, who advises me on inward investment, is helping me to consider how we can step up our efforts to make them as effective as possible.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the OECD has forecast that Britain is likely to increase its share of world trade this year? Is not one reason for that, as Jacques Delors said, that Britain has become a paradise for overseas investment and is not that because the Government have tackled the excessive power of the trade unions and refused to sign the job-destroying social chapter? Is not that in stark contrast with the union-dominated Labour party, which seems to believe that only the state can generate economic growth—a view which not even the Russians believe nowadays?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right on that specific point, but, of course, there are many other reasons why this is now the most attractive part of the single market in which to invest. It is because of the Government's policies that 36.1 per cent. of American and 40.9 per cent. of Japanese direct investment in the European Economic Community comes to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Eastham: Although it is essential to encourage investment from abroad, may I impress on the Secretary of State a recent document produced by the Engineering Employers Federation? It is a most scathing report about the lack of support from the Government. Is it not about time that we also encouraged our industries so that they can participate and benefit, thereby increasing manufacturing in Britain?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is a travesty of the views of the EEF with which I had a lengthy discussion last night. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wants to encourage inward investment into this country he should persuade his party not to put the costs of the social chapter on British industry.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that inward investment in the far south-west is largely dependent on the critical Plymouth-Heathrow airlink? Is he further aware that the airlink is increasingly under threat because of the increasing squeeze on regional services at Heathrow? Will he confirm that his Department will take whatever action is necessary to protect the Heathrow slot?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know how important that issue is to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that on my visit to the south-west later this week I shall hear more about it. We are in touch with the Department of Transport, but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, in the end much of the decision making lies with the private sector.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that Japanese companies that come to this country in general bring with them very good working practices, usually including a negotiated agreement with a trade union and agreed conditions of work which far exceed those laid down in the social chapter? In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State explain how the social chapter can possibly be a deterrent to companies that, at home, implement working conditions of a higher standard?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is not the working conditions but the working costs imposed by the social chapter which will be the deterrent.

    Assisted Area Status
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a report on the progress of the application for Weymouth and Dorchester travel-to-work area to have assisted area status.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The application for assisted area status for the Dorchester and Weymouth travel-to-work area is, together with all such other applications received by my Department, still under consideration.
    Mr. Bruce: Surely my right hon. Friend and I have a community interest in ensuring that the minimum number of places need assisted area status. Could not action by the Department of Trade and Industry, in talking to the Ministry of Defence about moving thousands of jobs from an area of high unemployment to those of lower unemployment, ensure that we do not need to have assisted area status in Weymouth but can preserve the jobs and economy of that area?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend does, of course, know that these are essentially matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who, I know, will take my hon. Friend's views carefully into account. We shall also take carefully into account any implications for employment opportunity in the Weymouth and Dorchester travel-to-work area of any proposed moves by the Ministry of Defence.

    Industrial Strategy
    Ms. Coffey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to outline his industrial strategy.
    Mr. Heseltine: I and my officials regularly meet the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. We share the same interests in providing quality service to business. The association has involved my Department closely in the progress of its five-year development plan, and we are also working together on my one-stop shops initiative.
    Ms. Coffey: I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade is aware of increasing concern about the disadvantages faced by British businesses—small, medium and large—in competing against industries from other countries for export contracts, because of higher levels of support given by their Governments? That support is shown in a variety of ways. What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have to rectify the situation for the benefit of British business?
    Mr. Heseltine: It is extraordinary that, at every Question Time, Opposition Members seek to misrepresent the achievements of British industry in the export market. The hon. Lady' s question is simply not compatible with the fact that exports of manufactured goods, excluding erratics, are now at a record level–5 per cent. higher than in the last quarter, and 6.5 per cent. higher than a year ago. Why cannot the Labour party say how well Britain is doing, rather than run it down?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I have considerable sympathy with the views that have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), who, with me, is a panel member of the new manufacturing and construction industries

    313
    alliance, which is to be launched in just under a fortnight's time on 2 March? Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the national chambers of commerce believe that the country needs a new strategy to regenerate our manufacturing base? Will he therefore continue to advance the interests of this sector, which generates the only non-inflationary growth—the type of growth that this country needs?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have come increasingly to recognise that my hon. Friend often finds himself in agreement with the views expressed by Opposition Members. I notice that, in his support for our manufacturing base, he seems to be prepared to vote more often against than with the Government whom he was elected to support.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Why does not the President of the Board of Trade admit that his response to the collapse of DAF has shown up his lack of industrial strategy and the contrast with the industrial strategies of the countries of Europe? Is he aware that the Dutch and Belgian Governments are actively intervening to save jobs in their countries by agreeing to invest in the factories there? Can he explain why, when I met the Dutch Minister for Finance as recently as last week, there had been no ministerial contact from Britain in the nine weeks during which the Dutch had been working on a rescue package? Does not he understand that if Leyland DAF goes down, it will take with it scores of suppliers and thousands of skilled jobs? Cannot he see that if he does not even talk to the Dutch Government he will make it more likely that the axe will fall on British jobs?
    Mr. Heseltine: Last week the hon. Gentleman was trying to undermine the British banks; now he is undermining the credibility of what the British Government are doing in these circumstances. He must know full well that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry has been in touch with his opposite number in the Dutch Government. He must know that we are in constant touch with the receiver and that we have kept in touch with the banks involved. If he searches his conscience he will find that he is aware that the best way to save parts of Leyland DAF is to give all possible support to the receiver, who is trying to do exactly that.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it part of my right hon. Friend's industrial strategy to put an end to the iniquitous Arab trade boycott? If so, can he explain to the House why he did not raise that very important matter at his important meeting yesterday with the Middle East Association?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. and learned Friend will realise, from his knowledge of the issue, that it is extremely complex and controversial. It is a matter of which the British Government are very conscious, but I did not think that it would be appropriate to bring it up in my speech yesterday.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss projects for the small business sector; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): My right hon. Friend the
    314
    President of the Board of Trade has no plans to meet the Federation of Small Businesses. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has frequent meetings with the federation and with all the major small firms organisations to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Simpson: Is the Minister aware that in my city of Nottingham small business bankruptcies over the past year have risen by a record 70 per cent? When he extols the growth of new firms, does he realise that of the 4 million that grew last year almost one third–1.25 million—had a turnover of less than £15,000 per annum? Typically, such firms consist of a man with a van and bag of spanners, and they are no substitute for the good firms that the Government have driven into bankruptcy. Does the Minister now accept that this country needs a manufacturing strategy for the growth of small businesses, not the car boot sale that the Government currently offer?
    Mr. Leigh: In fact, the number of small firms grows by about 400,000 each year, and has increased by more than two thirds since 1979. That has happened because we have created a culture of enterprise with low interest rates and low inflation. The hon. Gentleman might ask his own Front-Bench spokesmen how small firms would be helped by the tangle of no fewer than 284 quangos that would have overseen every small business in the country and tangled them up in red tape so that audits of the social cost of every business decision would have had to be made. That is Labour party policy, and it would have driven small businesses out of business.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that some small businesses that go into receivership leave individual creditors who are not helped by the receivers? In the case of Acres of Wellswood in Torquay the receiver seems hell bent on protecting those who have gone bankrupt rather than helping the creditors who are about to lose their homes.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The official receivers have adequate powers to investigate company directors and, if there is any evidence of bad conduct, the courts have the power to disqualify directors from serving again. But some companies go out of business for genuine reasons, and once the receivers have investigated their past it is only fair that, in time, the directors should be able to start new companies.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that if and when the economy comes out of recession small businesses will provide the basic engine room of growth? From 1985 to 1987 small businesses employing fewer than 20 people created a million extra jobs, while large businesses created only 20,000. Does the Minister therefore accept that we now need a strategy to ease the burden on small businesses by cutting uniform business rate, raising the threshold of VAT cash payments, and recognising in numerous other ways that jobs and economic recovery will come from small businesses, because big businesses cannot provide that employment?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the key role that small businesses play, and will continue to play in the economy. That is why the deregulation initiative by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so important. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary

    315
    Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is considering the 7,000 regulations presently imposed on small businesses, and he will examine each and every one of them to ensure that the burdens on small businesses are reduced where possible. We shall continue our drive to reduce the general burdens on small businesses and to ensure that, whether it be in terms of low inflation, low taxation or low interest rates, they operate in a culture of enterprise. That is what we should aim to do.
    Mr. Oppenheim: In connection with industrial strategy for businesses of all sizes, does my hon. Friend recollect that about five years ago his Department robustly resisted the entreaties of the boffins, the space buffs and the Opposition, and refused to take a large stake in the European Space Agency's Hermes project, which the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described as a frolic in space? Is my hon. Friend aware that that project is now 40 per cent. over cost and running late, and that the Germans are threatening to withdraw? Does not that bear out our decision not to get involved? Is not the project exactly the type of grandiose industrial project into which the Opposition would pour billions of pounds if they ever got the chance again?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The Minister then responsible for industry made a correct decision not to get involved in the Hermes project, which is hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. We have concentrated our space resources into earth observation, putting space to work and ensuring that British companies secure the orders and lead the world in environmental and space technology. That, rather than Opposition proposals for grandiose schemes about which they know little, is what is meant by a good industrial strategy.

    Package Travel (EC Directive)
    Mr. Denham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what concerns have been expressed in the further representations he has received from the Association of British Travel Agents, the Consumers Association and trading standards officers in respect of the EC package travel directive.
    Mr. Leigh: The Association of British Travel Agents and the Consumers Association have made clear their preference for a licensing system for all organisers of packages. The Government have rejected such a system as unnecessarily expensive and bureaucratic. My officials have been discussing with ABTA and with trading standards officers the interpretation of the directive and enforcement of the implementing regulations.
    Mr. Denham: The Minister must be aware that last year 40,000 people, including many of my constituents, lost their holidays and their money through the collapse of the Land Travel Company. Given that the majority of reputable travel operators and consumer organisations believe that the bonding system which the Government support is an utterly worthless protection against unscrupulous cowboy operators, why does the Minister refuse to introduce a licensing system to protect holidaymakers against dubious and dodgy companies?
    Mr. Leigh: The reason why we have rejected a licensing system, after careful thought, is that upwards of 30,000 small operators would be embroiled in the system;
    316
    therefore, the unit cost would be extremely high for those small operators and it would put up costs to consumers. We believe that the bonding and insurance arrangements that we have put in place are adequate protection for the consumer. Indeed, the consumer is protected for the first time. We do not believe in imposing on business unnecessary burdens which drive people out of business and put up costs to consumers.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country trading standards officers are regarded as the enemy of business and that they are imposing intolerable burdens on small businesses? Is he aware also that in my constituency, for example, hoteliers are obliged not just by trading standards officers but by others in the local bureaucracy, such as environmental health officers, to clean and paint the ceilings of their kitchens with disinfectant twice a day to ensure that they are completely free of contamination? That is the kind of burden which is driving small businesses out of business.
    Mr. Leigh: Trading standards officers have an essential role to play in society and they perform their duties with great skill and diligence. We in the Government pay tribute to their work. At the same time, it is important that, as part of my hon. Friend's deregulation initiative, we look at all 7,000 regulations which are imposing burdens on business and that we ensure, particularly with regard to European directives, that we do what is necessary to carry out the spirit and the letter of the law. We should not go over the top and overburden business with burdensome regulations.
    Mr. Faulds: On a technical point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I can take neither a technical nor any other point of order in the middle of Question Time. I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman will have to bide his time.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What assurance will the Minister and the Government give that another Land Travel type of collapse will not happen this year when ABTA says that his weak laws and lax supervision put thousands of holidaymakers at risk?
    Mr. Leigh: As usual, the hon. Gentleman grossly overstates his case. He knows that, whatever directives are in place, whatever laws are laid down and however many burdens are imposed on business, it is impossible to ensure that there will never be another Land Travel in future.
    We cannot regulate against people acting corruptly or lying to trading standards officers and to overseers of their business. That is fact. In the directive we have created a balanced measure which provides protection to consumers for the first time. It provides a proper bonding and insurance scheme. At the same time, we have resisted a burdensome over-regulatory licensing system which would have covered no fewer than 30,000 small operators, including even those who provide fishing weekends in Scotland. The licensing system that the Opposition would impose on business would push up costs for all consumers. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. It seems that not all hon. Members on the Opposition Back Bench can hear. Perhaps something can be done about that.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend have the same objection to licensing for business and incentive travel operators?
    Mr. Leigh: We have tried to keep a fair balance for business travel. Business travellers are as entitled to protection as ordinary consumers are and that is why we have decided, after considering all the arguments, that business travel should be covered by the directive.

    Regional Assistance
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future geographical boundaries and funding of regional assistance to industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: We are carefully considering the many representations put forward on the review of the assisted areas map.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept our concern that, as well as having no industrial strategy, the Government do not appear to have a regional strategy? Or does he mean us to accept that the Government have sneaked out an unannounced regional policy of devastating the economy of the south-east of England so much that the old smoke-stack areas of Scotland, Wales and the north are made to look not quite as bad by comparison? Will there be a budget for regional policy when the review, which is three or four months late, is eventually announced or has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury persuaded the Minister that we do not need a regional policy or a regional budget any more?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is as wrong about regional policy, as he is about industrial strategy. If he looks at the many documents available on the Government's expenditure plans, he will see plenty of evidence of a budget to support industry regionally.
    Mr. Knapman: Is there a danger that regional assistance will distort trade? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that business should always be based where it is most efficient?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that it must always be in the interests of business to seek to make itself as efficient as possible, including when it takes location decisions. When we consider applications for regional selective assistance, we take into account any possible displacement of activity elsewhere.
    Mr. Fatchett: With unemployment just about to go above 3 million and with once prosperous areas in the south-east and the south of England now facing record levels of unemployment, is not it clear that the Minister is unable to draw a map for regional assistance simply because his Government's economic failures have hit every part of the country? Is not that the reason why Conservative Members, who were previously against Government intervention and who used to call regional aid "Government handouts", are now crawling to his Department asking for assistance for their constituencies?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We believe that regional selective assistance should be targeted accurately to where it is most needed. In determining where it is most needed, we should take account of a wide number of factors, including long-term and current unemployment and peripherality.
    318
    We are considering the matter carefully and we shall not be rushed into making decisions that might mean that the map is less accurate than it should be.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the reason he has heard so much today from hon. Members representing constituencies from Dorset to Dover, including the Isle of Wight, about assisted area status and the Government's regional policy is that we are fed up with having businesses hijacked to Wales and to Scotland, which get a disproportionate amount of British taxpayers' money? What we want is somebody to speak for England.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend speaks most effectively for the Isle of Wight.
    Mr. Wigley: May I speak for Wales? Does the Minister agree that the drawing of the map for regional purposes in the United Kingdom can have a critical effect on the eligibility of certain areas for finance from the European Community? Will he confirm that his Department has made direct representations to the European Commission in Brussels to ensure that whatever the outcome of the map, areas that have been dependent on European finance will not miss out in future?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We are waiting for the proposals from the Commission for the review of the objective 2 areas. They are expected later this year. We have made representations to the Commission with regard to objective 1 status.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regulations the deregulation unit has (a) approved and (b) abolished in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The deregulation unit, unfortunately, does not possess arbitrary powers, as my hon. Friend seems to imply in his question, to approve or to disapprove particular regulations. Our role is to drive forward the deregulation initiative in government. My job is to crack the whip over my colleagues and to ensure not only that we make good progress, but that we have a good time while doing do.
    Mr. Steen: The Under-Secretary may be slightly too young to remember this, but some 10 years ago, the then Prime Minister said that we would get the Government off the backs of the people by having fewer rules and regulations. In fact, we have never had so many rules and regulations as we have had in the past 10 years. What am I to say to hoteliers, those in the construction industry and retailers to make them believe that the country will change dramatically under the leadership of the new Prime Minister and my hon. Friend's Department and that they will get rid of some of those rules and regulations, which are crippling small businesses, hoteliers, the construction industry and everyone else?
    Mr. Hamilton: The difference is that, this time, the initiative is being taken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and me. We have the full and enthusiastic support of the Prime Minister. Having recently completed an audit of all the regulations currently in force, we have set up a series of task forces of business

    319
    men to involve the private sector—those whom my hon. Friend mentioned—which will be able to put the case for business.
    I agree that when business is saddled with excessive costs, those costs are felt not only by businesses themselves but in lost jobs and reduced economic prosperity. On this occasion, therefore, we intend to proceed by requiring cost compliance assessments and risk assessments to take fully into account the cost to British business of any regulations that we introduce or allow to continue. Only where the benefits to the public at large outweigh those costs will the regulations survive.
    Mr. Cryer: But is not the reality that the Government, who are supposedly pledged to take regulation off the people's backs, produced 3,439 statutory instruments in 1992? That is more delegated legislation than has ever been produced and forced through Parliament by any Government at any time. Is not that situation compounded by the fact that the self-same Government continue to deny the Opposition opportunities to debate prayers against such instruments? Is it not a mark of a centralised elected dictatorship that that torrent of legislation is turning Parliament into a sausage machine?
    Mr. Hamilton: Many of the hon. Gentleman's Friends have spent much of the past few decades supporting unelected dictatorships in other parts of the world. I might add that the hon. Gentleman makes a most unconvincing apostle of laissez-faire. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the statutory instruments procedure is profound and that he has played an important part in the constitutional affairs of the House in ensuring that many such instruments are debated. I share his zeal—if that is what it is—to reduce the quantity of legislation with which we have to cope. It is certainly not in our interests to saddle our businesses with more and more costly regulations of the kind that the Opposition even now are seeking to advance through the social chapter, which would impose—if we were to give in to it —enormous costs on British business, so reducing the employment-creating potential of the economy that the Opposition affect to want.

    Exports
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is taking to promote exports.
    Mr. Needham: The United Kingdom exports £400 per person per year more than Japan. I am sure that my hon.
    320
    Friend will agree that that is very good, but it is not good enough. That is one of the reasons why I launched a comprehensive policy last year, a copy of which I have sent to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that export insurance cover is a component part of any export strategy? Will he confirm that his Department will continue to encourage exporters and to give them all the help and assistance that they need to do a good job for Britain?
    Mr. Needham: Yes. That is why, as I said in an earlier answer, we announced a further £700 million in the autumn statement, and why the Government are determined to support our capital goods industry in its effort to double its sales over the next five years.
    Mr. Bell: The House will welcome the Minister's statement that we are to try to double our exports of capital goods over the next five years, but how does he expect the House and the country to accept his claim that he supports exports when Leyland DAF, which exports £1,000 million-worth of products a year, faces closure, with 5,000 jobs in that industry and a further 15,000 jobs in subsidiary industries at risk? Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the House will believe him?
    Mr. Needham: As far as capital goods exports are concerned—which I was talking about—if one looks at power generation, airports, upstream or downstream oil and gas exploration and the whole range of industries, the United Kingdom has an endless number of companies of the highest quality, many of which are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Conservative Members and Ministers spend most of their time supporting those industries, and Opposition Members spend most of their time denigrating them.
    Mr. Gallie: Is the Minister aware that a Scottish company won a contract in March 1992 for the supply of boiler tube to Taiwan, an export licence was rejected in April, an appeal was launched, and nine months later that appeal has not been answered? Is he aware that the Spanish have supplied the boiler tube in the mean time? Will he note that a larger contract and more jobs for Scotland are at stake? Will he do whatever he can to expedite the appeal?
    Mr. Needham: Of course I will look into my hon. Friend's comment. It is the first time that he has brought it to my attention. Clearly, when it comes to export licensing, it is absolutely crucial that investigations take place to ensure that the export licence is appropriate.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may not be aware, since you were forced to change your seating arrangements in the House, that there are many places in the Chamber where the system for letting Members listen to the little loudspeaker on the back of Benches no longer works. That is primarily probably due to the fact that the enunciation of most Members is appallingly poor. They do not know—[Interruption.] You can hear me, laddie.
There are two other possibilities. One is that the technical competence of the people who service the little things on the back of the Benches—
Mr. Tony Banks: I am not a little thing. [Laughter.]
Mr. Andrew Faulds: This is serious for those of us who are elderly and short of hearing.
It may be that their competence is somewhat lacking. The most likely explanation is that, since the malign introduction of radio and television into the Chamber, these little speakers on the back of the Benches are turned down so that they do not interfere with the output of the radio and television transmission. Could you please examine the problem? Otherwise, I might as well sit at home holding my wife's hand and having a cup of coffee. I would hear the proceedings of the House much more easily if I relaxed in that fashion.
Madam Speaker: It could also be that the noise in the Chamber often makes it difficult for Members in various parts of the House, as well as the Speaker, to hear what is going on. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said and it will certainly be attended to.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the flagrantly inaccurate, dishonest and inadequate response to my supplementary question—
Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. I can deal with this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman used a word which he will withdraw. I do not wish it to be used in the House. No one is dishonest here.
Mr. Winterton: If you feel, Madam Speaker, that it is unparliamentary, I can only say that my right hon. Friend knows that what he said was inaccurate. If that is not dishonest, I do not know what is.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing parliamentarian and a member of my Chairmen's Panel. I am sure that he will rephrase what he has to say.
Mr. Winterton: Madam Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Say 'economical with the truth'."] I am being helped by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I believe that my right hon. Friend, on mature consideration, will realise that in responding to my question he was being very economical with the truth. As a result, if I say that a response was dishonest, I am honourable enough—and, indeed, I have been here long enough—to accept the advice which you give from the Chair. I will withdraw the word "dishonest" in respect of his comments, which were clearly totally and flagrantly inaccurate.
Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Would you, Madam Speaker, give guidance to hon. Members as to the propriety of any hon. Member releasing to the press the contents of a speech intended to be made during debates in the Chamber and allowing it to be published as if it had been made, although it was never made? Would it be reasonable for the hon. Member or hon. Members involved to provide follow-up press releases stating that the speech was not made?
Madam Speaker: If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct—I have no reason to believe otherwise-1 hope that the practice will cease forthwith. I caution the House that any speech which is not published in Hansard, although it may be published elsewhere, is not a parliamentary proceeding and is therefore not privileged. All hon. Members should be made aware of that.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I am not one of life's whingers, even though I have to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and translate for him during the proceedings, but you may recall that this is the second day running that my question has failed by one to be reached. I wonder whether you would consider abolishing Prayers. They are clearly not a popular institution, and they deprive me of the opportunity to raise important issues.
Madam Speaker: I have never thought that the hon. Gentleman has been very much deprived in his public life.

Cycling Safety
3.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the safety of cyclists on highways; to encourage greater use of the bicycle; and for connected purposes.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I shall attempt to enunciate properly.
Outside the House, traffic is crawling up to Parliament square. The rush hour is building up, and millions of citizens throughout the country will waste millions of hours sitting in their cars on their way home. That position is unlikely to improve, because the long-term forecasts for traffic growth are horrendous, as the House will know.
Those millions of vehicles will pump more carbon monoxide and pollution into the air of our cities. In the past two years, we have seen smog return to London. It may not be like the old pea-soupers, but it is a potent and unpleasant mix. Carbon monoxide and exhaust emissions go up into the atmosphere to contribute to global warming. In Britain, as elsewhere, we are committed to reducing carbon emissions.
The life of all those who live near roads is further degraded by the incessant noise of traffic—[Interruption] —and by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Traffic and congestion continue to increase. Cycling can help ease the congestion and pollution. More than 60 per cent. of journeys by motor car cover a distance of less than five miles—well within the range of most cyclists.
Already, approximately 200,000 bicycle journeys are made each day by commuters into and out of London. Cycling is clean, non-polluting, cheap and accessible t o all. Cyclists rarely cause traffic jams. Cycling is an excellent option for short journeys: it is quiet; it can be relaxing and therapeutic; it can be healthy and it is recognised as an excellent form of aerobic exercise. It is a popular form of recreation in the lanes of Leicestershire and in my constituency. Indeed, I can find little disagreement with the idea that we would be wise to encourage cycling, especially in urban areas, but also for recreation.
The traffic management chairman of the corporation of the City of London was quoted on Monday as saying:
"We are keen to encourage cycling as an environmentally and economically sound way to travel around the City "
I have mentioned the City of London for the benefit of those on the Opposition Front Bench, to show that cycling is hardly a fringe activity of relevance only to those poor people who cannot afford cars, or to weirdos who for some strange reason prefer to battle through wind and rain rather than sit in a warm and comfortable car.
My county of Leicestershire has an excellent cycling strategy, which has the objective of increasing significantly the proportion of trips made by cycle in its urban areas. The Department of Transport, which wishes to encourage cycling, does not disagree. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), the Minister for Roads and Traffic, understands the value of cycling as a means of local transport. His Department has been encouraging local highway authorities to provide safe and convenient cycling facilities.
The benefits of increased cycling are obvious: there is little disagreement about them. There has been an encouraging increase in the sale of mountain bikes, but sadly there has been no marked increase in cycling—indeed; there is anecdotal evidence of cyclists abandoning
324
two wheels for four, especially in urban areas. The perception of danger is the main reason, and it is a very real danger. A Department of Transport study claimed that cycling is between 16 and 18 times more dangerous than driving over a given distance. Although those statistics do not tell the whole story, they point to a real reason for not getting on one's bike.
My brother, who cycles to work from Clapham to Westminster, has been knocked off his bicycle three times, yet to the best of my knowledge he has never had an accident in a car. The problem is not merely the reality of danger but the threat of it. Anyone who has cycled recently knows how much more intimidating and aggressive drivers have become as the amount of traffic on our roads has grown. A friend told me this morning how a double-decker bus had squeezed him into the pavement on Regent street and forced him off the road. That happens far too often when cycling in our cities.
I fear that most hon. Members have not cycled much since they were children or students.
Mr. Harry Greenway: What about tricycling?
Mr. Robathan: Yes, perhaps some have tricycled.
Instead, hon. Members perhaps share the worries of most parents and grandparents about allowing children to go out on the roads on their bicycles. There are other dangers, as we have all too sadly witnessed this week, but the fear of traffic has led to a marked decrease in children cycling to school, which means that parents drive them there by car, thus causing even greater congestion.
A long time ago, when many hon. Members had more hair and it was perhaps somewhat darker, most of them would have taken their driving test at a time when the highway code suggested:
"All drivers should give a pedal cyclist a wide berth of at least six feet."
I wonder how many Members have been able to do that when driving recently. The highway code has now dropped that advice.
As further evidence of increasing intimidation on our roads, one might look no further than the House of Commons Cycling Club, which I am told used to have upwards of 50 members. The club folded in 1983, largely due to the increasing danger on our roads.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No, it was because they did not get enough free trips.
Mr. Robathan: It may also have been because they were intimidated by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
The increasing volume and speed of traffic leads to drivers cutting up cyclists, cutting in front, squeezing past, trying to nip through where there is insufficient space. It is depressing to note that more and more cyclists are being hit from behind—a sign that drivers are not giving them enough room. That is an example of drivers showing lack of due care and attention, for which they are now likely to be charged with careless driving.
However, any motorist who has already struck a cyclist has endangered life—if it was the motorist's fault. As a parallel, any driver who has drunk a certain amount automatically loses his or her licence, if caught. Although I applaud that, the driver may not even have seen another road user and may not have been able to endanger life.
I propose that a special measure should be introduced so that, after any accident in which a driver, through his or

325
her bad driving, hits a cyclist, he or she will be charged with dangerous driving. If found guilty, the driver would automatically be disqualified from driving.
The purpose of the Bill is to change attitudes on our increasingly crowded roads. The current attitude was illustrated this morning by one hon. Member who told me that he would ban all cyclists from the streets of London. That is not a constructive policy or one that is shared by any political party as far as I know. We need to change that negative attitude, of which we are all guilty when we hide behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. That attitude usually means that any vulnerable road user—be he pedestrian, equestrian or cyclist—is judged an obstruction, a nuisance or a problem, whereas, on the contrary, the problem is that there are too many cars being driven badly and too fast. Very few motorists are killed by cyclists, but the converse, sadly, is not the case.
The Bill recognises the need to encourage cycling and to encourage people to get on their bikes, and to discourage selfish driving by motorists. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Gary Waller and Ms. Joan Walley.

CYCLING SAFETY
Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the safety of cyclists on highways; to encourage greater use of the bicycle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 March, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
Orders of the Day

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill has been debated for 56 hours in Committee and for seven hours on Report. I have no doubt that the amendments that the House has accepted on Report will improve and strengthen the Bill. The great majority of the amendments that the House has accepted over the past two days are a direct response to points raised by the Opposition when the Bill was in Committee. I am happy to pay tribute now to the vigilant and serious way in which the Opposition approached many parts of the Bill in Committee. It is in large part because of the constructive spirit of the debates in Standing Committee that we can say that the Bill which goes to be debated in another place is an even better Bill than the one that we debated on Second Reading.
  The Bill is, above all, a Bill that creates new rights for people at work. It gives every woman in employment a right to 14 weeks' maternity leave, regardless of the number of hours she works or the length of her service. It gives every woman the right not to be dismissed because she is pregnant or because she exercises her statutory right to take maternity leave. It gives every employee who works more than eight hours a week the right to receive a written statement explaining his or her basic terms and conditions of employment. It gives important new rights in relation to health and safety: it provides protection against dismissal for safety representatives carrying out their duties and for employees who have to leave their work because of imminent risks to their health and safety.
  The Bill also gives important new rights to all trade union members. For the first time, the Bill gives employees the right to join the union of their choice—not the union chosen for them by a Trades Union Congress committee. For the first time, it gives trade union members the right to a postal ballot, before a strike, and the right to have that ballot independently scrutinised. It gives all union members the right to decide for themselves how they pay union subscriptions. It gives all union members new protection against mismanagement of their union's finances and new protection against fraud and abuse in union elections.
  Mr. David Winnick: As the right hon. Lady knows, we believe that the Bill undermines existing rights in many respects and jeopardises people's rights in certain occupations. Does she recognise that, at a time when, on the official figures, it will shortly be announced that more than 3 million people are unemployed-the true number is probably nearer 4 million—she should come to the House with measures to give rights to our fellow citizens who are denied the right to work? Instead, she is today dealing with largely irrelevant matters at the expense of the crucial issues for the economy.
  Mrs. Shephard: We do not think that the rights of workers and trade union members are ever irrelevant, and I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman should give the impression that he and his hon. Friends take a different view. Later in my speech, I shall make some points about employment and unemployment; but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the stance adopted by him and his hon. Friends on some of the issues covered by the Bill does not suggest that they believe that employment will come from reducing burdens on employers.
  The Bill will increase the safeguards against the damaging effects of strikes. It will help to preserve the remarkable transformation in this country's industrial relations record, which has seen the number of days lost through strikes fall to an all-time low. In future, trade unions will have to give employers at least seven days' notice of their intention to call a strike. That will help to overcome the damaging effects which strikes called at short notice can have on business, on jobs and on the life of the community. Also, of course, the Bill gives every citizen an entirely new right to seek the protection of the law if he or she is the victim of unlawful industrial action. No longer will customers be defenceless in the face of unlawful strikes that deliberately seek to cause disruption to services on which people rely.
  When I introduced the Bill in the autumn, I made it clear that there was another important theme, as well as that of increasing individual rights. The Bill also includes important measures to increase the competitiveness of the economy and to remove obstacles to the creation of new jobs.
  Much debate on the Bill in Committee and last night focused on the proposal to abolish the remaining wages councils. We heard further predictable speeches by Opposition Members during the debate on Report, and doubtless we will hear more this afternoon. But to force employers to pay wages that they cannot afford—whether via the wages councils or via a misconceived national minimum wage—will simply destroy jobs. We do not need to establish a Commission on Social Justice to demonstrate that.
  Ms. Angela Eagle: Is the Secretary of State saying that it is acceptable for the state to subsidise employers who pay poverty wages instead of deploying some minimal protection to ensure that workers-often vulnerable workers—are not exploited by bad employers? Is it right that the taxpayer should pick up the tab for that sort of behaviour?
  Mrs. Shephard: It is extraordinary that, when faced with a proposal that will help to bring about greater flexibility in the labour market and remove an unnecessary barrier to the creation of new jobs, Labour Members should oppose it.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: What research has been carried out into companies that have become insolvent to show whether they went bankrupt because of the high wages being paid to their employees?
  Mrs. Shephard: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was present for last night's debate. If he was, he will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State make the point that 90 per cent. of employers who made representations were in favour of the abolition of wages councils. Those who oppose their abolition ignore the
  328
  evidence that they inhibit the creation of new jobs, and refuse to accept that regulation and red tape can only hinder enterprise. They fail to notice that 90 per cent. of industry successfully negotiates wages without the need for statutory interference.
  I am sorry that seems to be the face of the modern Labour party. Is it still wedded to binding statutory regulations and to armies of Government inspectors? Is it clinging to the belief that Labour could run businesses better than business meu and women? Is it still in hock to the vested interests of trade unions?
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State blew the gaff on the Opposition's policy on wages councils almost before the debate began, on the Bill's Second Reading last November. He challenged the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to say whether Labour would re-establish wages councils after they had been abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We had to ask that question, because we had not received an answer.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras struggled then to provide a coherent answer.
  Mr. Frank Dobson indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Shephard: Three months later, all we have is a form of words to which, to be very complimentary, a weasel would not put its name. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras shows that he is still a bit sensitive about the matter. Perhaps he will tell the House his latest policy. Perhaps he will confound the commentators by explaining how a national minimum wage can possibly create jobs. If he does, let us hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is listening.
  Mr. Dobson: As I said on Second Reading and several times in Committee, and as I made clear in a letter to the Secretary of State—when she employed public officials to peddle lies about Labour party policy, for which she has still not apologised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not accusing the hon. Lady of lying but saying that she permitted public officials to peddle lies, and that comment is not out of order.
  We said that, if the Government achieved the abolition of wages councils, the incoming Labour Government would be faced with no existing wages councils. Our first priority will be to establish a national minimum wage. As I made clear all along, we are consulting people working in industries, their representatives, and various organisations throughout the country that have, over the years, shown a deep and abiding interest in the welfare of the low paid to see whether further special machinery may be necessary to protect the special interests of those who have been most exploited.
  That ought to be clear. There are no weasel words there. If the hon. Lady does not understand that statement, I do not know why. I hope that, in future, public officials will, at the taxpayers' expense, make it clear that that is Labour's policy—not the lie that they have peddled to date.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman merely confirms the impression that he gave on Second Reading—that Labour does not have a policy in that respect.
  Wages councils have long outlived their usefulness. The Bill will bring their activities to an end, and let us hope that

  329
  we never have the opportunity to discover whether the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would try to bring them back.
  The Opposition claim to care about the level of unemployment and the fate of people who are unemployed. They continually urge the Government to provide more assistance and support, while ignoring or denigrating the wide range of employment and training measures already in place
  The Oppposition have opposed every training programme and every measure to help unemployed people introduced since 1979. The conversion to the merits of training demonstrated today by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was an amazing U-turn even for Labour. The Opposition continue to claim that they care about the unemployed but on radio last Sunday, when asked what Labour would do, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had no answer. He wishes to woo the unemployed; he wants to win the favours of people facing the problems of world economic recession. What does he do? He insults business men. No doubt he would describe those who come here from Japan, America or France to build factories, create jobs and increase our prosperity not merely as incompetent scum, but as alien incompetent scum.
  Mr. John Garrett: The Secretary of State knows very well that the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council, which is in her area, is unable to provide the level of training that is needed in her constituency and mine, particularly for young people. A number of representations have been made to the right hon. Lady, but she has done nothing about them. She has shown no sympathy for the plight of the young unemployed and untrained.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows that my Department's budget is increasing in real terms, and that fewer young people are applying for youth training because of the welcome increase in the staying-on rate. He may not know that I have taken a great personal interest in youth training in Norfolk, and that, by tomorrow, every young person will certainly have been offered a place. The hon. Gentleman likes to pretend to take a close interest in such matters. If that interest is genuine, it is a great pity that he has not informed himself of the facts.
  Mr. Dobson: I am not in the habit of intervening unless I am referred to personally. Can the right hon. Lady produce chapter and verse for my description of any foreign investors as "alien"? If she is going to quote what I said about millionaires who want to line their own pockets even more by driving down the wages of some of the worst paid, she should note that I did not describe them as thieving incompetents; I described them as thieving scum.
  Mrs. Shephard: I am grateful for that elucidation—as, I am sure, are all hon. Members and all employers and business men. I am also delighted that the hon. Gentleman rejects the TUC's description of people who come here offering inward investment projects as "alien".
  At a time of high unemployment, the hon. Gentleman would sign up to the social chapter that the Prime Minister rejected at Maastricht. I wonder whether he has calculated
  330
  the number of jobs that that would destroy. As an incentive to training, he proposes to place a levy on employers—to put a tax on jobs. How many jobs would that destroy? His latest idea is to subsidise jobs by taxing the utilities—to place a tax on success. That is a really positive message for business!
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Given her great knowledge of these matters, can the Secretary of State give an example—any example—of an EC measure that could be moved under the social chapter but cannot be moved under existing Community legislation?
  Mrs. Shephard: In view of my hon. Friend's persistent opposition to the social chapter, I am sure that he agrees that it would destroy jobs, strangle the creation of employment and place crippling burdens on business. I have always understood that to be his position.
  During the Bill's passage, Opposition Members have not demonstrated that they understand how jobs are created. Jobs result from firms competing in world markets, and delivering the goods and services that customers want and will buy, on time and competitively priced. Government's role is to create a sound economic climate, in which businesses can grow and jobs can be created. Part of that climate is the good industrial relations that the Bill will help to maintain, building on our previous reforms.
  Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State says that the Opposition's policies would destroy jobs. Is she not aware that, when her party came to office in 1979, a total of 1 million were unemployed? As she knows only too well, even the official figure is now 3 million—and, had not the system of calculation been changed, it would be nearer 4 million. Who are destroying jobs? Are they not being destroyed by the right hon. Lady's Government, and is she not directly responsible for policies that destroy jobs and small businesses day in, day out? She owes us an apology, rather than a lecture.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows well from our exchanges in the House that I am extremely concerned about the plight of anyone who is unemployed. He ignores the fact that we are in a world recession and that we share the problem of rising unemployment with every other major industrialised country, among which we had the best possible record, as corroborated by the OECD, for job creation in the 1980s. Curiously, Labour Members find it convenient to forget that fact.
  I was disappointed that the Opposition chose to vote against clause 34 in Committee, which means that, in future, arrangements will be made for careers services to be provided by whomever can best and most successfully do so in each area. I had hoped that they would have welcomed the greater freedom and flexibility that this will bring for services to respond effectively to the needs of local communities.
  The principles underlying the provision of the service will remain unchanged. There will, of course, be a free service delivered by professional staff to a core client group of young people, but there is no doubt in our minds that the overall quality of the service can be raised. The high standards achieved by the best should be available in all parts of the country.
  Mr. David Hanson: What assurances will the Secretary of State give the House that there will be a

  331
  quality threshold to ensure that the quality that she says she seeks is maintained? No assurance was given in Committee about any form of quality threshold, and any Tom, Dick, Harry or Harriet could now set themselves up as a careers officer.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about quality, which is important and which was fully discussed in Committee. He will know that we have undertaken to consult about how to prepare the guidance that will be issued on setting up the new services. We must be committed to the provision of high-quality and responsive career services, because much depends on them. We want to see careers services develop so that they are well placed to meet the needs of potential clients and customers in a dynamic economy, which is what underlies this important reform. Once in place, they will bring rich rewards.
  When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I reminded the House that the Labour party claimed at the last election that, if elected, it would keep the trade union legislation of the 1980s, despite the fact that it had voted against every trade union Bill since 1979. I said then that many people doubted whether its conversion to the cause of trade union reform was genuine, but that I was prepared to keep an open mind until we learned what attitude it would take to the Bill.
  I urge Labour Front-Bench spokesmen not to make the same mistake as all their predecessors by voting against the Bill, only to admit in a few years' time that the reforms that it introduces are here to stay. I urge them to break out of the cycle of unthinking opposition followed by embarrassment and half-hearted acceptance. That has been their record on such vital issues as strike ballots and the closed shop. They did not take my advice, and voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and they may vote against it tonight.
  We have heard much recently about the Opposition's conversion to the cause of the individual. We have even heard that they have discovered the importance of small business, but there has been little sign of that in our debate.
  Let us examine the Opposition's commitment to the individual in some of their amendments. They would give a worker the right to join a trade union of the TUC's choice. They would give an employee the right to be paid a minimum wage, which many employers could not afford to pay, even if that meant people losing their jobs. They would give a consumer—for example, a commuter-the right to be left stranded and helpless if the service on which he depended was disrupted by an unlawful strike.
  Is that how the Opposition believe that the interests of the individual are best served? How can they possibly claim to believe in the individual when they would deny people the right to choose and decide for themselves'? How can they claim to support the interests of small business when they have lost no opportunity to press for new burdens and new regulations to be imposed on employers? That is why they have opposed the ending of wages councils, despite the fact that the previous Labour Government abolished 11, which covers about 600,000 employees, and despite the fact that we do not know what their future policy on wages councils is.
  In their attitude to these important parts of the Bill, the Opposition have, I am afraid, revealed a tired old face, that of socialist dogma. The truth is that the gap between the Opposition and the Government on industrial relation
  332
  sand trade union reform is as wide as ever. While the Government have advanced step by step in reform, the Opposition have been reduced to a grudging step-by-step retreat.
  In the Bill, the Government are looking forward to the industrial relations and employment needs of the rest of the 1990s and into the next century. We shall continue to create a climate in which business can compete effectively and in which employees as individuals have the opportunities and protection which they are entitled to expect.
  The Opposition are still looking backward, back to the days when the rights of the individual employees and trade union members were subordinate to those of the trade union bosses, and back to the time when initiative and individual responsibility was stifled by over-regulation and collective organisation. We all know where that led us.
  This evening, the Opposition have another chance to shake off the shackles of the past. I urge them to vote on behalf of the individual employee, the individual trade union member and the individual citizen, rather than on behalf of the vested interest groups which have so often dictated their damaging policies in the past. Let them use the opportunity to show that their new-found concern for the individual is more than empty rhetoric and more than bluster.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: One way or another, we have been considering the Bill for three and a half months. Perhaps uncharacteristically, I begin by thanking the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), for their helpful and constructive responses to a number of suggestions that we made in Committee, which resulted in the Government undertaking to make about 20 distinct improvements to their original proposals. Seventeen of those improvements were delivered by way of amendments on Report and three, I am assured, will be delivered by way of amendments in another place. I am grateful to the Government for that.
  I also wish to thank my colleagues who served on the Committee that debated the Bill. Having served on Committees where we have lost arguments, I must say that it was a pleasure to serve on a Committee where I do riot think that we lost a single argument. Indeed, it must be said that the Government proffered no arguments on the issue of wages councils.
  We dealt with the Bill in detail in Committee and in further detail on Report yesterday, so it behoves me to concentrate on a limited number of aspects. The first is low pay; the second the way in which the Government have knowingly robbed people of their rights for the past 10 years; the third is the Government's failure to introduce comprehensive maternity cover and to take the opportunity to get rid of the current shambles; and the fourth is their proposal to sell off the school careers service.
  Those four aspects cannot be separated from two general matters. One is the general employment situation, which especially affects the low paid, and the second is the general economic situation. It is worth reminding the House that, since the Bill was printed, the general

  333
  employment situation can only be said to have got worse. Even without tomorrow's figures, more than 130,000 of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs since then.
  We all know that the official unemployment total to be announced tomorrow will either break or come very close to the 3 million barrier. No doubt the Secretary of State has the figures; perhaps she could let us have them. Perhaps seasonal adjustments will achieve the miracle of avoiding a breach of the 3 million barrier this time. If so, the next total will certainly be above 3 million. In reality, as has been pointed out, the number is already more than 4 million. There are indeed 4 million people in this country who need a job, but the Government are doing nothing to provide them with work. There are 27 people chasing every job. Indeed, there are 60 people for every vacancy in London.
  In my adult lifetime the people of the west midlands made things for the rest of Britain. Indeed, articles manufactured in that area were sold right round the world. Half of the people who were in manufacturing industry in that great manufacturing area when Mrs. Thatcher became Prime Minister are no longer making things, and we are all suffering as a result.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has referred to the region that I have the honour to represent. Does he know that in pre-war days, as well as after the war, when there was nearly full employment, people came to the west midlands to find work? No one would do so now. One of the reasons for our balance of payments difficulties is that items that used to be made in the west midlands are now imported. Since 1979 many industrial concerns, including some of the largest, have gone out of business entirely. In my constituency, there are many people who never for one moment thought that they would be out of work, or that if so it would be for only a matter of weeks, but who have now been unemployed for years on end and may well never work again. That tragedy has been largely brought about by the wretched Conservative Government.
  Mr. Dobson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. No fewer than one fifth of all the manufacturing jobs that have disappeared have gone from the west midlands. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, even when—possibly if—we come out of the recession and people start buying more goods, many more of those goods will have to come from abroad as they are no longer made in the west midlands. Even if there is a resurgence of manufacturing industry, it will not alter the fact that a large proportion of manufacturers in the west midlands and in other areas now depend on foreigners to make their equipment. If we do not make the stuff ourselves, we have to buy it abroad; and if we buy abroad, we do not have a trade surplus; and if we have a trade deficit, we have difficulty in running our economy.
  All these job losses have a direct effect on the low paid. They weaken their bargaining position. Unemployment also diminishes our economy and reduces the funds available to make Britain a decent place in which to live. The Secretary of State had to admit to the Select Committee on Employment that unemployment also hits every taxpayer in his pocket or her handbag. It costs the taxpayer £9,000, in benefit paid and in tax not taken in, to keep a person unemployed for a year. Thus the level of
  334
  unemployment that is likely to be announced tomorrow costs the taxpayer £27 billion a year—£1,225 per family. And it does not stop there. When people are not working, they are not producing. We used to hear from Conservative Members a great deal about the number of days lost through strikes. We never hear a word now about the number of production days lost through unemployment.
  There are, as near as damn it, 3 million people out of work. That means that we lose 3 million days' production every day because of unemployment—and 3 million working days lost every day is 15 million working days lost every week. If the present level of unemployment lasts for a year, 780 million working days will be lost to the British economy-780 million working days with people not working and not producing the goods and services which contribute to the national wealth.
  I estimate that the cost of that is more than £50 billion. If those people were at work they would produce goods and services worth at least £50 billion. Shared out equally —I know that in this country nothing ever is shared out equally, but for statistical purposes let us assume that, for once, that happens—the loss is £2,275 per family. If we add that to the loss to the taxpayer, we see that the Tory tax to pay for unemployment amounts to £3,500 for every family in the land.
  That is the economics of the madhouse—and in the middle of the madhouse the Secretary of State turns up to abolish wages councils. Wages councils set the minimum wage for 2–6 million of the worst paid people in the country, 2 million of whom are women. We are not talking about princely sums; the highest minimum wage set is £3.10 an hour. But apparently rich Tory business bosses think that £3.10 an hour is too much. They have been writing letters to the Secretary of State saying, "You must get those wages down, otherwise I shall not be able to pay myself £584,000 a year." Business bosses say that they cannot compete if they pay those wages.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Not for the moment, but I shall later.
  I want the Secretary of State to consider the hotel trade, which to some extent is an international trade. Why do London hotels have higher prices and lower wages than Paris hotels? If our hotel chains have to compete by bringing down wages, how can the French afford to pay their hotel staff more, yet charge guests lower prices? I suggest that somebody somewhere is pocketing the difference. It is not the taxpayer, or the guests in the hotels, and it is not the people working there; it is a lot of rich Tory business bosses who are trousering the money.
  The Government's argument is that there should be no Government interference in the market. The idea is that every worker should strike a bargain with his or her employer. I return to the quotation from Churchill. I know that it upsets Conservative Members, and that they have heard it often, but what Winston Churchill said in 1909 when he introduced wages councils is good sound stuff. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Liberal."]—He was a Liberal but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?"]—I do not care where the Liberals are now.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No. I shall not give way for the moment. I shall give way later, if the hon. Gentleman can hold himself back for a minute.
  I should mention that not only the Liberals and the Labour party but the Tory party, too, supported the measure in 1909. There was no Division on the introduction of wages councils. Everybody agreed with what young Winston said:
  "Where …you have a powerful organisation on both sides …you have healthy bargaining which increases the competitive power of industry and enforces a progressive standard of life. But where …you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst".
  I return to my original point—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall give way in a moment.
  I return again to the question which we have posed to Tory Members. If this morning the Secretary of State had come with me to the place where my constituency borders with Westminster, she would have seen people sleeping in cardboard boxes.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman has made that point before.
  Mr. Dobson: I have made the point before, but it is valid today because they were in the cardboard boxes this morning, just as they were when I raised it before, but the hon. Gentleman has never answered the question. Let him answer the question. After sleeping in their cardboard boxes, those people who live in cardboard boxes go to the jobeentre for the hotel trade on the edge of my constituency. In London there are 60 people chasing every vacancy. What parity of bargaining have they with the giant hotel chains which have assets of thousands of millions of pounds? Where is the parity there?
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: What the hon. Gentleman fails to tell the House, although he has made the point repeatedly, is how he would help the people who seek those low-paid jobs when hoteliers tell us that the wages council is preventing the jobs being created and being available. What service is the hon. Gentleman doing to those people if there are no jobs for them? Why does he think that what was appropriate for 1909 is appropriate for the 1990s?
  Mr. Dobson: A truth remains a truth, whether it is an old truth or a new truth. It was a truth then and it is a truth today. If there is parity of bargaining, people stand a chance of getting a living wage. If there is not parity of bargaining, they have no chance of getting a living wage. It does not matter that that was said in 1909; it was true then and it is true today.
  Mr. Forsyth rose—
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is about to say that it is not true, he is even dafter than I thought.
  Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that people cannot get by because they do not have parity of bargaining with big employers, how does he account for the fact that, as wages councils cover only 10 per cent. of the labour force, the other 90 per cent. can get by without such protection?
  Mr. Dobson: For a start, they do not get by in any reasonable sense. I make no apology for it, but the Labour party takes the view that if society was run properly and if the economy was run efficiently, everyone who wanted a job would have a job. If people had that job, they would be paid what their ambition is to be paid—enough money to pay their own way and to bring up their families without depending on benefits or handouts.
  Under the Government one eighth of the work force are out of work and another eighth cannot afford to pay their way but have to go begging and scraping for benefits to make up lousy amounts to live on.
  Mr. Riddick: In his intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman appeared to say that a future Labour Government—if there ever were such a thing—would not need to reintroduce wages councils because they would have a statutory national minimum wage. The OECD has said clearly that a national minimum wage in France has led to increased unemployment. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. Dobson: My only answer is a further question. What has the OECD said about how the Government have managed to achieve the amazing unemployment levels which we have without a national minimum wage? There is no parity of bargaining. The idea that there is parity of bargaining for those who are badly off is not true. We have to have parity of bargaining so that people may have a reasonable chance.
  Ms. Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that wages councils were set up in 1909 deliberately to deal with the dynamic effects of a free market in labour'? If pay is undercut, wages can carry on going down potentially to zero. In a free labour market the competitive effects of a systematic reduction hi wages lead to the impoverishment of large numbers of the work force. Surely everybody but the most fanatical followers of free market dogma accept the argument that there must be a minimum below which wages cannot fall so as to prevent bad employers undercutting better employers and impoverishing the work force.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with the eminently sensible point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle).
  There is a further aspect to the abolition of the wages councils.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman has just sneered at the British hotel trade, and he has said that it could not compete with, for example, the French hotel trade. When the hon. Gentleman was doing his homework, he might have asked our own British Hotel, Restaurants and Caterers Association what it thought. It says:
  "The current system imposes constraints on flexible remuneration packages."
  That is precisely the point. The hon. Gentleman supports inflexibility which would not allow us to compete properly.
  Mr. Dobson: As the wages councils set only minimum wages, the element of flexibility needed must be the flexibility to pay below the present minimum. There is nothing to stop most employers paying above the minimum. Most do and they always have, right from the first days of the wages councils.

  337
  Another problem that will arise from the abolition of the wages councils is the effect on women's pay. The Secretary of State for Employment has been given the duty within Government to promote equal opportunities. By backing the Bill, she is giving 2 million women the equal opportunity to be paid less than they are being paid now and the equal opportunity to see the gap between their pay and men's pay widen. The pay gap in wages councils industries is narrower than it is in other industries. That cannot be gainsaid unless the Government try to undermine their own statistics.
  The abolition of the wages councils appears to be part of the Government's obsessive hatred of any form of employment protection. They cannot stand the idea of the social chapter. They do not like this form of protection for our people. At the beginning of the week, the Financial Times produced an analysis of employment protection across Europe. From careful reading, one can see that if the analysis was turned into a Eurovision song contest, a voice would say, after listening to the British entry, "Grande Bretagne, nul point." In other words, "Great Britain, no points." Our job protection laws are undoubtedly the worst in Europe.
  The Conservatives say that the whole economy is endangered by people being paid as little as £2.59 an hour, which they claim costs jobs. That simply is not true. As we all know, employment has been declining sharply for the past three years. Nobody disagrees with that as a statement of fact. If the Government's arguments are correct, employment in the wages councils industries should have been in steeper decline than in other industries. Since 1989, the number of people in employment has fallen by 2 million. The number of people working in wages councils industries has risen by 90,000. Wages councils industries, with their minimum wages which are supposed to threaten jobs, are a group whose employment is expanding while there is a catastrophic decline in industries not covered by wages councils. That makes nonsense of every point that the Government have made but they are paying no attention because they are introducing the measure solely as a pay-off to the paymasters who paid their general election expenses in exchange for the abolition of the wages councils.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. I have given way enough already.
  The next item may even affect the pay-off that has been received by a number of Tory Members. European law was introduced with
  "the object of guaranteeing the rights of employees"
  whose job was shifted from one employer to another. The British Government introduced some regulations that purported to establish that protection. Right from the start, however, they set out to exclude from that protection employees affected by privatisation and compulsory competitive tendering.
  We discovered from some Treasury minutes that we laid hands on that, as early as 1983, Law Officers of the Crown—we heard about them and their famous European interpretations earlier in the week—had secretly advised:
  "the limitation in the Regulations to commercial undertakings was not a satisfactory implementation of the United Kingdom's Community obligations."
  338
  Now, we all know that the Law Officers' word is law and Parliament's is not-since Monday, at least—but, in this case, despite the view that the Law Officers held, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health issued advice to local councils and health authorities saying that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations did not apply to them.
  Then the European Commission caught the Government out. Certain cases heard in the European Court demonstrated that the regulations did, indeed, apply, which is why the Government are having to sort things out now. Their method has been to introduce provision in the Bill and try to pretend that nothing has changed.
  Hon. Members who were not on the Committee will be familiar with the idea of a new opinion—a late wire from the course—from the Attorney-General. We had that on Maastricht on Monday. Members of the Committee were privileged enough to receive such treatment as early as January, when the Attorney-General came along, it was said, to clarify the law. To hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee but who were in the Chamber on Monday, his advice will have a familiar ring. Basically, he said, "We are introducing changes in this Bill but it does not really change the law as all these things were always intended to be covered: the rights are there and we have always intended people to enjoy them."
  That was the Attorney-General's message, but it is simply not true: the rights of certain people were deliberately excluded and they are now having to be included. We welcome their inclusion and we expect the Government to compensate the people who were knowingly defrauded by Ministers of the Crown of the money to which they were entitled—when those Ministers had been secretly advised by Law Officers and when the British Government knew that they were breaking the law and were robbing a lot of badly-off people. We hope that the change will go through, even if it costs a number of Tory Members of Parliament some of the ill-gotten gains that they have made from having their hands in the compulsory competitive tendering process.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As this is obviously an important issue, as the arrangements could effectively kill off most privatisations, which some people think are good and others think are not so good, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he ascertained in Committee whether the Government appeared to have fought the infraction proceedings? Did they, for example, take any of the issues to the European Court? Or did they simply accept what the Commission asked them to do?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman had better address his questions to those responsible for giving answers on such matters. To be fair to the Government, my impression was that they had fought a long hard rearguard action to retain their right to defraud British citizens in a way in which citizens of other countries were not being defrauded. But Ministers will no doubt answer for themselves.
  The next matter to which I should like to refer briefly is the improved maternity provisions. To the extent that they are improvements, we welcome their inclusion in the Bill. Any improvement is welcome.

  339
  I should remind hon. Members of the genesis of the rules. They came to us courtesy of the European Community Fisheries Council because the British presidency was conducted so incompetently that no other Council of Ministers could get to a formal vote before the deadline so the Fisheries Council had to provide some maternity rules. It must be recorded that the Fisheries Council did not actually vote for the rules; we just accepted them.
  The present maternity' provisions are confused and unsatisfactory. We believe that the provisions in the Bill are more satisfactory but considerably more confused. I am sure that the Minister will probably agree with me on that. The Labour party said—we made it clear that we would have facilitated this—that the whole arrangement should have been taken apart and put back together in an orderly and simple way for employers, the Department of Social Services and women and their partners to deal with. That would have been the best way. We regard this as a wasted opportunity to clarify important maternity rights in the United Kingdom.
  It must be said that the Government intend to take one opportunity. They intend to privatise the schools career service. The Department of Employment sold the professional executive register to Mr. Robert Maxwell and that went bust. It also sold the skill centres to various other people and about half of them have now closed. Goodness knows, the country could do with a bit of skill. The Department of Employment disposed of the assets in that way and now intends to dispose of the schools career service which, until the Bill was introduced, was not its asset to dispose of at all.
  Like every other institution in the world, the schools career service is imperfect. Until now, it has been run for the benefit of the children and young people who were being advised. The Government's alternative is to hand parts of the service to private companies, training and enterprise councils or Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. Will private companies put the interests of young people first in the same way as the schools career service has until now? Let us examine the service as though it were being run by a private company. Private companies will be interested in maximising their turnover. It is easy to envisage that, to maximise their turnover, they will enter into a cosy relationship with one or two local employers who might well be dodgy. Those companies would guide young people to work for those employers, rather than give them the career guidance to which they are entitled and which they had in the past.
  I would say to anyone in the private sector, "If you think that you are any good at running a schools careers service, why not set up shop and do it? Why not try to compete, invite people in and say that you are offering a better service?" That is not how organisations that are supported by the Tories prosper these days. Companies which the Tories think are great grow by takeover: they do not grow by efficiency and expansion of their activities.
  Some people have set their eyes on the careers service and decided that there are a few bob to be made there. They think that it would be a lot easier to do that job than the one which they do at present.
  The priorities of the training and enterprise councils are not the same as those of the individual children and young people with which the careers service deals. It is possible that a training and enterprise council or a TEC bureaucrat who is given a quota to fill can see an easy way of shoving
  340
  a few kids who have not had much advice in that direction to fill his quota within the set time probably so that he will get some sort of productivity bonus if he deals with them quickly. We do not think that that is the right way to do it.
  We are concerned—I know that the Government have agreed to re-examine the matter—that such privatisation may pose problems for handicapped young people and children with learning difficulties because they will not be a paying or profitable proposition for a private company and they will not be high in turnover from the point of view of the TEC bureaucrat who wants to get on with the job quickly and get his bonus.
  We believe that there are dangers in the proposition. Under the Government's scheme, there is no guarantee that young people will continue to be the first priority for the service. That is typical of this Bill and the Government. We do not believe that the Government give top priority to ordinary people.
  Everything has been sacrificed to market theories. When someone points out that the market theories do not appear to be working, the new ideologues blame something that they call externalities. What the ideologues call externalities turn out to be what the rest of us call the real world. When theory clashes with the real world, externalities are blamed. It is the real world which we are here to represent.
  It is a real world in Britain where 4 million people are out of work. It is a real Britain where there are 57 million people in the country and only 4.3 million of them are making anything. In the real world, no less than a quarter of our population are either out of work or depend on benefits to make up their pay and get a decent income. In the real world, British people want work. They want jobs which will enable them to pay their own way, earn their keep and bring up their families. The Bill has not done a damned thing in getting any of them a job or decent pay at the end of it.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: As a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill, I am delighted to have the chance to lend my support to the Third Reading. In doing so, I pay a tribute to my hon. Friends who spent many long hours during the winter debating the contents of the Bill. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, we had an "interesting debate". It was a debate in which the vexatious litigant of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) jockeyed for position alongside the golden thread of the Minister's arguments.
  One of the most pleasurable aspects of the Committee is that at least I shall be able to tell my grandchildren, when they arrive, how, in the first autumn of my parliamentary career, I, along with several colleagues, was able to witness the old trade union machine rolled out of the knacker's yard. There they were every Tuesday and Thursday in Committee Room 9, some of the big guns of the trade union movement. They were short on ammunition, rather like the guns of Singapore—and anyway facing the wrong way. Not to mention the odd assortment of peashooters from the new intake in the Labour party, a wondrous thing, with so many of them, day after day after day, blatantly and, to their credit, proudly expounding the

  341
  philosophy of their ancient and discredited creed. But then we know, at least on this side of the House, that the little Clintons opposite, with that veneer of market economics will never change. We know that because they have told us so. Let met quote some lines:
  "Trade unions anchor themselves into the real lives of the ordinary people."
  I suppose that that was true in the 1970s.
  When the archaeologists are sifting around the debris of Walworth road in 20 years or perhaps 10 years—we hope —that is what they will find under a stone in the office of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Those words are from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, whose ideas are almost as old as that famous station in his constituency.
  The Bill is the threshold towards the Prime Minister's avowed goal of making the United Kingdom a paradise for investment. I am fed up with trade unionists and Opposition Members constantly talking this country down, even in the face of proven success stories. Their silly arguments run along the lines that provisions such as the social chapter and regulations that the Bill seeks to remove help to increase productivity because everyone is happy. What nonsense! And when the opposite is proved to be the case—for example, the recent decisions of international companies to relocate in Great Britain—they whinge and moan about Great Britain being the Taiwan of Europe. I am a member of a family company which was established in 1845. The measures contained in the Bill are designed to give new freedoms to trade and industry which will lead to more jobs and greater prosperity.
  I received a letter recently about the wages councils from a leading hotelier in my constituency. The company is family owned. He is not a rich Tory boss by any means. He is just an ordinary man trying to run an ordinary business on a day-to-day basis. He said:
  "At last the Government have seen fit to abolish the Wages Councils, a nonsense that had its part to play in history but no part now. This measure will give employers more flexibility and we will be better able to award staff according to their performance and productivity.
  All payments should be between employer and employee to work out, bearing in mind local conditions, qualifications etc. etc. and are the better for being so—and I write as one who has never stooped to the minimum wage level with any employee!
  With the abolition of Wages Councils we can get on with running our businesses with a little less paperwork and spend the time saved on seeking the customers whose patronage produces the employment, with the consequent effect on local economies of workers with good pay packets!"
  That is just one letter.
  I now have to talk a little about Labour's proposals for a minimum wage. When I spoke to the jobcentre in Scarborough I was horrified to see that of the 75 jobs on offer, 50 were below the minimum wage that Labour would impose. Worst of all, in Whitby all the 42 vacancies were below that level. That means that each of those potential employers would have to decide whether to become less competitive by increasing their prices or to withdraw the job.
  Labour must have a death wish for companies and people. Its minimum wage would either drive businesses to the wall or lose more people their jobs. Labour could not have invented a package which would do more damage to trade and industry. It is no good Labour telling us that
  342
  that would not happen when the vast majority of experts disagree. I find it unbelievable that, at a time when creating new jobs should be a priority, the Labour party proposes a policy which would lose more people their job. It would especially affect the most vulnerable in our society.
  The Bill is part of the process that takes Great Britain towards the millennium. It is part of the process that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set in train when he torpedoed the social chapter a year last November. Jacques Delors acknowledged that by doing so my right hon. Friend had made Britain a paradise for inward investment.
  Forget Labour's Europe. Labour's Britain is there for all to see in places such as Sheffield, Liverpool and Birmingham. As we head towards the 21st century, this is a Bill for more investment, more employment, more business, more output and more exports. It is a Bill for Great Britain. It is a Bill which is relevant to the 1990s and which consigns the alien practices such as we saw in Dundee, along with the Labour party, to the dustbin of history.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), especially on the Prime Minister's paradise for investment. I do not see much investment when I look at the unemployment figures. The recession is becoming a nightmare for the unemployed and low paid. That is what the Bill is all about. As I have listened to the speeches of Opposition Members, I have wondered what is the relevance of the Bill to Britain's economic situation.
  In areas such as the west midlands, one of the powerhouses of the British economy, unemployment is about 11–5 per cent. If that is paradise, I do not know what hell is. When one considers the unemployment figures one wonders about the relevance of the Bill to the erosion of our industrial base. Companies such as Leyland DAF are going to the wall without the Government doing anything about it. At the same time, great companies such as GPT and Rolls-Royce make systematic redundancies. One can only conclude that the Government have a phobia of trade unions and their relevance to society.
  It is worth reminding the Government that in the 1930s in Germany trade unionists found themselves in prison or concentration camps for their defence of freedom. I do not accuse the Government of treating trade unionists in that way, but they should be careful about the way in which they treat trade unions.
  Even if wages councils fix the wages of only 10 per cent. of workers, any modern society that cannot provide legislation to defend that 10 per cent. cannot be called a fair or democratic society. Between 900,000 and 1 million young unemployed people are living in despair. When they turn to officials in the Department of Social Security they are told that they can live on a cold meal. They cannot obtain a loan for items such as a cooker. A cold meal in the middle of winter? I wonder where we are going in this fair and democratic society when we treat people in that manner.
  The Government have made no provision for one-parent families. Provisions should have been included in the Bill for creche facilities to enable mothers or fathers to pick up their careers again and seek employment. Yet

  343
  the Government provide subsidies through the social security system to employers who pay low wages. That is an indictment of the Bill.
  Let us consider how far trade union rights have been eroded in Britain. Organisations such as Legal and Incomes Rights have to provide advice to trade unionists because an horrendous amount of legislation is increasingly complex. Certainly a democratic society must have a certain amount of legislation to provide a framework of law. But the Government should not create draconian laws to hinder individuals in freely negotiating to fix the wage that they want for selling their labour.
  Yesterday and today I listened to Conservative Members talking about the abolition of the wages councils. They are going for a low-wage economy. Has it never occurred to them that some of our competitors are high-wage, high-investment, high-quality economies? Britain now compares with the third world and, in some respects, the former Soviet Union, where the importance of quality has deteriorated. If bodies such as wages councils are abolished, quality can be affected. It is affected if one is not prepared to have high investment and productivity, coupled with technological advance.
  For the reasons that I have given, I oppose the Bill. I do not wish to be negative, but it is interesting that in major recessions the Tories always turn the clock back. When they quote Adam Smith they turn the clock back 100 years. When they repeal Churchill's legislation, they turn the clock back 80-odd years. That legislation stood the test of time. It has not affected the efficiency and welfare of the British economy. The Bill has taken people off' on a tangent into a debate which should never have taken place. The Bill should never have been introduced. A Bill should have been introduced to improve the British economy, improve people's living conditions and improve education.
  I also oppose the Bill because it abolishes the Bridlington agreement. It is interesting that the Government seem to take their advice from smaller employers, not major employers of labour. Any experienced employer or trade unionist knows that abolishing the Bridlington agreement and introducing competition between trade unions is a recipe for chaos in industrial relations.
  Most people would say that industrial relations is the relationships of human beings in an industrial environment—in this case, one that produces goods. At times, relationships will be under stress as human beings do and say things that they do not mean. With all due respect to the Government, the trade unions and employers, not the House of Commons, have to pick up the pieces.
  To achieve our economic ends, we need less legislation. We must allow employers and employees to set rates of pay and productivity levels, through trade unions and organised labour. That is the way to improve our economic situation and that is why the abolition of the wages councils should have no part of any Bill laid before the House, as we should seek to protect the weak by strengthening such organisations.
  5 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I must start by declaring my interest as a parliamentary consultant to MinOtels Great Britain Ltd.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) was right to concentrate on
  344
  the abolition of the wages councils, as that is clearly the issue that will preoccupy us on Third Reading. I say that because the measures in the Bill fall into two distinct categories. The first is the items ritually opposed by the Labour party, including the various trade union reforms; the abolition of the Bridlington agreement, to which the hon. Gentleman referred; the fact that a member of the public will be able to challenge unlawful industrial action; and improved safeguards for trade union members.
  Labour Members oppose those measures today, but history has a way of repeating itself, and they will not do so next year. In three or four years' time, the Labour party will have the public believe that it was always in favour of them. That process contains an element of ritual. The Labour party is always in favour of any trade union reform that we passed three or four years ago, and that sums up its position on the Bill.
  On Second Reading, in Standing Committee and today, we have heard about the Labour party's total opposition to the abolition of the wages councils. Anyone who speaks in favour of their abolition starts off on the defensive, because wages councils to protect the low paid sound such a good idea. If the Chamber was about the mere recital of good ideas, the wages councils must obviously be a good idea, because they sound like one. The trouble is that it is not like that. I shall refer to evidence that, while it is a good idea to try to protect people who are without work or who are in low-paid employment, wages councils are not the way to achieve that good end.
  In justification, hon. Members ask, "How can you say that? The wages councils must be a good idea, because Winston Churchill was in favour of them."
  Mr. Hanson: That is right.
  Mr. Nicholls: We have just heard it again, and I must place that inane remark on the record. The hon. Gentleman said, "That is right."
  Even in a packed House like this, I do not think that it will have escaped the attention of hon. Members that I am by nature a traditionalist. I am what is called a Conservative, and I take a great pride in my country's history. Very often, I look backwards for help when formulating policies. However, if I formulated legislation on social policy in the House on the basis that, if it was okay in 1909, it must be a good idea today, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would say that I was on this planet but not necessarily of it. The year 1909 is so long ago that even the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was probably not alive, although, as usual, he said that, as old Winston was in favour, it must be a good idea.
  Ms. Eagle: Conservative Members are very ready to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Has the hon. Gentleman read the latest Durham lecture by my hon. Friend, which points out that income distribution is back to the same level as in 1886? So the Government have taken us even further back in history than 1909.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady obviously still has the mentality of saying that she believes in social democracy when she believes in a far more primitive version of socialism. If she thinks that the average family can pay their food bills by looking at the gap between the rich and poor, her attitude to life is bizarre. If the hon. Lady thinks

  345
  that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) can usually be quoted on her side of the argument, I shall have to disabuse her in a moment.
  Before we leave old Winston, let us remember that, although Labour Members quote him, they would not want to know if we asked them about Tonypandy or the Dardanelles campaign. The folk memory within them rises up if one asks them about Gallipoli. However, if one asks about that one pre-Sarajevo aspect of social policy, they will know about it and say that old Winston was a good person.
  With all the insincerity at my command, I find that just about as convincing as a Conservative Member quoting Keir Hardie as being on his side, or Bruce Kent putting in a good word for Attila the Hun. It is complete nonsense. If the only support that can be found for the policy is that old Winston was in favour of it, I do not find it convincing.
  There is a sort of mad corporatist logic in that argument, but if one takes it to the full extreme and believes that one can help the low paid and unemployed through a wages council structure, one should say that that structure should extend over the entire country. A wage would be laid down for every industry and process by a Minister or a bureaucrat in Whitehall. The Labour party is not in favour of that. Although it would be crackers, it would be logically so.
  The Labour party is a great destroyer of wages councils— I accept that they are not all bad. If one casts one's mind back to when Labour was last in office, between 1974 and 1979, one remembers that it abolished wages councils at the rate of one every six months. Even the Opposition are prepared to question the validity of their existence.
  The Opposition oppose the measure because they are looking at the wrong target. We constantly hear that low-paid employment is the worst evil that can befall anyone, but a condition called "no job" is worse than low pay. On Second Reading, in Committee and today, the Labour party has failed to explain how the wages councils contribute to people being in low-paid jobs.
  Many people start their careers in low-paid jobs. If one has a time-warped, corporatist view of life, in which everything is a fixed entity and can never expand, and we can never make progress, people in low-paid jobs will be there for ever. That is a marvellous picture of history, which will appeal to people who have never read a book other than "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". That picture has no claim on reality. Many people start off in low-paid work and move on. It is a time in their lives.
  Anyone who is unemployed knows that it is immensely harder to get a job if one is out of work, and that it is easier to make progress and move up the economic ladder if one has work.
  If we tell employers that they will not be allowed to offer jobs, we will destroy work possibilities and the possibility of job creation. As we approach the 21st century, the idea could only be suggested by people who do not realise that employment happens when an employer has a service, or a product to be made, and it is worth his while to pay someone a rate to do it. That is the essential ingredient of a job and what it is all about. If a bureaucrat or Minister steps in to intercede on the judgment of the person offering a job, work is destroyed—it is as simple and straightforward as that.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have only just entered the Chamber and I did not have the opportunity to hear the earlier part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I think that he is speaking a great deal of sense. Does he agree that wages councils act as a sort of conspiracy between the employed and employers against the interests of the unemployed? If we want to find jobs for the unemployed, we shoud listen to them. I was on the Select Committee on Employment which considered the matter some years ago, and I am pleased that I then voted for the abolition of wages councils.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are industries and processes where the fixing of a minimum wage is something on which employers and unions actively work together, and there is an element of conspiracy.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that he would not give a pledge to restore wages councils, because he was in favour of the national minimum wage. I like to find points of agreement in the House. I accept that the Opposition are as genuinely concerned about the fate of the unemployed and the low paid as Conservatives are. However, when I hear the national minimum wage proposed as a remedy for that condition, I begin to wonder how on earth the sincerity for one policy can match up to the commitment for a national minimum wage.
  A policy for a national minimum wage is another way of stating the attitude that leads to support for wages councils. The extraordinary fact is that the thoughtful contributions from those on the left as well as the right of the argument who know what they are talking about show that not one of them supports the national minimum wage.
  The Guardian stated:
  "Labour has a problem with the national minimum wage … it will cause extra unemployment … it will increase inflation".
  A thoughtful Opposition Member, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), said:
  "the employment consequences … would be little short of disastrous".
  As for the trade unionists' view, Eric Hammond has said that the minimum wage would
  "create more unemployment and chaos and conflict on the shop floor".
  Gavin Laird has said:
  "It's never worked in the past, there's no logic for it, it doesn't work in any other country and it certainly will not work in Great Britain".
  If anyone feels that those comments from the left of the argument are too highbrow, I can give a lowbrow view from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that Hansard will place on record the support being expressed for that hon. Gentleman. When asked to give the consequences of the national minimum wage, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I knew the consequences were that there would be some shake-out—any silly fool knew that".
  When the hon. Gentleman says "silly fool", we should take his word.
  Outside the House, and sometimes even within it, those on the left of the argument know that the national minimum wage is not the panacea that they would like it to be. However, the Labour party's policy is to forget about the views of its trade union sponsors, the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the left-wing press. It ignores all that evidence and experience, and goes for the national minimum wage policy.
  Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, concedes that the minimum wage would cause joblessness?
  Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that he would concede that. It is curious that the policy still remains Labour party policy. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) prefers to be in opposition, not government.
  The saddest comment on the idea that people can be helped by a national minimum wage was stated many years ago by the late Vic Feather. He once said—I am sure with great sincerity—that he did not think that the Labour party should rest until everyone was earning above the national minimum wage. If one considers those comments, made in all sincerity, one realises that they represent the economics of the madhouse. Everything that underpins the argument is all about ensuring that, one day, everyone earns more than the national minimum wage.
  If we are in the business of wanting to help those who are unemployed and those who earn low wages, we can do it in three ways. First, we can ensure that, when people are out of work, they are cared for and looked after properly. Secondly, we can ensure that there are training opportunities to help people get back into work when there is work. We cannot achieve it by opposing every training scheme that the Government have introduced since 1979. Finally, we should deliver an economic climate in which the employers who provide jobs are in a position to do so.
  It is one thing to do as Opposition Members do, and say, "We care for the unemployed." I am sure they do, but the country is entitled to balance against that expression of good intent the adoption of policies that are the policies of the madhouse. That is why the Bill deserves its Third Reading.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: During the past few months in Committee, I have been having a small bet with myself as to who would win the prize for being the most right-wing member of the Committee. At the outset, I thought that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), might win it. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) made a late bid this afternoon, but the winner has to be the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has never failed to surprise us in Committee with his right-wing comments.
  I enjoyed discussing the Bill in Committee, which was a good learning experience for me—I have emerged wiser than before. However, my fundamental objections to the tenets of the Bill have remained, and even grown, during our deliberations. The Bill addresses all the wrong issues —a failing that was apparent from the first day of our deliberations.
  Unemployment in the United Kingdom is rising. This is the 33rd month in a row that it has risen in my constituency in north Wales. However, the only proposal in the Bill to bring back employment to our community is to make the poorest people pay for the price of the high level of unemployment by reducing their pay. Low pay and poverty are increasing throughout the United Kingdom, and my region of Wales remains one of the poorest paid
  348
  districts. But the Government's only proposals are to reduce the employment conditions, pay and standard of living of one in 10 of the work force of my community.
  Women, who need our support to stay in the employment market, and who, in the late 20th century, demand and need decent levels of maternity pay, are granted only the basic minimum in the Bill. The Government opposed even that level during our discussions in Committee. Privatisation, which has been a fetish of the Government ever since they were first elected in 1979, is now to be extended to the careers service, which the Government do not own or control and which they have no right to hand over to the private sector.
  The Government's proposals in the Bill remain objectionable. It is not a Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill but a Trade Union and Removal of Rights Bill. That comes as a surprise to me, because, in Committee, we were told that the Conservative party was the party of the individual, and of the promotion of the individual. The Bill flies in the face of that aspiration. It shifts power away from individuals who live, work and spend their lives in communities, and transfers it to bigger forces over which people have no control.
  What rights in their daily lives will individuals in my constituency have if they have no individual choice over matters controlled by larger forces? What rights to negotiate pay and conditions will a low-paid worker in a wages council industry have in a non-unionised environment? How have we stengthened those employees' rights by removing the basic minimum wage? We have not strengthened individuals' rights, but diminished them. The Government will pander to the forces of strength against the forces of those who are weaker. They have shifted the balance of power.
  What rights will women have when they are pregnant, and seek support and decent maternity rights? Women in other European countries will consistently have greater rights. Under the Bill's provisions, to what degree will women be able to extend their rights when an employer does not wish them to do so? Once again, individuals are being challenged by forces bigger than themselves. What rights do people have to organise freely and fairly in trade unions so as to counterbalance these powers and develop their freedom?
  The proposals in this Bill are all squalid; they will lead to a diminution of rights, not an extension. The abolition of the wages councils, the imposition of basic maternity pay, by contrast with what happens in the countries of our European partners, and the privatisation of the careers service are all retrograde steps. They have nothing to do with quality, fairness or justice and everything to do with the power of big business, of privilege and of capital—all at the expense of the public good. We should not forget that when we vote this evening.
  Yesterday, we spoke at length about the wages councils and maternity rights, and I do not propose to cover them in detail today, but I should like to ask some questions about the proposals to privatise the careers service. In Committee, the Government failed to answer many of our questions about the effects of these proposals. I hope that the Minister will respond to them today. Why are we trying to change the careers service operation? The Government do not own or control these services in any case; they are run by local government. What has been wrong with their operation? Have queues of employers been knocking on the Secretary of State's door claiming

  349
  that they have been failed by the careers service? Have millions of parents done that? Neither I nor my hon. Friends have had any correspondence to that effect.
  Is the careers service failing our young people? No; I see no need for change—
  Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy to attack our well established careers services at this time? They are run by professionally committed people with a great deal of experience, but the advice and guidance that they have given young people cannot be put into practice because—this is the real failure—there have simply been no career opportunities for most. Most employers would confirm that most of the posts that they have to offer are in any case filled by people who are over-qualified for them.
  Mr. Hanson: That is a valid point, and I intend to return to it towards the end of my speech.
  Who will provide the new services? What will the quality threshold be? We have as yet heard no definitive answers.
  In this age of subsidiarity, I would welcome the Government telling us why the Secretary of State for Employment believes that she can provide a better service for my constituents in north Wales–250 miles from her office in Whitehall. At the moment, those services are provided two miles down the road at shire hall in Mold, by local people who are accountable to local councillors. What objectivity or impartiality will there be in the new services? It may well turn out to be a profit-oriented service, bidding for niches in the market that bring in the best returns for an investment.
  In short, the proposals on careers services are not about improving them or making them more accountable, or about meeting the needs of young people and others who use them: they are about continuing to implement the Government's dogma of privatisation.
  What representations have the Government received about these changes—or for the maintenance of the status quo? If the Secretary of State and the Minister give us the factual details of the responses that they have had, I believe we will discover that they have had more representations in favour of maintaining the status quo than in favour of changing it.
  What assessment have the Government made of careers services nationally? I suspect none. They have not even bothered to assess the success or failures of the services, and that is beyond me.
  The careers service provides a free, fair, impartial local and accountable service. Long may it continue to do so. Under the new arrangements, however, what accountability will there be? In Committee, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) said in answer to one of my questions.
  "Anyone who wishes to complain about the service will have the same recourse to their Member of Parliament, who will be able directly to ask questions of the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 February 1993; c. 706.]
  Does that represent an improvement in accountability?
  At present, if I do not like my service, I can walk three streets from where I live and knock on the door of the local councillor. I do not have to write to London or take part in a delegation. I could also drive or cycle—or walk—two
  350
  miles to shire hall and complain there. This accountability will be lost under these proposals. In an age of subsidiarity, the Government are removing local accountability, not enhancing it.
  There are no assurances of quality thresholds or of improved services. The service will fragment and come under central control, and it will become profit oriented. All these ideas should be rejected.
  The provisions in this Bill are horrendous. The abolition of the wages councils and the privatisation of the careers services, not to mention the parsimonious attitude to maternity rights—these ideas too should all be rejected. I look forward to coming to the House on some future occasion and voting for a minimum wage to raise basic salaries for the poorest people in society. I look forward to voting for improvements in maternity leave and to increasing it to a minimum of 18 weeks. I look forward to improving antenatal standards of care and introducing paternity care so as to recognise that women alone are not responsible for bringing up families.
  I want to come here and vote for fairness for the unions and for fairness as between workers and those who employ them. I want to vote for improvements in the careers service that build on what is good but do not destroy, just for the sake of dogma, what does not need changing.
  We need a programme to rebuild Britain, to create jobs, to build services and to improve the lot of everyone in society. Every Government proposal this evening will magnify injustice and bear down on the poorest. That is why I will be proud to vote with the Opposition against this Bill.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I should have been a great deal more sympathetic to the Labour party had it not indulged in one of the greatest ever endeavours to abolish wages councils. The Labour party abolished 10 of them between 1974 and 1979. Those councils covered about 600,000 people. It is therefore a little rich of Opposition Members to speak as they have done in this debate.
  Opposition Members fail to recognise the importance of the measures that we are adopting to remove wages councils, which are wholly out of date in the present labour market. It is interesting to note the names of some of the wages councils that are to be abolished, and their relevance to today. One of them is the coffin furniture and cerement-making council, covering about 200 employees. Then there is the cotton waste reclamation council, covering 300 people. The list gets better. The next is the ostrich and fancy feather and artificial flower wages council, covering about 500 employees. Of course, the Labour party may argue that these councils are absolutely necessary to tackle unemployment in 1993. Perhaps the Opposition will explain the relevance also of the perambulator and invalid carriage wages council, which covers 2,000 employees. Clearly, such councils are out of date—Labour recognised that, but for very different reasons.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend listed a number of wages councils, but while it is commonly accepted that about 2 million or 3 million employees are covered by them, he accounted for only around 3,000. Can he say what is to happen to the other 2 million employees?
  Mr. Bates: I should be happy to list all the wages councils, if time permitted. The point remains that eight out of 10 employees are not covered by them. If wages councils are such a good idea, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) suggested, and if the argument is one of accountability, as was said by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)—of popping round to a local county councillor—why are Labour not proposing to cover the entire working population with them?
  Labour abolished many wages councils because of the cosy link that existed between that party and the unions. Labour came under pressure from the unions, which said, "Wages councils are doing us out of a job. Employees are seeing wages councils negotiating their pay and conditions when that should be done by trade unions."
  I like to think that the trade union reform legislation that Conservative Governments introduced in 1979, 1980, 1982 and 1986 brought about a trade union movement that—apart from the calls sometimes made by Labour—takes a responsible approach to inward investment. It is a great pleasure to see that constructive attitude taken at a time when we are trying to attract investment to the United Kingdom, to create real jobs.
  The issue of concern to the 5,789 people in my constituency who are out of work is not low pay but no pay. A survey by the local Employment Service office into attitudes and characteristics of unemployed people in Cleveland county involved asking people the minimum wage that they would require to go to work. Some 62 per cent. of those living in Cleveland required a minimum weekly wage of £91. We are not talking about choice—wages councils would prevent those people from seeking employment when they are quite prepared to do so. That is an amazing infringement of a civil liberty and a basic right—to be able to go to work and to ply one's trade for an acceptable income. Who are we to legislate against people getting work and providing an income for their families?
  Much was made of the situation in 1909—this debate seems to be going back further and further in time. In 1909, today's extensive social welfare and social security system did not exist. A Conservative Government introduced family credit and income support—both sensible reforms which targeted help at those on low salaries, while allowing them to enjoy the dignity of continuing in employment.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bates: The survey showed that 80 per cent. of the work covered by wages councils produces a second income. The benefits system takes account of a households's total income, responsibilities, and levels of expenditure, and then provides a sensible, means-tested top up to the individual's salary. That is a much more beneficial method of protecting the low paid in our society.
  Another survey showed that 70 per cent. of foreign-owned companies in the United Kingdom acknowledge the improvement in its industrial relations over the past 13 or 14 years. That is a tremendous achievement. The number of days lost through strikes fell from 3.2 million in January 1979 to 500,000 for the whole year to August 1992. That point may be lost on the Labour party, but it is not lost on the hundreds of businesses in America and Japan who are flooding into the United
  352
  Kingdom to invest. Inward investment to the north-east amounted to £2.7 billion, creating or establishing 35,000 jobs.
  The United Kingdom's industrial relations record has transformed it from being the sick man of Europe to the country that attracts 60 per cent. of all foreign investment made by America and Japan. I am delighted that the vast proportion of it comes to the north-east.
  Ms. Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bates: Never mind harking back to 1909 and to wages councils, because they are hugely removed from present events. Today, I took leaders of the oil and gas industry in Teesside to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who kindly received us and listened to the points that were made. We were able to tell him about the great plans for investment that those leaders have for Teesside and of the thousands of jobs that they intend to create. That was music to my ears at a time of high employment—real jobs coming to my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As the Member of Parliament who represents Langbaurgh, I am right to focus attention on those new jobs.
  Ms. Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Bates: Those companies are coming to this country because they see it as the place in Europe to locate because of its industrial relations and the skilled work force that it can offer.
  Mr. John Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bates: No, I will not.
  Those jobs are vital to my constituency and we would do well to focus our attention on freeing the market, creating responsible trade unions and creating employment opportunities for people who are out of work—rather than making outdated arguments from the past.
  5.38 pm
  Ms. Angela Eagle: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—especially at this moment, to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). He is the first hon. Member I have encountered who fails even to acknowledge a request to give way, but instead ploughs on as if nothing is happening. His grasp of reality is about as advanced as his manners.
  It would have been more honest of the Government riot to have called this the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, which is a perverse description of it. I have a couple of suggestions for alternative titles. It could, for instance, be called the Labour Market (Deregulation) Bill—or, perhaps, the Trade Union Bashing and Removal of Employment Rights Bill. [Interruption.] The reaction of Conservative Members is very revealing: it shows their real motives.
  Mr. Sykes: Perhaps the hon. Lady would have liked to be in the position in which I found myself during the "winter of discontent". A grown man was sobbing in my office: his wife and family had received death threats because he had crossed a secondary picket line to deliver

  353
  oil to a hospital. It is because our Government have outlawed such alien practices that they have been returned to power four times in succession.
  Ms. Eagle: I can only reply that, after 14 years of this Government, there is a good deal of fear and insecurity in the country. That is due to poverty, unemployment, homelessness and the many other social effects of the Government's appalling economic policy, and their ideological obsession with deregulating the labour market.
  When we examine what has happened over the past 14 years, we begin to perceive the general ideological thrust of the Government's policy and to realise that the Bill is a further example of that. It will redouble the effects that we have already seen. The Government's policy is, as I have said, to deregulate the labour market: the reaction of Conservative Members when I suggested alternative titles for the Bill suggests that they agree with me.
  By definition, people at work—both unions and individuals—are bound to have less power over their employers and less power to protect themselves against arbitrary treatment of any kind. Over the past 14 years, the labour market has been deregulated pretty viciously, in several ways. First, employment protection legislation has been systematically dismantled: that has been a central theme of the Government's labour market policy since they came to office in 1979. We have seen, for example, the lengthening of time limits applying to full-time and part-time workers' access to protection against unfair dismissal; the abolition of various rights to arbitration; the cutting of benefits; and the breaking of links between earnings and benefits, especially in regard to those who are rendered unemployed. All that helps to make the prospect of unemployment more devastating now than it was before the Government came to power.
  The weakening of trade unions has been perhaps the most explicit aim of the series of Conservative Governments who have been in power since 1979. When we examine their record and analyse the rhetoric that they have used in boasting about the devastation that they have caused, we find that all that the Conservatives can really boast about is the so-called weakening and taming of the unions. They seem proudest of that. Certainly they cannot be proud of the current level of unemployment, or our success in the world: we now face massive public sector borrowing requirement debt and a vast balance of payments deficit owing to their inefficiency and incompetence. They have been successful in no other area of economic life, but they have succeeded according to their values.
  The Conservatives have produced six pieces of legislation designed to remove workers' protection by weakening the unions. The Bill is just another step down the road towards the achievement of their aim—to make trade unions as ineffectual as possible. If we strip away the rhetoric about individual trade union rights, we find that it is all about power in the workplace. The Government have reduced the unions' power in the workplace and that, in turn, has reduced their ability to look after the interests of individual members.
  The Government have ensured that the everyday lot of working people is not just insecurity and fear of unemployment—unemployment, of course, is now massive—but the experience of a much more arbitrary and
  354
  dictatorial style in the workplace. I have always called it macho management. Many more people now suffer from such authoritarian behaviour as a result of the Government's policies, but the Government seem pleased with their achievement.
  Another factor that has helped to deregulate the labour market is the unprecedentedly high unemployment levels that we have suffered over the past 14 years. As we heard earlier, the official figure is now 3 million, but we know that the way in which the figures are calculated has been changed 27 times. By fixing the figures, the Government have lost 1 million unemployed: that has been their most effective job creation scheme. I wish that they would show the ingenuity that they appear to have displayed in the manipulation of official statistics by securing real jobs and prosperity for our people.
  It all boils down to the Government's ideological obsessions. We returned to that time and again in Committee. The Government believe that market forces should be allowed a free rein, whatever the consequences. Opposition Members have been keen to point out the devastating social effects of a completely unregulated market—a labour market, or any other economic market —on the social fabric of the nation. The result of the Government's worship of the god of market forces has been 4 million unemployed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) drew attention to the economic madness of that policy in his excellent speech. He pointed out that carrying the present unemployment level wastes £27 billion—money which could be put to a more productive use. As the Secretary of State admitted, that amounts to £9,000 per person. Moreover, lost production is costing us £50 billion. Given such a level of loss and incompetence, it is hard to imagine that Britain's problems revolve around the flexibility between a rate of £3·10 an hour—the current highest level of wages council remuneration—and zero.
  We should remember that £3·10 an hour works out at £120 a week gross, which is hardly a startling sum. Conservative Members, however, are asking us to believe that, if only that flexibility existed, all our problems would be solved and massive employment would be created. They must know that that is nonsense. I do not know how they can say such things with a straight face: I commend them for being able to do so, time and again, without placing their tongues firmly in their cheeks.
  Unemployment is especially devastating in the north-west. We are seeing the same pattern—mass unemployment, at a higher level than we experienced since the 1930s. Two aspects in particular give cause for concern: the number of long-term unemployed—more than 1 million—and the number of young unemployed. We have failed a whole generation of young people by our neglect.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: In France, Spain, Greece and most other European countries that have introduced minimum-wage legislation for young people, youth unemployment is far higher than it is here. Would the hon. Lady care to comment on that? She keeps saying that the Government in this country are failing people. Have not those other Governments failed people by introducing minimum-wage legislation that has destroyed jobs?
  Ms. Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should stop barking up the wrong tree. He should consider youth unemployment in Germany, which is known for its high-tech industries and high-quality employment, and see whether that supports his argument.
  In May 1979, unemployment in the north-west was 5.1 per cent., but in December 1992, after 14 years of "success" under this Government, it was 10.9 per cent. The Government, uniquely among western Governments, have managed to manufacture two recessions. We are in a world recession and, although Britain went into recession before the rest of the world, it seems that it will come out of it later. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) failed to recognise that we had our own recession between 1980 and 1982 thanks to the Government's monetarist obsessions, which destroyed one third of manufacturing industry.
  I want to spend a little time considering the poverty that has resulted from deregulation of the labour market, which was part of the strategy that the Government decided to pursue on taking office. Under this Government, we have seen the largest redistribution of wealth to the rich. That was achieved partly through tax cuts, on which I do not want to spend a lot of time because they are not relevant to the Bill, but plummeting rates of pay have been caused directly by deregulation. The Bill further deregulates and impoverishes and will, therefore, increase poverty.
  Part III of the Bill sits uneasily with the Tory party's labour market philosophies. Part III would appear strange to someone who was unaware of its background, because, however grudgingly, it grants some employment rights of a limited and technical nature. Somebody reading the Bill without background knowledge could be forgiven for wondering what is the purpose of part III, given the ideological obsessions of Tory Members.
  The Secretary of State tried to take credit for all the rights in part III, but they result either from the Government failing properly to apply previous EC directives or from new directives that they fought tooth and nail, weakened, held up and introduced grudgingly at the last possible moment.
  The Library research note on the Bill confirms my view. It says that improvements in the statutory protection in part III are
  "almost entirely inspired by EC directives."
  Would not it be nice to have a Government who had the wit, generosity and commitment to introduce employment protection instead of deregulating, impoverishing and endangering the work force?
  Another aspect of the Bill that worries me is that it will widen the equality gap—the gap in employment rights between men and women—and the pay gap.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but I cannot let her get away with that remark, which implied that provisions in respect of women who become pregnant while at work follow solely from, and are driven by, the directive. The amendments that were made last night go beyond the terms of the directive. Will she confirm that the rights included in the Bill go beyond matters covered by European directives, and would she like to withdraw the rather scurrilous allegation that she made?
  Ms. Eagle: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but I do not agree with his analysis. Some of the amendments
  356
  were proposed by Labour Members to make something awful slightly better, which is why we consider Bills line by line in Committee. If the Government had been truly committed to introducing meaningful rights for women at work—maternity and various other rights—they would have considered the ramshackle and piecemeal structure of equality law much more enthusiastically. They would not have introduced a third tier of employment rights in the most technical and most difficult way to implement. I would be much more willing to believe the Minister's commitment to creating meaningful maternity rights for women if the Government had been willing to consolidate women's employment rights in one simple and easy-to-use Act so that employers and employees were aware of their rights. I am not willing to withdraw my observations. The Government have been dragged kicking and screaming by EC regulations into granting minimum employment rights.
  The Bill runs the risk of widening the pay gap between men and women, and the Equal Opportunities Commission shares my view. One of the mechanisms that will widen the pay gap, which is against the beliefs of those who favour equal pay for work of equal value and the equality legislation that has been on the statute book for 20 years, is the abolition of wages councils. Analysis shows that the pay gap between men and women in wages council industries is considerably narrower than in unregulated sectors. I suggest that that is so because wages council rates are unisex and apply equally to men, women, workers from ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. People do not suffer from discrimination because of their gender, colour or disability.
  Yet another deplorable aspect of the Bill is that it widens that gap. It is a sad day for hon. Members who are committed to achieving equality at work to have to stand by and watch that happen.
  The Bill is another rehash of the Government's tired dogma. It does nothing to deal with Britain's economic situation, which is at crisis level with massive poverty and unemployment and no prospect that anyone can see of getting out of recession. It does nothing to equip a modern work force to face the 20th century, but instead looks back to the 19th century. Therefore, it should be opposed.
  5.58 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I usually try to avoid debates on trade union reform or labour relations, because they have a bad effect on my blood pressure. I do not like to hear Tory Members—a small minority—hurling abuse and contempt at trade unions, because when I worked on Clydeside I found more integrity and good will among trade unionists than in certain sections of the Conservative party.
  It worries me hugely to hear Labour Members expressing great concern about poor people, because they voted huge extra sums of money to agriculture, which is the biggest protection racket that has ever existed and which does massive damage to poor people in Britain, as they well know.
  I want to say a few words about clause 26, which has rarely been mentioned in our debate and is rarely mentioned at all. It gives the impression that there has been a conspiracy of silence about a massive change in British law which will effectively undermine the issue of privatisation.

  357
  The Government's practice with regard to EC measures has been to say, "This doesn't really matter at all. It is hardly a change. In fact, the Law Officers have told us that everything is going very well." However, this morning I received a letter, which I shall be glad to give to the Minister, from the managing director of the Clause 26 group. It stated:
  "Companies are facing financial ruin as a direct consequence of the confusion brought about by the inclusion of clause 26 in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill."
  He may be exaggerating, but members of the Committee are well aware that something serious has happened, which will have a significant effect on our economy.
  Let us consider what is involved in privatisation. Refuse collection and street cleaning contracts had a value of about £448 million, the cost of ground maintenance was about £141 million and for building cleaning about £191 million. I have gained the impression—
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I know about the concern expressed by the Clause 26 group. I have spoken to the group, as it lobbied the Committee. There is nothing in clause 26 that changes the terms of the acquired rights directive. The concern expressed to him relates to the provisions of that directive. My hon. Friend's knowledge of Community institutions is second to none, and he will know that there is nothing that we can do in the Bill to change the terms of that directive.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I note that the Minister says that the directive has not changed, but, as someone who has studied these issues, I hope that he is aware that we are changing the law. I hope that he is aware that the House passed a law after the EC had issued the directive. After that, infraction proceedings were taken against us for three years. As far as I am aware, that was not made known to the House or to the industries directly involved.
  The Commission said, "Please change your interpretation of five aspects of our directive, which is a splendid directive." The Government apparently accepted four changes. I am sure that they accepted a battle of correspondence but not a real battle. They did not go to court over one single aspect. Is that not the case?
  Mr. Forsyth: Four of the points were taken on board, and one is still subject to dispute. I reinforce my point: it is the terms of the directive which matter. If the Government did not comply with infraction proceedings and if we did not change the law, it would still be open to people to look to the courts to enforce the terms of the directive. That is the key issue which my hon. Friend needs to take on board.
  I agree that we need to consider the terms of the acquired rights directive and that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it is a matter which can best be determined by national Governments, but because the pass was sold by the Labour Government as far back as 1977, we are not in a position to do so.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister talks about legal points and what happens if we do not conform to infraction proceedings. That is the most astonishing interpretation of European law that I have ever heard. Infraction proceedings result in our being written a letter. If the Commission says that we are not applying the directive
  358
  properly, it will take infraction proceedings, which means sending us a letter, and we must send one back. If we feel that it is a battle worth fighting and something about which we feel sufficiently strongly, we can go to the courts.
  The Government accepted four proposals. The Minister says that it is a matter of interpretation of the law, but it is a significant interpretation. It is disappointing that, when a significant change is made to United Kingdom law or, as the Minister would say, our interpretation of the European directive, no one wants to talk about it or to consider the implications.
  I feel strongly about this, because Southend-on-Sea started the business of municipal privatisation. Some people may not agree, but we believe that we were the first. We made a big change in our cleansing department by saying that we would get rid of a lot of people. We decided to start again and do it differently. We were attacked for many reasons: people said that we were trying to cut costs and slash wages, but now wages are higher and we have an efficient service which has saved a great deal of money. It has now happened all over the country, as the Minister is aware. Conservatives usually think that privatisation is a good thing. A huge amount of money has been saved across the country—the estimate is about 20 per cent.—by saying that we want to try all these exciting things.
  I submit that, under the new interpretation which the Government accepted following infraction proceedings, privatisation will be severely undermined. The Minister might doubt that, but I shall cite an example. Privatisation is about to take place on the Fenchurch Street line, which goes to Southend-on-Sea. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who usually tells me the truth, because, as the Minister knows, he is a decent guy. He does not talk about such things as the social chapter or unusual interpretations; nor does he talk a load of rubbish on television like other Ministers. I asked him what would happen. He wrote:
  "we understand that under TUPE all staff employed wholly or mainly on the passenger service operations of the LT&S at the time will transfer when a franchise is let for those operations. Their wage rates and other employment terms and conditions will be maintained, and the recognised trade unions will have to be consulted"—
  meaningfully. As Members of the Opposition Front Bench are aware, if we do not have meaningful consultation—the word "meaningful" must also be interpreted by one of the bright tribunals—the employer will be fined the equivalent of two weeks' wages. Basically, that is a huge change, which has had dramatic consequences.
  A firm called Thamesway, one of our great new privatised bus companies, said that it wanted to be involved in the Fenchurch Street privatisation. It believed that it was a great idea and wanted to run the train more efficiently in a new spirit of private enterprise. The company knew that it might have turned out to be a disaster or a great success like our cleansing operation. What happened? When the Bill was published, Thamesway said that it was no longer interested.
  Hon. Members will remember the great prison privatisation that was to take place. A firm called McAlpine was going to do exciting things so that people would jump up and down far more efficiently at less cost, prisoners would be happier and would get coffee in bed in the morning. I do not know how the firm was going to do it, but it proposed to do it more cheaply and better. However, I understand that the firm has now abandoned the idea.

  359
  The Minister may say that it is all a question of how we interpret the law, but the plain fact is that a massive change has occurred. The evidence is there. Time will tell if I am wrong. The Minister might believe that firms are going to rush to become involved in privatisations. If they do, he can say, "Taylor is a clown", but the change is big, and it is happening.
  I do not object to the fact that the EC acted when there was a Labour Government. What worries me is that we are not being told about a massive transfer of decision-making —the facts are being deliberately hidden. Is that merely Taylor's view? Far from it.
  The Clause 26 group consists of employers, the people who want to become involved in privatisations and have spent a fortune trying to get them off the ground. The group is saying that, if it had been told about infraction proceedings, it could have saved a great deal of money and time:
  "If contractors had been aware that Brussels was seeking to enforce the Acquired Rights Directive on public service contracts, they would have viewed the new market opportunity in an entirely different light."
  If the Minister wants the letter, he can have it. This is not me telling stories; it is what the Clause 26 group said. It said that, if it had known about this, it would have approached the matter in an entirely different way.
  Then there is the famous social chapter, about which we have been given all kinds of nonsense. Ministers told us that it would cost British firms millions of pounds, but now the Foreign Secretary tells us that it will not apply to Britain at all.
  It is time for the Government to face up to the fact that these things are happening. People should be told what is going on. Things ought not to be hidden. We could, as usual, blame problems on the Labour party and the trade unions by saying that they were in power when the original directive went through. However, mighty things are happening, and it is very important that we should face up to that fact.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that, throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members referred to concern about creeping competence, about matters in respect of which the European Community was slowly eroding the rights of the British Parliament. Surely it must seem strange to ordinary working people that some Conservative Members should be so animated by the question of the right to continue to exploit working people. We have before us a Bill that removes workers' rights in a most profound way, yet the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seem to be concerned only by the fact that Europe is taking more powers from this Parliament.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If people agree with the hon. Gentleman, if they think that Tories are a bunch of scum doing everyone down, they can change the Government, and therefore the policies. What worries me about EC directives is that people can do nothing about them. The hon. Gentleman may agree with those people who say that privatisation is wrong, and bad for working folk. I happen to think that it is good for workers—by, for example, keeping costs down. If private enterprise were to sweep through agriculture, for instance, the living standards of working people in Britain would be infinitely higher. It is a question of different approaches. The hon. Gentleman
  360
  May be right, and I wrong. If he can persuade the people of Britain that laws of the type of which he is in favour should be brought in, that will be fantastic. Sadly, however, rights are being taken away.
  The really bad thing is what would happen in privatisation generally. All workers would have to be kept on, wage rates maintained, and working conditions protected, and there would have to be meaningful consultations with the unions. Having said that, I want to put three simple questions to the Government.
  First, do they regard this as a serious matter? That is a simple question, requiring the answer yes or no. The Government may say that nothing has changed, that what we are faced with is simply the interpretation of a directive, but there is a huge difference of interpretation. I am referring not to what we have heard from the Law Officers but to the desire of the Commissioners to take proceedings, to which we have been told we must agree. I happen to think that that is a very serious matter.
  Secondly, have there been any signs that industry and commerce are giving up their interest in privatisation? Recently, I have given two very specific examples, and there are many more—a huge number, the Clause 26 group says. Are the Government aware of any such cases?
  Thirdly, what is the reason for the row about one of the five measures that the Government are not conceding to the EC—a measure in respect of which we may go to court? I refer to the granting of recognition to trade unions or other employee representatives for the purposes of these meaningful negotiations. I can assure the Minister that I have a real problem in Southend-on-Sea—a railway line that is to be privatised. I do not know what to tell workers, friends and neighbours. Until now, I have urged people to rejoin trade unions fast, on the grounds that they need representation in the meaningful consultations. This is a matter of great importance and real significance.
  People in the Department of Employment work very hard and late to do the best for the working people of Britain. Let them concentrate on telling people what is happening. We know that there has been a mighty change in the interpretation of the directive. There is no point in saying that nothing much has happened. Let people be told what has happened; then a decision on what to do about it can be made. Some people say that we cannot go on like this, that change is necessary. Others say that private legislation should be tried. What is happening in this case has happened in many others. A major change is being made in the rights and liberties of the people of Britain.
  We should be able to go for privatisation if we think that it is a good thing. However, people are not being told what is happening. Things are being swept under the carpet. There is pretence that the law is unchanged or that there are only a few minor changes. People in Britain should be told to wake up. Firms should not be deprived of information. We must realise that something nasty and serious has happened—and, sadly, it is something over which we have no control.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to begin by apologising for my absence at the beginning of the debate. I do not have the good fortune to have been a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with this Bill, but those who were on the Committee will probably

  361
  remember the measure as the one that did away with the wages councils. It seems that that is the impact that the Bill has had on the public. Yesterday we had a full debate on the issue of the wages councils. The Tea Room round by the Whips has been a little more successful today. Yesterday, during that focus debate, we did not have the advantage of hearing any Conservative Member, apart from the Minister, support the abolition of the wages councils. Today we have heard some such support from the Government side.
  I should like to put to the Minister a question that I would have put to one of his hon. Friends if he had chosen to give way to anyone during his speech: what do the Government regard as the lowest acceptable rate of pay? Do the Government believe that it is right that very large numbers of people should have to rely on social security benefits to support their income? If so, how does that accord with Tory philosophy? It seems to me to contradict entirely the philosophy that private enterprise should not only exist but prosper. I cannot believe that part of Tory philosophy is that private enterprise should be founded upon a situation in which bankruptcies and liquidations increase every year, in which more and more people find that their employers have gone bust without even making proper PAYE payments, and when more and more people are forced into low-wage employment.
  I should like the Minister to deal with a particular problem that affects rural areas such as my constituency of Montgomery. A reality of life in rural mid-Wales and, I expect, in similar rural areas is that opportunities for work in agriculture are beginning to diminish as fast as in some heavy industries, such as coal and steel, in the past. As a result, we have an increasingly low-wage economy, in which people are looking increasingly for jobs that do not exist. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that people who find work in the tourist industry and in the residual industries in rural areas are not paid at abominably low rates?
  I have visited factories in my constituency where wage rates, particularly for women, are extremely low. For example, two or two and a half years ago, women packing cosmetics were being paid less than £2 an hour. I am very pleased to say that the rates were raised shortly after my visit, and I hope that was not a coincidence. In many factories around the country women in particular are greatly disadvantaged in terms of wages. As was said yesterday, women—especially single parents and others in similar positions—will be particularly affected by the removal of the wages councils. The Government cannot be proud of that. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) like me to give way to him? I think that he muttered something about my having missed out the ethnic minorities. I do not know whether that was intended to be a constructive contribution to the debate; in my view, it was a pretty disgraceful one. Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way? I see that he does not. In that event I shall continue.
  The Bill missed the opportunity for Government Departments to combine their resources, and the considerable talents of those who work in them and who can produce imaginative schemes at the drop of a Government pencil, in an attempt to produce a real strategy for employment in this country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that a Third Reading debate must encompass what is in the Bill, not a future employment strategy.
  Mr. Carlile: I was going to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it was a disappointment that the speeches made both on the Floor of the House and in Committee revealed that the Department of Employment had done little to ensure that the Bill contained at least some of the opportunities that could have been included if a strategic approach had been adopted.
  There are other disappointments as well as the provisions concerning the wages councils. In the context of employment rights, it is disappointing that the Government did not allow those who go before industrial tribunals to have legal aid. Few Labour Members here now were Members of Parliament when industrial tribunals were introduced. I am confident that Labour Members would now disagree with the deal that was done between the unions and the Labour Government. The unions did not want legal aid to be available for industrial tribunals because that might have reduced union membership. That was not a creditable deal.
  Most Opposition Members, whether they belong to the Labour party, to my party or to any of the other Opposition parties, would agree that the rights of people who lose their jobs through redundancy or dismissal are not fairly protected when the employer can use solicitors and counsel to appear before the industrial tribunal but the employed person is rarely able to do so. Many employed people are extremely well represented by trade union representatives at industrial tribunals, but at some tribunals I have had the feeling that the employee has not had the resources to enable him to present his case with all the investigative and evidential resources available to the employer. In omitting to give legal aid to employed people going before industrial tribunals the Bill represents a missed opportunity.
  I regret, too, that the maternity and paternity rights proposals discussed in the debates on the Bill have found favour with the Government only to a limited extent. In so far as the Bill takes the law forward and improves rights it is welcome, but what it does is extremely limited.
  I am confident that many more Bills will come before the House involving the factors that I have mentioned, especially legal aid, wages councils, and maternity and paternity rights. The Government cannot be complacent in the belief that they have created a charter of rights of which a British Government can be proud. The Government's intransigence about the social chapter, and the intransigence of people such as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will evaporate as the years go by—but it will be shameful to see the British worker lagging behind those in other countries in the European Community because, compared with his colleagues elsewhere, he has fewer rights.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said that the Bill was aimed at the wrong issues. I start by disagreeing profoundly with that statement. How can it be wrong to provide new rights for trade union members and for employees, including a whole raft of new maternity rights? How can it be wrong to improve the constitution of

  363
  industrial tribunals to cut delays? How can it be wrong to create conditions for new jobs by abolishing the wages councils?
  The hon. Member for Delyn, like me, was here on Second Reading and served on the Standing Committee, so he knows that at that stage I said that the Bill was good. Having been through the whole Committee process and having heard the hon. Gentleman speak many times over those 55 hours, I am prepared to say that the Bill is better now.
  The Bill has been improved partly because of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, and partly because of those of other members of the Committee. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members to say that the Government did not respond to what they, and we, said in Committee. For example, the hon. Gentleman will recall that one of the points that he and other hon. Members made about trade union ballot scrutiny was that the confidentiality of individuals might be breached and their security put at risk if the sort of information available to scrutineers became common knowledge. On that issue the Government listened and acted. New clause 6 deals with the problem.
  Much criticism was levelled at the Government on the basis that if there was a flat rate of check-off, it was ridiculous for the Bill to require notification of increase on an annual basis. The Government listened to that and acted. There was criticism that women did not have sufficient freedom to choose the starting date of their maternity leave. The Government listened and acted. On issues of individual safety, practical common sense and individual freedom the Government not only heard what was said but acted.
  Hon. Members raised other issues, too, on which they would no doubt have liked their views to be represented in the final form of the Bill. But it is clearly wrong to say that there has not been a Committee process that has improved the Bill.
  I especially welcome some of the measures that have not been generally discussed in the debate. The method of dealing with delays in industrial tribunals—by giving the chairman enhanced powers to deal with legal issues and issues of contract—will be a great help. Having attended industrial tribunals over the past year or so, I have seen the delays. Five months is the average in half the cases listed, and a delay of a year or more is not unknown. If we can transfer 25 per cent. of the work to the chairman only—and that would be the effect of the provision—waiting times will be cut dramatically. That does not harm in any way employers' and employees' confidence in the system of industrial tribunals and in the concept of the industrial jury.
  I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about legal aid for industrial tribunals. In my view, legal aid would change industrial tribunals dramatically—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: They would be fair.
  Mr. Heald: I do not accept that. Over the years, industrial tribunals have developed from being informal at the outset to being far more legalistic. Nevertheless, the whole approach is still that people from each side of industry tackle the problem and try to solve it in a manner different from the adversarial system that we know in the courts.
  364
  My experience has always been that if an applicant is not represented by a lawyer, the chairman and the members of the tribunal bend over backwards to give him every assistance. Certainly people have not suffered as a result of not having the services of someone such as the hon. and learned Member or myself.
  Sir Harold Walker: Possibly I am the only Member present who was a Member of Parliament when industrial tribunals were introduced. I do not recall the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the spokesman for the Liberal party, being present. Bearing in mind that he is a lawyer, probably fishing for work, may I tell him that the original purpose in excluding legal aid was precisely the reason given by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald)—that we wanted industrial tribunals to be a means of informal jurisdiction rather than bring in the legalities and complexities which all too often accompany the presence of lawyers.
  Mr. Heald: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. A unique quality of an industrial tribunal is that it is a common-sense tribunal where lay members can get at the truth of the incident and the facts that are important to the case, partly because of their own experience of both sides of industry.
  I have heard the impassioned plea of Opposition Members who say that if wages councils are destroyed, the fabric of society will be destroyed and people on low wages will suffer. There is a choice: low pay or no pay. There is no doubt that minimum wage regimes anywhere in the world cost jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said yesterday, one may decide that it is a price worth paying. That is fair enough, but it is not right for Opposition Members to lecture us on the basis that there is not a price to pay for minimum wage legislation.
  France has high unemployment; one reason is minimum wage legislation. One reason why Britain has lower youth unemployment than France, Spain, Greece and other European countries is that they all have minimum wage legislation.
  If we are seeking a strategy to deal with unemployment, we have to take that issue into account. Is it right to have more jobs, even if some of them are less well paid, or do we say that there is a certain level at which we will pin the minimum wage and that we will bear the cost in terms of fewer jobs?
  I was interested to read in the Daily Mail yesterday a remark by Lord Jakobovits, the former chief rabbi:
  "Idleness wrecks and corrupts. Any job, no matter how lowly the pay, is better than that."
  It is important to have a sense of reality in the debate. With 17 million unemployed across Europe and with people desperate to work, many of them wanting the flexible, part-time jobs that wages councils deal with, the issue should be addressed seriously. The abolition of wages councils will provide a flexible method of employment and will give people more job opportunities.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: It could be said that the Bill is a sad and unconvincing measure. It has more to do with satisfying the ideological fixations of the union bashers and the labour market deregulators than with the social and economic difficulties facing the British

  365
  people after 14 years of the Government's ruinous economic and industrial policies. If those are the Bill's objectives, I do not think it satisfies either of them.
  Yesterday and today, the Bill has been attacked from both the left and the right of the Conservative party. Many Conservative Members are deeply concerned about some of the provisions. Some of those concerns have been expressed today.
  Following the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), whom it is always a pleasure to follow, I think it worth putting on the record that we on the Labour Benches have given limited endorsement to some parts of the Bill. We cannot give those parts our complete endorsement because they do not go far enough. As we have said throughout the proceedings, we believe that at some time we may have to tidy up the mistakes of the Department of Employment.
  The limited parts of the Bill which we can endorse have been completely overshadowed by other parts which have been drawn to our attention by my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members. I am thinking particularly of the abolition of wages councils in clause 28. Today at least we have had the benefit—if that is the right word; I am not convinced that it is—of hearing some justification for the abolition of wages councils, but the House has been bitterly disappointed.
  We heard a ludicrous speech by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), who clearly thought that the abolition of wages councils was a matter for hilarity and humour. I do not think that that hilarity will be shared by the 2·5 million people, and particularly the 2 million women, who will be exposed to the evils of low wages and exploitation by employers. If that is the best that Government Back Benchers can do, it is pathetic.
  Clause 18 establishes the so-called commission for protection against unlawful action. When the Government are cutting the legal aid budget and withdrawing from the postal ballot regime established in the Employment Act 1980, at the same time to throw money at a ludicrous commissioner seems to be absurd. How is it possible to cut legal aid and to withdraw from the postal ballot regime while spending millions to support frivolous and absurd litigation?
  There are also absurd provisions on check-off in clause 11. The Government have yet to provide any coherent justification for the check-off regime which they propose as the law of the land. They cannot provide justification, because there is none. Clearly, the purpose of clause 11 is to strangle check-off arrangements. That will damage industrial relations, and it was not requested by employers.
  Significantly, there is tension between parts of the Bill which seek to improve the employment rights of individuals and other parts which will take rights away. There is a mix of deregulation and regulation. I think that that is why the Bill worries many Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who unfortunately is not in his place.
  Parts of the Bill are so badly drafted—again I am thinking of clause 18—that they look like three cherries on a fruit machine for lawyers. It is no part of the business of the House or of hon. Members to enact legislation which will have that result. The law which we are making is not
  366
  clear or concise. It will not improve the employment rights of individuals. It will simply generate work for grossly overpaid lawyers. That is not a sensible use of our time.
  The principles behind the Bill were out of date before the measure was presented. A party which proclaims the value of deregulation as a method of stimulating employment is presiding over chronic, mass and rising employment. Clearly the Government have no answers to the accusation that the economy is out of control. All they can produce is this absurd attempt to abolish the minimum wages set by wages councils.
  The Bill is a sad reflection on the Government's economic ambitions. Not many Conservative Members have been part of our proceedings; I can only conclude that they were too ashamed and embarrassed to participate. I hope that those who have had the benefit of hearing the arguments deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends will come to the only possible conclusion—to reject the Bill on Third Reading and to restore some sanity and decency to employment rights.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to the House for not being present for the earlier speeches. I was serving on a Select Committee. As a consequence, I will speak briefly.
  If we are to say that levels of pay are the most important factor in employment and that we should allow them to come down, we should consider not just the 2·7 million who are covered by wages councils; to be consistent, we should talk about teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists and all the others who, as my hon. Friends and I can claim with pride, have seen an increase in their real earnings which restored part of the fall which took place under the Labour Government. Going back to what happened before 1979 is not a helpful way of dealing with trade union and employment legislation.
  We need to recognise when we resist parts of the social chapter—one of the issues that has come up in our debates on the Bill—that the European Community proposals to limit the number of hours that people work do not apply to executives, to European Commissioners or to Members of Parliament. They might apply to people who have high manual earnings or who have low manual earnings. I do not go along with such a proposal because I do not believe that it is necessary. Similarly, much of what is in the Bill is not necessary. Aspects of it may be welcome to some, but it is not necessary in the main, with the exception of measures required by European directives and European judgments.
  Some provisions, such as those on political fund ballots, are important because such ballots need to be carried out fairly. I hope that when union members decide, under the regular review, whether they want to maintain a political fund, more and more of them will say that they do not. I hope that, even if they have a political fund, they do not just keep paying money to the Labour party. That is damaging to the Labour party, to the trade unions and to the Conservative party. If we merely see trade unions as supporting one section of our political opponents, we shall react as we have with some elements of the Bill.
  If more hon. Members had listened to a Radio 4 programme a week ago when Brian Widlake dealt with poverty and with people who had lost their jobs, their attitude to wages councils would be different. Many of

  367
  those interviewed were prepared to take work not just at poverty wages, but below poverty wages. Hon. Members would then have looked more carefully at the research evidence quoted by the Department of Employment on the employment consequences of a change in the lowest rates of pay under the wages councils orders.
  I repeat one point I made last night. The only serious evidence—it is pretty weak at that—that Employment Ministers have put forward is that if the rate of pay for people at the bottom of the wages councils industries fell by between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent., there might be a 1 per cent. increase in employment. I have always accepted that there might be an employment impact. However, I believe that virtually to eliminate pay—a drop in the rate of pay of 20 per cent.—for an increase from 2·7 million to 2·727 million is out of order. It does not make sense. I am very surprised that that proposal is being put forward.
  There is a price to pay for the abolition of the wages councils which is far greater than the price that we pay for having them. If that balance of pain is being carried by those who are far worse off than ourselves, I believe that we should take their interests more seriously when we consider legislation.
  The House cannot be said to be giving whole-hearted consent to the Bill. I hope that the other place will feel free to consider some of the issues from the beginning. For the Bill to have gone through Report without the right wing of the Tory party speaking in support of Ministers shows that we have gone beyond the days of the 1980s when such people supported what was happening.
  I take a pretty moderate approach. I can see the faults in trade unions, in political parties and in some official arrangements. The fact that I oppose so many of the details of the Bill suggests to me that we should hear the reflections of the other place. I hope that the Bill comes back with some changes.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I first pay a compliment to the Ministers—the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). I take the view that if the hon. Member for Stirling can damage my street credibility, I can certainly damage his. I believe that I speak for all Opposition Members when I say how grateful we are for the way in which the Committee was conducted, and for the reasonable and constructive manner in which issues were debated. It made a pleasant change from my previous experience in Committee with the hon. Member for Stirling, when we engaged in trench warfare night in and night out, and came out with the Bill almost unchanged.
  Matters have been different this time. The hon. Member for Stirling has made concession after concession after concession after concession after concession—I told him that I would damage his street credibility—to the extent that the Bill is significantly changed. We are grateful for that, small mercy though it is.
  We conclude our proceedings on the Bill on the eve of the announcement that the official unemployment figure is, almost certainly, above 3 million–4 million in real terms. Twenty seven people are now chasing every vacancy, at a cost to the taxpayer of £27 billion. The number of people employed has fallen by 8 per cent. since 1979 and the number of those employed in manufacturing industry has fallen by a staggering 38 per cent. over the same period.
  368
  Rather than doing anything significant, the Government have preferred once again to stand aside. In this predicament, does the Department of Employment introduce a Bill to help the long-term unemployed? No, it does not. Does it introduce measures to reskill the work force? No. Does it introduce measures to build a well-paid, highly motivated work force? No. Instead, the Department has introduced a Bill which is partly out of date, which is mean-minded in its intentions and which will have no effect on the employment prospects of the nation.
  With 4 million people unemployed, the only job creation measure that the Government can introduce is the abolition of the wages councils. Apparently, the only way in which we can price ourselves into jobs is by pricing ourselves so low that it is difficult to exist.
  We have had numerous contributions on the wages councils. Tonight, for the first time, we have had contributions from Conservative Members. None of them produced arguments in favour of abolition. Instead, Conservative Members produced arguments against our arguments for retaining the wages councils. That shows the bankruptcy of Conservative Members.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said, probably the most ludicrous contribution was the one from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). I am sorry that he is not here now. The hon. Gentleman thought that it was all very hilarious and he used the opportunity to mock the disabled. He seemed to think that it was funny that there was a wages council for those who needed invalid carriages. I trust that the fact that he seemed to think that it was a matter for laughter will be noted by the disabled in his constituency.
  We also had a contribution from a member of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). The best thing that I can say is that it was an extremely short contribution. I did not understand his logic. He said that he had been approached by a business man who opposed the wages councils because he believed that they were inflexible and that they were holding back his progress. This business man never paid wages councils rates; he always paid well above those rates. Yet for some reason, the wages councils were an imposition on him. I still fail to see the logic of that.
  We had the usual contribution from another member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Once again, he was somewhat patronising and dismissive. He fell into the usual fallacy of confusing minimum wage legislation with wages councils. The two issues are related, but they are not the same and it is important always to distinguish between them.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Galbraith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, although I referred to him. He will realise that I am trying to get on, and he knows that I usually give way.
  The Government gave no reasons for the abolition of the wages councils, so I shall give them some assistance by trying to crystallise what their arguments might be. They may care to muse about them in future. Basically, there are three arguments for abolishing wages councils. The first is that those who work in wages councils industries do so for

  369
  pin money. The second is that wages councils destroy jobs and the third is that they are an anachronism. That would be the kernel of the Government's argument.
  The argument that people in wages councils industries work for pin money, as the Secretary of State implied, does not hold up when we look at the figures. The figure of 76·3 per cent. for those in wages councils industries who are in households with a second income is not very different from the equivalent figure of 72·6 per cent. for those in non-wages councils industries. There is no evidence that those in wages councils industries are different. If those who work in wages councils industries are working for pin money, so are those from double-earner homes who work elsewhere—including, I presume, the Secretary of State herself.
  Conservative Members' second argument is that wages councils destroy jobs. I hear assertions and I hear opinions on that, but I have yet to hear arguments to justify them. Conservative Members must learn that opinion is not fact —that the two must be separated. I have read most of the learned academic discussions referred to by the Under-Secretary of State in response to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The academic evidence is at best confused. If anything, it shows that wages councils do not destroy jobs and that, where they are effective and properly policed, they have a positive effect on employment. So the second argument is no basis for abolishing wages councils.
  The final argument, advanced by the hon. Member for Teignbridge—I hope that he will not want to intervene just because I have mentioned him again—is that wages councils are an anachronism. The hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to mock Winston Churchill. The Tory party has come to a sad—
  Mr. Nicholls: On behalf of both myself and Sir Winston Churchill, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that I was not mocking Sir Winston; I was mocking Labour Members' assertions that, for these purposes, he was on their side of the argument.
  Mr. Galbraith: I realised that the hon. Gentleman would try to gloss over the fact that he mocked Winston Churchill, but it was clear to us all that that was what he was doing. It is a sad day when even in the Tory party Winston Churchill is a figure of fun.
  I have explained previously that the fact that something has been around for a long time and may in some respects be out of date is not of itself a reason to abandon it; rather, it is a reason to develop it and take it further. The House of Lords is out of date, yet a Bill to abolish the House of Lords has yet to come before the House.
  The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and the acquired rights directive. The Committee spent some time considering that matter, and we were given the benefit of the Attorney-General's views on that. He came ostensibly to clarify the position, although I think that the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee was that it would have been better if he had not, because we were left even worse off than we had been before.
  The gist of the Attorney-General's position was that nothing had changed—the acquired rights directive had
  370
  always applied, so the regulations had always applied to privatisations and contracting out. I think that that is the position. What has changed is that people now know about the acquired rights directive and they know that it applies equally to undertakings that are privatised. The Government were involved in a cover-up—an attempt to pretend that the directive did not apply and to get round it by including in the original legislation a provision to the effect that it did not apply to commercial undertakings. That went against the acquired rights directive. The Government tried to create a fog so that no one would realise what their rights were, but they were found out and, as the Minister said, the only important issue now is what the acquired rights directive says about appeals being made on that basis irrespective of what is in the British law.
  That being the case, is it not time for the Government to give clear guidance to everyone involved—to employers, the Department and workers—so that everyone knows the position? Given that the Bill is supposed to be about the rights of individual trade unionists and workers, let us give them guidance concerning their rights and what they can claim.
  The Bill has its good parts. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the maternity rights and health and safety provisions. I should like to put on record again my view that many of those provisions are included in the Bill principally because the European Community wished them to be in the Bill—they fulfil our obligations in Europe. The Minister and numerous Conservative Members made it clear that if they had been given their way, many of the provisions would not be in the Bill. The Government included them because they were under legal pressure to do so.
  I make a small exception in respect of the health and safety provisions, which I know the Minister supports. I am grateful to him for the concessions that he made. Lest there be any further misconception, I repeat that had the Government been left to their own devices, the good parts of the Bill—the provisions dealing with maternity rights and health and safety—would have been excluded.
  Part I of the Bill contains the trade union legislation. It is based on the ideology of the 1970s and early 1980s—on the premise that the only thing wrong with this country is that the trade unions are too powerful and that if we introduce legislation to neuter them and remove their powers, we shall attain nirvana. That policy failed miserably in the 1980s and it will fail again.
  In 1979, when trade unions were supposed to be the reason for all our problems, there were 23 million people employed; there are now 21 million—a fall of 8 per cent. In 1979, there were 7 million people employed in manufacturing industry; now there are only 4·5 million —a fall of 38 per cent. In 1979, we had a trade surplus; now, despite North sea oil, we have a trade deficit that grows by the day.
  The Government's attack on the trade unions can therefore be seen to have been based purely on ideology and on spite. Look at the check-off clauses, on which the Minister was in disarray last night and on which he continues to be in disarray today. The clauses will neither enhance the rights of individuals—no one wants them—nor improve the wealth and prosperity of the country.
  Trade unions and their members never were and never will be this nation's industrial problem. Good trade unions

  371
  working with Government and industry in close co-operation are an essential part of our industrial development. Rather than be treated as the Government's whipping boys, they should be recognised as part of the basic and essential engine of recovery.
  Let us hope that, with the passing of the Bill, the dogma and ideology that have been the basis of all the anti-trade union legislation have finally been laid to rest so that trade unions and their members can once again be encouraged and given the tools to develop prosperity for this country. The Bill does not achieve that. It hinders the process. That is why we shall oppose it tonight.
  6.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I thank the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for his kind tribute to me and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I reciprocate by saying that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) could not have behaved more courteously or constructively during our proceedings. I should also pay tribute to my hon. Friends who, by their eloquence, restrained me from making too many concessions during the passage of the Bill.
  I hope that hon. Members will not be embarrassed by that tribute. The TUC was quoted in one of the national newspapers as saying that it had achieved more on this Bill than on all the others put together. I am sure that that is a result of the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and their colleagues and by my hon. Friends.
  Having paid his tribute, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden ruined everything by complaining about the Bill. He said that the Bill does not do anything to help the long-term unemployed or about training or to meet the economic problems that we face. The plain fact is that we do not need legislation to tackle the economic problems of a recession. What we need is a Government committed to the policies that this Government endorse—low inflation, low interest rates and the control of public expenditure—and a Government who are prepared to act in the interests of individuals rather than a party that is clearly dominated by and in the pocket of the trade unions. That was clear from the proceedings on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden talked about pin money. He attributed that expression to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has never implied that pin money was involved or said anything about it. The person who used the expression "pin money" rather shockingly was the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the expression, he should take it up with that commission.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that not a single argument that he put in Committee had been lost. I had the impression that he had not even found a single argument in Committee, much less lost one. He said that his vision was one in which everyone would have a job and be paid what their ambition should be. I find it astonishing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that he did not say it, but I wrote it down because I was so surprised by what he said. He should look it up in the record. The socialist Utopia
  372
  held out by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is one which no socialist Government in the world have ever achieved, nor ever will achieve, because we know how it ends.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about his view of a minimum wage. The countries in the European Community that have embraced his ideas of a minimum wage are those with the highest levels of unemployment. Spain has announced unemployment of 20 per cent. That is hardly surprising, given its commitment to a minimum wage.
  As the debate went on, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras slithered and slid and changed his position. Finally, we found out the Labour party's position on wages councils. The wages councils have dominated the debates and they are supported by the hon. Gentleman. But he said that if the wages councils were abolished, a Labour Government would not bring them back. That is the Labour party's position.
  Opposition Members will fight to the last ditch to stop the Government abolishing the councils. They are so committed to the councils that, if they are ever in government, they will not bring them back. What a shambles. Instead, the hon. Gentleman told the House that he would introduce a national minimum wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, a national minimum wage would destroy almost 2 million jobs in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman sought as his authority his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead.
  Mr. Dobson: Who supports him?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asked: Who supports him?
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister can misrepresent me as much as he likes. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) supports the concept of a national minimum wage and the Minister should not say that he does not.
  Mr. Forsyth: Having looked at the writing of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, it is clear that he said that a minimum wage will destroy jobs. Will the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras say that all the other references that were quoted in the debate and the trade union leaders who were quoted are all being misquoted as well? Everyone knows that, if one puts up the price of labour, one will get less of it. It is like any other commodity. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to deny it.
  Independent research has shown that a national minimum wage, with differentials being maintained, would destroy 2 million jobs. The truth is that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is so in hock to the trade unions that he would rather sign up to a minimum wage and put more people on the dole than address the problem of unemployment in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Gentleman adduced an argument that he used yesterday. Hon. Members who followed the proceedings yesterday will recall that the hon. Gentleman said that wages councils could not destroy jobs because, at a time when there is a recession, the number of jobs has increased in the wages council industries and that that shows that the effect of wages councils is not to destroy employment.
  In 1987, there were 2·472 million people in the wages councils ambit. By 1992, that figure had increased to 2·56

  373
  million—an increase of 89,000 or 3·6 per cent. in that period. In the service industries generally, which the wages councils overwhelmingly cover, the increase was 1 million or 7 per cent. So in the service industries as a whole, employment increased by twice as much as in the wages council industries. We will hear no more of that argument which the hon. Gentleman has unwittingly used in support of the Government's position.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend should allow me to continue because I know that colleagues are anxious to speed the legislation on its way.
  I should like to deal with a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I share his lack of enthusiasm for the transfer of undertakings regulations. Those regulations implement an EC directive which was negotiated by the Labour party 16 years ago. Hon. Members present in the House who were not on the Committee may not be aware that the Labour Government believed that the acquired rights directive which they signed in 1977 would exclude the public sector. That does not say much for their claims about people in the public sector being defrauded by this Government.
  The regulations that we introduced did no such thing. We limited the regulations to undertakings in the nature of a commercial venture. That did not exclude the public sector or privatisation, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras claimed. In Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made it clear that the exclusion was narrow in scope. For example, it excludes only some charities that might be considered noncommercial in nature. That exclusion is being removed in clause 26 of the Bill. It is not the case that people have been defrauded because of the minor and technical deficiency in the way in which the directive was implemented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked whether the Government had resisted the Commission's attempt to enforce the directive. I have been told that, if this Government had been in office in 1977, we would never have adopted the directive in the first place. My hon. Friend is mistaken in the great significance that he attaches to the minor amendments to the regulations in clause 26. As I said, the terms of the directive are significant and we want to examine them under the principles of subsidiarity which are enshrined in article 3b of the Maastricht treaty. I suggest that the Clause 26 group should rename itself the acquired rights directive group. The amendments in clause 26 do not alter the impact of the directive.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: While I accept that the Minister is a born fighter, I ask one simple question: has the European Community sent a letter asking the Government to make more changes which, in my opinion, will basically bust privatisation, as others have said? Why did the Minister not fight? Why did the Government not take them to court? I am not accusing the Minister; I am accusing those who made the decisions.
  Mr. Forsyth: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the changes that arose from the infraction proceedings do not alter the meaning and scope of the directive in the way that he believes. While he may believe that the directive is having an adverse effect on competitive
  374
  tendering, that is a matter which can be addressed only by changing the terms of the directive. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will press, in line with the commitment that we have made to subsidiarity, for those matters to be determined in this place according to the interests of competitive tendering and other matters.
  We have had a number of debates on the principles behind the Bill. Although the Labour party may vote against the Bill tonight, I hope that we shall see the same thing happening on this legislation as happened on other similar legislation. This Government rid the country of the tyranny of the closed shop and gave ordinary members the rights and protections that they rightly expected. As a result, trade union bosses must now attract members and listen to their views, rather than taking them for granted, as they did so often in the past. Our legislation has moved away from the confrontational, collective style of industrial relations to one in which employees are increasingly valued as individuals. Although the Opposition now say that they would support those changes, they voted against them at the time. No doubt they will vote against the Bill tonight, even though they know in their heart of hearts that most of the measures demand support and will be of benefit to their constituents. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 275.

  Division No. 156]

  [7.09 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ancram, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Clappison, James

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Couchman, James

  Bates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Critchley, Julian

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Day, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Booth, Hartley

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Eggar, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfileld)

  375

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

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

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, David

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Malone, Gerald

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealling N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sackville, Tom

  376

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, Iain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stephen, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stewart, Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sykes, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Alton, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benton, Joe

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Darling, Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dixon, Don

  Boyes, Roland

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunnachle, Jimmy

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Burden, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Byers, Stephen

  Enright, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fatchett, Derek

  377

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Flynn, Paul

  Jowell, Tessa

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Keen, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Fraser, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Galbraith, Sam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Galloway, George

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Gapes, Mike

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Garrett, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Litherland, Robert

  Godsiff, Roger

  Livingstone, Ken

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gould, Bryan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Graham, Thomas

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCartney, Ian

  Gunnell, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hain, Peter

  McFall, John

  Hall, Mike

  McKelvey, William

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hardy, Peter

  McLeish, Henry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Maclennan, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  McMaster, Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heppell, John

  Madden, Max

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahon, Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hoey, Kate

  Marek, Dr John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Doug

  Maxton, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Michael, Alun

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hutton, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Ingram, Adam

  Milburn, Alan

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Jamieson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  378

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

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

  Mudie, George

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

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Hara, Edward

  Spellar, John

  Olner, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Stevenson, George

  Parry, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Straw, Jack

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trimble, David

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wallace, James

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Joan

  Randall, Stuart

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Redmond, Martin

  Watson, Mike

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Alan Meale and

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Simpson, Alan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Revenue Support Grant (Scotland)
7.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, dated 2nd February 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1993, dated 2nd February 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The order is tabled in the name of the Secretary of State. I wonder why he is not here to move it and whether he is briefing the press, as he normally does, rather than bringing matters to our notice on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The question of which Minister moves a motion is not a matter for the Chair and is therefore not a point of order.
Mr. Stewart: May I be allowed to continue the debate, which is normally introduced by the Minister responsible for local government finance? I appreciate that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has not been long in the House.
Mr. Tony Worthington: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not true that such orders would normally be taken by the Minister responsible for local government finance. This is part of a pattern of disrespect for the House shown by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who ducks out of every confrontation with the Opposition, and we are sick of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have had cause to tell the House before, the accuracy and traditions of who speak and what they say are not matters for the Chair.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that, under successive Governments, it has been in order for the appropriate Minister to reply to a debate in the House? The practice being followed today and on other days is no different from that of a previous Labour Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we may continue with the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here, so may we ask Opposition Members to stop making idiots of themselves?
This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the settlement for Scottish local authorities for the year ahead. I begin by making it clear that both orders have been the subject of full consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which raised no detailed issues on either of them.
I shall deal first with the main order under debate, the Local Government Finance Order, which represents the final stage of the 1993–94 settlement, details of which my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 12 November.
My right hon. Friend said that aggregate external finance for next year had been set at £5,165·1 million, which represents an increase of 3·5 per cent. in total on the
380
1992–93 figure. Because of the announcement of an extra £15 million on 2 December, the COSLA briefing uses the original 3·2 per cent. figure, but the corrected figure is 3·5 per cent., after the adjustments for the transfer of responsibility for further education colleges from local to central Government from 1 April 1993, and excluding the £63·4 million that was included in the settlement to meet the cost of care in the community and independent living fund responsibilities, which Scottish local authorities will assume from 1 April.
The settlement is accordingly fair and reasonable, especially in the light of the continuing fall in the rate of inflation. As hon. Members will no doubt have read in the COSLA brief, the figure cannot be regarded as "unrealistic".
As the report to the order explains, aggregate external finance has three components.
Mr. John Maxton: The Minister may intend to comment on this, but can he say how much the Government are allowing for non-collection of outstanding poll tax, and the result for local government finance; and also how much is included for the implementation of the council tax?
Mr. Stewart: We have certainly allowed for the implementation costs of the council tax, and have allowed more than the councils' estimates. I shall come to that later. To answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, aggregate external finance is related to local authority expenditure and not to non-collection.
I must explain to the hon. Gentleman and to the House how AEF is broken down. It has three components. The first is the provision for specific grants. For 1993–94, that provision is estimated at £397 million, and a breakdown of that estimate among the various specific grants is given in appendix B of the report.
The second component of AEF is what is described in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as the
"distributable amount of non-domestic rate income",
which, for 1993–94, has been set at £1,186 million. That represents my right hon. Friend's estimate of the total business rates payable to local authorities next year. That estimate is based on the 1993–94 rate poundages that my right hon. Friend announced on 14 January. Those poundages take account of the reduction of £68 million in the total amount of rates payable by Scottish business next year, as the next stage of the Government's policy of harmonising rate poundages north and south of the border as quickly as resources allow.
Mr. Maxton: How long will it take?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman knows that our objective is to bring rates into line in 1995 or shortly thereafter. I can reassure him by saying that, so fair, Scottish businesses have saved the equivalent of £350 million a year as a result of the Government's policy. That is a substantial sum, which has been warmly welcomed throughout Scotland by businesses large and small.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Am I right in assuming that the figure of £350 million that the Minister has just given includes the £68 million for the coming year? A letter from the Scottish Office gives a figure of £280 million up to the end of 1993. If the figure given by the Minister includes next year's amount, it may be misleading. I am sure that the Minister did not intend to mislead the House.

381
I have received a complaint from Clydesdale district council about the arbitrary way in which the Secretary of State has decided that local authorities in Scotland will have to make a £12 million contribution to the Government's uniform business rate policy. Regardless of what the Minister says about consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I am assured that there has been no consultation on the UBR policy. The Government have taken arbitrary action and have told local authorities that, without being consulted on it, they will have to contribute £12 million to the Government's policy.
Mr. Stewart: The consultation to which I was referring was the formal consultation on the orders. Obviously, COSLA is frequently consulted. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we have consistently asked local authorities for a small contribution from efficiency gains to the policy of bringing rate burdens north and south of the border into line. The main reason, historically, for the rate burdens being different has been the high level of expenditure, and therefore local taxation, in Scotland compared to England.
Mr. Hood: The Minister referred to a "small contribution". Is he saying that 15 per cent. of the total cost of Government policy is a small contribution? I suggest that 15 per cent. is a high contribution.
Mr. Stewart: If one considers £12 million in relation to the total expenditure of Scottish local authorities, it becomes apparent that it is a small contribution.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for a detailed breakdown of the figures. The reduction in 1990–91 was £80 million, with, on top of that, £100 million in 1991–92, £100 million in 1992–93 and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, £68 million in 1993–94.
Next year, there will be a change in the way that non-domestic rate income is treated. Under the 1992 Act, non-domestic rate income is to be pooled in Scotland with effect from 1 April, following the pooling in England and Wales in 1990. Under the pooling arrangements, Scottish local authorities will continue to be responsible for levying business rates, but the rates income collected will be paid into a central pool and distributed to authorities as a per capita amount based on the resident population of each authority.
With the agreement of COSLA, non-domestic rate income will be distributed to regional and islands authorities only. That will simplify the administration of the pooling arrangements for both local authorities and the Scottish Office. District councils will no longer have to maintain non-domestic rate income accounts.
The effect of distributing NDRI to regions and islands only is that districts will receive their AEF support solely in the form of rate support grant and specific grants. Districts will obviously receive proportionately more RSG and regions proportionately less RSG than would otherwise be the case. But I must emphasise that no authority will lose in terms of its overall level of AEF as a result of the new method of distributing NDRI.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I understand the complications of comparing this year's aggregate external finance with last year's, because of
382
changes such as community care and the funding of further education, but those factors should be common throughout different regions. Therefore, why is aggregate external finance down by 0·8 per cent. in the Lothian region and up by 2·8 per cent. in the Borders region? Is that to do with band D equivalent properties, or is there another explanation for the variations?
Mr. Stewart: The overall figure for AEF, after taking account of the factors to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is up by 3·5 per cent. If he looks at the table, he will find that, in relation to grant-aided expenditure, Lothian is the equalising authority because it has a lower GAE figure per head than other regions. That factor in turn affects the total. As it happens, Eastwood is the equalising authority among district authorities. That is why Eastwood has a zero figure.
Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister saying that Lothian region is receiving less money because there are more properties in higher council tax bands? If he is, does that not cause a problem, given that we know that, although property is more expensive in Edinburgh, the people who live in those properties are not always better off?
Mr. Stewart: It is a two-stage process, which I shall explain for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House. The revenue support grant totals £3,582·1 million for 1993–94. There is a full explanation in the report, but I shall summarise it for the hon. Gentleman.
The first stage is to equalise differences in authorities' spending needs as determined by the client group methodology—which is where Midlothian is the equalising authority. That methodology is reviewed regularly and agreed with the convention in the district committee of the working party on local government finance. Each authority's relative spending need is reflected in its grant-aided expenditure assessment figure.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister is a much wiser man than the junior Agriculture Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. In the context of the calculation of the needs element, does he agree that districts such as Cumnock and Doon Valley are disadvantaged by it? Such districts contain a large number of rural communities, each with its own cemetery, sports centre and so on, so revenue costs are much greater than they are for city areas. Not enough account is taken of that.
Secondly, Cumnock and Doon Valley has very high unemployment—almost 20 per cent., and I would not be surprised if tomorrow's figures show that it exceeds 20 per cent. That is appalling, and because of the requirement to keep within Government guidelines, Cumnock and Doon Valley has had to keep its budget down and cannot appoint an economic development officer to help to bring new industry to the area.
Are not such areas seriously disadvantaged by the criteria that the Minister has just described?
Mr. Stewart: From time to time, we do receive complaints from authorities about the criteria, but those criteria are carefully assessed, not by the Scottish Office acting alone but with the expertise of COSLA's technical experts on the distribution committee. A range of primary and secondary indicators are used, and the sparsity of population in an area is certainly taken into account.

383
As for Cumnock and Doon Valley's budget, the council will, on my calculations, be able to increase its estimated budget by just under 2 per cent. this year without hitting the capping level.
Mr. Foulkes: That is precisely my point. Cumnock and Doon Valley desperately needs jobs. The Minister and the Secretary of State have visited it, and they know the priorities—of which an economic development officer was one. But because of the Secretary of State's guidelines, the council cannot appoint such a person. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that disadvantages the authority; and cannot something be done about it?
Mr. Stewart: It is open to Cumnock and Doon Valley, through COSLA, to go directly to the distribution committee and say that it does not believe that the factors in what is a highly technical calculation are entirely fair. That is how the authority should seek redress.
That is the first stage in the process. The second stage is straightforward, although it involves a change from the procedure adopted in the past few years. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred. Before, the amount of AEF remaining after the equalisation of spending needs was distributed to authorities on a straight per capita basis related to the number of community charge payers in each authority. That meant that there was an equalisation of spending need and an equalisation of resources among authorities. If they all spent, therefore, at GAE level, they could all set the same level of community charge.
This principle of equalisation of resources continues to apply, but with the replacement of the community charge by the council tax with effect from 1 April, the second stage procedure has had to be changed. Instead of distributing the remainder of AEF on a per community charge payer basis, the amount involved is allocated to authorities in proportion to the number of council tax band D equivalent properties in each authority. That answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Leith.
The effect of this change is to swing AEF support away from high-value property areas to lower-value property areas, but the principle underlying the distribution remains the same as under the community charge. It is that, if all authorities spend at their GAE level, they should all be able to set the same level of council tax.
Mr. James Wallace: Can the Minister confirm that COSLA's briefing figure that Shetland's maximum budget increase for the forthcoming year is minus 37·4 per cent. is correct? How does he expect the local authority to start to deal with that?
When the Minister deals with the islands, will he explain the following? How will the new pooling arrangements for the business rate operate, given that these are circumstances in which our per capita distribution will not be high but large sums of business rates have been paid in the past because of the presence of our oil terminals?
Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman says, the rate for the islands council is the same as the English rate. The objective is to bring other business rates that are above the English level down to the English level. The hon. Gentleman's council is in a rather unusual situation.
The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to learn that we have introduced changes to the special islands
384
needs allowance, following representations from the Western Isles council. I can confirm that we asked independent consultants to examine the way in which the special islands needs allowance was calculated, and we accepted their recommendations.
The provisional capping principles to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not dealt with in these orders, although the provisional principles announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed the need for substantial reductions in expenditure for Shetland. But my right hon. Friend has already said that he would be prepared to accept a standstill budget. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) will be aware that the same applies to Clydebank.
Mr. Thomas Graham: How much assessment has the Scottish Office done of the loss of revenue from which many councils have suffered because of the huge number of company bankruptcies? We are extremely worried about that.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that non-domestic rate income can vary considerably from original estimates: it can go up or down. That is covered in the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993. The purpose of that order is to redetermine the amount of RSG payable to each Scottish local authority for each of the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.
These redeterminations are necessary in the light of the so-called AEF guarantee—an agreement with COSLA to guarantee the combined non-domestic rate income arid RSG figure notified to each authority at the time of the issue of the distribution proposals for the year in question. Such a guarantee is necessary because it is extremely difficult to calculate exact business rate income until such matters as valuations, appeals, empty properties and so on are dealt with. RSG can be increased or reduced in the light of experience. Adjustments have been made, and 45 authorities will receive more RSG and 20 will receive less as a consequence.
Next year's settlement is very fair and reasonable, and substantially above the rate of inflation. COSLA's original bid was made when inflation was considerably higher than it is today. The settlement is made against the background of the Government's policy on public sector increases, in the range of 0·5 per cent. to 1·5 per cent.
COSLA has said that the figures are not unrealistic, and with the scope that always exists for efficiency savings, there will be no need for cuts in services and jobs of the kind that are the subject of the scare stories that we hear every year. I commend this realistic settlement to the House.
7.50 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I mean no disrespect to the Minister—to coin a phrase, I regard him as being a nice guy—but as an ex-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and as an ex-vice president under George Sharp, I may say that if the Government had sent a less senior Minister than the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet COSLA, it would have asked for the Secretary of State. The House has the same right. I am greatly surprised that the Secretary of State is unable to be present for this important debate,

385
although he was courteous enough to write a note to me. I hope that the Secretary of State will be present for future debates.
This debate is about the Government's attack on Scotland—on our services and on our people. The measure unveiled by the Secretary of State is a betrayal of our children and their teachers, our elderly folk and their carers, and our public services—which have the support of the majority of the population of Scotland, no matter their means or how they vote. To suggest, as the Secretary of State did, that the settlement is either fair or adequate is not believed even by Tory councillors in Scotland, never mind anyone else.
In the 1980s, the Government cut the number of home helps, meals on wheels, teachers, libraries, and many other services that we Scots cherish, and the Secretary of State's announcement today means that cuts will continue into the 1990s. Doubtless that is welcome news to some of the right hon. Gentleman's hard-line colleagues, whose hatred of public services is on record—but almost every Scot will greet today's news with sadness and anger.
Mr. Bill Walker: I imagine that some of the hon. Gentleman's barbs are directed at people like myself. It is difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. At what point in the past 14 years has there been a reduction below the rate of inflation in public support for local government? Unless the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate one, he is misusing the word "cut".
Mr. Clarke: I hope to demonstrate that inflation is not itself a sufficient guide. Other elements, such as the obligations that the Government place on local councils, must be considered. We heard tonight, for example, that from April greater community care demands will be imposed on councils. The spectre of unemployment also makes demands on local councils, as do unpredictable problems such as flood damage. That ought to be recognised.
Mr. Hood: Got him!
Mr. Clarke: Even in education, we are making considerable progress.
The settlement is less than generous. COSLA's document indicates that it regards the settlement as penal—that is a strong word to use—and continues the Government attack on local democracy that we have seen for more than a decade, on crucial services, and on jobs—particularly on the eve of tomorrow's announcement, when we expect to hear that unemployment is a great deal worse.
Today's short debate is inadequate in terms of conducting Scottish affairs. This three-hour debate will end with a Division that will influence every individual, family and household in Scotland. That makes the case, if ever one needed to be made, for a Scottish Parliament, supported by the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people, that will have the right to consider such matters in detail and at length, with the representatives of each community involving themselves in the subsidiarity which the Scottish people endorse but which the Secretary of State has not yet recognised.
Mr. Phil Gallie: If there were a Scottish assembly, would not that place a massive charge on the people of
386
Scotland—and take cash away from the useful services that could and do need to be provided for the people of Scotland?
Mr. Clarke: The best people to decide that are the people of Scotland. They have made it plain that important, essential matters such as the settlement we are debating tonight, law and order, education, the fire service, roads, planning, infrastructure, employment, and promoting Scotland in Europe ought to be given far more consideration than a three-hour debate allows.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. As time is so limited, it would be impertinent of me to keep other hon. Members from catching Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, having made the point that we have been given too little time.
The order represents power for one man—a man who is unable to be with us this evening. I refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would not be so bad if the right hon. Gentleman represented Scotland in the Cabinet, but he appears to represent the Cabinet in Scotland. That is as unacceptable as the figures in the settlement, which adds to the numerous problems heaped on local councils, without the Government paying any regard to the difficulties that local authorities must confront.
The poll tax was rejected by the people of Scotland but was still imposed upon them, and it cannot be properly collected. That is no way to run any local government service. Any consultations with local authority representatives should lead the Government to taking the same view.
At the end of December 1992, non-payment of the poll tax totalled £478 million—more than 17 per cent. of the sum billed in the first three years of the tax. How can one run a local government system when central Government have devised an approach to finance that leaves such huge amounts uncollected? That total is heading for £498 million–50 per cent. Uncollected—in the coming year. How can local authorities fund the services that they want to provide, including the industrial development to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred when, because of the Government's absurd system, the revenue to do that is not there?
The fact is that the Government have spent millions upon millions on trying to bail themselves out of the results of the poll tax. What could the local authorities have done with that money? They could have spent it on libraries, education and the police, for instance. The Government's handling of local government finance has been a disaster—an administrative nightmare—not just for finance departments, but for every department in every council in Scotland. The Government, of course, will go on promising lower bills; even tonight we have heard a promise about the council tax which is yet to materialise. At the same time, the Government will continue to blame local authorities for the inevitably reduced delivery of services—at a huge cost to the people of Scotland.
This order is being presented against a backdrop of rising unemployment, and a Scottish economy that is much weaker than the Scottish people want it to be. It is a backdrop of more poverty in many parts of Scotland; a

387
background of hopelessness and homelessness. All that the Government offer far too many of our people is the prospect of cardboard homes and cardboard hopes.
Inevitably, social work departments face greater demands, even before the community care changes mentioned by the Minister land on their laps in April. According to today's Scottish Daily Record, every hour of every day someone is given a P45. If that is true, it will inevitably lead to greater demands on the housing, education and social work departments of local councils. It is clear that those demands cannot be met within the constraints imposed by the Government.
Why is the Secretary of State setting such devastatingly harsh capping levels? It is plain that he did not secure the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In 1992, he allowed the resultant budget above grant-aided expenditure to reach 6·5 per cent.; this year, he proposes a mere 2·25 per cent. He has been told that that represents only half the sum identified by councillors of every party everywhere in Scotland as the amount required even to maintain existing services, let alone deal with the numerous burdens newly imposed on them by the Government. Fairness seems to be absent from the Government's proposals, as the Scottish people are increasingly recognising.
Councils now have to address enormous problems in their planning departments as they seek to provide local people with the best possible education opportunities, and to deal with housing problems such as damp and condensation. They desperately want to deal with such problems, but they are being denied the necessary resources.
No one believes that the Secretary of State has preserved the Barnett formula. For every £100 that is being spent, we have lost £1·10. The cost for Scottish local authorities is becoming horrendous. Imagine what local authorities could have done to improve schools, housing, roads, lighting, libraries and so forth if we had maintained the principle of that formula. Those vital matters are not being addressed.
The Secretary of State and the Minister have boasted about consultation. We want concrete evidence that the Government are prepared to listen to what is said to them during those consultations.
Mr. Stewart: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Goschen-Barnett formula in this context. Aggregate external finance per head of the Scottish population is no less than 47 per cent. higher than it is in England. If the Barnett formula were applied, Government support for local authorities in Scotland would be a great deal less than it is now, not more.
Mr. Clarke: The Minister, and the Government. will have to work hard to persuade COSLA of that. COSLA itself made the point that the Government are providing £16 million less than it asked for road projects, £14 million less than it asked for law and order and protective services, £5 million less than it asked for libraries and museums and £21 million less than it asked for leisure and recreation. Above all, the Government are providing £8 million less than it asked for the urban programme that is so vital now, when unemployment is growing. The Minister has a great deal of missionary work to do if he is to persuade local authorities that the change in the Barnett formula will not apply to them.
388
What options face local authorities in Scotland? They are some of the most difficult that councils have ever had to face. They are confronted by the possibility of eliminating some services altogether, cutting existing services and even making employees redundant. Lothian council's capping limit for 1993–94 was set at £588·386 million, against which expenditure now stands at £608·034 million: there is a gap of £19·648 million. That is the amount by which budgetary expenditure will have to be reduced if Lothian is to avoid capping.
Strathclyde is having to reduce its budgetary expenditure by over £20 million; Central region is having to find reductions of over £8 million; Fife region is £11·53 million short of the amount needed to maintain the provision of services, even at the current level, without anticipating the demands that will be made next year. Even in Edinburgh, the Secretary of State's case is so weak that the Tory councils have rejected his budget, because they were unable to find the £5 million that he ordered them to find without devastating services to a capital city.
Opposition Members speak with considerable support from all political quarters. Strathclyde's education department faces a proposed cut of some £10·74 million, which is bound to have a devastating effect on provision for schools in the form of teachers, books and materials. The Government will then criticise education establishments for the fact that children are under-achieving, but the blame lies with an Administration who have constantly underfunded education. In that and other respects, the past is catching up with them.
Mr. Graham: May I mention something that really upsets me? A young man in my constituency has an autistic kid, and cannot secure a school place for him because Strathclyde has not enough money to provide places for such children. The Government keep telling us that they are treating local authorities fairly, but they are treating young handicapped folk in a despicable fashion.
Mr. Clarke: As always, my hon. Friend has made his point extremely well.
It was this Government who, in the early 1980s, increased local government funding below the rate of inflation. I was involved in the negotiations that took place then. Let me say, with great respect to the Secretary of State that the Secretaries of State with whom we dealt then may have been a bit more heavyweight, and may have given a little more thought to the subject that he has managed.
The Government's past approach has forced councils to cut their funding. Now, the current Government are faced with the reality of what earlier Ministers have done. Those who were only five or six in the early 1980s but who are now 15 or 16 are paying the heavy cost of the Government's considered but unacceptable policies of that time.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman referred to his time with COSLA. He will recall the 1977–78 settlement of the previous Labour Government, when he was vice president of COSLA. The president of COSLA said:
"To have been told by the Secretary of State the percentage grant was being savagely cut by 4 per cent. was something none of us expected."
Mr. Clarke: I look forward to arranging a meeting between the Minister and Sir George Sharp, whom he has just quoted. The first thing that Sir George would tell the

389
Minister is that if we received the same settlement for Fife tonight as we secured that night there would be joy indeed and, to coin a phrase, we would be asking the people of Scotland to rejoice. The Government's settlement falls far short of anything that Bruce Milian or Willie Ross achieved.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is my hon. Friend aware that Strathclyde must cut £20 million from its budget? Is not the amount that has been allocated to Scottish local authorities a scandal given that the Government spent £16 million in a weekend on the European summit in Edinburgh?
Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether the Secretary of State will be here later to reply to my hon. Friend's point, but if he is it will be interesting indeed.
The order has been proposed, unlike the period when George Sharp was president of COSLA and I was vice president, at a time of deep recession. Public expenditure should be part of the infrastructure to deal with that serious problem. Proper investment should be made in education and training, in building homes and improving schools and in providing better roads and lighting. There should be a response to the problems within our community, and I am extremely concerned that after April councils will be expected to take up those problems—part of the social security budget, indeed, is being transferred to them—and to exercise the role of enabler rather than provider. But so great are the demands on social work and other departments, especially given the problems of the elderly and of demography, that local councils will not be able to provide the package for community care—home helps and contact with health boards to provide occupational therapy and physiotherapy, which are vital to a strategy for community care. It should be made quite clear that the problems facing councils at the moment, considerable though they are, will intensify because the order simply does not recognise those problems. The work of and demands on local authorities will increase, but their resources simply will not match.
How do the Government respond to people's concern about law and order, which is hardly reflected in the order? Their 1992 manifesto contained a commitment to legislate on offensive weapons but made no mention of water. Today, they are concentrating on privatisation but doing nothing to reassure the community about safety in the streets.
As we consider the order, albeit in a debate that is unacceptably limited, let us be clear that it is a direct attack on disabled people by forcing cuts in home helps and services and on our schools and education by underfunding our teachers. It fails all the people who are afraid to go out or stay in because the Secretary of State has not given the chief constables the resources that they need to tackle crime in virtually every region of Scotland. Today's announcement offers no hope for Scotland's homeless, for our children, for senior citizens or for those without jobs. Today, the Secretary of State had the opportunity to invest in Scotland's local services, in local people and in local communities. He had the chance to invest in Scotland, but his party has no vision, no policies and no support in Scotland. Scotland has no faith in his party or its discredited policies either.
8.15 pm
Mr. George Kynoch: I listened to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and began to wonder whether we were discussing the same figures as I have before me. He stated that he was once vice president of COSLA. [HON. MEMBERS: "President."] I beg his pardon: president of COSLA.
The hon. Gentleman should therefore have read COSLA's briefing paper, which it has circulated to all hon. Members. The first paragraph says:
"Having regard to the present rate of inflation, an overall increase in AEF of 3·2 per cent. (4·8 per cent. when Care in the Community funds are added), cannot be regarded as unrealistic",
Yet the hon. Gentleman said that the order is an attack on services in Scotland and, as usual, talked down good news for Scotland—a 3·2 per cent. increase when inflation is 1·7 per cent.
Mr. Chisholm: The crucial issue is not the level of aggregate external finance but the reductions that will have to be made in services because of the penal capping limits. Reductions in services have been proposed for more than half the local authorities in Scotland. Lothian is a classic example, where £20 million is being taken out of the budget. Last year, it was the second lowest spending council per head, not because it wanted to be but because of the inadequate level of support that it was receiving. That is the reality.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman talks about capping. Some councils are obviously overspending. Had they spent more carefully in previous years, they would not be suffering from these problems.
Mr. Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kynoch: No, I am going to make progress and talk about expenditure.
Aggregate external finance is 3£2 per cent. COSLA states that expenditure of 2·25 per cent. is permitted within these figures. The Government talk about 2·6 per cent. By my simple arithmetic, if the Government's public expenditure constraints on wage increases of 0 to 1·5 per cent. are observed, overall costs can increase by 2·6 per cent. Wages in local government account for about 60 per cent. of expenditure. If that is true, the other 40 per cent. can incur rises of almost 4 per cent., at a time when inflation is 1·7 per cent., yet the Opposition talk about cuts. That may be simplistic, but simplistic ideas are often the best. If councils were to look simplistically at giving taxpayers value for money, they would give better services.
Mr. Hood: If everything is as rosy as the hon. Gentleman seems to believe, will he tell the House of any local authority in Scotland that is employing extra workers, rather than laying them off?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should consider my local authority of Kincardine and Deeside which, I believe, intends to increase its staff in the coming year. One could also consider Kincardine and Deeside in relation to another issue, although I do not wish to detain the House because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I refer to non-domestic rates.
I very much welcome the fact that we have made a further move towards the rate applicable south of the border. The figures in COSLA's briefing document show

391
that in 1990–91, the percentage variation between Scotland and south of the border was about 64·6 per cent., but the projection for 1993–94 is only 26·4 per cent. That is clearly a move in the right direction.
Having been lobbied by numerous businesses in Scotland, and only yesterday by the chemical industry there, about concern over the introduction of the uniform business rate throughout the United Kingdom, I believe that the quicker we can make the move to get things level, the better it will be for business.
Let us consider the figures more closely and examine the variances, which average 26·4 per cent. It is interesting to note that Kincardine and Deeside is level with the average applicable south of the border. I believe that the same applies to Shetland and Orkney. Glasgow, however, is about 43·6 per cent. at variance with the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, the central belt of Labour-dominated councils are all at the higher levels of variance. I suggest that there is a message in that.
Central belt councils, which are largely Labour dominated, must get their house in order and use the funds and opportunities that are being given to them this year wisely and sensibly in the best interests of the ratepayer and the local taxpayer.
8.21 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: It is a strange irony that I am standing on the Floor of the House tonight. I recall sitting in the Gallery 13 years ago when I was leader of Stirling district council. The Government were using the draconian powers of the "excessive and unreasonable" clause to bring down Stirling district council's rate of expenditure nearer to the level that the Government found acceptable.
The Minister might reflect on the fact that after that exercise had been carried out, at the next election the electorate increased the Labour majority on Stirling district council. People in Scotland know what has been happening for the past 13 or 14 years. They know that the Government are intervening to give themselves a majority on every council in Scotland, regardless of the voting patterns and choices of the people. They are doing so in spite of the rhetoric about the people being given a choice and being allowed to assess their councils—
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Connarty: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's previous interventions have been appalling and I do not intend to accept one from him.
The Government then were underfunding local authorities, and that is what this order is about—the continued underfunding of local authorities. Throughout the 1980s, local authorities had problems because the Government were placing on them many additional duties, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred.
Benefits adminstration was shifted solely on to local authorities without proper recompense. Increased environmental health duties were placed on them without adequate funding. With the passing of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Secretary of State shifted the paraphernalia of unnecessary and unwanted bureaucracy on to local authorities. The conclusions of the Stodart report also placed extra burdens on local authorities for, among other things, tourism.
392
Every time the Government came up with their rate support grant settlement, as they are doing tonight, they said that they had provided adequate funds. They fiddled the figures and talked about their level of inflation and other levels of inflation, but they did not give adequate funding to local authorities.
In the coming year, local authorities, especially their social work departments, will face the massive burden imposed by community care. It is grossly underfunded. As yet, it is unclear what will happen in one important aspect of the transfer of responsibilities: what payments will have to be made to keep people in residential care? The cost will fall either on the local authorities, which tell me that they do not have the funding and that the revenue support grant does not provide adequate funding, or on the families.
Families might have to pick up the tab for the extra costs of keeping their loved ones in residential care where they are currently being well looked after. At the moment, some of the responsibility for the cost involved falls on the Government, but that will not be the case after the transfer of responsibilities.
Occupational therapy services, even in the region which takes in Kincardine and Deeside, cannot afford enough people to carry out a proper survey of a person's need, sometimes even within six months. For example, they cannot give people a shower because they do not have the physical resources. It has already been said that they cannot supply adequate home help care.
Such problems will continue because the revenue support grant settlement does not take into account the aging of the population. That portion of the population requires more care, but the Government are throwing those people out of the health service's care. I have been told by health board representatives that the welfare of elderly people is no longer regarded as being a health matter but is a social concern. If that is so, the Government should be transferring resources in the revenue support grant settlement to allow local authorities to look after those people properly and give them the social care that they deserve.
Education departments are straining to maintain their morale, and I commend them on remaining motivated. I do not know how they manage it, because they have been burdened with one idea after another. Some ideas have been good, such as the five to 14 proposals. The Minister will know of the burden that has been placed on local authorities by that initiative, but local authorities do not have the resources to make the changes required of them. Many other tasks that local education authorities are being asked to perform, such as testing, are diversions. They need funding to carry out the initiatives at the regional level, to continue to develop standard grades and to continue a commitment to nursery education.
It might be notable that, under the Clinton Administration, there is a proper commitment to the Head-Start programme. The lessons from the previous programme proved that giving a child a proper education as early as possible will bear fruit in the teenage years. Youngsters stay on in education, provide the skills that we need and go on to become the technicians who will develop our future. One hopes that they will be able to pay for the retirement of those who cannot salt away money in a decent private pension fund, as many hon. Members probably can, but rely on state benefits that come from the taxation borne by the new productive industries.

393
In my region, the cracks are beginning to show. I know of two advisers in the education department who have recently returned to being head teachers in primary schools. They wanted to get out of the advisory service, making it clear that what they were being asked to do was necessary but impossible because of the resourcing and funding from the Government for the very initiatives in which the Government encouraged them to participate and to develop.
In district councils, where I spent 10 years, the staff used to have a vision of leisure and recreation providing an alternative for people who hung around the streets, selling drugs, getting into trouble and doing all the things about which the Government complain. That vision is now very dulled by the mud that has been thrown at it by the Government in many ways, one being a level of revenue support grant settlement which means that local authorities cannot provide the leisure development officers who are required to get young people into leisure centres and make them realise that there is an alternative to hanging about on the streets.
I began by saying that 13 years ago I was in the Gallery when the Government had to use the "excessive and unreasonable" clause to bring down local authorities' budgets. At that time, people could see what an authority stood for when it had a decent level of budget. They could also see what the Government stood for when they reduced each authority's spending with a single order.
Now, it is all done by sleight of hand. Capping is up the Minister's sleeve—he wears a soft glove but there is an iron hand underneath. Local authorities are not allowed to do what the Government said that they would allow them to do, which was to set their budgets, and say to the people, "Elect us if you want to elect us, and put us out if you don't like our budget." The Government have walked away from that promise despite their warm words about the poll tax: they said that everyone would pay and would be individually responsible for choosing the membership of the local authority that they wanted. However, the Government did not want people to choose, which is why they introduced rate capping before the rate support grant order.
The world is now a different place from what it was when Labour were in power. Page 49 of the latest "Scottish Economic Bulletin" shows that in 1980 unemployment in Scotland was 6 per cent. It has gone up and down since then, but has never been below 8 per cent., and the latest figure is 10 per cent. Everyone knows what massive problems that causes for people on social welfare. The lack of jobs causes demotivation among fathers and young people.
There are problems out there, but the Government are not willing to provide an adequate revenue support grant settlement. Let the people choose the level of local authority service and expenditure. The Government are guilty, in the eyes of the Scottish people, for not doing so, as are those, like the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), who supported them. The expenditure of the hon. Gentleman's local authority is 35 per cent. below the guideline set by the Government. The hon. Gentleman should apologise for that, and the Government ought to apologise for this impoverishing revenue support grant settlement.
8.30 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) typifies the difference between the Opposition and the Government.
Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I was the leader of a local authority we had occasion to engage in a debate in Perth. My recollection is that he told young people that they should be grateful for the scab YTS jobs that they were given in Gleneagles. So far as I know, the hon. Gentleman has not served in local government and does not know what it is like to work on the ground to provide people with services, rather than sit here and pontificate.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the only thing qualifying people to take part in a House of Commons debate on any subject—local government or otherwise—is to have done the job himself. I shall not forget that, as the hon. Gentleman is inclined to speak on many topics of which he has no experience at all.
Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the qualifications entitling Members of Parliament to speak about local government is that Parliament provides its funds?
Mr. Walker: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman and his friends believe that there is virtue in simply spending money. As has been demonstrated very clearly in Kincardine and Deeside, virtue lies in providing a service at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and those who make their 14 per cent. Contribution—or whatever tiny proportion it will turn out to be.
I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is not now in the Chamber. I do not say so critically, as we all require sustenance in a long day here. I simply want to say that I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is back on the Opposition Front Bench, in combative form. I should have liked to be able to say so to his face, rather than in his absence. The hon. Gentleman, like many of his colleagues, has a very selective memory. Opposition Members forget the traumas of the last Labour Government—for example, the problems created by the IMF.
In addressing the problems that face Tayside, Perth and Kinross and Angus district, I remind the Minister of matters that I have put to him and to his ministerial colleagues. I refer to the storm and flood damage sustained in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of Perth and Kinross. This matter was referred to also by the hon. Member for Monklands, West. The Bellwin formula, while it is useful in most circumstances, is not the answer in every case. I believe that the River Tay is unique in that the volume of water and the speed at which it moves are greater than in any other river in Europe. The unique problems of the Tay require unique answers.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No doubt, he is keen to be helpful to me, as I arranged for him to reply for the Government in a debate last night.
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent plea—I heard him do likewise on the radio—for public funds for people suffering from a natural disaster in his own area. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I support that stand, since it accords with my philosophy. But the argument that

395
he is putting forward on behalf of his constituents is out of tune with his own philosophy. In his introduction he said that money does not solve these problems. He wants to cut expenditure. He wants people to stand on their own feet. Why does he think that his constituents who suffered in this way should not have been properly insured, that they should not take care of their own liabilities, that they should not stand on their own feet? Why are they special?
Mr. Walker: As always, the hon. Gentleman is being very selective. I defy him to suggest that I have ever said that public money ought not to be used to meet particular needs. This has been the basis of my whole political career, such as it is—and I was very grateful for the opportunity to make a winding-up speech. The plain fact is that the taxpayer is constantly called upon to contribute towards satisfying specific needs once they have been clearly identified. That does not mean some kind of blanket arrangement, which is why I deliberately used the word "unique" in reference to the Tay. If the Tay were in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I should still think that the problems were unique.
Mr. Foulkes: In my constituency are the Rivers Doon, Stinchat and Girvan, all of which create problems. The Spey, too, is a very fast river, which creates difficulties. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is stretching a point. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) put forward a very good argument in respect of a whole range of services, including education and social work, and he referred to the new responsibilities that have been assumed by local authorities. I support the hon. Gentleman in putting forward arguments on behalf of his constituents. Surely he, in turn, ought to support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West.
Mr. Walker: Again, the hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. We are already spending much more than he or his colleagues will acknowledge, but we are not getting the best possible value. Expenditure could be more constructive and more useful and could produce better results. As time is limited, I do not intend to go into detail on that matter.
The Tay requires a special detailed survey—something for which I have already made a plea. Such a project will cost money, but we hope that it will demonstrate how the river could be managed more effectively during periods of spate and flood. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that I expect the largesse to extend to everybody who is affected. That is certainly not the case.
However, the Perth and Kinross local authority has special problems. There has been difficulty in my constituency, and there has been substantial difficulty in the neighbouring constituency of Perth and Kinross. The question of the Bellwin formula must be looked at carefully. It is rather nonsensical that one bank of the River Tay qualifies for less-favoured area status, whereas the other bank, which is owned by the same person, does not. That makes a difference to the amount of public money that goes towards repairing the flood banks. The flood banks are there to protect people and property, not for the benefit of any individual.
Mr. Eric Clarke: We are talking about the expenditure of money. The hon. Gentleman wants one-off expenditure on a barrier to ensure that flooding will not
396
occur again. That is common sense, and in that respect, 1 am with him 100 per cent. However, money spent on patching a road or a roof, rather than repairing it, is wasted. Local authorities are asking for resources to do a multitude of such things. The way that you look at it, public expenditure cuts are sacrosanct. Those are things that you—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I should have said, "the hon. Gentleman". The point is that we are on your side. We are with you on this one.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant that we are with the hon. Member on this one.
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want there to be any confusion about the narrow case that I am making. The situation is unique and calls for a unique answer. I do not want my argument to be seen as a rubber stamp or a blanket authority for across-the-board expenditure.
I drew attention to the fact that the case required a single in-depth inquiry. I agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) about patching. One of the results of patching on the banks of the Tay and elsewhere, as we know from the experiences of 1990 and 1993, was that the river had its way. Anyone who understands the situation will realise that the water has to go somewhere. The problem has to be properly tackled. There is a great need for an in-depth inquiry if we are to find answers.
I can tell the Minister that if I lived in California instead of North Tayside my neighbours would be delighted to store all that water. They would find a use for it, because there is a dearth of water in California. Some areas of the United Kingdom have recently been declared drought free and, as I said in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, when we were talking about what might happen to water authorities, there is plenty of water in North Tayside. If anyone wanted to go there with a bucket or a bowser he could take it away, and it would be free.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: The hon. Gentleman has made a lucid and rational case for investment in the suggested study of the banks of the Tay. The Opposition support his efforts, but I must tell him that a far smaller number of houses in Park avenue, Paisley have experienced flooding over a number of years. The residents of those houses—I believe that there are about a dozen houses—have often had to move out, at substantial cost. I convened a meeting with all the authorities—the district council, the regional council and there was even someone from the Scottish Office—a year ago. Yet those residents are expecting their houses to be flooded again this winter. I shall support the fight of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for the people of Tayside if he will support me in my fight for the far smaller number of people in Paisley.
Mr. Walker: Let me make it clear that I am not talking about simple flooding, which occurs throughout the whole country when rivers rise above their normal level and flood properties, and when there is a backflow from the outflows, or whatever. Such problems must be addressed; I am not ducking the issue. I am talking about what happens when a river is flowing faster than any other river

397
and with a greater volume of water. The damage done by water moving at that speed is horrendous. Whole farms are wiped away; the topsoil is removed and when the river finally subsides, there is nothing left. That is quite different from the kind of flooding that occurs in many other areas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Walker: Other hon. Members wish to speak. I have tried to let in as many hon. Members as I could, because I believe that that is often the only time that Opposition Members get the opportunity to raise their constituency problems. That is why I give way as often as I do.
I want a single body to have the authority to deal with the problems of the Tay sensibly and logically. I know that that will require specific funding and allocations. I hope that the Minister will tell me tonight that the Scottish Office is considering sympathetically my suggestion as a special one-off, unique case, which should be dealt with accordingly.
8.44 pm
Mr. James Wallace: As in the past, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has expressed eloquently his case for special funding. I endorse his plea, but when he responded to interventions the hon. Gentleman failed to grasp the point of principle at issue. The facts of nature make the banks of the Tay and its banks the way they are, and that leads to damage to people's livelihoods, farms and well-being. In the same way, the ravages of age and disability, for example, mean that some people need home helps or sheltered workshops. Yet the hon. Member for Tayside, North seems to have a mental block about that kind of local government expenditure. He shakes his head, as if to say no, but he usually seems to approve of such expenditure cuts, which often mean that home helps are not being provided and sheltered workshops are not being built. Those issues inevitably arise in debates such as this.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) said that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that 3–2 per cent. could not be regarded as unrealistic. I believe that the Minister said that the sum was somewhat larger. It was said that, with inflation at 1–7 per cent., that was reasonable. But we are talking about a level of grant that has to last throughout the forthcoming financial year. I do not think that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside could put his hand on his heart and tell us that inflation will still be at 1–7 per cent. next February. According to the Bank of England report today, that would be an optimistic assumption; 3–5 per cent. might not look so rosy in 12 months' time.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the rest of what I said. I said that, as wage increases represent 60 per cent. of local government costs, if they were restrained and ranged from nothing to 1–5 per cent., that would leave up to 4 per cent. or even more for other expenditure. That would take account of varying inflation over the coming year.
Mr. Wallace: It may even be optimistic to imagine that inflation will be 4 per cent. in 12 months' time. The hon. Gentleman leaned so heavily on COSLA's comments he should have regard to the fact that COSLA said that
398
reductions in services were still likely as a result of the settlement. That is because we are talking not about a one-off arrangement but about a background of 14 years during which local government has been asked to cut expenditure.
The Minister said that he expected more efficiency savings, but there comes a time when one cannot save any more. There may be some items in the budget that can still be investigated; perhaps some functions can be performed more efficiently. But the Government have failed to recognise that there comes a time when there is no more fat left; they are eating into muscle. At that point services are threatened. Repairs and maintenance in schools are not carried out, and children have to learn in circumstances and surroundings that are not conducive to learning. In the past, I have tabled questions whose answers revealed the diminishing amounts spent in real terms on school books. When I was at school pupils had a book each. Now it is common practice for books to be shared, which makes homework difficult.
An increasing number of responsibilities have been placed on local authorities. The Minister responsible for industry and local government in Scotland is present, so perhaps he can tell us how many more responsibilities were placed on local government as a result of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I do not dispute the fact that many of those responsibilities were appropriate, but so often the resources to implement the new responsibilities do not match the task.
There are particular concerns in my constituency. In Shetland the reduction in aggregate external finance this year will be 10·3 per cent., and that follows a reduction last year. Inevitably, that must mean that there will be either a significant hike in council tax, or other local government taxation, or a cut in services. The original brief for the special islands needs allowance contemplated the possibility that it might not continue, so the fact that it is to continue is welcome. We wish to acknowledge that fact, and put it on the record.
One issue involved the resources that the two local authorities in the isles had built up not only as a result of prudent management over the years but from oil-related income. I understand now that while local authorities cannot dip into special funds to meet expenditure, they can do so to defray council tax. People will ask why local authorities which have been prudent in the past, and which have managed to build up special funds, should be expected to use those funds because Government have not provided sufficient to them otherwise to meet their responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to non-payment of the community charge. I share the views of Conservative Members that those who went about encouraging people not to pay their community charge did considerable damage to local government in Scotland. Those who have to bear the cost of that through the subsequent increase in community charge are the honest, law-abiding citizens who pay their tax and those who suffer because of services not being provided.
Mr. Maxton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I never argued in favour of non-payment campaigns. But if the whole responsibility for non-payment of poll tax was placed on those who propagated that idea, it would be

399
misleading. The tax was uncollectable from the start. The problems were built into the tax and it should never have been introduced.
Mr. Wallace: That was partly recognised because 100 per cent. collection was never expected. Various factors were involved. The mobility of people was much greater than anyone had imagined. Also, in some cases it was not a matter of "can pay, won't pay" but that people could not afford to pay the tax.
The Minister knows that I am a fair person and will take the rap if I am wrong, but I understand that if a person does not pay, for whatever reason, and if that person would have been entitled to a rebate, the Government do not pay the amount of the rebate to the local authority.
Mr. Foulkes: It is a double whammy.
Mr. Wallace: It is a double whammy, perhaps. The local authority is not getting the money from the individual; in addition, it is not getting the money which it would have got from central Government if the person had paid the tax. In the first nine months of this financial year almost £0·5 billion of community charge is unpaid. The Government contribution relevant to that could be a sizeable amount. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how much he estimates the Government have saved because people have not paid their poll tax. Local authorities would be interested in knowing the amount by which their resources would have been increased if the Government had paid their share. The Government could pay, but I think that they, too, are adopting the line of "can pay, won't pay".
The problem in local government finance is that, because of the gearing effect, almost 90 per cent. of council spending is determined by central Government. If a local authority wants to incur expenditure, the impact is proportionately very high on the council tax and, because of the capping powers of the Secretary of State, the amount of discretion afforded to local authorities has become less and less.
We believe in the system of local government finance based on a person's ability to pay. In that case there would be scope to increase the local base for raising revenue. If Ministers are sceptical about that, it comes ill from a party which at the last three general elections gave tax bribes to ensure that it would win. We believe in a simple proposition that may be too radical for the Government. Local government finance should be arranged in such a way that local authorities, elected by local people to make decisions in respect of the local community, should be accountable to the electorate for those decisions, including decisions on spending. That proposition is perhaps too radical for the Government, but it would enhance the quality of local authorities throughout Scotland.
8.54 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: I wish to comment first on the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who refused my second intervention. I do not criticise him for that; he was good enough to allow me to intervene once.
The hon. Gentleman listed matters for which he thought a Scottish assembly should be responsible. Some Opposition Members have suggested that a Parliament would be more in line with their views, but I will comment
400
on that later. The hon. Member for Monklands, West suggested that education, roads, social services and planning should fall within the remit of a Scottish assembly. Those services are all looked after by local authorities. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be offering devolution in reverse by passing to the centre responsibility for issues already catered for locally.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman shows a lamentable ignorance of the proposals. The proposals are for devolution of legislative powers for education, housing, local government and so on. The proposals are for devolution of the legal framework for those services, not their administration. Administration would remain, as at present, with local government. The hon. Gentleman shows a fundamental lack of understanding. He displays an ignorance which shows us why he does not understand anything about Scottish devolution.
Mr. Gallie: I am not sure what I am not supposed not to understand. Is it the policy for a Scottish convention? Is it the policy for a Scottish assembly? Is it the policy of the Labour party that I am supposed to know about? Is it the policy of the Liberals, or that of the Scottish National party? Each of those groups has different ideas. They are a hotch-potch; they are crazy ideas. The hon. Gentleman is trying to kid us if he makes out that there is some structure that we should all be aware of.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Gallie: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman had his opportunity.
As the hon. Member for Monklands, West said, the vote at the last election suggested support for Scotland's place within the Union and support for an assembly. There are two interpretations of the consequences of that vote. The hon. Member suggested that 75 per cent. of the population voted for a Scottish assembly. My interpretation is that 78 per cent. of the population voted for Scotland's place within the United Kingdom. I strongly believe that the parties of the Union must take on board the fact that an assembly would be nothing more than a stepping stone to the break-up—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened patiently, but I have not heard much about local government. Will the hon. Gentleman please get back to that subject?
Mr. Gallie: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall come back to the topic. I was simply trying to pick up points raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) criticised Kincardine and Deeside for spending at below Government limits. Voters in Kincardine and Deeside elect local councils to do just that. They fully recognise that the community charge that they have to pay relates to council expenditure. Obviously they do not favour paying high community charges, so they elect councils that are financially responsible. Instead of criticising that council, hon. Members should commend it.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East also suggested that Labour party policies served people especially well in Stirling district. My recollection—I stand to be corrected—is that Stirling district is now a Conservative-run council.
Mr. Maxton: It was decided on the toss of a coin.
Mr. Gallie: As it was when Labour ran the district.
The revenue support grant has three elements. The first is aggregate external financial support—RSG and business rates combined—which totals £5.165 billion. As the Minister suggested, the figure for Scotland is 47 per cent. higher than the equivalent figure for England. The total allowable expenditure for local authorities in the coming year is £5·8 billion. That means that the council tax has to make up the difference of £6·35 million, which is 11 per cent. of the total expenditure of local authorities. The Government have thus been very generous to the new council tax payers. I suggest that that is far fairer than the demand when the community charge was introduced. Payments then were based on a 14 per cent. contribution.
If some of the new ideas for the introduction of the council tax, which is about to descend on us, had been introduced with the community charge, we might not have had to make the change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like what?"] Like what? We do not now demand 20 per cent. payments for those on benefit as we did for the community charge. The 20 per cent. banding payment has been removed for the new council tax. It was almost certainly a mistake to look for payments on a per head basis without tying payments to the point of abode and without looking for a collective payment from that door. Such lessons have been learnt only in retrospect, and I regret that.
In the coming months, many who will be asked to pay the council tax may regret the passing of the community charge. They have been the silent members of the community until now.
I have said that council tax payments will be 11 per cent. of total expenditure. I also see figures between £200 million and £250 million, which will almost certainly come from the rebate system, especially as the 20 per cent. banding will be removed. That means that only 7 per cent. of local authority funding will be paid directly by council tax payers.
Mr. Maxton: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying about council tax rebates. The real problem with the discounts for council tax payers is that that cost will not be borne by central Government: it will be borne by the other council tax payers in the area. There may be a fair number of second homes, which have a 50 per cent. discount, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That 50 per cent. discount will be paid for by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and not by central Government.
Mr. Gallie: I do not believe that there are many second homes in my constituency, so the problem does not really arise. I recognise, however, that, in many areas—especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—second homes were a problem when the community charge was introduced. Therein lay another problem with the implementation of that charge for local authority services.
Another problem arose because the Government were not prepared to cap local authority spending on the introduction of the charge. In effect, that meant that local authorities spent beyond reasonable levels and blamed the Government and the community charge for the high cost to the community charge payer. I am pleased to note that the Government have learnt that lesson in time for the introduction of the council tax.
Mr. Hood: It is a roof tax.
Mr. Gallie: A roof tax was something that was in the Opposition's minds. I hold no brief for property taxes, but I believe that the council tax is the best of such options, and I support it on that basis.
Let us look once again at the rate of revenue support grant in the current year. I must draw attention in particular to the added injection of the community care allowance—some £63·5 million. I welcome the community care ideal, as do most people in the community, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take careful note of what I have to say. I understand that there may well be problems of ring fencing in Scotland, but it is important that the new cash injected finds its way into the community care programme. I seek my hon. Friend's words of comfort on that.
Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman speaks highly of the community care settlement. Does he realise that a study by Lothian region shows that, throughout Scotland this year, there will be a £9·5 million care gap between the amount of money given and the amount that will have to be paid for services? Does he further realise that, when all clients are covered by local councils, that care gap will widen to £63 million? A £9 million care gap would add £5 and a £63 million gap £40 to a band D council tax payer's bill. Surely the settlement is somewhat inadequate.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's comments do not surprise me, especially as they are based on the findings of Lothian regional council. In my experience, whatever aspect that body is considering, it always envisages a need for more money.
The allowances give a 3·2 per cent. increase across the board—above the rate of inflationߞto local authorities. If one adds in the community care component, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) suggested, that raises the level to 4·1 per cent.
One important issue seems to have been ignored in the documents, and that is the effect of falling interest rates. Will my hon. Friend the Minister address that point and advise me what benefits local authorities will achieve as a result of the fall in interest rates that we have experienced, especially in the past six months? I do not think that the papers take account of that fall, which I think will place extra money in the councils' coffers.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities document refers to the non-collection of the community charge. In that respect, I am pleased to identify myself with the words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who referred to difficulties that were initially encouraged by Opposition Members when the community charge was imposed. People were encouraged not to pay, and inevitably the collection rate fell. The situation got worse. In the first year, there was a 12 per cent. non-collection rate, which fell to 18 per cent. in the second year and 20 per cent. in the current year. That is changing, because people are being pursued. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give me some assurance that those who have deliberately avoided paying the community charge will be pursued until every last penny is paid into the coffers of the local authorities which are entitled to that cash.
I pay tribute to the council of the Western Isles. Last week, I was privileged to visit the Western Isles with the Select Committee. I was most impressed by the attitudes of the councillors. I expected to hear complaints and whining

403
about the problems of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, but I heard nothing but positive views. I understand the problems which the councillors face. I would ask the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to return my good wishes to the councillors. I trust that they will do well in the coming year with the rate support grant.
I should like to refer to the new administration of the Kyle and Carrick district council. That council inherited an horrendous budget. The previous council had overspent, and the budget was totally out of control. The new council did not wait until the rate support grant announcements were made to take action; it tackled the issue from the day it was elected in May 1992. It has made good progress.
I believe that the Under-Secretary of State will have no worries at all in having to cap Kyle and Carrick district council. That would not have been the case if another party had been in control of the council.
Mr. McMaster: I remind the hon. Gentleman that two councils look after the people of Kyle and Carrick—Kyle and Carrick district council and Strathclyde district council. The hon. Gentleman is trying to convince us that the revenue support grant settlement is generous. Can he tell us what he will say after 1 April to the people in his constituency who will lose home helps as a result cif the settlement?
Mr. Gallie: I would need to examine closely the budget of Strathclyde regional council. When I find that the regional council can spend £500,000 on a campaign against changes in the water structure, and when it publishes glossy magazines and information on 29 January —the date that the consultation period closes—I must examine the budget. There must be a lot of money in the coffers which the regional council can use to the better advantage of those who pay the community charge and will pay the council tax. At present, that includes people in Kyle and Carrick district but, hopefully, they will not be included in the not too distant future because they will have a single tier authority.
It does not matter what level of rate support grant the Secretary of State announces—Opposition Members will never be satisfied. They always look for increased expenditure. Tonight, it is local government; tomorrow, it will be health, social security, third-world aid or the arts. They will want to spend more. I am delighted with the settlement, and I compliment my hon. Friend for producing it.
9.14 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: I had 16 years as a councillor on Midlothian county and regional councils. I fought against the then Secretary of State for Education, Baroness Thatcher, when she stole the half-pint of milk from children. That is going back a bit. More than that, I stood out against the Callaghan cuts, so I am consistent.
I am not standing here simply to talk about policy. IL am interested because the decision which is taken today will affect the quality of life of thousands of people in Scotland. I am sure that everyone is interested in that. The sacrosanct idea of Conservative Members that public expenditure cuts are marvellous is irresponsible. The cuts do not save money: they cost money. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) wants to spend money to
404
save the inconvenience of his constituents. I would support you in that. But there are many other ways throughout Scotland of doing exactly the same. The spin-off of that would be the creation of jobs. I am saying to you that civil engineering jobs—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.
Mr. Clarke: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot get out of the habit of being reasonable and speaking proper English, but I shall try my best: bear with me.
The Government's short-sighted policy costs us all money eventually. There is a backlog of work needing to be done. Let the Minister just visit some of the schools that I used to visit years ago. He will see paint peeling off the walls and windows that need to be replaced, which could have been painted. It is the old saying about the tar on the ship—penn'orth of tar. Now roofs will have to be repaired rather than patched.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggested that Conservative Members were responsible for the maintenance of schools. I suggest to him that the responsibility is with the local authorities. They had the cash to manage properly. The problem lies in the fact that they have not managed their affairs in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Clarke: When I was a councillor, we stood by an increase in the rates and people had the opportunity of voting us in or out. We had the autonomy. Now there is direct Government interference. There was no capping then. We stood every three years and were either elected or not elected. What was wrong with that? The expenditure was either frivolous or otherwise. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not normally frivolous. We prided ourselves on running our authority well. So do local councillors now.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said that local authorities had the cash and could do this and that. That is not so. There is direct interference from St. Andrew's house. That is why we want a Scottish Parliament. We want to take power away from the individuals in St. Andrew's house and give it to a democratic body.
One of the cruellest ironies is that, although buildings can be repaired and things put back, we cannot give back to children the proper education that has been taken from them.
Mr. Gallie indicated dissent
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Ayr shakes his head. All I can say is that it might rattle now and again.
The position is a fact of life. It is serious because youngsters are being deprived of a proper education. The remedial aspect of education which my hon. Friends mentioned earlier is being damaged, and opportunities are being removed, from young handicapped individuals. Such things cannot be replaced later. Young people cannot be repaired as buildings, roads and so on can be repaired. I ask the Government to reconsider. I know that I am talking to the deaf. The people of Scotland are getting to the stage where they want and are willing to pay for a quality of life. "Public expenditure" seems to be a dirty phrase, but it could be used to give people back some employment.
Expenditure will be required for sewers, maintenance, barriers on the Tay or an injection of cash into my

405
constituency of Midlothian. That work must be carried out, and this is the time to do it. The Government pride themselves on being business men, but if they were they would get the best tenders now while there is a dearth of work. That is common sense.
I hope that people are watching and listening to our arguments. I am not here to score points against anyone, because the situation is far too serious to be funny. My constituents' quality of life will be affected if we deprive local authorities of money, and I have repeated that fact because it is so important.
How many of us have seen homeless people turn up at our surgeries? What can we do for them? I am not a super-councillor but a Member of Parliament, and I refer them to the local authority, which has a list of homeless people, many of whom are unemployed builders who could build homes.
The problems that we all face every day are too numerous to mention. Are not our people entitled to the quality of life that they deserve? They are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Minister cannot say that we are a poor country—we are a very wealthy country, but the wealth happens to be in the hands of too few people. Opposition Members want that wealth to be in the hands of many people.
Mr. Chisholm: Since my hon. Friend and I represent constituencies in the Lothian region, does he agree that, although there is a general problem with finance, the region has a particular problem, as it receives less per head than any other region of Scotland—last year it was £708 per head, and it will be less this year? Does he also agree that the result of inadequate central Government funding is that Lothian services are not what they were when he was a councillor, when they were the best in Scotland? Expenditure per head is now the second worst, because the region is not getting enough from the Government.
Mr. Clarke: I agree. We seem to be being penalised for having had the audacity to vote Labour. One aspect of the problem is the way in which the formula is worked out by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others. The Government have never got over the shock that Edinburgh is Labour-controlled, and they have never forgiven us for it. The people of Edinburgh and the Lothians are suffering for that. That is my view, and the Government can respond to it, or not, but it is a fact of life and the only logical reason. Why is the formula different from anywhere else?
Mr. Wallace: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in last year's district elections, far more people voted Conservative than Labour in Edinburgh? How does he square that circle?
Mr. Clarke: Edinburgh is still Labour-controlled. Sometimes people vote in a daft way when Governments penalise them and hit their pockets. That is what the Government tried to do on that occasion. They may be succeeding, but I am sure that they will not pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and that people will realise what is going on.
I am making a plea for all those people who are employed by local authorities and who are doing their best. Because of the balance of budgets, they do not know
406
whether they will keep their jobs and the threat of redundancy hangs over every one of them. Many have worked for the authority for years and are very dedicated, working outwith the ordinary nine-to-five job. We depend on them.
Many other people wonder about their future quality of life and ask themselves whether it is worth staying in local government or whether they should move on. That is true of teachers, who are asking themselves whether it is worth it. We depend on a well-educated new generation, who have been looked after in properly maintained schools and other institutions, and we must give them confidence. Those cuts and clawbacks do not help local authorities or those who are unemployed.
Mr. Gallie indicated dissent.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Ayr can keep shaking his head, but I know that what I am saying is right.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way as I shall be finishing my speech in a minute.
I hope that common sense prevails regardless of the fact that the Government believe that their policy of cutting public expenditure is sacrosanct.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not give way. I am going to sit down as I have finished my speech.
9.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: We have just heard the genuine voice from the heart of Scottish local government. Among Opposition Members there is a tremendous depth of experience of and expertise on local government. I hope that the Minister is listening to what is being said. I can definitely identify with many of the issues raised. Having served in a local authority, I know of the expertise and dedication of the highly trained councillors and officials who work in local authorities. Those people supply a massive range of services daily throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
It is an absolute shame, and almost criminal neglect by the Government, to fail to understand either what local authorities are doing or the true worth and position of those authorities in Scotland. I would rather see those local authorities given greater autonomy and the resources to carry out the services to the best of their ability. I have never seen a Government who have understood that and allowed local authorities to make their contribution to Scotland.
The revenue support grant order confirms the general trend in the Government's handling of local authorities over the past decade. Successive Governments have consistently hogtied local government with more statutory obligations, while refusing to provide adequate resources, powers and skills for genuine local authority action.
The Government's view is that local authorities are simply enabling organisations, with little or no ability to act independently. That is the sum total of Government policy, and shows the direction in which they have been heading over the past decade. Now, the Secretary of State wants to determine 89 per cent. of all the income that is available to local authorities for annual expenditure. If we ally that to the Government's capping proposals, we are

407
left with democratically elected Scottish local authorities with virtually no discretion over service provision and absolutely no discretion to expand local services to meet local need.
One major problem is that local authorities know the need but are frustrated, as they do not have the ability to meet it. They have the expertise to do so, and central Government's job is to give local authorities the tools to allow them to provide services at the levels that they know are required locally.
During the past seven years, central Government financial domination has risen from 32 per cent. to 75 per cent. in my local authority. That pattern is repeated throughout the length and breadth of the country. That means that there is little or no scope for truly local action or discretion. Under the Government's clear centralisation policy, local authorities are gradually being reduced in status to the level of non-elected health boards. They are organisations that are given fixed budgets determined solely by central Government, who simply cut spending to suit their budget levels, irrespective of local need.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman suggests that central Government have taken more and more control over the affairs of local authorities. I acknowledge that, if central Government cap local authorities, the hon. Gentleman's argument has some merit. However, the way that local authorities administer their affairs does not allow for central involvement. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities provided nursery education to reasonable levels; he said that it was a local authority matter, and that he could not intervene.
Mr. Welsh: Compulsory competitive tendering, capping and these orders all show that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are nonsense. We oppose the quangofication of Scottish local government tooth and nail. Local authorities which know local conditions should be allowed maximum autonomy to meet local need—because they understand it. Then it is up to the local electorate to decide whether they like or dislike the way in which these democratically elected local councillors have run the affairs of the local authority.
There can be no denying that the imposition of central Government legislation—a flood of it—has badly affected local authorities over the past decade. I want that trend reversed, to allow more decision-making power to be devolved to local authorities, allowing them to make decisions on behalf of their electorates and in the light of their needs.
Local authorities are an essential part of the democratic structure of society. They can and should offer people the right to participate democratically in local decisions affecting local communities. I do not want any more quangofication—I dislike the system that ensures that health boards, for instance, are packed with Tory placemen carrying out Government policy with no mandate to do so. We should encourage democracy in Scotland—precisely what the Government are not doing—
Mr. Calum Macdonald: What on earth is "quangofication" in Gaelic?
Mr. Welsh: I could not say, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help us.
408
Under the Government's system, spending is unrelated to actual need and there is limited scope for local discretion. If it is to be meaningful, democratically elected local government must be able truly to reflect local wishes, priorities and needs. That requires an ability to raise and target funds according to the wishes of an electorate. Everything in these orders runs directly counter to local democracy. Central Government now fund and cap local authorities, and they are turning Scotland's local authorities into nothing more than local administrative units.
I do not want local authorities to become just enabling administrators. I want them to be service providers, understanding local needs and meeting them. If the Government complete their local administration ideas, the democratic system will be the loser. The SNP opposes Tory centralism and believes in maximum local authority autonomy and decision making.
I should like to ask Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen to make their views clear. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seemed, in his Bournemouth speech, to set Labour on a course to chase south-east English voters—expressing the very Tory philosophy which sees local authorities as enablers, not as service-providing organisations. Does the Labour party see local authorities merely as enablers or as positive service providers?
Mr. Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman talked about local authorities being able to raise funds to spend on local communities. How does he square that with the SNP campaign in favour of non-payment of the poll tax? There was still a need to ensure that funds were collected to meet the essential needs of the community.
Mr. Welsh: Had it not been for that campaign, we would still be stuck with the poll tax.
I repeat my question to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. If they are to begin chasing south-east English votes, some of their fundamental policies may have to be ditched. If the Labour party will not clarify its position, all Labour Members' words in support of local authorities tonight—I agree with them—will be meaningless.
The SNP is absolutely sure of the importance of a democratic role and of independence for local authorities. I am sure that the electorate will want to know whether Labour has changed its views.
In conclusion, I should like to highlight the unfairness of the non-domestic rating system in Scotland. Scottish businesses and industries are still I 1p in the pound adrift of their English counterparts in this respect. So much for extra taxation under a Scottish Parliament. We already have extra taxation, because of the situation that the Government have allowed to exist for decades.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman said that Scotland was I 1 p worse off than England. Obviously he did not listen to my earlier remark that Kincardine and Deeside is exactly on the average that exists south of the border. It comes down to good management by good councils.
Mr. Welsh: The exception proves the rule, but the solution is in the Government's hands. They could create a level playing field for Scottish commerce and business now, but they are talking of some future date. May we have an assurance from the Government that Scottish business will enjoy a level playing field next year? Scotland

409
will pay £312 million in extra costs in 1992–93. That means job losses and higher prices to Scottish consumers, which should not be allowed.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is the first to say that Scotland would suffer extra taxation, but I do not hear him say very much about the extra taxation that it has suffered for decades and is suffering now.
Mr. Kynoch: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the order gives extra funds in respect of non-domestic rates, so that the differential will be reduced? The Government are already moving very fast in that respect. The differential is now only 26 per cent.—and earlier, I asked the Government to speed up that process.
Mr. Welsh: The Minister spoke about the order producing savings, but not about actual costs—which are far greater as a result of the unfair rating burden, which exceed by far his so-called savings. I ask the Minister to achieve a level playing field. Business must be hindered and jobs lost by Strathclyde's 43.5 per cent. rates disadvantage. It is all very well speaking about Kincardine and Deeside, but I want that unfair burden to be removed from the whole of Scotland.
Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that Kincardine and Deeside expenditure is 35 per cent. below the guideline? That local authority spends 35 per cent. less than the Government think it should to provide a standard level of service. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Scotland should take a 35 per cent. cut to achieve the level cited by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch)?
Mr. Welsh: I am not advocating any cut. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the rest of my speech, he will learn that I am advocating that expenditure in Scotland should match the needs in Scotland. However, I take his point that Conservative-controlled Scottish local authorities, few though they may be in number, keep rates low by destroying services.
The answer is to improve services and to keep rates low. I commend to the House the actions of Angus district council, which always has the lowest rates in the whole Tayside region while massively increasing services—something that the Tories could never manage when they ran Angus. I believe in value for money, and I take the hon. Gentleman's point in that regard.
The increased tax burden on businesses in Scotland is the price paid for Scotland's outdated union with England.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the value of the local authority's reserves when it changed from Conservative to Scottish National party control, and how they were used to keep rates low?
Mr. Welsh: The reserves were wiped out by the Tories trying to get themselves re-elected. The SNP in Angus district inherited zero reserves—that was the state of play. The Tories were absolutely disastrous at running local authorities. The Minister has a cheek pretending that value for money is always achieved by Conservative authorities. That was certainly not the case in Angus.
When the SNP took over, Angus had the fifth highest average rents in Scotland. Under SNP control, as the
410
documents that we shall examine later show, it now has the second lowest average rents, with a massive increase in services and good value for rent payers.
The sooner that unfair business rates are wiped out the better.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Welsh: No, I want to finish, because other hon. Members hope to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Maxton rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said no.
Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
This year, a £312 million bill will be imposed on Scottish business and employment—and that is too high a price to pay for an outdated Union. The sooner that Union is abolished, the better.
9.39 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: Having sat through every minute of this interesting debate, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words. I spent nine happy years in Scottish local government, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke): we both served on Lothian regional council. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his excellent speech; I remember when he was a distinguished president of COSLA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said that, when he and I worked in local government—Labour was then in office at Westminster—we did not get all that we wanted. Of course, under any Administration, local government does not receive everything that it requires. I can assure the House, however—from my COSLA experience, and, in particular, my experience as chairman of Lothian's education committee—that those were halcyon days compared with what we are now experiencing.
In those days, we were expanding community schools in Lothian, with the encouragement of the Labour Government. We were expanding nursery education. We saw the prospect of doing even more: I looked forward to taking over some of Edinburgh's private schools, for we were certainly working in that direction. We shall do so again, once we regain power at Westminster.
Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will be allowed to reply to the debate, if he behaves himself.
Over the past 14 years; local authorities have been squeezed, cut and capped. That has meant a major reduction in services to the most vulnerable members of society. The sons and daughters of Edinburgh's judges do not attend local authority schools; they attend private schools, so they are not worried. Our children, however, attend local authority schools, and experience the cuts. They know that books are not available as they used to be.
We also see the effect on employment. The Government really are astonishing: they stand back in amazement, saying, "My goodness, the level of unemployment is rising", as though that were nothing to do with them. In

411
fact, the increase in joblessness—in industry as much as local government—is a direct result of the squeeze on expenditure that the Government have imposed. They say that they are as concerned about unemployment as Opposition Members, but theirs are crocodile tears. It is the Government who ensure that that employment comes about.
We have heard a good deal of special pleading today. I agreed with the special pleading of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker); I hope that he will agree with mine, but I am not sure that he will. Earlier, I asked a question about Cumnock and Doon Valley, which I make no apology for repeating. The area needs special consideration, because of the high level of unemployment. Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area, for instance, has a higher unemployment level than any other travel-to-work area in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West pointed out, the area has a special need for employment creation and regeneration, but the work that it wants to do has been held back by the threat of capping. Moreover, it has now been forced to increase charges to private industry for dealing with such matters as trade waste. That extra burden is creating problems for the few industries that remain in Cumnock and Doon Valley.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), in a remarkable, indeed unbelievable, speech—actually, having got to know the hon. Gentleman, I did not find it so very unbelievable—spoke of all the needs of local government; or, rather, he said that local government had no needs. He said that local government had enough money, and even implied that it had too much.
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: I have not even said anything yet. I know that he is very sensitive, but he should wait until he is attacked before he tries to intervene.
The hon. Member for Ayr goes to Castlehill primary school in his constituency—
Mr. Ingram: He is too old for that.
Mr. Foulkes: He might go along from an educational point of view, but he goes from a constituency point of view and says that he supports its fight, but he does not support the regional council's demands for money for repairs. He says that Strathclyde council is profligate and that it spends money on other things. Of course it does. It spends money on police, fire prevention, water, sewerage and all the social services. Conservative Members demand those services, but they will not will the resources.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman refers to Castlehill school in my constituency. My complaint about Strathclyde is that it has not planned a reasonable closure programme over a number of years. Originally, Strathclyde planned to rebuild Castlehill, but in January it suddenly decided to close it. That is atrocious management. That is the problem.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that Strathclyde does not have control of its revenue or capital budget. It is inhibited by Ministers failing to provide the capital and revenue. The hon. Gentleman stands up in his constituency and says that he does not
412
agree with the Government and that he will protect the interests of his constituents, but comes here and goes through the Lobby—
Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is wrong to say that I say all these things in my constituency. I should like evidence of it—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
Mr. Foulkes: Sometimes we wonder whether the hon. Gentleman represents Ayr or Scottish Power.
There are many more arguments that I could deploy about community care, the aging population and so on, but I shall not do so because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will deal with them. What sickens me is the hypocritical attitude of Conservative Members who always want services but are not prepared to ensure that they are paid for. That brings discredit to politics. The people of Scotland have realised that and it will not be long before the people of the rest of the United Kingdom also do so.
9.47 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on one aspect of his speech, in which he acknowledged the special difficulties and problems of the Western Isles and the council's struggle to meet those difficulties. I acknowledge that the Government have taken those problems on board to some extent by reinforcing their commitment to the special islands needs allowance. Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I welcome that repeated commitment and hope that it continues.
The special needs of the Western Isles are based on its special geographic character and its rural nature. The population is sparsely spread over a large area. Thal presents the council with particular problems in trying to meet the usual responsibilities and leads to additional costs. Although the Government have acknowledged that through the special islands allowance, there is still some way to go. The revenue support payments need to be reconsidered to ensure that all the islands' special characteristics are taken properly into account.
I mentioned the geographic distribution and sparsity of the islands' population. The Minister will be aware that those factors lead to special communication problems which in turn lead to additional costs with which the council must grapple. Since the Braer disaster, no one can be under any illusions about the desperate nature of the climatic conditions that the island communities have to face, especially during the winter. Once again, they lead to special difficulties with which the island authorities in the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland have to deal. Dealing with those problems also involves additional costs.
When the Western Isles council was formed, it inherited a particularly low service base but it has done remarkably well in building council houses and in developing the roads programme and the transport network in general, in building links with the smaller islands in the island chain and in generally developing the provision of services throughout the islands. Inevitably, that has led to high capital costs, and because much of the provision has been made recently, it has led to the need to service the resulting

413
debt. That is another special factor affecting the Western Isles council which the Government must take into account.
I am grateful that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Touche Ross to maintain the special islands needs allowance. It is absolutely essential for the Western Isles and for the communities of Orkney and Shetland. I should be grateful if the Minister could say that he has a long-standing commitment to that allowance and that he recognises the recommendation of an independent report that it is a much needed supplement to the revenue that central Government otherwise provide to the islands authority. I am sure that such a commitment would also be welcomed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
Finally, I shall deal with water and sewerage costs. For the Western Isles, such costs represent a great financial burden. As the Minister will know, the problem is that the costs are supposed to be self-financing. In addition, the money raised from individuals within the communities is not subject to any rebate. Therefore, in an area such as the Western Isles, which has high water rates and is expected to have even higher rates in the future, the poorest members of the community face the most crippling bills. Will the Minister seriously consider that issue? He may not be willing to countenance the prospect of providing additional resources for the islands' authorities to deal with their particular water and sewage costs, but will he accept the case for introducing into the water rate a rebate similar to that available under the council tax to the poorest members of the community? I look forward to his reply.
9.54 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: As is usual when we are dealing with such matters, this has been an interesting debate, and it has served to point up the differences between Opposition Members and Conservative Members. The Conservative Government believe in spending on local services; we believe in investing in the people for whom the services are provided. That is the essential difference.
The Government will not accept that these services are legitimately provided by local authorities and that they are an investment in the community, an investment in people. I am reminded of remarks that were made a few weeks ago by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, in a blinding flash of characteristic honesty, indicated that he wanted to sell everything. If that served to entertain the members of the Scottish Grand Committee, it also showed ultimate contempt for services that reach out to every family and every community the length and breadth of Scotland. Many hon. Members have indicated a similar attitude today by speaking grudgingly about the quality of local government services. Conservative Members find it difficult to manifest empathy with or sympathy for quality service.
One characteristic of the debate has not yet been mentioned. Even if the Government wanted to spend more money on local government—and I do not believe that they do—the real issue would continue to be the public sector borrowing requirement of £50 billion towards which the Government are heading. Let us forget for a
414
moment whether they care about local government. The real issue is the financial mess in which we find ourselves as a consequence of 14 years of economic failure and incompetence. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said recently:
"Over the course of the Parliament we shall be looking at the direction spending on every programme is taking and whether its purpose remains right for the 1990s. We shall be seeking to identify areas where better targeting can be achieved, or from which the public sector can withdraw completely."
Does not that show that we have a problem with the Conservatives? This settlement reflects the poverty of Conservative thinking, but it reflects also the deep anguish of Opposition Members, who believe that much deeper cuts will be foisted upon the people of Scotland in the next two to three years.
Another feature of the debate has been the central hypocrisy of the Government's argument. Let us remember that, despite record levels of unemployment and record manufacturing bankruptcies, the Government will not intervene. But what happens when they are let loose on a local authority that spends slightly more than its budget figure? We have rate capping, interference in education, and so on. The Government are determined to shape the social agenda, regardless of their commitment to the freedom of local authorities. It is indeed a central hypocrisy. How does the Minister square that attitude with the Government's total idleness in respect of the key issues of the economy—jobs, and so on?
As many of my hon. Friends have said, one of the reasons for the level of local authority expenditure is related to the economic collapse that we face. Tomorrow we shall see a rise in unemployment. I can tell the Minister that the figure in Scotland may rise by 9,000–2,500 people thrown on the scrap heap every week under this regime. That fact must be taken on board. It is not possible to continue to create such levels of unemployment without expecting the regional and district services to pick up the bill for the community initiatives that are necessary to help the unemployed. Does the Minister think that that is a reasonable proposition? Or does he want us to return to the attitude adopted in the early days of this century, when a distinction was drawn between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor? I believe firmly that the Scottish local authorities have done a magnificent job by picking up the pieces left by the Government in applying their disastrous policies.
The Government always miss the importance to Scotland of local authorities. We have heard that those authorities provide excellent services—flagship services, I would argue. They need not be compared with any private sector organisation. They are efficient, value-for-money bodies and, more important, they are accountable. Is not that the essence of democracy? Is not that another of the Government's central contradictions?
Even apart from services, one in six of the Scottish work force is employed by the regions and the districts–300,000 people. Let us imagine what would happen if this evening the Strangers Gallery were packed with people who worked in those services, and they heard the grudging Conservative concessions on the caring services—the police, the fire service, the community care services and investment in jobs and training, whereby young people are given training and an education. Those people would be

415
appalled by the indifference which the Government continue to show and which, of course, is reflected in the settlement.
We have heard the Government say many times that the settlement is adequate, with pay rises below 1.5 per cent. and inflation—temporarily—at 1.7 per cent. We are all supposed to rejoice and hope that local authorities will be able to survive. But the reality is different from the Government's window dressing.
The council tax, which will be imposed in April, is likely to be £100 higher for every household in the country because of the Government's meanness and sleight of hand over the estimates that they first discussed publicly in the press. Will the Minister explain why the council tax bills will be so much higher, adding another burden for households at a time when we are hoping for a consumer-led recovery? What hypocrisy. The Minister must answer that question.
There was much about community care in the statement. Community care is more than an emotive issue. We all support it—health boards, local authorities and everyone in the House. The tragedy is that, in April, people who leave care or psychiatric hospitals will not have the resources to lead the independent lives and have the dignity that community care was set up to create. What about the lack of funding for community care? Sixty million pounds or so will not even start to measure up to the problems.
In England we see hospitals being emptied far too quickly and local authorities being underfunded to deal with the problem. We shall not tolerate any attempt by Scottish Office Ministers to replicate those problems in Scotland. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will respond to that statement.
Capping has already been mentioned. We have exposed the central hypocrisy and the contradiction in the Government's philosophy—their selective interventions. Why can we not have genuine democracy that allows local authorities to be reasonable and responsible and to provide for the needs in their areas? The Government will have none of that. The settlement is about the sum to be given in revenue support, but it is also about the reason why the Government have taken draconian steps to impose punitive capping on local authorities. Why have they done that? The answer is simple. They abhor what local authorities do and they will not countenance increases in the levels of council tax that they are trying to impose. Of course, they care little for the quality of services and jobs that may be sacrificed.
I said earlier that we shall see tomorrow that unemployment has risen steeply. Is the Minister at all concerned about the crisis in jobs and services that will ensue? One of his close friends in local government—Councillor Charles Gray—is quoted in an article under the heading:
"Councils warn jobs may be casualty of spending cuts".
I am glad to see that the Minister is awake—although his response to my jibe was slow.
I ask the Minister how many jobs will be sacrificed as a result of the settlement. Will it be 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000? More importantly for the people who receive the services, what services will be cut? Will the Minister answer? Will he intervene now and tell us what the poverty of the settlement will mean for jobs and services? Those are crucial issues, which we take seriously. The Minister is an
416
understanding fellow, but he must take those issues seriously. For many, services and jobs mean life and death and they depend on what the Minister does.
We have talked about Government philosophy in the settlement and about the wider aspects of community care. There is another appalling prospect behind the figures that have been announced. What will the Government do about crime? Why are three crimes committed every minute in Scotland? Local government provides excellent services. The police force in Scotland does an excellent job, but it is under-resourced. The Government have given up on crime. They have created record levels, so what do they do? They walk away. They blame the police. It is the scapegoat philosophy which permeates everything they do.
Crime is a cancer in Scottish society. More than 1 million crimes were committed in the last year for which we have figures. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in four years. What will the settlement do to put another policeman on the beat to ensure that people are safe in their houses and on the streets?
The local government settlement is also about the quality of life in our communities. Why were 100,000 Scots homeless last year? We have record homelessness and record crime. Yet the Government pretend that Opposition parties should be satisfied with the settlement. We are not satisfied, either with the amount or with the complacency of some of the comments that we have heard in the debate.
After 14 years of the selfishness and greed of the Government, masquerading as a caring Government, Britain must return to a position where individuals see their future through the community. That is the sensible way forward. If we needed a potent symbol of how the community works, it is the quality, efficiency and value for money provided by Scottish local authorities. That is community in action. It means children being allowed to have the education opportunities that they would never have under the regime which the Government would impose on them. It means people knowing that they can rely on decent services, including the fire service and consumer protection measures which the Tories would like to dismantle.
Can the Minister defend the settlement and promise Scots that they will continue to have the best local government in Europe? Can he guarantee that employment levels will be maintained? More importantly, will he give a commitment to defend the notion of community which has served us well and which is under serious threat?
The Labour party does not want any more contracting out, resulting in shabby services, second-rate facilities and mass unemployment. The challenge to the Minister is to put all that nonsense behind him and to give us a settlement of which we can be proud and which will defend jobs and protect services.
10.7 pm
Mr. Stewart: I do not want to make a personal criticism of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke); one can safely leave that to his hon. Friends who do so at daily intervals in the Scottish press. However, he was somewhat ungracious about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend explained to him in a note that he was occupied with forestry interests in his capacity as the United Kindom's forestry Minister.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I had not expected to intervene so soon. I said in my speech that I had received the note, but since the Minister raises the point, I must say that when I am Secretary of State for Scotland, if I am asked to be in the House for two important debates or to attend a dinner with the Forestry Commission, I will be here.
Mr. Stewart: I understand that the betting is that the hon. Gentleman will not be shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for long, never mind Secretary of State for Scotland in the future. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not refer once in his winding-up speech to the speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West. Perhaps that was a bid for the Scottish leadership.
The speech by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) had the great merit of stirring up Labour Members. He got them very worried when he referred to the most interesting speech in Bournemouth by the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately, that speech was obviously not communicated to Scottish Labour Members in good time. A number of points made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central were not in line with the new philosophy as spelt out by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
As always, there were a number of constructive constituency points from Opposition Members, especially from the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I hope that I shall have time to respond to those points. If I cannot do so, I shall be happy to have a discussion with him afterwards.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central praised the excellent services of Scottish local authorities.
Mr. McLeish indicated assent.
Mr. Stewart: I see that the hon. Gentleman nods. He then said that those authorities had been massively underfunded over the past 14 years. He can hardly have it both ways. If the authorities are providing excellent services, they can hardly have been massively underfunded over a long period.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked about the reality. I shall tell Opposition Members what the reality is. The reality is that local authority expenditure per head of population in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher than it is in England and 30 per cent. higher than it is in Wales. Aggregate external finance—specific grants, business rates and revenue support grant—is 47 per cent. higher per head in Scotland than it is in England and 25 per cent. higher than it is in Wales, which is a similar country.
Let us hear no more nonsense from Opposition Members about the Government not giving adequate support to Scottish local government. The facts simply do not show that. In the past five years, there has been a real increase in central Government support to local authorities, after allowing for inflation.
Mr. Hood: Two weeks ago, the Minister received a letter from the Auchlochan Trust, a Christian charitable trust in my constituency. The trust pleaded for the Scottish Office to guarantee the money for providing.community care for hundreds of geriatrics. The trust told the Minister that if it was not given that guarantee, it would have to throw elderly people out into the street and pay off some of its many workers. Has the Minister given that guarantee to the trust?
Mr. Stewart: The community care figures have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that individual decisions are for councils. I shall give him the overall figures for Government support for care in the community. The total figure for care in the community from 1 April is £63.4 million. Some £40–6 million will be transferred from the Department of Social Security, there will be £20 million in respect of additional costs incurred by local authorities next year, and there will be £2.8 million in recognition of the independent living fund successor arrangements.
I emphasise that the amount transferred exceeds the present level of relevant Department of Social Security spending in Scotland by £4 million. In addition, we have allocated more than £20 million to authorities in recognition of community care preparation costs. I entirely refute any claim that local authorities are being underfunded for community care esponsibilities. The Government have taken the additional step of disregarding local authority expenditure on community care for capping purposes. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Mr. Hood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr that the resources will not be ring—fenced but will be spent in full by local authorities without their being required to consider the impact of capping. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr rightly paid tribute to the achievements of Kyle and Carrick since the change in administration there. In emphasising the excellent record of his authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) rightly said that, if the authorities in central Scotland held by the Labour party over the years had followed the policies of Kincardine and Deeside, we should not have the burden of extra business taxation to which the hon. Member for Angus, East referred.
I emphasise that the reason why we have that extra burden is that, fundamentally, local authority spending in Scotland has for a long time been higher than that in England and Wales.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members have also suggested that there have been great cuts in manpower in Scottish local authorities in recent years.
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: I should point out that, in each of the past five years, the number of people employed by local authorities in Scotland has increased. So much for all this talk of savage cuts and threats to jobs and services. The number of people employed—
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: The number of people employed—
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should not persist.
Mr. Stewart rose—
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way to me, then?
Mr. Stewart: No, but I finally give way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister, who can be very helpful on occasion. He spoke in praise of small low-spending authorities. I draw his attention to the concern felt in parts of my constituency at reports of an attempt to incorporate Largs into a greater Eastwood. The Minister should be aware of the damage that such territorial ambitions do elsewhere in the world. Will he kindly take the opportunity to say that he has no such ambitions towards the people of my constituency?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that, on this occasion, I should spell out the whole range of ambitions that the people of Eastwood have. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that particular suggestion did not come from anyone who lives in the Eastwood constituency—although my right hon. Friend and I will consider most carefully all the representations that we receive in relation to the reform of Scottish local government.
Hon. Members refer to cuts in manpower. There have not been cuts but increases in manpower. Hon. Members referred to cuts in Strathclyde: in fact, Strathclyde will have the scope to increase its budget next year by some £55 million—an increase of 2.9 per cent. By no means can that be described as a cut. The alleged cuts of which we hear from Opposition Members are cuts in unrealistic spending aspirations. They are not real cuts.
A number of hon. Members have made specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly referred to the problems of flooding that have been faced by his constituency and its local authorities. He asked for sympathetic consideration to be given to the representations, in particular with regard to capital allocations. My hon. Friend will not expect a commitment from me tonight but I can confirm that we will consider such representations most sympathetically.
The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Western isles raised the issue of the special islands needs allowance and asked me for an assurance that it will continue. I can confirm to both hon. Members that we have no plans to end the allowance, having just received a consultants' report. Inevitably, we will have to examine it once single-tier authorities are introduced on the mainland. I can give an assurance that the Government recognise the problems of the islands' authorities.
I can confirm that we have decided that the special funds to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred should not be taken into account in determining the distribution of the special islands needs allowance. That was recommended by the consultants, and we have accepted it.
Opposition Members allege that Lothian is unfairly treated. I remind them yet again that the special funds are distributed formally or by a distribution committee which consists of members from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as well as the Scottish Office. Lothian has a lower number of assessed needs for several obvious reasons—the low proportion of people in education authority schools and it is relatively prosperous and small.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stewart: I do not have the time: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
In the past five years, the level of Government support in real terms has increased for Scottish local authorities. The settlement is realistic and fair.
All that we have heard from Opposition Members are the usual allegations about cuts which are not real cuts and demands for much more money to be spent on everything in sight without any attempt to allocate costs or to indicate how the money will be provided. The Government are increasing the funds available to Scottish local authorities by 3.5 per cent. at a time when inflation is 1.7 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the costs are wages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside said, the settlement is fair and reasonable.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [12 February].
The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 251.

Division No. 157]

[10.22 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Clappison, James

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Alexander, Richard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Coe, Sebastian

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Ancram, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Couchman, James

Ashby, David

Cran, James

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Day, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Baldry, Tony

Devlin, Tim

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dicks, Terry

Bates, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Batiste, Spencer

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Duncan, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Durant, Sir Anthony

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Sir Richard

Elletson, Harold

Booth, Hartley

'Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boswell, Tim

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bowden, Andrew

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bowis, John

Evennett, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Faber, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Fabricant, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bright, Graham

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fishburn, Dudley

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Forman, Nigel

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Forth, Eric

Budgen, Nicholas

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Burns, Simon

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Butcher, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Butler, Peter

Freeman, Roger

Butterfill, John

French, Douglas

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fry, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gale, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Gallie, Phil

Carttiss, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Cash, William

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Garnier, Edward

421

Gill, Christopher

Maitland, Lady Olga

Gillan, Cheryl

Malone, Gerald

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marlow, Tony

Gorst, John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hague, William

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Milligan, Stephen

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mills, Iain

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, Sir John

Moate, Sir Roger

Hargreaves, Andrew

Monro, Sir Hector

Harris, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Haselhurst, Alan

Moss, Malcolm

Hawkins, Nick

Needham, Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Nelson, Anthony

Hayes, Jerry

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heald, Oliver

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hicks, Robert

Norris, Steve

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Ottaway, Richard

Horam, John

Page, Richard

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paice, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Powell, William (Corby)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Jessel, Toby

Riddick, Graham

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Robathan, Andrew

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Key, Robert

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Knapman, Roger

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

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

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sims, Roger

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Legg, Barry

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Leigh, Edward

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Soames, Nicholas

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lidington, David

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lightbown, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, David

Sumberg, David

422

Sweeney, Walter

Waller, Gary

Sykes, John

Ward, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Watts, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wells, Bowen

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Thomason, Roy

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Whittingdale, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Willetts, David

Thurnham, Peter

Wilshire, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

Wolfson, Mark

Tracey, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Tredinnick, David

Yeo, Tim

Trend, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Walden, George

Mr. Irvine Patrick.

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cousins, Jim

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cox, Tom

Ainger, Nick

Cryer, Bob

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Alton, David

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dalyell, Tarn

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Darling, Alistair

Armstrong, Hilary

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ashton, Joe

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

Austin-Walker, John

Denham, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dixon, Don

Barnes, Harry

Dobson, Frank

Barron, Kevin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Battle, John

Dowd, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bell, Stuart

Eastham, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Enright, Derek

Bennett, Andrew F.

Etherington, Bill

Benton, Joe

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Berry, Dr. Roger

Fatchett, Derek

Betts, Clive

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Blair, Tony

Fisher, Mark

Blunkett, David

Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Boyce, Jimmy

Foulkes, George

Boyes, Roland

Fraser, John

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Galbraith, Sam

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Galloway, George

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

Gapes, Mike

Burden, Richard

Garrett, John

Byers, Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Caborn, Richard

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Gordon, Mildred

Canavan, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

Cann, Jamie

Graham, Thomas

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gunnell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hain, Peter

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hall, Mike

Clelland, David

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hardy, Peter

Coffey, Ann

Harvey, Nick

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Doug

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Heppell, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Corston, Ms Jean

Hinchliffe, David

423

Hoey, Kate

McNamara, Kevin

Hood, Jimmy

Madden, Max

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mahon, Alice

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Mandelson, Peter

Hoyle, Doug

Marek, Dr John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Hutton, John

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Ingram, Adam

Martlew, Eric

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Maxton, John

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Meacher, Michael

Jamieson, David

Meale, Alan

Johnston, Sir Russell

Michael, Alun

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Milburn, Alan

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Miller, Andrew

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Jowell, Tessa

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Morgan, Rhodri

Keen, Alan

Morley, Elliot

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Khabra, Piara S.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Mudie, George

Kirkwood, Archy

Mullin, Chris

Leighton, Ron

Murphy, Paul

Lewis, Terry

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Litherland, Robert

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Livingstone, Ken

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

O'Hara, Edward

Loyden, Eddie

Olner, William

Lynne, Ms Liz

O'Neill, Martin

McAvoy, Thomas

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

McCartney, Ian

Parry, Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Pickthall, Colin

McFall, John

Pike, Peter L.

McKelvey, William

Pope, Greg

Mackinlay, Andrew

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

McLeish, Henry

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Maclennan, Robert

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

McMaster, Gordon

Prescott, John

424

Primarolo, Dawn

Stevenson, George

Purchase, Ken

Stott, Roger

Quin, Ms Joyce

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Radice, Giles

Straw, Jack

Randall, Stuart

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Redmond, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Reid, Dr John

Turner, Dennis

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Tyler, Paul

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Vaz, Keith

Rogers, Allan

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Rooney, Terry

Wallace, James

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rowlands, Ted

Wareing, Robert N

Ruddock, Joan

Watson, Mike

Salmond, Alex

Welsh, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wilson, Brian

Short, Clare

Winnick, David

Simpson, Alan

Wise, Audrey

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wray, Jimmy

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

Wright, Dr Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Soley, Clive

Mr. Jack Thompson and

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Mr. John Spellar

Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, dated 2nd February 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1993, dated 2nd February 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr.Stewart.]

Housing Support Grant (Scotland)
10.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
I propose to keep my opening remarks brief. This is the 15th annual housing support grant order laid before the House. Many hon. Members will have speeches to make on constituency issues. Hon. Members will remember that housing support grant is a deficit subsidy paid to local authorities that, on the basis of reasonable assumptions about income and expenditure, would otherwise be unable to meet the costs of council housing from their rental income. Full details of the grant settlement for the next financial year are set out in the order and the accompanying report.
As always, I express my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom the grant settlement has been discussed. Although the convention has reservations about certain aspects of the settlement, I am grateful for the constructive and helpful approach which it takes in our annual discussions on these matters.
The draft order provides that the total grant payable next year will be £ 35.852 million. That sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of authorities that, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts.
Eligible expenditure consists mainly of loan charges and of management and maintenance spending. The loan charges that we estimate that authorities will have to meet in the next financial year are—as is usual—based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to the mid-point of the financial year, taking account of new borrowing and debt redemption. In order to calculate interest charges, we apply to those projections of capital debt the pool interest rate expected for local authority debt next year. Our present estimate of that rate is 9.3 per cent. Interest rates may fluctuate, however, and I assure the House that if there is a significant change in the estimate of the pool rate, the Government will— in line with the usual practice— bring forward an appropriate variation order to adjust the amount of grant payable. For the moment, our estimate of the total loan charges to be met from local authority housing revenue accounts in Scotland amounts to £487 million.
The other major item of eligible expenditure is that on management and maintenance of the housing stock. Our estimate of eligible management and maintenance spending in 1993–94 is based on an assumed average spending level of £605 per house—a 15 per cent. increase over the equivalent average for the current year. That provides evidence that the Government are prepared to meet their share of the cost of the improvement in management and maintenance services that will arise from the adoption of the tenants charter.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: How wide-ranging is the definition of hostel in paragraph 3(3)? Does it include women's refuges and, if so, will what the Minister has to say tonight enable those managing women's refuges to seek extra money to develop their services to meet the growing need for such hostel accommodation?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree that women's refuges are important. I shall make certain that the hon. Gentleman is given a full reply during the wind-up. My impression is that they are covered, but I shall make certain and come back to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.
Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister is describing what he says is a generous settlement for local authorities. If it is, could he explain why Kyle and Carrick district council, much praised by some Conservative Members earlier and now Conservative controlled, is raising rents for local authority tenants by an average £5 a week and in some cases by as much as £15 a week? That means that some tenants simply cannot pay—especially those whose wages are frozen or who have been limited to small increases. Does he agree with the council's action; or does he agree with me that it is disgraceful?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall deal with rents generally first—
Mr. Foulkes: No.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
As for standard rents, the assumed average rent for 1993–94 is £30.32 per house per week. I stress that that is not a forecast of the actual average local authority rent for next year; nor is it a guideline or recommendation. It is the average rent which, for the purposes of the grant calculations, we consider that authorities should reasonably be expected to receive. The actual rents of authorities may be higher or lower, according to their own decisions about income and expenditure. I shall discuss the implications of the subsidy settlement for actual rents in a few moments, but the actual rent levels are a matter for the district councils to decide—
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should draw the attention of the House to certain changes in the way in which the grant for next year has been calculated. Hon. Members should appreciate that, although the broad lines of the methodology of the grant system are by now well established, there is a continuing evolution of the system at the margin. For instance, the grant settlement for next year reflects—
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should allow me to follow this through; he needs to see the whole subject in perspective. I know that he feels strongly about his local council.
The settlement for next year reflects a different method of assessing whether grant entitlements should be adjusted to reflect overpayments or underpayments in earlier years. The former arrangements involved the use of penny rate products to establish whether the difference between an authority's loan charges as estimated for the earlier grant year and actual loan charges was substantial enough to warrant an adjustment. With the agreement of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the use of penny rate products has been abandoned in favour of a rent product of 70p per house per week as a threshold to determine whether an adjustment is necessary.

427
We have also responded to the convention's representations about the way in which we estimate the amounts or rents lost as a result of vacant houses. In particular, we have taken account of the numbers of houses held empty and not available for letting. Estimated rents lost for authorities with a high proportion of houses held empty for this reason have been based on 3 per cent. of assumed rental income, compared with 2 per cent. for other authorities. Again, COSLA has welcomed this change.
Mr. John Maxton: I accept that, but if a local authority decides to redevelop a large number of its council houses, as Glasgow has done in Castlemilk with the full co-operation of the Government, is it not absurd that it then loses housing support grant because the houses are standing empty and thus making no rental income?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The change has been welcomed by COSLA and it takes into account precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The figure is based, for authorities with a high proportion of housing held empty, on 3 per cent. of assumed rental income. That is a move in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants.
I should also mention the hostels portion of housing support grant. Since we took the decision two years ago to extend hostels grant to all authorities with hostels, rather than limiting hostels grant to authorities that qualified on the basis of their housing revenue accounts as a whole, there has been a welcome increase in the number of hostel places made available by local authorities, from 1,796 in 1990 to 1,956 in 1992. The Government's decision to make available additional capital allocations specifically aimed at relieving homelessness means that the number of hostel places will continue to grow over the next year.
I recognise that hostels are far from the complete answer to homelessness, but they make a signification contribution to dealing with the single homeless. Following consultation with COSLA, a maximum cost per hostel place will be introduced next year. It has been set at a generous level. For each authority, it is three times the average net cost per hostel place for local authority hostels as a whole—multiplied by the number of hostel places provided by the authority.
The hostels portion of grant next year will amount to more than £ 1.6 million, shared among 18 authorities.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Asian women's refuge in my constituency will not close? I understand that it is threatened, and many people are anxious to ensure that that facility remains open. Can the Minister give that categorical assurance, so that the Asian folk in Strathclyde can rest in peace?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to know more about that. That is almost certainly a local authority decision. If that hostel has been given assistance by urban aid or other Scottish Office sources I shall be happy to make inquiries and will reply to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Falkirk district council is listed among the minority of local authorities that receive a portion of housing support grant for hostels, but no figure is given. How much will Falkirk district council receive? Also, why do only a minority of housing authorities in Scotland qualify for general or hostel
428
housing support grant? When the system was introduced by a Labour Government, virtually every housing authority in Scotland qualified. In terms of general housing support grant, Falkirk has not received a single penny from this rotten Government for more than a decade.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy. The hon. Gentleman asks why some authorities are not included. The size of the potential deficit determines grant entitlement. Some authorities have a relatively small deficit, so even small changes in estimated income or expenditure may have a large impact on their deficit. Other authorities have a potentially large deficit.
If I had to give a simplistic example, I would say that authorities that built a large volume of housing in relatively recent years may find that they have much larger loan charges, and therefore are much more likely to qualify for housing support grant than authorities with older housing stock.
Changes in estimated expenditure or income have only a marginal effect on the potential deficit and, therefore, on the grant entitlement. As to the hostel portion, I will answer the hon. Gentleman when I wind up and have the figures to hand.
Dr. Godman rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will also answer the hon. Gentleman's question about hostels, in relation to women's refuges in his constituency.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot just stand up like that when the Minister is at the Dispatch Box. He can ask the Minister to give way, but if the Minister chooses not to do so, the hon. Gentleman must accept that.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent. I will give way to him now, but I have quite a bit to say, and I want to hear all the constituency speeches that other hon. Members may wish to make.
Dr. Godman: I thank the Minister for giving way with characteristic courtesy—the kind of courtesy which I like to extend to him.
Hostels are an important issue, especially in view of the implications of care in the community. Many people will be released into the community, and some will be staying in hostels. Where does Inverclyde come in, and what funds will the district council receive for providing hostel accommodation for those covered by the community care provisions?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The final allocations for housing must be made available in March. We are giving high priority to community care, in regard to the funding of both local authorities and Scottish Homes. The hon. Gentleman can be certain that we shall be very specific about that when we make the final allocations.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a definition of hostels. Women's refuge hostels are usually owned by voluntary organisations; because they are not owned by local authorities, they do not qualify for housing support grant, which, in accordance with statute, is restricted to houses and hostels owned by the authorities themselves. Financial

429
assistance from local authorities for women's refuges is usually provided under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That assistance is subsidised through the aggregate external finance settlement discussed earlier this evening.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked about the hostels proportion in Falkirk. I understand that it is £154,770 in 1993–94, compared with the lesser figure of £123,120 in 1992–93. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about rents. I repeat that that is entirely a matter for the council: Kyle and Carrick's rent was only £20.46 per house per week in 1992–93, well below the Scottish average of £24.75.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can make his own case in his own way if he catches the eye of the Chair.
General fund contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council house tenants. This kind of subsidy is indiscriminate, in that it benefits all tenants regardless of their personal circumstances; and it is unnecessary, to the extent that tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit. I make no apology for our proposals in the General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1993 to bar authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions next year. Local authorities have been consulted individually about the proposals, and only 11 of them saw fit to make representations on the matter. I have examined those representations carefully and have concluded that none of the authorities concerned requires to increase rents by an amount that would justify a subsidy from the council tax payer.
The effect of the subsidy proposals on local authority rent levels will vary. As I said earlier, decisions on rents are for local authorities to make. The majority of authorities do not receive housing support grant in respect of their council housing; nor do they make general fund contributions. The rent decisions of those authorities are obviously unaffected by changes in the overall level of subsidy. Even in the case of authorities that receive or make subsidy, changes in the level of that subsidy from year to year are usually less important for local rent decisions than changes in levels of expenditure, particularly expenditure on loan charges.
Because of the general reductions in interest rates during the current financial year, loan charges next year are expected to be lower than this year's. As a result, the majority of local authorities should be able to make real improvements in the level of management and maintenance services with which they provide their tenants, with relatively modest rent increases.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a very helpful Minister, which is why I want to ask him what advice I should give my constituents, who are being by required Tory-controlled Kyle and
430
Carrick district council to pay £15 a week more than last year. Where do they find the money when their wages are frozen?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If I were in the hon. Gentleman's place, I would find out exactly what the council intended to deliver for tenants in its housing programme. If that involves major schemes of modernisation and improvements in management and maintenance, that should be taken into account. The council must decide what levels of rent to fix.
When I met COSLA last month—
Mr. Maxton: Before the Minister moves off rents—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have not moved off rents; I am just finishing the point.
When I met COSLA, I predicted that rents would increase by about 7 per cent. overall, but that predication now seems to be on the high side, as Edinburgh and Glasgow are considering increases of 6 per cent. or less. The proposals being considered tonight constitute a fair and reasonable subsidies package that balances the interests of the tenant, the council taxpayer and the national taxpayer, and I strongly commend the order to the House.
10.55 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Listening to the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would never think that thousands of Scottish houses are unfit to live in, that children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are more likely than others to suffer from ill health, and that, among these children, gastro-enteritis and chest infections are normal. Listening to him, you would not think that people with disabilities wait years for suitably adapted housing, that overcrowded families cannot be housed because the council does not have the right size of housing for their needs or that single men and women can wait years just to get a small flat. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, nor would you think that refuges for women who are in danger and in need of that accommodation are so terribly lacking compared with the level of need.
On 18 January, the Minister proclaimed that it was the Government's long-term aim to reduce "indiscriminate" grants such as housing grant, and that subsidies should be more personalised, such as housing benefit. This year, housing support grant will fall from £47.5 million to £36 million—three quarters of this year's housing support grant. That is what the Minister calls an adequate and suitable settlement. At this rate of reduction, it will not be long before it ends altogether. But housing benefit does not make up the shortfall in money needed to take care of housing stock; it is part of the social security system. It does nothing for the fabric of buildings.
Far from making up lost income to carry out improvements, the Minister is presiding over a total cash reduction of more than £56 million. Housing support grant has been chopped by £11.6 million and the general fund contribution, which he mentioned earlier and which at present is a mere £1.5 million, is to be reduced to zero. Does he realise that not only owner-occupiers but tenants pay the council tax? Gross capital consents are to be reduced by £43 million.
The Minister drew attention to an extra £5 million in consents for community care. Would it not be more caring if he provided hard cash? When we take inflation into

431
account, the council tenant might reasonably expect the total to rise slightly, instead of which there is a reduction in real terms of 15 per cent., or £70 million.
In the past decade, by such methods, more than £1,500 million of direct Government support has been denied to Scottish local authority houses. That money could have treated damp walls, replaced roofs and dangerous wiring and preserved pride in communities where houses have not seen a lick of paint in donkey's years and where tenants feel that their area is getting less desirable with every year that passes.
Gross capital consents—permission to incur capital expenditure — have been reduced by a further 10 per cent. Even the limit imposed of £385 million depends on no less than £251 million–65 per cent.—being raised by selling council houses. If district councils cannot hit that preposterous target, the Minister will not recognise reality and permit further borrowing.
Does he seriously believe that that level of sales can be achieved when, daily, people are being thrown out of work and fear being thrown on the scrap heap? It is particularly galling that so many jobs have been lost in the construction industry. Between 1991 and 1992, 1,036 construction jobs were lost to Scottish local authorities. There is work to be done, and the skills are there, but the Government do not want to know.
It need not be like that. There have been crash programmes of home building under Labour Housing Ministers, and even pre-Thatcherite Tories did better than this lot. As recently as 1981, the Scottish housing authorities built 7,000 houses for rent, but 10 years later, in 1991, the total had dropped to a mere 1,546. It takes a sort of perverse genius to cut the number of houses being built and, at the same time, to raise rents, which pay off housing debt, to such an extent as the Government have done.
In 1979, the average council house rent was £4.92 a week. Under this Government, it has risen to £24.75 a week, and the reduction in housing support grant is based on the assumption that rents will rise to an average of £30.32 a week, as the Minister said. Of course, some will be higher and some will be lower—that is what an average means.
The tenants are not getting better housing for their money—it is being used to pay debts. A few people apparently believe, or would have us believe, that there is a simple solution for councillors, and that only a want of political will and principle prevents them from carrying it out. The slogan is, "Don't pay the debts; force the Government to come to the rescue." How odd it is that Trotskyites have more faith in the humanitarian response of the Tories than any of my colleagues. But if, while we are waiting for the miracle, anyone knows a lender who does not mind his loans not being repaid, will he quickly tell the rest of us?
We cannot expect humanity from the Government, but can we at least attempt to reason with them? They know, because their policies dictate it, that rents have been rising at well above the rate of inflation. Tenants' rents are bearing a far heavier share of the payment of loan debts. In fact, the debts are now almost exclusively funded from rents. That being the case, why does the Minister not remove the barriers to borrowing and let councils decide independently how much they want to borrow for capital projects? The Exchequer is not paying much and intends to
432
pay less, and the Government will not allow any contribution from the council tax. It is the tenants who are paying.
Mr. Phil Gallie: If the Government were to give greater capital consent, since many councils do not receive housing support grant to supplement their financial support for housing, would it not make the situation worse for tenants?
Mrs. Fyfe: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain later why getting further permission to borrow to build houses will make matters worse. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
I also wonder why the Government will not respond to council appeals to write off loan debt. Let us take Glasgow as an example. If the city's debt were written off, its housing officials say that it would have had £119 million to spend immediately, without incurring any debts. Public companies that have been privatised have had millions of pounds of outstanding loan debts redeemed. It is a political decision to give to one but not the other. That means that there is champagne on ice in the boardroom but cold and damp in many a council house bedroom. If the Government will consider write-off when the value of the asset is less than the outstanding debt, why in the name of logic do they not redeem the debt on houses that councils are demolishing?
Let us consider the picture in Scotland today. More than 100,000 dwellings are below the tolerable standard, and the single most common reason is dampness. At the current level of funding, it will be well past the year 2000 before we even catch up on those presently affected.
Homelessness has reached a record level, topping last year's and the year before's, of 37,519 families.
Everyone knows that inadequate housing creates health problems. Shelter estimates that the health of 120,000 Scottish children is in severe danger owing to the fact that they live in damp and dangerous housing. These views are backed up by Glasgow's director of public health, who has recently written a hard-hitting report which points out:
"half of all households with children have some problems with dampness or condensation. A quarter of a million Glaswegians live in accommodation affected by dampness or condensation."
Asthma and bronchitis are rife. Hon. Members representing other constituencies have similar stories to tell.
Fifty years ago, Beveridge had a vision of a society free from poverty. In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when industry had to be reorganised to meet peacetime needs and we in Britain depended on Marshall aid, we still managed a massive house-building programme. In the 1960s, people believed that, in another 10 years, Scotland's housing problem would be cracked. How wrong could everyone have been? Today, in addition to the damp and dangerous housing that people are forced to live in, houses are lying empty because they are in an unlettable condition and the councils have no money to improve them. Councils do not like to have houses lying empty. They do not deliberately leave them unlet, but they do not have the money to make them fit to let. What a waste.
The Minister has seen in my constituency an area of housing, of sound construction, which has deteriorated through lack of investment, to the point where demand is nil and nearly everyone wants out. For want of necessary

433
investment, the council may be forced to pull the houses down. If the Minister does not find that a shocking waste of public money, I do. It is no use him shrugging off responsibility on to the councils, saying that each council decides its own priorities. Of course they do, but there is a limit to what they can achieve with the funds at their disposal, which do not come anywhere near meeting their housing needs. Glasgow's current HRA debt is no less than £1,111 million, yet its HSG for this year is a mere £11.1 million. With that level of financial support, when will it ever get over its debt crisis?
The Minister knows all this perfectly well. Possibly he wants to do good and make a name for himself as one of Scotland's great housing Ministers. [Laughter] I thought that hon. Members would like that. But the Minister is tied down by the Tory ideology that has sacrificed everything—even the health of thousands of our children—in the cause of reducing inflation. The truth is that our country cannot afford to allow so many of our children to grow up in poverty and ill health—in such damp and dreadful housing—and so many of our work force to have their skills unused.
Bad housing is not something to tolerate; it is an evil to exterminate. It is a sad fact that the Government bear a grave moral responsibility for all these years of criminal neglect.
11.8 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: One thing that can be said about the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is that it was most certainly read. Another is that it was very badly read. She wrote it before hearing what the Minister had to say, and not knowing that the Chair would be occupied by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whom she addressed incorrectly.
The hon. Lady's remarks made it very clear that she still has no idea about finance. It is fascinating. I long for the day when every property is leased or rented at its correct rental value. That value will be pitched at such a level as to ensure that the property is maintained throughout its buyable life. This is perfectly proper and simple to do, but it was not done under the system of housing support grant. When that grant was the main source of support for housing, local authorities used rents as a means of buying votes. I make no apology for saying so. Under the system whereby all rents were charged properly, at a level that would allow building to be properly sustained, housing benefit could be paid to those who could not pay the rent. The marvellous thing about housing benefit is that it is directed at individuals' needs.
The hon. Member for Maryhill drew attention to what she described as a reduction of £1,500 million in housing support grant. But she failed to say that during the same period housing benefit increased by far more than that. Today, many more people are affected—quite properly. I do not argue with that fact. Throughout my political life I have always argued that every family should at least have a proper house to live in. I believe that we all agree about that. The question is how to arrive at that goal.
Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I am always willing to give way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that every family should have a house to live in, does he agree that the last thing that any United Kingdom Government should allow is the disconnection of water and sewerage services from a house? That makes the house unfit for human habitation, and therefore makes ordinary people homeless.
Mr. Walker: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that I take a different view. I believe that unless disciplines and pressures are imposed on some people, those people will abuse the system. People who, for whatever reason, cannot control their finances may require assistance to be provided in other ways. I have not argued with that idea because, unfortunately, there are people who need to be looked after. But because one wants to look after that particular group of people—
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: In a minute.
Because one wants to look after that particular group of people, one should not lay the way open. Anyone who has lived on a council estate knows that the people who live there will be able to say who all the individuals beating the system are—which people are enjoying the benefits of the welfare state, extracting all that they can out of it and deliberately and fraudulently claiming more than—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Oh,yes.Anyone who has lived on a council estate knows that people can tell you who the cheats are. The hon. Member for Dundee, East knows that the people on the estates know who the cheats are, because he knows that in places such as Linlathlen the people can say who properly requires assistance, and should get it, and who is drawing unemployment and social security benefits and working on the side.
Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I shall give way.
Mr. McAllion rose—
Mr. Wray rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not entirely clear to which hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Tayside, North is giving way.
Mr. Walker: I was giving way to the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
Mr. McAllion: Like the hon. Member for Tayside, North, I accept that the people in Linlathlen can tell cheats from honest people. That is why, when the hon. Gentleman stood in Dundee, East, he was resoundingly defeated—by the voters of Linlathlen.
Mr. Walker: Of course—the Scottish National party, not the Labour party, defeated me. I stood against a sitting Scottish National party Member of Parliament, and I did not win. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East wishes to stand in Tayside, North, I can guarantee that he will be lucky not to lose his deposit.

435
We need a system whereby the nation's finances are used for the benefit of people in need—although we may disagree about how we want to achieve that—and people in need must really be assisted. I remember the so-called grand old days—both before the war and immediately after the war, or whenever—and the system then did not produce the necessary goods.
That is why it is essential that we try constantly to find ways of improving on what has been done in the past. I welcome the move towards housing associations, but it would be a mistake to imagine that they alone can find the answers to all our housing problems.
Mr. Wray: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the 1960s when private landlords were signing over the tenancies of buildings? They were involved in Rachmanism for years. The local authority in Glasgow spent millions of pounds on demolishing tenements when the owners ran to different countries. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under the Public Health Act 1897 thousands of certificates of disrepair were issued by the local authority to get landlords to do the necessary work? Does he remember recently, with the abolition of the rates, private landlords running round trying to get their tenants to sign for increases because they did not want to give them the rate rebates?
Mr. Walker: I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman on caring about people who live on council estates. I too could draw on lessons from the period that he is talking about. What about the housing blocks, built by the local authority, which were unsuitable for Scotland's climate and which had to be destroyed? What about the housing estate which nobody ever lived in and which had to be demolished? That was a waste of public money. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to learn from the lessons of the past. The hon. Gentleman should not wish his party to live in the past. I do not wish my party to live in the past.
Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we should learn from the past. May I refer to the comments by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) about tenements in Glasgow and the position since 1979? I want to draw his attention to the amazing progress by the Government on the renovation of old properties in Glasgow over the past 10 years.
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the massive public funds that have properly gone into the centre of Scotland's cities. We had an inheritance; all it required was adequate funding to bring it into modern use. The buildings were built to last, like castles, but sadly they lacked modern conveniences. The money given by the Government has made a huge contribution to the city centres of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. The results are there for anyone to see.
Dr. Godman rose—
Mr. Walker: Other hon. Members wish to speak. If I keep giving way, no one else will get in.
I want to bring one matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. Let us assume that a family is living in a property owned by a local authority and enjoys tenants' rights. If the property is affected by a compulsory purchase order because of a road scheme, the tenant will have to move. Other agencies will be involved. My hon.
436
Friend should recognise that there are lessons to be learnt because the tenant may find that things get out of control. The district valuer will have to assess that tenant's rights and arrive at a judgment because the building is to be demolished. The value of the property is known, as are the years of rights and what the value would be after taking account of discounts. Surely it should not be too difficult to arrive at a sensible value.
I hope that the lessons of a particular issue will be borne in mind by my hon. Friend the Minister, who will have to take some decisions. I hope that the House will understand that there was a particular matter that I wished to bring to its attention.
11.20 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talks about local authority housing and buildings of modern design. In that context he talks about Glasgow, but he omits to tell the House that a Tory Government told local authorities such as Glasgow, an area in which my mother and many others were desperate for a home, that if they did not build non-traditional homes they would receive no grant. Councillors who were dedicated to house building in Glasgow and other major cities told the Government,"You are wrong; you are planting problems for future generations."
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martin: I shall not give way because I know that many hon, Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) goes back 14 years to talk about rehabilitation. If he visits the Glasgow collection in the Mitchell library he will learn that the Glasgow local authority was involved in the rehabilitation of tenements at Port Dundas in my constituency as long ago as 1910. In 1973, as a young councillor in Govan, I was involved in the rehabilitation of tenements in the Govan road.
Ministers are so often singing the praises of Scottish Homes, and after the local authority in my constituency—it is probably the position throughout the country—it is the largest landlord. There are multi-storey flats in which it is a treat to live. However, the tenant of a local authority, whatever its faults, can approach an elected councillor, and through him he can approach me. More important, a local councillor can contact every senior official in the authority. With Scottish Homes, a tenant will be able to speak to a junior official, but that will be the end of the story.
We have heard about quangos and Government appointments. It is time that people who know something about tenants' problems were appointed to the board of Scottish Homes. This year, rents increased by 9 per cent. They increased by 9 per cent. last year, as they did the year before that. The Conservatives appoint managers and then they step back, as they would with big business. They should remember that not everyone in the public sector is in a position to buy his home, no matter how cheap the price at which it is offered. Some tenants want to continue to rent because of personal circumstances or a feeling of insecurity. The tenants of Scottish Homes are paying higher rents than any imposed by a local authority throughout the country. I defy any Conservative Member to dispute that.

437
The attitude at the top of Scottish Homes is deplorable, and it permeates the whole organisation. I have two letters with me and another dozen in my office which all say the same thing: "Thank you for writing to Sir James Mellon. Unfortunately, he is in London at the moment and cannot reply to your letter." Would any of us get away with saying, "I am in London at the moment and cannot reply to my constituents"? It is as well for Sir James Mellon that he was appointed and does not have to stand for office.
As I said, that attitude is in evidence throughout the organisation. In my constituency, as in all hon. Members' constituencies, anti-social behaviour is becoming a problem on almost every housing estate. Those at Scottish Homes are taking the attitude that they are not police officers and that they do not want to become involved. That is disgraceful. Scottish Homes is about more than the provision of homes. Skill should be exercised in managing estates. If people have beautiful homes but are ashamed to take their relatives into the community because of the anti-social behaviour that is taking place around them, the landlord, Scottish Homes, should be prepared to do something about their miserable plight.
Scottish Homes takes too little account of what is going on in the community-based housing associations—the other sector in which it is involved. There are good community-based housing associations and no one has any complaints about them. But if the things that are going on in some of the community-based housing associations were going on in a local authority, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would be standing up and attacking us about it.
I think that I shall write to the Minister about the case that I have in mind because I am getting no satisfaction on it from the director of Scottish Homes. I refer to the case of an owner-occupier of a property in one of my community-based housing assocations, whose home has been flooded five times through no fault of her own. No compensation was granted to her until I went up from London to appeal to a community-based housing association committee. It was touch and go whether I got a hearing. Were it not for some of the fair-minded people on that committee, I should not have been given a hearing. To rub salt into the wound, when I wrote to Sir James, he told me that I must give credit to the association because it had eventually paid compensation. The point is that it paid compensation only after I had made two trips to see it.
Great play has been made of the right to buy. I inform the House that, until I made representations, tenants in my constituency were losing their secure tenancies because they had medical problems. One woman whose young child suffers from a serious illness asked for a ground floor tenement flat for the benefit of that child. She was told by the association in question that, if she did not sign on the dotted line, she would not get to move, and that if she signed, her tenancy would change from a secure tenancy to an assured tenancy. In shorthand, that means being denied the right to buy. I have made representations to the assocation and to Scottish Homes, which will not do anything about the matter. I hope that when I give the Minister the details, he will do something about it.
I recall a case not so long ago when a community-based housing association in my constituency decided to take
438
over the old Springburn hall, do it up and sand blast it. I said that was nice because the community would have a place to hold socials, the local Labour party would be able to have a wee dance, and anyone who wanted to hold a wedding there would be able to do so. I was told, "No, this will be done up with Government funding, urban aid and so on and then sold off as offices to the highest bidder in the private sector." What sort of community-based housing association is that? It must be losing touch with the people who elected its members if that sort of thing happens.
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this matter. It was put to me by a senior official in Scottish Homes in the west of Scotland that, because of the way in which I made representations to the community-based housing associations, I was putting undue pressure on them and he might simply decide that he would take away funding and projects from my constituency because of my behaviour. I do not know a great deal about parliamentary privilege — I may be able to get advice from the Clerks of the House — but I know that it is certainly verging on a breach of parliamentary privilege when I am told that my constituents will suffer because of the way in which I conduct myself. I do not think that anyone would say that my behaviour inside the House and outside was anything but blameless. I have never attacked officials without warrant.
The Minister, as the person in charge of Scottish Homes, should start at the top and cut his way down. He should get his act together.
11.31 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: 1 shall be reasonably brief. In examining housing support, we must look at the changing scene in housing. In 1979, only 35 per cent. of homes in Scotland were privately owned. At present, 54 per cent. are privately owned. Obviously, that reflects the change in housing support grants. Almost a quarter of a million houses have moved out of local authority control, which means that not quite so much cash is required to go back into the public coffers.
Changes have been made to the way in which houses are maintained by Scottish Homes. I am sad to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). Happily, I have not had such problems in my constituency, but I sympathise with him. Changes have been made to housing associations and housing co-operatives; surely we must welcome them. We welcome the involvement of tenants and others who get involved in the good and sensible provision of public housing and its maintenance. It does much for the quality of life and the local environment in which people live. A pride is established within communities.
When we examine the background to the £36 million which is allocated to the housing support grant, there is another side to the story. I refer to the housing benefits in Scotland. There has been a policy change from zero to almost £1 billion in the current year. That will mean that housing will be funded in a different way. People will be given responsibilities and be required to pay reasonable rents. Those who cannot afford to pay will be covered by the figure of almost £1 billion which is being made available through housing benefits.
I draw attention to the reference by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to

439
the rents charged by the Kyle and Carrick regional council. Kyle and Carrick does not receive any housing support grant for its general housing provision. I am happy to say that it receives cash for the hostels. That is welcome. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that in future he treats Kyle and Carrick in a special way, because there is a real need to deal with the problems of homelessness in Kyle and Carrick.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gallie: I shall stick with the problems of Kyle and Carrick.
I suggest that the rise in rents stems from the inadequate repairs and maintenance programme that the Labour administration has carried out in recent years. The rise in rents that is currently required—
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Gallie: I will give way in the same way as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) showed me courtesy when I sought to intervene in the previous debate.
One of the problems which the new administration of Kyle and Carrick district council faced when it took over the reins in May this year was, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the deliberately suppressed rents that had been established in election year by the previous Labour administration. My hon. Friend the Minister should take that point on board.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gallie: I will not give way, but I shall sit down and allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not entirely clear to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way.
Mr. Gallie: I said that I would not give way but simply take my seat and allow another Member to speak in this important debate.
11.36 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: That is an interesting speech to follow. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) sounded optimistic about the figures. I find the housing support grant figures for the next financial year gloomier than ever, as more district councils are pushed out into the cold. Four have been added to the list of those not in receipt of the general portion of housing support grant. Those still in receipt of the grant are once again seeing a reduction. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, last year the total payable was £47 million. This year, it is reduced to £36 million. That is a far cry from the £213 million in 1979. Still housing remains a huge problem the length and breadth of Scotland.
I should like to take Inverness as an example. It is estimated that the rent increases required to compensate for the reduction in housing support grant will be about 6.5 per cent. I know that other councils will have to increase their rents by 10, 11 or even 12 per cent. In preparing the estimates of income and expenditure, I believe that the Secretary of State is supposed to take into account the general level of earnings. With an increase in
440
unemployment in the highlands, that is cold comfort indeed. That issue does not appear to have been addressed following the closure of McDermott's yard. Even for those in employment, wages are being kept to a minimum, with public sector pay restraint making it difficult to meet the rent increases.
The housing waiting list in Inverness is approaching 3,000. Waiting times for single people can be more than six years, and between three and four years for couples. In Gordon district, the waiting list is almost 2,000 and growing fast, while there are only 5,500 council houses and more than half the current council house vacancies are going to local people.
My constituency of Argyll and Bute will get no housing support this year, which is an incredible situation for a district council struggling with waiting lists. The average wait is anything from two and a half to four and a half years, against a background of rising homelessness. The only light in the gloom is the hostel portion of the grant, that has been awarded to Argyll and Bute, and I welcome that.
The number of homeless varies in different parts of Scotland, but it does not matter to each homeless person whether they are homeless in Glasgow or Lochgilphead—the reality is the same. In a civilised society, it should be a basic right for people to have shelter.
There are no grants for Argyll and Bute—with all its islands—and cuts in similar geographic areas such as Orkney and Shetland. Surely that does not reflect the fact that building, repair and maintenance costs on the islands are between 30 and 40 per cent. above the average on the mainland.
That brings me to the island of Bute. The Minister knows of my concern about Rothesay and the dilapidated state of many of the houses and commercial premises in the heart of the town. It is a beautiful island, with a hardy community struggling in a cruel financial climate. The potential for tourist development is enormous, but buildings are collapsing and have to be shored up before they are demolished, and nothing is put in their place. It is dispiriting and no one—I have been to both the Minister and the Secretary of State—appears to be able to help. Scottish Homes promised me three years ago that it would declare Rothesay a small urban renewal initiative area, but it never happened.
There is not enough good-quality low-cost housing available for rent or ownership. Too many local people have been priced out of the market, especially in rural areas of Scotland. The proliferation of holiday homes adds to the problem.
The new council tax will mean a decrease in revenue for local authorities, because it allows a 50 per cent. discount on such homes—in Wales, it can be 25 per cent. or none. There are different sorts of holiday home owners: those who use them once or twice a year and others who rightly want to retain the family home with a view to retiring to the place in which they were born and brought up. Others, who have a modest little place somewhere in a place like Tighnabruaich or Rothesay, often come from Paisley, Glasgow or Renfrew—they are not wealthy people, but come regularly every weekend and become very much a part of the community and contribute to it. They deserve to be able to have their weekends at the seaside.
In Committee on the council tax legislation, I tried to persuade the Minister to allow local authorities discretion on the amount of discount given for holiday homes, as

441
they did with the poll tax, but that was not accepted. I understand that the response of the Scottish Office to representations from local authorities, particularly in the Highland region, on discretion with regard to the council tax is that it believes that the regulations are fair. They are not.
I make a specific request of the Minister tonight: will he undertake to look again at giving local authorities discretion in the matter of council tax on holiday homes? Those authorities are best placed to decide the level of discount, and should be allowed to do so. I hope that the Minister will take that request seriously. The Minister and the Secretary of State may recall that, after the poll tax was introduced, it was agreed that the authorities should have discretion, and I ask the Minister to consider adopting the same policy on the council tax.
11.46 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: I have listened to the debate with interest, particularly the contribution of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). I am not sure whether he meant to contribute to this debate, but he is nothing if not interesting—[Interruption.] That was not meant to be insulting. I would not object to being called interesting, and I meant the comment to be taken in that way.
The Minister is also an interesting individual. He started with an interesting comment when he said that the orders represented a generous settlement. To put a kind interpretation on those words, he can only have meant that the orders were going to be much worse and, after some infighting behind the scenes, the current figures are better than those that were originally intended. However, I doubt whether that was the case. The Minister and his colleagues do not normally allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.
The orders will result in an overall cash reduction of £56 million for housing throughout Scotland in the coming year—a cut of 12 per cent. If one also takes account of the rise in the cost of living, which should have been built into the figures, one discovers a £70 million shortfall and a 15 per cent. cut. That does not even take into account the 10 per cent. reduction in the amount that can be spent on the vital task of improving the housing stock.
The capital consents figure of £385 million depends on 65 per cent. of that figure being raised from council house sales. Whatever one's view of council house sales, everyone knows that the best of the stock has long since been sold. Those that are left are hardly the most attractive houses. In addition, there is mass unemployment and we are at the height of a recession, so there will be nowhere near as many council house sales in the coming year. The figure is grossly exaggerated and overestimated, which will mean a further shortfall in the overall statistic.
The Minister talked of the variation order that he might introduce if the cost of living rose more than he has anticipated. He should be prepared to introduce a variation order if the sale of council houses does not reach the level that he has estimated; otherwise, his proposal will be meaningless. Meanwhile, repairs will not be carried out, new houses will not be built and dampness will not be
442
treated. The Government's priority seems to be to sell more and more houses, to contract out housing management and to cut resources.
That policy is not a surprise, as we have seen the pattern over the 13 years that the Government have been in power. One of the most serious aspects of the underfunding of housing through local authorities is the effect that the cuts and the under-provision will have on various agencies. Those agencies are funded by local authorities and attempt to deal with the growing problem of homelessness in Scotland. Glasgow has the highest incidence of applications from homeless people in the country. Although it has only 13.5 per cent. of the country's population, it has twice that percentage of Scotland's homeless applications.
We must be clear about the sort of people that the agencies assist. Many of them are in the 16 to 25-year-old age bracket and the majority are homeless because their families or friends whom they were staying with have become unable or unwilling to continue to house them. Those people are out on the streets for one reason or another—ultimately, the reason is not important. The statistics highlight the pressures placed on many young people today. They have no homes or jobs and they are increasingly unable to find training places. At 16 and 17 they receive no benefits, and they get only graded benefit payments up to the age of 24.
Meanwhile, more than 250,000 homes are severely blighted by damp in Glasgow. I and other Glasgow Members hear their stories every week in our surgeries, but we cannot effectively deal with their problems because the local authorities do not have the repairs grants to deal with them.
A greatly increased repairs budget, vital for all major cities and conurbations in Scotland, is further proof of the problem. The problems of homelessness continue to multiply. They are, if not disregarded, certainly downgraded by the Minister. The Government reduce the resources available to local authorities and that, in turn, hits the agencies that are trying manfully to stem the tide of homelessness.
One of the agencies in my constituency is an innovative organisation called the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless. It has been in existence for some years now and it is jointly funded by the city council housing department and the regional council social work department. It is performing a vital task, yet the 1992 report highlighted evidence of the continually growing number of young people referred to its city centre initiative and stopover project—two projects set up under the auspices of the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless, which is directly responsible, because of its grant aid, to local authorities.
The city centre initiative is now under direct threat. It is a good example of the co-ordinated inter-agency approach. It involves not just the social work department but the community education department of the regional council, the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless and the YMCA. Its multi-disciplinary approach is so often necessary to provide resources and to deal effectively with all aspects of the problem of young single homeless people.
The city centre initiative is a prime example of the radical approach that agencies and the local authority in Glasgow have used to deal with housing problems in general and the homelessness problem in particular. This valuable agency is now under serious threat. In March 1992 the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless was struck

443
a body blow when it was told by the city council's housing department that its grant was to be reduced by 67 per cent., from £60,000 to £20,000 this year. Staff had to be laid off and that meant that fewer homeless people could be catered for. The decision was taken reluctantly by the housing department, doubtless as a direct result of the financial pressures applied to the council by Government cuts.
Things will get worse in the coming year. Discussions have been held to offset the worst effects on the council for single homeless, but its director was recently issued with her redundancy notice, and it is only a matter of time before the organisation goes under—unless someone comes to the aid of the local authority and provides more funds. Its future is highly uncertain and if it goes under, that will be a tragedy.
Originally the stopover project was unique, but I understand that there is also one in Dundee now—that city faces similar problems. The project was set up to help young homeless people who are on their own, many of them sleeping rough. The project provides crisis accommodation for them for up to 10 weeks. If, because of the reduced finances allowed for in this order, that accommodation disappears, the stopover project could easily go under, and another vital agency and its work will disappear.
Many of these people have nowhere else to go. We may forget care in the community—it has not started yet. These youngsters are the flotsam and jetsam of Glasgow and the surrounding areas and they need this help, if only for short periods.
Will the Minister intervene to ensure that the stopover project and the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless are guaranteed funds to enable them to continue? If the Government allow them to go under, it will prove that they are completely out of touch with the problems of the people whom they seek to represent.
The Government do not have their finger on the pulse of Scotland. They do not represent the people of Scotland and they have no feeling for their problems. If the Minister and the Department cannot deal meaningfully with the housing problems of the people of Scotland and provide them with adequate resources to be decently housed in accommodation that is affordable and fit to live in, he should stand aside and make way for a party that will do just that.
11.54 am
Mrs. Fyfe: Tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) showed real knowledge of housing realities—unlike Conservative Members who spoke. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said rightly that many councils do not receive any housing support grant—and her own receives grants only for hostels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Maxton) drew attention to the plight of the young homeless. Hon. Members on this side of the House displayed their knowledge of the subject and proved that they are well aware of the realities.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Foulkes: She has just woken up.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was here the whole time and heard every word. Did the hon. Lady ask leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Foulkes: Yes.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I did not hear her do so. If she did not ask leave of the House, I object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)Mrs. Maria Fyfe.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, excuse me—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs. Fyfe.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady did not ask leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady certainly did not ask leave of the House, but it is too late now. Mrs. Fyfe.
Mrs. Fyfe: Some of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have more serious matters on our minds than trivial details of procedure. If the hon. Lady had managed to remain awake during some of the speeches, I would have some respect for her remarks now.
Hon. Members on this side of the House showed real concern and a genuine knowledge of Scottish housing issues. We were not so fortunate in listening to the contributions of Conservative Members—and that latest intervention was particularly inept and ill-advised.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had nothing to say and took 13 minutes to say it. Of course housing benefit expenditure has increased—that is because more and more people are out of work. Does he not realise that those who receive it have all or some of their rent paid from housing benefit? By the time that it has paid off a proportion of housing debt and for housing management, precious little is left to pay for repairs to the fabric of properties, which is why council housing stock is in such a drastic state.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) spoke of Scotland's changing housing scene. He was dead right about that. Homelessness has reached record levels. This year is worse than last year, and worse than the year before that. That is the situation over which the Government preside.
Conservative Members do not address the issues. Do they not realise, and do they not care, that families are growing up in unhealthy housing? What chance in life do youngsters have when they have to grow up in damp and overcrowded housing and suffer chest infections? More and more single mothers are suffering depressive illness because of the condition of their homes and the poverty in which they live.
Conservative Members cannot claim that they believe in everyone being provided with a decent home and at the same time vote for housing support grants that are so inadequate that they are a joke.
We were given one and a half hours to debate Scotland's housing crisis. We need a Scottish Parliament, so that we may debate that issue properly and treat it with the seriousness that it deserves, so that we may restore to local councils the authority to govern their localities and not be kicked around by this Government.
11.59 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will read Hansard tomorrow, in case I do not answer in the few moments that are left to me all the points that were made.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) asked various questions about Scottish Homes. I shall suggest to its chairman that he should meet the hon. Gentleman. While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers of direction, that is a heavy-handed measure to use. It has not been employed yet, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to follow up his points at a meeting. If he does not receive satisfaction—but I hope he will—he can come back to me.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked whether we could write off local authority capital debt. Unfortunately, we cannot. Local authorities with high levels of capital debt receive housing support grant to help them to service that debt through the loan charges that fall on the housing revenue account. Given that assistance, authorities secure enough income to meet the costs associated with council housing.
I should point out to the hon. Lady that there is no evidence that Glasgow's debt in relation to council housing exceeds the value of that council housing. I therefore see no particular reason why the national taxpayer should be expected to meet the cost of writing off the capital debt when, in any case, the sums involved would be enormous. I can tell the hon. Lady, however, that the results of the Scottish national house condition survey will be out quite soon—this year—and will be enormously helpful in pointing the way to effective targeting of resources in the future.
Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he is very enthusiastic about this subject. First, however, let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that I am aware of the case that he mentioned, and will keep a close eye on it. I hope for a satisfactory resolution of his constituent's affairs.
Mr. Maxton: I am delighted to learn that the house condition survey is to be published at long last. Some of us suggested such a survey, and moved amendments to Housing Bills, back in the early 1980s. I was also delighted to hear the Minister say that the survey's publication would allow him to target resources where they are most needed. Will he guarantee that resources will be made available to deal with the condition of housing in Scotland, as revealed by the survey?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The results of the survey will provide reliable information on a national scale. There will continue to be a need for detailed information at local level, but we encourage local authorities to carry out local survey work, as has happened in the hon. Gentleman's authority. In some cases, if local authorities require assistance with that work, Scottish Homes may be able to help. Authorities should consider working in close co-operation with Scottish Homes.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) raised the issue of Rothesay. The provisional allocation for her council is £5·8 million, which is substantial. It is within the council's discretion whether to make Rothesay a priority, but I am glad to note that it has made a strategic
446
agreement with Scottish Homes. I hope that that will help it to proceed with the matter. The other point that the hon. Lady raised, relating to council tax on holiday homes and the question of discretion, is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and I shall refer it to him.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) raised the issue of the Glasgow Council for Single Homeless and its stopover project. He did not raise the question of urban aid, which gives considerable assistance; but, from what he said, I do not think that that is necessarily appropriate in this instance. I understand that the projects concerned are funded by the authority, and future grants are a matter for the district council. We have made clear our concern for the homeless by providing additional capital allocations of some £22·6 million in the past two years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is right: the rents charged in his authority were well below the national average, and the council clearly took that into account in fixing levels.
We will take into account the level of council house receipts from the right to buy, and we shall bear in mind the needs of authorities that do not reach the receipt targets that are anticipated. In the past, when we have been in a position to make supplementary allocations, we have taken that need into account.
I strongly support the order, and I warn the Opposition that, should they have it in mind to vote against it, they will deprive local authorities of millions of pounds. I leave that thought with them.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 144.

Division No. 158]

[12.04 am

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Cran, James

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Day, Stephen

Amess, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Arbuthnot, James

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dover, Den

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Alan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Elletson, Harold

Bates, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forman, Nigel

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Booth, Hartley

Freeman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Andrew

Gallie, Phil

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Brandreth, Gyles

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gillan, Cheryl

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorst, John

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butcher, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Clappison, James

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hannam, Sir John

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Harris, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hawkins, Nick

Couchman, James

Hawksley, Warren

447

Heald, Oliver

Pickles, Eric

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hendry, Charles

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Richards, Rod

Horam, John

Riddick, Graham

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Sackville, Tom

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Jack, Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Sims, Roger

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Soames, Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Spencer, Sir Derek

Kirkhope, Timothy

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Knapman, Roger

Spink, Dr Robert

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Spring, Richard

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sproat, Iain

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Stephen, Michael

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Stern, Michael

Legg, Barry

Stewart, Allan

Leigh, Edward

Streeter, Gary

Lidington, David

Sweeney, Walter

Lightbown, David

Sykes, John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lord, Michael

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Thomason, Roy

Maclean, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Madel, David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Maitland, Lady Olga

Thurnham, Peter

Malone, Gerald

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mans, Keith

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

Marland, Paul

Tredinnick, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trend, Michael

Mates, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Merchant, Piers

Waller, Gary

Milligan, Stephen

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mills, Iain

Watts, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wells, Bowen

Moate, Sir Roger

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Monro, Sir Hector

Whitney, Ray

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Needham, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Nelson, Anthony

Willetts, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Wood, Timothy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Yeo, Tim

Norris, Steve

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patnick, Irvine

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mr. Andrew MacKay.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Benton, Joe

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Hilary

Blair, Tony

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boateng, Paul

Barnes, Harry

Boyce, Jimmy

Barron, Kevin

Bradley, Keith

Battle, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Caborn, Richard

448

Callaghan, Jim

Macdonald, Calum

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McFall, John

Canavan, Dennis

McKelvey, William

Cann, Jamie

Mackinlay, Andrew

Chisholm, Malcolm

McMaster, Gordon

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Madden, Max

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Mahon, Alice

Clelland, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Connarty, Michael

Martlew, Eric

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Maxton, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Michael, Alun

Cox, Tom

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Cryer, Bob

Milburn, Alan

Cummings, John

Miller, Andrew

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Morgan, Rhodri

Dalyell, Tarn

Morley, Elliot

Darling, Alistair

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Mullin, Chris

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

Murphy, Paul

Denham, John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Dixon, Don

O'Hara, Edward

Donohoe, Brian H.

Olner, William

Dowd, Jim

Pendry, Tom

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Eagle, Ms Angela

Pike, Peter L.

Eastham, Ken

Pope, Greg

Etherington, Bill

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Prescott, John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Primarolo, Dawn

Fatchett, Derek

Purchase, Ken

Flynn, Paul

Quin, Ms Joyce

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Raynsford, Nick

Foulkes, George

Redmond, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Reid, Dr John

Galloway, George

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Gerrard, Neil

Rowlands, Ted

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Ruddock, Joan

Godsiff, Roger

Salmond, Alex

Golding, Mrs Llin

Simpson, Alan

Graham, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Hall, Mike

Soley, Clive

Hanson, David

Spellar, John

Hardy, Peter

Steinberg, Gerry

Heppell, John

Stevenson, George

Hood, Jimmy

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Turner, Dennis

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Vaz, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Wallace, James

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Jamieson, David

Wareing, Robert N

Johnston, Sir Russell

Watson, Mike

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Welsh, Andrew

Khabra, Piara S.

Wilson, Brian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Kirkwood, Archy

Worthington, Tony

Leighton, Ron

Wray, Jimmy

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Jack Thompson and

McAvoy, Thomas

Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Hedgerows Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Hedgerows Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

12.15 am
Mr. Peter Hardy: I should like to make a short intervention. It is not my intention to be critical of the Bill or the money resolution, which I accept entirely. I want to raise a relevant point that the Minister might care to consider at this and subsequent stages of the Bill.
Some time ago, the Government accepted that the 4,000 pre-1840 Acts of Enclosure still had effect. If not, the possession of very large areas of lowland England might come into question. Many of the 4,000 Acts required that the fields established from the commons, and passing into the possession of landowners, be surrounded by hedgerows, and the hedgerows had to be perpetually maintained. It would be inappropriate for any public money to be spent by the Secretary of State or by local authorities, in fulfilment of the provisions of the Bill, in seeking to protect hedgerows that the law already required to be protected. Such duplication would be unnecessary and perhaps irresponsible.
I have tabled a couple of amendments, which I trust will cover the point when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. The purpose of this intervention is to ensure that the whole question is properly considered.
I ought to emphasise that local authorities should be aware of the provisions not only of this Bill but also of the 4,000 Acts by which the commons of lowland England were largely enclosed. Local authorities should know the conditions of enclosure and of possession that those Acts created. The matter may before very long be illustrated by a case that has been drawn to the Government's attention by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. We await a ministerial reply in that case.
As the matter may be considered briefly in the Standing Committee, it need not be rehearsed here. However, it is appropriate that it be considered, in terms both of the future of this very desirable piece of legislation and of the proper management of public money.
I trust that the Minister will ensure that this matter is taken into consideration, even if not by way of a reply tonight. There ought to be some sort of resuscitation for measures that are still firmly in the statute book but are sometimes forgotten by landowners who may have enjoyed possession for a very long time.
12.17 am
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. We shall consider the matter very carefully.
Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

  Crown Post Office (Prestatyn)
  12.18 am
  Mr. David Hanson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 3,500 residents of the town of Prestatyn, which is in my constituency. These people are concerned about the possibility of the Crown post office's being downgraded and privatised. The petition reads:
  The proposal by Post Office Counters Ltd to downgrade the Crown post office in King's avenue, Prestatyn, in the borough of Rhuddlan to an agency office run by James Hall (Spa) will lead to a poorer service to the public because of inferior training, lack of job knowledge, experience, dedication and customer relationships of the staff who will replace the current staff. Furthermore, the present business of Prestatyn will be undermined by an unrequired food store, which will have unfair advantage in that the public will have to enter James Hall (Spa) to receive their pensions and benefits.
  The petition calls on
  the right hon. Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
  to intervene in the proposal to downgrade the Prestatyn Crown post office to an agency office. I fully support the petition, and hope that the Prestatyn post office will not be privatised. I am pleased to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

A1 (Newcastle Bypass)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
12.19 am
Mr. David Clelland: I regret to have to bring the issue of the Al Newcastle western bypass before the House in this way, but, having tried to resolve the problems that my constituents have had over the past two years through the normal channels—letters to Ministers and meetings with them—I am afraid that we have reached the stage at which the matter must be debated on the Floor of the House, because we are not resolving the problem. I speak with the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who also has constituents living adjacent to the road who are suffering similar problems.
The problem concerns a grave injustice to my constituents who live in the Woodgrove area of Denton Burn, adjacent to the A1 Newcastle western bypass. Construction of the road began in 1986 and there were several consultation meetings with representatives of the Department of Transport, at which residents were given assurances about construction noise, access, obstructions, and so on. They were assured that all the problems would be kept to a minimum, as would traffic noise, fumes and vibration when the road was completed.
The usual horrendous disruption was experienced during the works—heavy plant and equipment being moved around in residential areas, blocked roads and walkways, mud, dirt, noise and the other general problems with which people have to deal when such work is in progress. One of my constituents sent me a list of the problems from which he and his family were suffering:

"1. Paths cracked and sinking due to vibration.

2. Cement dust in layers every day, worst whilst pumping mineshaft etc. full and constant vibration.

3. Cracks and settlement to east gable of house.

4. Cracks, settlement and pointing dropping out at back of house.

5. Plastic guttering ruined …

6. Extension cracks to brickwork and cement and ceiling cracking.

7. Lead flashing fell off chimney.

8. Bedroom ceilings cracked especially back bedroom.

9. Severe vibrations.

10. An actual piece fell off front door roof"—

Apparently, when my constituent told the constructors about the latter they thought it was a huge joke.
My constituent's letter goes on to explain about the interference with television reception, a rise in the incidence of burglary because of the rear access to properties, a rise in vandalism, and so on.
Furthermore, some of my constituents were obliged to allow access to their gardens so that the contractors could carry out works. Those, of course, were people whose properties were nearest the road line. They had to allow access to the utilities to lay pipes and duct work, and to other contractors to fill mine workings with concrete. During those activities fences were destroyed and shrubs and plants lost.
At that time my constituents were offered compensation for the disruption of between £1,200 and £1,700. Under the threat of compulsory purchase, they therefore allowed access and in 1987 they took the compensation. When the payment was accepted, the Department's officials assured four of the householders concerned that,
452
because of the design of the road through its concrete channels, they would not suffer from noise, fumes and dirt from the traffic that would eventually use the road.
That was not true. The noise and constant smell of petrol and diesel makes it impossible to spend a peaceful afternoon in the garden. But the householders could not possibly have known that when the agreement was signed. Naturally, but unfortunately, they accepted the experts' assurances about minimal noise and disruption.
The road was opened on 1 December 1990 by Her Majesty the Queen. Almost immediately, complaints came flooding in about the volume of traffic using the road, and the associated problems. I wrote to the then Minister about the problem, and on 15 February 1991 I received a reply in which he said, inter alia:
"The noise levels and air quality … are in line with our predictions."
Nevertheless, compensation was paid to other residents who complained about disruption to their lives and devaluation of their property as a result of the traffic using the road. However, the residents who had received compensation of £1,200 to £1,700 for access were refused compensation for the problems caused by the traffic using the road.
So I wrote again to the Minister. On 7 April 1991 he replied:
"owner/occupiers such as you mention insisted that the Department acquire title to the land required. They were paid compensation for the land taken and also for injurious affection as a result of their close proximity to the works. The compensation paid was agreed as the full and final settlement of all claims associated with the road scheme."
In other words, compensation received prior to the opening of the road debarred further claims for compensation, even though the original compensation was accepted by my constituents for disruption and access to their property.
My constituents are adamant that they did not insist, as the Minister stated in his letter, that the Department acquire title to the portions of land within their property boundaries. They did not receive any payment for land, because none was acquired. They received from the Department compulsory purchase orders. They were informed that if they refused entry to the land required, the orders would be activated. Therefore, they gave permission for access as they felt that they had little choice. None of their land was taken. They suffered great inconvenience. In some cases gardens were left in a disgusting state.
My constituents did not at any time ask for compensation. They were not aware that they were entitled to compensation. They were pleased when they were offered sums of between £1,200 and £1,700 for what they understood to be compensation for the inconvenience caused by the works. Whoever made the offer did not inform my constituents, until they had accepted the offer, that no further compensation claims would be considered.
As the Department of Transport must have been aware that large sums in compensation for property devaluation would be forthcoming—indeed, the Minister confirmed that the noise level was in line with their predictions—the offer to my constituents of sums of £1,200 to £1,700 was, they believe, tantamount to dishonesty. Therefore, they expect the Department to rectify the position.

453
My constituents ask how it can be possible for people who were not affected by the roadworks to receive at least 60 per cent. more than those whose property was occupied, when needed, by people connected with the works.
In trying to be co-operative, my constituents have suffered considerable loss at the hands of the Department of Transport, their own legal advisers, or perhaps both. It was not made clear to them that the sum that they received in compensation for disruption to their homes and gardens during construction would cancel any claim because of noise or traffic usage of the road which they could not have anticipated and which, according to the advice of Department officials, would be minimal.
In the latest letter in the long saga, the director of network management and construction at the Newcastle office of the Department told my constituent, Mr. Graham, of 46 Woodgrove:
"the Department of Transport has no legal power to increase the compensation paid to you in 1987."
That misses the point. My constituents are not looking for an increase in their original compensation. They consider that to have been compensation for destruction of, and access to, property during the works. What they are now seeking is similar compensation, sometimes of about £6,000, to that received by other residents whose property was not invaded by workmen and whose lives were not disrupted to the same extent by the works.
Ministers seem to say that people are expected to take a gamble in such circumstances. If they accept compensation at an early stage for access and/or damage to property, they risk losing later when a new situation, which they could not have assessed in advance, arises. If they wait to see the eventual effects of the traffic using the road before they claim, they have no guarantee that the same level of compensation will apply.
Surely that cannot be a proper way to deal with such situations. Compensation should be assessed at or about the time when damage occurs, and ought not to preclude distinctly separate claims at a later date when there are new circumstances—in this case the traffic using the road.
I hope that the Minister will not trot out the old argument about rules and regulations. That will not do. There has been an injustice. That is clear to me, as it must be to others. There will be other road schemes; the Secretary of State for Transport announced several recently. On the south side of the Tyne, the same stretch of the A1 is the subject of statutory consultation. Concerned residents have been told not to worry. They have been assured that modern materials and landscaping will greatly reduce traffic nuisance. The same words were used in the public consultation over the Newcastle stretch of the road. If the public are to have confidence in the Department of Transport and in the assurances that they are given, they must receive treatment that goes to the letter of the rules and regulations, and that treatment must be fair and just. That is all that is being asked for in this instance.
12.30 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I thank the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) for raising an important
454
matter. I know that he has pursued it with great energy on behalf of his constituents, and I respect that. I know that his constituents will be grateful, too.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who also has an interest in the A1. He has championed the improvement of the A69 in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge has argued his case with great force, and it might be helpful if I review the history of the road. The need for a western bypass of Newcastle was clearly acknowledged as far back as 1936, and the route has been protected since that time. However, it did not feature in development documents until 1945. Much new housing was built along the protected route from 1936 to the time when the building of the road reached fruition.
The Newcastle western bypass, which cost £88 million, was one of the most important schemes in the national road programme. On completion, it was to be designated as the A1 linking the trunk road north and south of Newcastle and Gateshead and connecting important radial routes from the west, such as the A69 and A696.
The scheme initially from Scotswood bridge to the A696 was added to the road programme in 1977. However, Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council considered that the bypass should extend further north to link with the Great North road at Wideopen, and both the county council and the Department of Transport carried out public consultation in 1978. In 1980, the then Secretary of State for Transport accepted the extension as forming the trunk road bypass. The preferred route was announced in 1981. An amendment to the southern extremity of the route was proposed in 1984 to allow for the construction of a new crossing of the Tyne. A public inquiry was held in November 1985, and the orders for the scheme were made in June 1986. The first contract for the main works started in June 1987.
The Department was aware of the problems that the building of parts of the route would entail from Scotswood road through to Kingston park but more particularly along the narrow corridor between Woodgrove and the A69 west road.
Unfortunately, some nuisance to local residents is unavoidable when work is being carried out on a scheme of this size, particularly in an urban area. The hon. Gentleman mentioned how the building of the road affected his constituency and the nuisance that the work caused. The Department did all that it could to minimise inconvenience and disruption. The measures taken to that end included the setting up of regular working groups meeting on a bi-monthly basis, on which members of Newcastle city council were represented to monitor and deal with problems as and when they arose. Close contact was also maintained with Gateshead. The Department issued a series of newsletters to keep residents and road users informed in advance of what was happening. Other measures before the start of works included the insulation against noise of dwellings that qualified under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. Extensive advance tree and shrub planting, provision of protective fencing and alternative access arrangements were also undertaken where necessary.
The detailed land requirements for the Newcastle western bypass were made public knowledge in the mid-1980's. Although the draft compulsory purchase orders showed land to be acquired from several

455
owner-occupied properties in the Southway and Woodgrove areas of south-west Denton, in fact the Department wished only to have essential licences over those areas of land. The licences were required to allow old worked coal seams to be grouted up. Owners of the properties affected had the right to serve blight notices on the Department, and several chose that particular option.
The district valuer, who, on behalf of the Department negotiates all land compensation matters for all road schemes, had to establish during his negotiations with the remaining property holders or their agents whether they were prepared to grant a licence for the grouting works to be carried out or whether owners insisted on title to the land being acquired. The district valuer made owners or their agents fully aware of the ramifications of both options, so they knew exactly what they would face with each option. The Department did not insist on acquiring title. In accordance with normal practice, the letter accompanying the notice to treat served on owners made it clear that the Department would prefer to acquire the lesser right, in this case a licence.
Those owners who were prepared to grant a licence were paid a licence fee for the duration of the work. That meant that compensation for any injurious affection on their property to which they might be entitled from the operation of the road would need to be the subject of a claim under part I of the Land Compensation Act 197:3. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, such claims cannot be submitted until one year after the opening of the road —in this case December 1991.
Those owners who insisted on title to the land being acquired were paid compensation for the land taken and for injurious affection as a result of the close proximity to the works at the time of the acquisition in 1987. On completion of the acquisition, a legal transfer document was signed which included a clause accepting the compensation in full and final settlement of injurious affection and all other claims to which they were entitled.
Independent negotiations were conducted between the district valuer and solicitors and/or agents representing the residents.
The affected residents of Woodgrove decided, on the basis of independent professional advice that they received, to require the Department to acquire title to the land involved. The advisers will no doubt have considered the advantages and disadvantages to their clients of the options available. They decided to proceed on the basis of immediate compensation and signed agreements in full and final settlement of all claims associated with the road scheme. No pressure was put on the residents by the Department as to the course of action that they should taken in this matter. Therefore, the Department has a different interpretation of the extent of knowledge of both the agents and the residents about what they were doing. We believed that they had full advice and knowledge of what was implied by their specific choice to sell at that time.
It is important to recognise that in 1987 neither the professional advisers representing the residents nor the district valuer could have been certain what, if any, compensation might result from a later assessment.
It is also important to recognize—this is central to the case—the Department has no legal power to increase the compensation paid to owners in 1987. There is no provision in legislation to allow us to do that.
456
As I mentioned previously, the route is close to residential properties which have been built since the bypass was first suggested. The protection of the route meant that relatively few houses had to be demolished, some 66 in total, but the narrowness of the corridor necessitated extensive measures to reduce the environmental impact of the road, especially noise effects on the residents. The road was therefore designed so that physical barriers exist between the traffic and the houses, either by constructing the road in cutting, the use of earth mounds or solid parapet walls. Noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations was provided to 1,052 properties prior to the start of works. Subsequently, insulation has been offered to owners of a further 63 properties following completion of the bypass and the consideration of their appeals against non-provision which are permitted by the regulations.
Other problems were connected with the building of this road, as can be expected in a scheme of this size where there were many matters to resolve. A 1 km length of the bypass at the southern end, adjacent to the Shibdon pond nature reserve, is on a 9 m high embankment over alluvial deposits such as soft peaty clay. That posed problems of not only stability but ensuring that the works did not endanger the wetland areas of the reserve by changing the level or acidity of the water.
To overcome those problems, an advance works contract was let at a tender price of almost £2 million to instal vertical band drains at 1·4 m centres to speed up consolidation of the clay layer and to place a 2 m thick blanket of stone over the entire area. Carboniferous limestone was chosen for the blanket because of its inert chemical properties and it acts both as a drainage layer and as a working platform for the embankment construction. The contract included an extensive array of geotechnical instruments with automatic logging equipment to enable embankment stability to be monitored during the subsequent main filling operations.
A 4 km length of the route, from the River Tyne northwards, contained old coal mine workings at shallow depths and in some locations several seams had been worked. These workings took the form of parallel galleries with intermediate pillars left in for roof support. Most had collapsed to some extent but the remaining voids could have affected the stability of the overlying ground on which the new highway and structures were to be founded. To prevent damage to the road by future settlement, the workings were either removed when they were very close to the new road level or, if deeper, drilled and grouted with cement or pulverised fuel ash.
During the process, about 14,000 tonnes of coal were recovered and more than 60,000 tonnes of grout were injected into the ground. That was a big operation.
There are eight subways on the bypass at two grade separated interchanges and consideration was given to the best treatment for their internal faces. It was decided to use some pictorial glazed tile finishes which made them attractive to pedestrians and deterred graffiti. The subways are also wider than normal at 5 m. A design competition from two colleges of art was staged with a cash prize for the best three designs to be used in the subways.
As the route lies within an urban area, it was also considered necessary to introduce a high standard of landscape works so that the bypass would be attractive to motorists and residents. Extensive shrub and tree planting was introduced, with earth mounding to the sides of the

457
bypass. Low maintenance grass seed was used. The aim was to introduce wild flowers which was a novel feature then and to give an interesting and changing pattern of vegetation throughout the year.
The 11 km long bypass was divided into five contracts to separate work requiring special expertise and keep the size of individual contracts to reasonable proportions. The works were inaugurated by the then Secretary of State for Transport, John Moore, in April 1987. Of particular note is that about £700,000 was spent on horticultural and landscape works and £12 million was expended on statutory undertakers' diversions. There are 59 structures and seven grade separated interchanges on the bypass.
I go into those details to show that it was a complicated road. We took huge trouble to make the road sympathetic and meet the demanding nature of the landscape and the urban area through which it passed. As I said previously,
458
we consulted carefully with local people as we built it, so great care was taken in the building and design. It is a road of which in general we can be proud.
I fully recognise that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge is not happy with the compensation arrangements but I believe that all those people who could claim compensation, or with whom we dealt, had full advice and clear knowledge of the true choice before them. They had a clear choice and their advisers were made fully aware of what was behind each option. They knew full well that if they accepted compensation in 1987, by law we would have no power to reopen those compensation claims.
I am sorry that in the end people were disappointed. No one was to know then. They made their choice and by law I have no power to open the case again. However, I fully respect the hon. Gentleman for fighting for what he believes are the rights of his constituents. I am sorry that in my reply I have had to disappoint him. I hope that I have helped to explain the position as clearly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to One o'clock.

HEALTH

  Orthodontic Facilities
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what orthodontic facilities exist in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Sackville
  Newham health authority is responsible for commissioning services for local residents. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Rosemary Walters, chairman of Newham district health authority, for details.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of time taken by her Department to respond after an appeal is lodged following a Dental Practice Board recommendation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Appeals to the Secretary of State, following complaints made under the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1992, are now handled by the family health services appeal unit at Yorkshire regional health authority under devolved powers. Appeals are given very careful consideration and the time taken to process them varies from case to case. Information about average times is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the capital allocation granted to each NHS trust in the northern region in 1992–93: and what allocation is proposed for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  NHS trust

  Allocated 1992–93

  Proposed allocation 1993–94

  £000

  £000

  The Freeman Group of Hospitals

  2,154

  3,505

  Newcastle Mental Health Services

  252

  288

  Northumbrian Ambulance

  2,210

  1,695

  Cleveland Ambulance

  496

  300

  North Tees Health

  2,508

  1,498

  Northgate

  2,172

  252

  The RVI Group of Hospitals

  15,081

  7,627

  Gateshead Community Health

  356

  1,084

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  9,149

  5,730

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to respond to the first report from the Health Committee of Session 1992–93, "NHS Trusts: Interim Conclusions and Proposals for Future Inquiries" —House of Commons Paper No. 321.
  198
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 February 1993]: We are publishing our response to the report today. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to provide day care centres for the mentally ill in Lambeth.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities and local authority social services departments to contract for or provide a comprehensive range of mental health services to meet the level of psychiatric need in their areas.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in her Department and agencies for which she has responsibility.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health became a separate Government Department in 1989. Since then, the number of posts in the Department has been reduced by just under 30 as a result of contracting out.

  Schizophrenia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered as suffering from schizophrenia in (a) 1986 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is no requirement to register patients suffering from schizophrenia. The table gives the number of admissions to hospitals in England in 1986 and 1989–90, the latest year for which the quality of information permits publication, where a diagnosis of schizophrenia was made.

  Number of hospital admissions in England for patients with schizophrenia 1986 (Mental Health Enquiry) and 1989–90 Hospital Episode Statistics)

  Admissions

  1986

  29,419

  1989–90

  38,180

  Mental Illness
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines her Department has issued to local authorities with regard to specific provision for the care of those in the 16 to 25 years age group suffering from mental illness.

  Mr. Yeo
  No guidance has been issued which specifically focuses on this age group. Services for disturbed adolescents—generally 12 to 19 years—were the subject of a report "Bridges over Troubled Waters" from the national health service health advisory service which the Department issued to health and local authorities in 1986. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients are(a) long-term and (b) acute.
  199
  Mr. Yeo
  The table gives the total number of residents in the mental illness specialty in England for(a) long-term —one year and over—and (b) acute—under one year—at 31 March 1992.

  Number

  Under one year

  25,500

  One year and over

  19,700

  Note: These figures are estimates based on data obtained directly from regional health authorities.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric patients are waiting for a bed.

  Region

  Number of GP practices

  Percentage ofGP practices

  Percentage of population served by GP

  Non-fundholding practice April 1992

  Non-fundholding April 1992

  Non-fundholding April 1992

  Northern

  479

  92·3

  84

  Yorkshire

  605

  90·2

  79

  Trent

  785

  92·9

  86

  East Anglia

  283

  95·6

  92

  North West Thames

  760

  93·9

  86

  North East Thames

  890

  97·7

  93

  South East Thames

  757

  96·2

  91

  South West Thames

  494

  92·7

  85

  Wessex

  405

  91·8

  85

  Oxford

  345

  87·8

  77

  South Western

  537

  92·9

  86

  West Midlands

  997

  94·4

  87

  Mersey

  396

  88·6

  81

  North Western

  847

  96·4

  91

  Note:

  1. The number of GP practices given above relates to the number of GP partnerships at I April 1992, including single handed partnerships.

  Community Care
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the guidance note "Housing and Community Care Planning: The First Steps: A Review of Good Practice."

  Mr. Yeo
  The community care support force is aiming to complete and issue practical guidance on a range of issues concerned with housing and community care, by the end of March.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will extend to non-fund-holding GPs the facility to hold two sessions a week to perform a range of diagnostic tests and extra minor surgery procedures to be paid at the clinical assistant rate.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-fund holding general practitioners may already provide these services under contract to district health authorities.

  Walthamstow GPs
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of patients per general practitioner in Walthamstow.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  200
  Mr. Yeo
  Information about the numbers waiting by specialty is given in the publication "Hospital Waiting List, In-Patients and Day Cases"—ISBN 1 85839 003 6—a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Fund-holding Practices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP non-fund-holding practices there are in each region; what percentage this represents of the regional total of GP practices; and what percentage of the regional population they serve.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is given in the table:

  GP

  List Size

  GP

  List Size

  GP

  List Size

  1

  4,291

  17

  2,395

  33

  1,782

  2

  3,617

  18

  2,356

  34

  1,729

  3

  3,158

  19

  2,339

  35

  1,682

  4

  3,158

  20

  2,300

  36

  1,624

  5

  2,981

  21

  2,293

  37

  1,621

  6

  2,945

  22

  2,259

  38

  1,588

  7

  2,910

  23

  2,241

  39

  1,526

  8

  2,871

  24

  2,214

  4o

  1,415

  9

  2,796

  25

  2,204

  41

  1,346

  10

  2,769

  26

  2,194

  42

  1,323

  11

  2,740

  27

  2,135

  43

  1,046

  12

  2,673

  28

  1,990

  44

  694

  13

  2,557

  29

  1,980

  45

  628

  14

  2,433

  30

  1,907

  46

  619

  15

  2,418

  31

  1,898

  47

  258

  16

  2,401

  32

  1,853

  48

  1

  This includes one unfilled vacancy.

  Operations (Waiting Times)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what instructions the national health service management executive has given to hospitals in respect of telling patients how long they will have to wait for their operations; and if she will make a statement.

  (2) what action she is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists and to keep patients informed about the length of time they will have to wait for operations.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have made it a requirement under the patients charter that all hospitals must inform patients of the guaranteed date by which they will be admitted for
  201
  treatment. In addition, a national telephone health helpline has been established under the patients charter so that patients can inquire about local waiting times as well as a wide variety of other health matters.

  Since 1987 we have provided a waiting time fund of nearly £200 million to enable hundreds of thousands of additional patients to be treated from waiting lists. Waiting times for hospital treatment have improved dramatically and we are determined to build on this success.

  Nurse Training
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of enrolled nurses have the opportunity for training or professional development on conversion courses to achieve first level registration; what information she has on the different levels of opportunity in different health authority areas; and which health authorities provide(a) the best and (b) the worst training opportunities for enrolled nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce a national policy on training for enrolled nurses to ensure a consistent approach between regions; and if she will refund the costs of undertaking open and distance learning incurred by enrolled nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, to plan for enrolled nurse conversion.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of enrolled nurses are from an ethnic minority; and what policies there are to increase training opportunities for this group.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data on the ethnic background of enrolled nurses are not held centrally. They will benefit from recent measures which have increased opportunities for conversion.

  NHS Facilities (Access)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the rights of access to NHS facilities of patients with guide dogs; and what guidance she has issued or intends to issue on this matter.

  Mr. Yeo
  The patients charter sets a national standard requiring arrangements to be made to ensure that everyone, including people with special needs, can use the services. This includes patients with guide dogs.

  NHS Management Audit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to conduct an audit of management within the NHS; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that, as part of its continuing programme of value-for money studies, the Audit Commission is undertaking a study of unit management in the national health service. I look forward to considering its report.

  Whistle Blowers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the consultations on her draft guidance on the protection of the position of NHS employees who draw attention to malpractice and fraud; and when she expects to issue formal guidance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Following the recent consultation exercise on the draft guidance on freedom of speech for national health service staff, we are currently considering the large number of comments received. We expect to be able to issue the final version shortly.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has given to purchasers and providers of health care concerning the use of marginal cost pricing for waiting list initiative expenditure; in what circumstances purchaser-provider arrangements for operations cart be based on marginal cost pricing; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allocations to regional health authorities from the waiting time fund are tied to the achievement of waiting time targets and, in particular, national policy objectives. Standard pricing guidelines apply to the health care that these funds purchase. As marginal cost pricing should only be applied, in year, for unplanned spare capacity in excess of the assumed volume of service, waiting list initiative expenditure need not result in marginal cost pricing. It is therefore not appropriate to issue separate guidelines on marginal cost pricing of waiting list expenditure.

  Huntington's Chorea
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were diagnosed with Huntington's chorea for each year since 1990; and what facilities for treatment are available.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest year for which figures are held is 1989–90. In that year there were 725 admissions to national health service hospitals of patients whose diagnosis was Huntington's chorea. There is no known cure for this disease; the full range of NHS treatment and nursing and social care is available to people suffering from it. Because it is an inherited condition, genetic counselling is available to help with decisions about having children.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned into Huntington's chorea.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of Health has not commissioned any research into Huntington's chorea. The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid through the Office of Science and Technology, is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research in this country. I understand that in the financial year 1991–92, the council's expenditure on research relevant to Huntington's chorea was £99,000. Other basic research funded by the council may, in part, have some relevance to Huntington's chorea. Universities and medical schools may also be funding relevant research.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the formula used to calculate the moneys(a) paid to GP fund holders, (b) the data collection methods used to inform the actual distribution of moneys and (c) any changes to either (a) or (b) she plans.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The methodology for setting general practitioner fund holders' 1993–94 budgets was published in EL 92(83) "General Practice Fundholding: Guidance on setting budgets for 1993–94", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The responsibility for setting budgets rests with regional health authorities who organise data collection locally. We have no immediate plans to change the way budgets are set but will keep this under review.

  Private Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified nurses were employed in(a) private hospitals, (b) private nursing homes and (c) private nursing agencies in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 8 February 1993]: The available information is given in the table. The Department does not collect information about the staffing levels in private nursing agencies.

  Qualified staff employed in private hospitals and nursing homes

  Hospitals

  Nursing homes

  Number

  W.T.E

  Number

  W.T.E

  1985

  7,746

  6,660

  17,259

  11,693

  1986

  8,210

  7,001

  21,825

  14,682

  1987–88

  8,252

  6,967

  27,801

  18,869

  1988–89

  8,907

  7,579

  32,044

  21,487

  1989–90

  9,103

  7.707

  36,678

  24,719

  1990–91

  9,048

  7,581

  43,865

  29,730

  Source: SBH 212. 1985–86.

  K036 1987–88–1990–91.

  W.T.E: Whole time equivalent number of staff based on contracted hours of employment in individual establishments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sandringham
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on 11 February,Official Report, column 1111, if Sandringham will be treated as a royal palace or as a private residence of Her Majesty the Queen.

  The Prime Minister
  Sandringham, which has official as well as private use, is a private asset of Her Majesty the Queen.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates have resigned before reaching retirement age in the last five years; and how many have offered as the reason for their decision the changes in the law and practice restricting their freedom of decision taking.
  204
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of resignations, other than on grounds of age, for the Lord Chancellor's area of responsibility in each of the last five years were:

  Year

  Number

  1992

  1,034

  1991

  820

  1990

  794

  1989

  799

  1988

  659

  No information is collected centrally on how many magistrates have resigned with the reason offered being changes in the law and practice restricting their freedom of decision taking. Over the period the number of magistrates has grown from 24,112 to 25,340.

  County Court Judgments
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to arrange for county courts' judgments under £5,000 to carry interest; if he will authorise such interest to apply retrospectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has recently conducted a wide-ranging public consultation to evaluate the scheme introduced in July 1991 which provides for interest on county court judgments over £5,000. Responses to this consultation are currently being evaluated. While it would not therefore be appropriate to make a statement about any extension of the scheme at this time, my officials will be writing to interested parties to inform them of the outcome of the evaluation during the spring. I can, however, confirm that any extension of the scheme would not provide for interest to apply retrospectively.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his evaluation of the question of county court judgments carrying interest will be concluded.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department's evaluation of the changes introduced in July 1991, which included a provision for interest on judgment debts over £5,000, will be completed by the end of this month.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Spending
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discount rate was adopted by Her Majesty's Government for public sector spending in the periods(a) 1979 to 1989 and (b) 1989 to the present; what considerations underpinned the change made in 1989; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's future plans for the discount rate.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government specify a standard rate of discount for the public services. It is set on the basis of long-term factors, and is changed infrequently.

  The 1978 White Paper, "The Nationalised Industries", Cm 7131, introduced the concept of the required rate of return—RRR—a real return on the whole of each enterprise's investment programme. No discount rate was centrally specified for the enterprises, but in practice a rate

  205
  of 5 per cent. in real terms—the same as the RRR—or sometimes a higher rate, was used as a discount rate for investment appraisal.

  At the same time as Cm 7131 an announcement was made about the discount rates to be used in the public services—Official Report, 5 April 1978, columns 147–48. A discount rate of 5 per cent. in real terms was specified for appraisals of choice of techniques, and a rate of 7 per cent. for other appraisals. In practice 7 per cent. was used only for the appraisal of roads.

  A new regime was announced on 5 April 1989—Official Report, column 187. The RRR for public enterprises was raised from 5 to 8 per cent., and the discount rate for the public services from 5 to 6 per cent. However for central Government trading activities selling commercially into private markets the discount rate should usually be at least 8 per cent. Other special cases are listed in "Economic Appraisal in Central Government: A Technical Guide for Government Departments"—the "Green Book"—annex G, paragraph 12.

  The 1989 changes were a consequence of the long-term trend in the real rate of return on private sector assets between the late 1970s and late 1980s. The increase in the discount rate for the public sector services was more modest, reflecting the smaller increase in the cost of capital to a private sector company raising funds for low-risk purposes.

  The discount rate is intended to reflect long-term conditions, rather than cyclical factors.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made on the effect on public sector investment in energy technology projects of the current level of discount rates.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department's investment in energy technology projects is for research or regulatory purposes, for which assessment on a discounting basis is not appropriate. All the programmes are, however, subject to regular review. The public sector energy industries, which operate in a commercial environment, assess their investment programmes according to the appropriate Treasury guidelines.

  Pornography
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being taken to stop the flow of illegal pornography from other European countries into the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  The importation of obscene material and indecent material featuring children into the United Kingdom from any country remains illegal. Routine frontier Customs controls on goods from EC countries ceased on 1 January 1993, but anti-smuggling checks better targeted in response to the known risks continue to prevent the importation of illegal goods. Routine checks also continue on goods from non-EC countries.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost of introducing a 35 per cent. income tax rate for all income(a) between £23,700 and £26,000, (b) between £23,700 and £30,000, and (c) between £23,700 and £35,000; and what would be
  206
  the annual revenue from introducing a 50 per cent. rate on (i) all income over £50,000, (ii) all income over £60,000 and (iii) all income over £70,000.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates are as follows:

  Band of taxable income over which 35 per cent. Rate would be charged

  Revenue cost in full year at 1992–93 income levels

  £

  £million

  23,700 to 26,000

  170

  23,700 to 30,000

  400

  23,700 to 35,000

  600

  Level of taxable income above which 50 per cent. Rate would be charged

  Revenue yield in a full year at 1992–93 income levels

  £

  £ million

  50,000

  1,360

  60,000

  1,120

  70,000

  950

  The estimates do not allow for any behavioural effect that might result from such changes to the tax system and do not include capital gains tax.

  Charities (Taxation)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the Charities Tax Reform Group in regard to taxation on charities; what reply he is sending; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Charities' Tax Reform Group—CTRG—has suggested that charities could be compensated by grant in aid for their irrecoverable VAT on non-business expenditure incurred in carrying out their charitable objectives.

  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget speech. I have replied to the CTRG along those lines. However, I am also expecting to meet the group shortly to receive further representations.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to endeavour to reduce the United Kingdom balance of payments deficit.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government can best assist traders by keeping inflation and interest rates low. Inflation is now at its lowest level for 25 years and below the European Community average. Interest rates are the lowest for 15 years, and are the lowest in the European Community. The extra support for the Export Credits Guarantee Department announced in the autumn statement will also benefit many exporters.

  The success of this approach is demonstrated by the number of overseas investors choosing to locate here. In 1991 the United Kingdom had over 40 per cent. of the stock of Japanese inward investment to the EC.
  207
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net balance of trade in manufactured goods in the last month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nelson
  The balance of trade in manufactured goods for December 1992 was published by the Central Statistical Office in the "UK Balance of Payments—Current Account in December" press notice which was published on 28 January 1993, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The information is also available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  European Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the European co-operative statute, passed by the European Parliament on 22 January.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's views on the proposed European co-operative statute were set out in the explanatory memorandum on European Community legislation submitted to Parliament on 14 May 1992. The Government are analysing responses to a consultative document issued last year and will be reporting on their implications in a further explanatory memorandum later in the year.

  European Investment Fund
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to revise the terms of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols to take account of the decision at the Edinburgh European Council relating to a European investment fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  None.

  Tax Arrears
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise the income limits which govern the Inland Revenue's practice for remitting arrears of tax where information provided to the Revenue has not been used within a reasonable time.
  208
  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to announce that the limits are to be increased from today.

  The Inland Revenue's practice of remitting tax in cases where the Department has not made timely use of information available is set out in the White Paper of July 1971—first report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration: Session 1970–71: cmnd 4729. The proportion of arrears collected varies according to the size of the taxpayer's gross income; the balance of the arrear is remitted.

  The following new scale of limits will apply to arrears of tax, the actual or likely amount of which is first notified to the taxpayer or his agent on or after 17 February, 1993:

  Gross Income £

  Remission

  15,500 or less

  All

  15,501–18,000

  3/4

  18,001–22,000

  1/2

  22,001–26,000

  1/4

  26,001–40,000

  1/10

  40,001 or more

  None

  These figures apply to all taxpayers and exceed the previously separate scale for pensioners which is abolished from today.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: The Financial Services Tribunal.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to obtain the power to sanction grant-maintained status to new schools established in(a) redundant local education authority premises and (b) redundant non-LEA premises.

  Mr. Forth
  It will be for promoters of new grant-maintained schools to provide premises. When determining such an application under the provisions of the Education Bill currently before the House, the Secretary of State will take into consideration the suitability of any premises. This would apply equally whether or not the premises were in LEA ownership.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to obtain the power to award grant-maintained status to new schools whose intake is selected on the grounds of(a) academic ability or (b) artistic, sporting, scientific or other ability.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently under consideration in the House will enable the Secretary of State to award grant-maintained status to new schools that select on the grounds of academic ability or selection by specialism.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to obtain the power to allow an existing independent school company to establish a new grant-maintained school in(a) redundant local education authority premises and (b) non-LEA premises.

  Mr. Forth
  It would be for the promoters of an existing independent school company to provide the premises for a new grant-maintained school. If they wished to use the redundant LEA premises for their new GM school, this would be a matter between them and the local education authority. If they wished to establish the school in a non-LEA premises, they would be free to propose this.

  The Government are considering bringing forward an amendment to the Education Bill to make it clear that promoters of existing independent schools, as well as voluntary bodies, will be able to seek grant-maintained status.

  Secondary Schools
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 807, what estimate he has made of the total number of places in secondary schools in England and Wales, the number he now believes are surplus to requirements and the number of the total, actual or estimated, that are currently located in temporary or mobile accommodation and the numbers located in laboratories, workshops or other specialist teaching space as defined in departmental circular 11/88 of 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  Questions about the level of surplus places in Welsh secondary schools are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. On the basis of the Department's survey of school capacity, we estimate that in 1991 there were some 3·5 million secondary school places in England, of which up to 210
  700,000 were surplus, although not all of these are practicably removable. It is not possible to say how many secondary school places were, or are, located in temporary or mobile accommodation, laboratories, workshops or other specialist teaching spaces.

  Schools (Space Requirements)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what criteria or evidence from practising teachers his Department took into account when formulating the space requirements for pupils in primary and secondary schools used in the content of Departmental circulars(a)11/88 and (b) 6/91.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department undertakes fieldwork to monitor the use of teaching accommodation, including discussions with practising teachers, and the results are fed into the formulation of space requirements.

  Special Needs Pupils
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to amend section 2 of the Education Act 1981 to place the onus upon local education authorities to justify segregation of special needs education pupils away from mainstream schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before Parliament will put a qualified duty on LEAs to integrate children with statements in ordinary schools unless that duty is incompatible with the wishes of the parent. The Bill will also establish an independent special educational needs tribunal. LEAs will be required to justify their decisions over a child's placement on an appeal by the parent to the tribunal.

  Further Education
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to assist towards improved success rates in further education and to increase motivation among those in the 16 to 19-year-old age groups who are involved.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's clear policy is to increase both the participation and attainment of 16 to 19-year-olds. Public expenditure plans already provide for a substantial expansion of provision. Within this framework, we are working with and through the new Further Education Funding Council, qualifications bodies and others to promote three high quality qualification pathways—GCE A-levels and AS, general national vocational qualifications and national vocational qualifications—and to help young people choose the courses which are best for them. We are also working to develop and publish indicators to demonstrate and encourage the improved performance that will follow this better match of provision to need.

  Seven-year-olds (Testing)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table covering a composite of English, mathematics, science and technology for the most recent standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds and ranking local education authorities according to level 3 attainment.
  211
  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the ranking of local education authorities in England according to attainment at level 3 and above in a composite of English, mathematics, science and technology for the 1992 standard assessment tests for seven year olds.

  Key stage 1 assessment 1992

  (as at 15 December 1992)

  Local education authority ranking

  Composite of English, mathematics, science and technology

  Local education authority

  Percentage at level 3 and above

  Bromley

  24

  Hackney

  24

  Harrow

  24

  Richmond upon Thames

  24

  Barnet

  23

  Camden

  22

  Hammersmith

  22

  Haringey

  22

  Hillingdon

  22

  Merton

  22

  Sutton

  22

  Hertfordshire

  21

  Islington

  21

  Redbridge

  21

  Westminster

  21

  Enneld

  20

  Isle of Wight

  20

  Tower Hamlets

  20

  Wandsworth

  20

  Ealing

  19

  Gloucestershire

  19

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19

  Lambeth

  19

  Lewisham

  19

  Trafford

  19

  West Sussex

  19

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18

  South Tyneside

  18

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  17

  Derbyshire

  17

  East Sussex

  17

  Gateshead

  17

  North Yorkshire

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  Oldham

  17

  Southwark

  17

  Tameside

  17

  Croydon

  16

  Dorset

  16

  Kirklees

  16

  Lincolnshire

  16

  Manchester

  16

  Waltham Forest

  16

  Warwickshire

  16

  Wiltshire

  16

  Wirral

  16

  Avon

  15

  Berkshire

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  Cheshire

  15

  Cumbria

  15

  Doncaster

  15

  Greenwich

  15

  Hampshire

  15

  Kingston upon Thames

  15

  Leeds

  15

  212

  Local education authority

  Percentage at level 3 and above

  Shropshire

  15

  Somerset

  15

  Barking

  14

  Bexley

  14

  Brent

  14

  Calderdale

  14

  Devon

  14

  Essex

  14

  Havering

  14

  Hereford and Worcester

  14

  Kent

  14

  Norfolk

  14

  Northumberland

  14

  Rochdale

  14

  Solihull

  14

  Surrey

  14

  Wolverhampton

  14

  Bradford

  13

  Cambridgeshire

  13

  Durham

  13

  Hounslow

  13

  Leicestershire

  13

  Oxfordshire

  13

  Rotherham

  13

  Sandwell

  13

  Sefton

  13

  Sheffield

  13

  St. Helens

  13

  Stockport

  13

  Suffolk

  13

  Bedfordshire

  12

  Birmingham

  12

  Bury

  12

  Humberside

  12

  Liverpool

  12

  Wakefield

  12

  Bolton

  11

  Dudley

  11

  Knowsley

  11

  North Tyneside

  Northamptonshire

  11

  Salford

  11

  Sunderland

  1 1

  Walsall

  Lancashire

  10

  Newham

  10

  Staffordshire

  9

  Barnsley

  8

  Cleveland

  8

  Coventry

  8

  Wigan

  6

  ENGLAND

  15

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to reply to the letters dated 2 December and 2 February from Dr. D. Taylor, vice chairman of the governors at Churston grammar school, Brixham, South Devon, about the status of incremental enhancements in teachers' pay scales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Both letters were answered on 16 February.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to health education and drug misuse to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 15 to 19 March 1993.

  European Court (Phone Calls)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will take steps to provide an abbreviated dialling code to allow hon. Members to make direct telephone calls from the House to the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have arranged for the telephone numbers of the European Court of Justice and of the United Kingdom permanent representative to the EC to be included in the abbreviated dialling system.

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the average costs in salary and allowances of one hon. Member of Parliament.

  Mr. Newton
  At 31 March 1992 the full parliamentary salary was payable at the rate of £30,854 per annum and the ceiling figures for the office costs allowance—OCA —and additional costs allowance—ACA—were £28,986 and £10,786 respectively.

  For the year 1991–92 nearly all hon. Members claimed the permitted OCA maximum and most of the 621 hon. Members who were entitled to the ACA claimed the maximum.

  Given the wide variation of travel costs for individual hon. Members, it is not possible to give a meaningful average.

  Select Committees
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to strengthen the Select Committee system.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no particular plans to alter the workings of the Select Committee system, but am always ready to consider proposals from hon. and right hon. Members.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total cost, including an estimate for the time of civil servants involved, of the conference on market testing held at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 18 January.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The total cost of this conference was met by the subscription fees paid by delegates. The cost of 214
  the time of the civil servants involved cannot be identified separately: discussions with private sector companies are an integral part of their work to take forward market testing.

  Open Government
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the results of his open government initiative.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The results of the open government review will be announced in a White Paper later this year.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chncellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the report into the operation of freedom of information laws in Australia, Canada and New Zealand submitted to the Cabinet Office by Mr. Robert Hazell at the conclusion of his civil service Nuffield and Leverhulme travelling fellowship in 1986–87.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This report was prepared on the basis that views expressed by the federal and provincial governments concerned were given in confidence. They would need to be consulted before the report was made generally available. However, an article by Mr. Hazell based on the reports was published in the summer 1989 issue of the quarterly journal of the Royal Institute of Public Administration.

TRANSPORT

  Seaborne Trade
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the tonnage of the United Kingdom's seaborne trade in each year since 1979; and how much of this trade was carried(a) in United Kingdom registered ships and (b) in ships carried by United Kingdom ship owners.

  Mr. Norris
  The total tonnage of the United Kingdom's seaborne trade in each year since 1979 and the share of this trade carried in United Kingdom registered ships are given in the table:

  Total(thousand tonnes)

  Percentage in United Kingdom ships

  1979

  251,276

  29

  1980

  230,982

  34

  1981

  242,654

  28

  1982

  242,292

  28

  1983

  247,108

  24

  1984

  274,078

  23

  1985

  286,070

  23

  1986

  298,356

  21

  1987

  297,940

  22

  1988

  289,014

  21

  1989

  287,324

  21

  1990

  300,475

  19

  1991

  299,601

  18

  No information is available on the basis of ship ownership.

  Tankers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory provisions which currently exist for the purposes of regulating moored tankers in Lyme Bay and other United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Norris
  At the present time, articles 9 and 14 of the Convention on the Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zone 1958 govern the freedom of all ships to proceed through and anchor in this region during the normal course of a passage.

  Regulations have been drafted under section 35 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to govern ship-to-ship transfers of dangerous goods, marine pollutants, noxious liquid substances in bulk, oil fuel bunkers, crude oil and refined products, within United Kingdom territorial limits beyond port limits, including Lyme hay. These regulations will be laid before Parliament in the near future.

  In addition, United Kingdom regulations giving effect to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1972—SOLAS —and the Convention for Preventions of Pollution from Ships 1973–78—MARPOL—generally apply to non-United Kingdom ships within our territorial seas.

  Shetland Oil Spill
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the economic cost of the MV Braer oil incident including the economic effect on fisheries, tourism and the local community.

  Mr. Norris
  Shetland Islands council is undertaking an economic impact study of the Braer incident. It is likely to be some time before the results are available.

  Buses
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish a consultation document on possible amendments to the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  I do not intend to alter the basic deregulatory regime set up by the Transport Act 1985. There may, however, be aspects of its working that could be improved and I intend to issue a consultation paper on them shortly.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to implement commitment No. 77 in the "This Common Inheritance" second year report relating to the provision of better information to bus passengers and the development of measures for promoting the use of buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have allocated a further £15·5 million for measures to promote bus use in 1993–94, some of which relate to passenger information systems, and have also allocated funds to a trial of low-floor buses. I have commissioned research into the provision of information to bus passengers and will consider whether to issue guidelines in the light of this research.

  Radioactive Materials
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, c. 584, to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), what consideration his Department has given to keeping a data base of movements of radioactive material by road, rail or air.
  216
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not considered that the compilation of such a database would help the Department with its responsibilities for the safe transport of radioactive material.

  Rail freight
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail employees were made redundant as a result of the ending of Trainload Freight seeking contracts on the West Highland line.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. British Rail will make every effort to redeploy displaced staff when this traffic ceases at the end of March.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people were directly employed by Railfreight Distribution in each of the past five financial years;

  (2) how many people were directly employed by Trainload Freight in each of the past five financial years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railway staffing is a matter for BR. Following is the information for Railfreight Distribution:

  Number

  1987–88

  1,394

  1988–89

  1,390

  1989–90

  1,579

  1990–91

  1,684

  1991–92

  2,898

  Train crew are not included, as they are brought in from the passenger sectors and Trainload Freight. The increase in the numbers of staff for 1991–92 reflects the changes brought by the initiative "Organising for Quality"; operational regions have been abolished, and their staff are now employed by RfD. Previous increases in staffing can be attributed in the main to preparations for channel tunnel freight services.

  Trainload Freight currently employs about 13,500 staff. Comparable historical data are not readily available.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on freight losses from the railways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has received several representations from hon. Members and private interests. During the Railways Bill Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend proposed three new measures intended to assist the rail freight industry.

  British Airports Authority
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory provisions and mechanisms exist to protect the customer and individual consumer of services provided by airports run by BAA.

  Mr. Norris
  All airports are governed by the Airports Act 1986, under which the Civil Aviation Authority can remedy or prevent unfair or discriminatory trade or pricing practices concerning the handling of aircraft, passengers and their baggage. In addition, at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports there is a statutory
  217
  five-yearly review of all activities affecting airport users. The Office of Fair Trading also has powers to investigate other commercial activities at all BAA's airports under consumer and competition legislation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration the Government have given to the scope for competition in respect of airports operated by BAA plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe in free, open and fair competition in the air travel and airports markets and will continue to ensure that the interests of consumers and operators alike are protected against anti-competitive practices. Charges at BAA's airports are subject to regulation by the Civil Aviation Authority, which has powers to remedy any specific instance of conduct which unreasonably discriminates against airport users or unfairly exploits an airport's market strength.

  Public Transport
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) bus services, (b) train services, (c) maritime ferry services and (d) other public transport services, in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the number of public transport services in Scotland is not available. Figures that are available appear in the annual publications "Scottish

  Passenger journeys by public transport in Scotland

  Bus and coach travel on local (stage) services1

  Rail services passenger traffic originating in Scotland

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive— Underground

  Maritime ferry services2

  Air terminal passenger traffic to/ from Scottish airports3

  Year

  Million

  Year

  Million

  Year

  Thousand

  Year

  Thousand

  Year

  Thousand

  1981

  716

  1981

  57·8

  1981–82

  10,634

  1981

  4,270

  1981

  6,498·5

  1982

  694

  41982

  49–5

  1982–83

  11,792

  1982

  4,193

  1982

  6,369·9

  1983

  680

  1983

  55–7

  1983–84

  12,261

  1983

  4,511

  1983

  6,482·8

  1984

  669

  51984–85

  64·1

  1984–85

  12,693

  1984

  4,665

  1984

  6,985·1

  1985–86

  671

  1985–86

  57·1

  1985–86

  13,148

  1985

  4,668

  1985

  6,942·6

  1986–87

  644

  1986–87

  53·1

  1986–87

  13,700

  1986

  4,851

  1986

  7,241·3

  1987–88

  647

  1987–88

  54·1

  1987–88

  13,518

  1987

  5,346

  1987

  7,810·4

  1988–89

  647

  1988–89

  54·0

  1988–89

  13,591

  1988

  5,655

  1988

  8,507·2

  1989–90

  613

  41989–90

  51·8

  1989–90

  13,466

  1989

  6,176

  1989

  9,228·6

  1990–91

  585

  1990–91

  54·8

  1990–91

  13,670

  1990

  6,543

  1990

  9,861–4

  1991–92

  572

  1991–92

  —

  1991–92

  13,480

  1991

  6,800

  1991

  9,570·5

  1 Figures are approximate, as only a sample of the smaller bus and coach operators is surveyed.

  2 Covers Caledonian McBrayne and services to Orkney and Shetland.

  3 Includes double counting of flights within Scotland.

  4 Figures affected by industrial action.

  5 Figure refers to the 15 month period 1 January 1984 to 31 March 1985.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whisky
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of the recent meeting of the Council of Ministers which reviewed the EC spirits definition regulations requiring a minimum alcoholic strength by volume for whisky.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council accepted a recommendation by the EC Commission that the minimum alcoholic strength of whisky should remain at 40 per cent. by volume.
  218
  Transport Statistics" and "Bus and Coach Statistics". The following table gives the number of vehicle kilometres on bus and coach services run by operators based in Scotland and by Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive—Underground.

  Vehicle kilometres by public transport

  Bus and coach services1 (million)

  Strathclyde Passenger

  Local (stage) services

  Other services

  All services

  Executive— Underground (thousand)

  1981

  294

  121

  416

  1981–82

  1,022

  1982

  287

  124

  411

  1982–83

  1,070

  1983

  290

  137

  427

  1983–84

  1,069

  1984

  286

  146

  432

  1984–85

  1,078

  1985–86

  286

  143

  429

  1985–86

  1,062

  1986–87

  303

  147

  449

  1986–87

  1,120

  1987–88

  329

  145

  474

  1987–88

  1,089

  1988–89

  326

  154

  480

  1988–89

  1,166

  1989–90

  336

  167

  503

  1989–90

  1,165

  1990–91

  335

  164

  499

  1990–91

  1,122

  1991–92

  355

  169

  524

  1991–92

  1,137

  1 Figures are approximate, as only a sample of the smaller bus and coach operators is surveyed.

  Figures for range of different modes of public transport are available only in terms of the number of passenger journeys, which are given in the following table.

  Linseed Crop
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to bring this season's linseed crop into the set-aside regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission's price-fixing proposals include the addition of linseed to the list of crops eligible for aid in 1993 under the arable area payments scheme, which includes provisions for set-aside. The timing of this proposal takes no account of farming practice and causes considerable difficulties for linseed producers. I am therefore opposing it.

  Inspectorate for Plant Health
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the powers of the inspectorate for plant health.
  219
  Mr. Curry
  The powers of the plant health and seeds inspectorate are set out in the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1987.

  The inspectorate is empowered to take appropriate action to ensure that a high plant health status is maintained, consistent with the necessity to allow the continuation of trade wherever possible. This will continue under the single market arrangements for plant health which are due to come into force on 1 June this year.

  Ruminant-based Protein
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been carried out under the auspices of his Department to ascertain whether it is safe to feed pigs and poultry with ruminant-based protein.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence of a naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathy in these species. The Tyrrell committee has advised that there are no grounds for extending the ban on the use of ruminant protein to non-ruminants, provided that the specified bovine offals are excluded. Nevertheless, studies are in hand involving the feeding of brain material from confirmed cases of BSE to pigs and poultry, and epidemiological surveillance of pigs and poultry is maintained.

  Russian Food and Fish
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider taking anti-dumping action in relation to imports of Russian food and fish.

  Mr. Curry
  I am aware of the United Kingdom fishing industry's concern that the current weak market for some species may be caused in part by the importation of cheap Russian cod. The United Kingdom, along with other member states and the EC Commission, is urgently studying the situation on the Community market in relation to the reference prices and associated provisions set out in EC regulation 3759/92 on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards have been introduced to prevent the acquisition of days at sea entitlements by foreign-owned British-registered fishing vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  Days-at-sea conditions will be attached to the licences of all British registered fishing vessels of over 10 m in length, regardless of ownership.

  Sea Fish Conservation Bill
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were his estimates of the cost of enforcing and administering the Sea Fish Conservation Bill before the Bill was introduced; and what they are now.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 2 February, column 133.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in Nottinghamshire is set aside under the common agricultural policy; and what is its annual value.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 777 hectares of land are currently set aside in Nottinghamshire under the five-year set-aside scheme at an annual cost of around £146,000. Information on the land set aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year.

  Drainage Authorities
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how set-aside land is treated in the investment appraisal carried out by a drainage authority when seeking central Government grant aid;

  (2) which crops and livestock products are excluded from consideration as a cost or benefit in the investment appraisal carried out by a drainage authority when seeking central Government grant aid on the grounds that there are no net national costs or benefits due to supply control mechanisms.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry plans to publish next month revised and updated project appraisal guidelines on the investment appraisal of flood defence and coast protection capital works. The guidelines will contain specific instructions to drainage authorities covering these issues. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what guidance is given to drainage authorities on the maintenance of the original protection or drainage standard beyond the design life of an earlier scheme;

  (2) what guidance is given to drainage authorities on the maintenance of previously grant-aided works where within the design life of the scheme (a) land use changes have occurred that mean that greater economic benefits could be gained by no longer maintaining that scheme and (b) damage to a site of acknowledged environmental interest is occurring through continuing to maintain that scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  Maintenance work is essential to the sound management of flood defences and is the responsibility of local flood defence and land drainage authorities. The Ministry does not issue separate guidance on the economic appraisal of maintenance, as opposed to capital, work, but authorities are expected to achieve value for money by keeping their maintenance programmes under review throughout the design life of defences and beyond if they remain sustainable. The Ministry intends to produce guidance on post-project evaluation of defences for authorities later this year.

  The Ministry's publication "Conservation Guidelines for Drainage Authorities" advises that authorities should consult the statutory conservation bodies annually and in advance on their maintenance programmes for the following year. A separate Ministry guide, "Environmental Procedures for Inland Flood Defence Works", published last December jointly with English Nature and the National Rivers Authority, advises that the impact of defences on the environment should be

  221
  audited and that mitigating action may be required if the environmental or engineering objectives have not been achieved.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of rotational set-aside.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has an ongoing programme of monitoring and research on the environmental effects of set-aside, including changes in botanical composition and impact on wildlife habitats, weeds, diseases, pests and nitrate leaching. We were able to draw on this and on advice from environmental organisations in establishing the rules for management of rotational set-aside under the new EC arable scheme last year. It is as yet too early to assess the impact of the rotational set-aside arrangements, which were introduced only last autumn, but we will be carrying out a full evaluation of both these and the non-rotational set-aside arrangements which are due to be introduced from this autumn.

SCOTLAND

  Hospitals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss(a) bed closures, (b) cancelled operating lists and (c) hospitals running out of money before the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Stewart
  Although my right hon. Friend meets representatives from the British Medical Association from time to time, he has no immediate plans for a further meeting at present.

  Heritage Sites
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources he will make available to Scottish Heritage to assist in the emergency preservation of architectural sites on the coasts of the Western Isles, Orkney Isles and Shetland Isles following the storms in January.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Although these storms did considerable damage, they were but one episode in a continuing problem which Historic Scotland is already addressing by monitoring, survey and excavation. I am satisfied that Historic Scotland has the resources it needs to continue this work.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on his proposed changes to eligibility for civil legal aid and advice and assistance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the various representations he has received on the proposals to change the eligibility criteria for legal aid in Scotland as set out in my reply of 16 November 1992 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Robertson),Official Report, Vol. 214, col. 64.
  222
  Given the distinctive features of the Scottish legal system and in particular the interface between advice and assistance and full civil and criminal legal aid, my right hon. Friend has decided to retain a contributory band of advice and assistance. Those on income support or family credit or with a weekly disposable income of less than £61 will be eligible for free advice and assistance. Those whose weekly disosable income falls between £61 and £147 will receive advice and assistance subject to the payment of a contribution on a sliding scale set by reference to the level of the applicant's disposable income. The retention of contributory advice and assistance will ensure that those on moderate incomes above income support level will continue to benefit from advice and assistance.

  We intend to proceed with the changes to eligibility for civil legal aid as announced. The current eligibility criteria for criminal legal aid will remain unchanged.

  These changes will ensure the achievement of our Objective that reasonable access to legal aid continues to be provided for the most needy. Planned expenditure on legal aid is expected to rise by 40 per cent. over the next three years and more people than ever before are expected to be granted legal aid.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has today written to all Scottish Members of Parliament explaining the revised proposals in more detail.

  Greenock Prison
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is to be a fatal accident inquiry concerning the recent death of a prisoner in Her Majesty's prison, Greenock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: A fatal accident inquiry will be held into the death on 13 January 1993 of a prisoner in HM prison, Greenock although no date has yet been fixed. It would be improper to comment on the circumstances of the death until after the conclusion of the fatal accident inquiry.

  Wood Products
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been for each year since 1979(a) the cost of importing wood products and (b) the proportion of the total import costs represented by this figure.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information is given in the following table.

  (a) Cost of importing wood products1 £million

  (b) Proportion of total visible imports per cent.

  1979

  1,411

  3·0

  1980

  1,282

  2·6

  1981

  1,343

  2·7

  1982

  1,435

  2·5

  1983

  1,922

  2·9

  1984

  2,119

  2·7

  1985

  2,050

  2·4

  1986

  2,306

  2·7

  1987

  2,665

  2·8

  1988

  3,004

  2·8

  1989

  3,141

  2·6

  1990

  3,109

  2·5

  1991

  2,562

  2·2

  223

  1 Wood products are defined as the principal products of class 46 less group 466 of the Standard Industrial Classification.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the domestic consumption of wood products each year since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 February 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is given in the following table. Comparable data for the years 1979 to 1981 are not available.

  Domestic consumption of wood products

  £billion

  1982

  5·4

  1983

  6·5

  1984

  7·2

  1985

  7·5

  1986

  8·2

  1987

  9·5

  1988

  11·1

  1989

  11·4

  1990

  11·1

  1991

  10·3

  Note: Wood products are defined as the principal products of class 46 less group 466 of the Standard Industrial Classification.

  Source: Business Monitors. PAS series: Central Statistical Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands continental shelf.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 16 February 1993, at column 119.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has provided a letter of comfort to the Falkland Islands Government in respect of the seismic survey activity in the Falkland Islands continental shelf of Geco-Prakla and Spectrum Energy and Information Technology Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 10 February 1993, at column 618.

  Thailand
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British Government have urged the Government of Thailand to bring to justice those who are responsible for aiding or facilitating forced prostitution of women and children in that country, including both locals and foreign tourists who engage the services of child and other forced prostitutes.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Bangkok recently raised our concern about the problem of forced 224
  prostitution in Thailand, particularly of children, with the Thai Government. We will continue to encourage Thailand to take effective measures to tackle the problem.

  Somalia and Kenya
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to Somalia and Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In Somalia, my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development had discussions in Mogadishu, Baidoa and Hargeisa on the future prospects for relief and rehabilitation. She met key United Nations and United States officials engaged in "Operation Restore Hope" and representatives of British non-governmental organisations.

  In Kenya, Baroness Chalker discussed political and economic issues with President Moi and other Kenyan leaders. She also visited a drought-affected district in the north-east to see relief and rehabilitation work.

  Angola
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the MPLA in Angola regarding the detention and alleged maltreatment of UNITA officials and supporters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our embassy in Luanda has regularly raised this issue with the Angolan Government, and has taken it up with President dos Santos. The treatment and future of all detainees, including those held by UNITA, is one of several questions which can only be resolved by dialogue between the two parties. We have urged both sides to meet as a matter of urgency to continue the talks begun in Addis Ababa on 27 January.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tools (Developing World)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much, in cash terms and as a percentage of the ODA budget, has been spent by the ODA in each of the last five years on tools for distribution to the developing world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The supply of appropriate technology, including hand tools, forms an important part of many aid projects, both those we support directly and those managed by non-governmental organisations. Data about spending on hand tools are not collated centrally.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the total budget of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the British contribution by financial year since its formation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European bank for reconstruction and development was inaugurated in April 1991. The information is as follows:
  225

  Budget (ecu million)

  1991

  106·2

  1992

  111·2

  1993

  139·9

  Members of the bank do not contribute directly to the budget; rather, they contribute to the bank's operating capital in direct proportion to their shareholding. The British shareholding is 8·5 per cent. worth 851·75 mecu, with a paid-in element of 30 per cent. over five years. Half is paid in cash and half in non-negotiable non-interest bearing promissory notes which are drawn down over three years. To date British capital subscription payments have been:

  Capital subscription

  Financial year

  £stg million

  1991–92

  21·6

  1992–93

  31·8

  As host country to the European bank for reconstruction and development, the British Government have additionally provided a grant of £40 million over three years to assist the European bank for reconstruction and development with the costs of establishing itself in London. This grant will be drawn down as follows:

  Recipient country

  Membership date

  Borrowings committed 1991 (mecu)

  Borrowings committed 1992 (mecu)

  Amounts disbursed 1992 (mecu)

  Albania

  18 December 1991

  8·26

  —

  Armenia

  7 December 1992

  —

  —

  Belarus

  10 June 1992

  —

  32·03

  0·32

  Bulgaria

  15 April 1991

  —

  107·51

  CSFR

  15 April 1991

  —

  227·08

  41·01

  Estonia

  28 February 1992

  —

  70·45

  Georgia

  26 May 1992

  —

  —

  Hungary

  15 April 1991

  98·21

  150·9

  65·08

  Kyrgyzstan

  5 June 1992

  —

  —

  Latvia

  18 March 1992

  —

  32·3

  Lithuania

  5 March 1992

  —

  15·86

  Moldova

  5 May 1992

  —

  —

  Poland

  15 April 1991

  90·58

  363·48

  16 13

  Romania

  15 April 1991

  165·00

  80·52

  0·75

  Russia

  9 April 1992

  14·32

  156·65

  2·89

  Turkmenistan

  1 June 1992

  —

  —

  Ukraine

  13 August 1992

  —

  2·89

  Uzbekistan

  30 April 1992

  —

  —

  Note: (a) No amounts were due for repayment up to the end of 1992.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the countries covered by the know-how fund, giving(a) the date on

  Countries

  Date eligible for assistance

  1989–90 (£000)

  1990–91 (£000)

  1991–92 (£000)

  Poland

  June 1989

  2,000

  10,900

  10,700

  Hungary

  October 1989

  —

  1,600

  6,300

  CSFR

  April 1990

  n/a

  2,000

  6,600

  Ex GDR

  April to October 1990

  n/a

  500

  n/a

  Bulgaria

  February 1991

  n/a

  —

  1,200

  Romania

  May 1991

  n/a

  n/a

  1,200

  226

  United Kingdom grant

  Financial year

  £stg million

  1991–92

  12·5

  1992–93

  15·0

  1993–94

  12·5

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all of the countries eligible to borrow from the European bank for reconstruction and development, giving(a) the date on which they became eligible, (b) the total borrowed in each subsequent financial year to the latest available date and (c) any repayments made by financial year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table shows the value of loans and investments signed by the European bank for reconstruction and development for 60 projects in its countries of operation in the last two financial years together with the amounts disbursed.

  Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are not full members of the EBRD as yet. Membership procedures are currently under way for the following.

  Czech Republic

  Slovak Republic

  Croatia

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  which they became eligible for assistance and (b) the total spend for each subsequent financial year to the latest available.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund was launched in June 1989. The date on which countries became eligible for assistance and expenditure for these in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows.
  227

  Countries

  Date eligible for assistance

  1989–90 (£000)

  1990–91 (£000)

  1991–92 (£000)

  Slovenia

  July 1992

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Albania

  July 1992

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Estonia

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  10

  Latvia

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Lithuania

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  15

  Kazakhstan

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  10

  Uzbekistan

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Armenia

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Azerbaijan

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Georgia

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Belarus

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  —

  Ukraine

  November 1990

  n/a

  —

  100

  Russia

  November 1990

  n/a

  1

  26,623

  Total spending on all know-how fund programmes for 1992–93 will not be available until later this year.

  Narmada Dam, India
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many people have been displaced by the Narmada dam project in India to date; and how many have been resettled;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the mechanism for payment of compensation to each displaced person in connection with the Narmada dam project, India; and what information he has on the relative differentials in compensation to people displaced in Gujarat and in Madhya Pradesh;

  (3) how much land each person displaced by the Narmada dam project and canal network receives; how many hectares of land have been allocated for displaced people; and if he will list the districts to which displaced people have been and will be located.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 4 February 1993]: A total of 5,500 families in Gujarat and Maharashtra have

  Force

  Average days sickness per officer due to assault 1990

  Average days sickness per officer non-assault 1990

  Average days sickness per officer due to assault 1991

  Average days sickness per officer non-assault 1991

  Avon and Somerset

  0·46

  9·71

  0·27

  9·89

  Bedfordshire

  0·55

  12·39

  0·76

  11·66

  Cambridgeshire

  0·18

  12·24

  0·48

  10·10

  Cheshire

  0·59

  10·04

  0·49

  11·82

  City of London

  0·05

  12·55

  0·01

  10·93

  Cleveland

  0·49

  19·01

  0·41

  15·83

  Cumbria

  0·14

  11·15

  0·30

  10·25

  Derbyshire

  0·37

  10·67

  0·67

  13·69

  Devon and Cornwall

  0·30

  9·19

  0·34

  9·78

  Dorset

  0·32

  7·27

  0·25

  10·72

  Durham

  0·87

  10·77

  0·82

  11·48

  Dyfed Powys

  0·66

  10·37

  0·24

  11·44

  Essex

  0·22

  12·42

  0·16

  11·28

  Gloucestershire

  0·22

  9·98

  0·29

  11·18

  Greater Manchester

  0·53

  13·69

  0·52

  12·46

  Gwent

  0·33

  10·60

  0·13

  13·68

  Hampshire

  0·69

  9·79

  0·29

  13·58

  Hertfordshire

  0·39

  13·06

  0·38

  13·49

  Humberside

  0·45

  13·13

  0·42

  9·96

  Kent

  0·18

  9·67

  0·06

  6·69

  Lancashire

  0·43

  15·97

  0·75

  14·81

  Leicestershire

  0·36

  13·22

  0·37

  13·52

  Lincolnshire

  0·56

  13·02

  0·63

  14·36

  Merseyside

  0·87

  16·09

  0·93

  18·93

  Norfolk

  0·27

  12·42

  0·11

  10·79

  North Wales

  0·47

  13·24

  0·60

  16·46

  North Yorkshire

  0·20

  11·64

  0·30

  13·71

  Northamptonshire

  0·12

  12·40

  0·06

  13·21

  Northumbria

  1·22

  9·07

  1·15

  8·75

  228
  been resettled to date. Compensation mechanisms have been established, but compensation formulae differ from state to state depending on eligibility criteria. About 11,300 hectares of land have been allocated so far to those who have been displaced. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member in more detail about his questions; copies of her letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, columns 126–28, if he will give the figures for days lost in each police force in England and Wales due to (a) assault-related sick leave and (b) sick leave not due to assaults in 1990 and 1991 expressed as an average per officer employed in the force at these dates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is as follows.
  229

  Force

  Average days sickness per officer due to assault 1990

  Average days sickness per officer non-assault 1990

  Average days sickness per officer due to assault 1991

  Average days sickness per officer non-assault 1991

  Nottinghamshire

  0·56

  11·54

  0·46

  11·54

  South Wales

  0·78

  13·11

  0·91

  14·92

  South Yorkshire

  0·43

  11·73

  0·20

  12·25

  Staffordshire

  0·51

  14·45

  0·50

  15·98

  Suffolk

  0·37

  7·44

  0·28

  7·19

  Surrey

  0·49

  8·83

  0·38

  11·10

  Sussex

  0·34

  9·76

  0·58

  13·11

  Thames Valley

  0·31

  6·97

  0·20

  9·60

  Warwickshire

  0·43

  11·81

  0·27

  13·78

  West Mercia

  0·24

  12·08

  0·20

  12·76

  West Midlands

  0·00

  7·09

  0·19

  9·37

  West Yorkshire

  0·46

  10·42

  0·56

  12·02

  Wiltshire

  0·39

  8·50

  0·33

  7·67

  Metropolitan police

  0·27

  12·39

  0·37

  10·91

  Calculated using authorised strength figures for 31 December 1990 and 1991

  Police Funding
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to change the revenue grant system for police forces in England and Wales to one based on the allocation of grant on assessment of relative need.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering a range of issues connected with the police service, including future funding arrangements. How grant is allocated is clearly one aspect of this. He will announce his conclusions on funding in due course.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff of governor grade at the Wolds prison were previously employed at governor grade in the public prison sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A contracted-out prison is run by a director, not a governor. The director and the head of custody at Wolds remand prison were formerly employed by HM prison service in governor grades.

  Police, North Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received relating to the establishment figure for the north Wales police; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received in the last 12 months six letters from hon. Members. My right hon. and noble Friend met a delegation last June to hear views about policing in Anglesey.

  The establishment of the North Wales police was increased in April 1992 by 17 officers, bringing the establishment of the force up to 1,369. In common with other forces, North Wales has not had an increase approved for 1993–94.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Blakenhurst prison to open.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 21 January, at column 330.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the newly appointed governor and deputy governor of Blakenhurst prison were earlier employed at governor grade in the public prison sector.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A contracted-out prison is run by a director not a governor. The director and deputy director of Blakenhurst prison were formerly employed by Her Majesty's prison service.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 862–63, if he will give the percentage of total employees in each police force in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991 that the figures for civilian staff represent.

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

  Civilian strength in England and Wales as at 31 December

  Civilian staff

  Percentage of total police service employees

  Force

  1981

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  19·1

  22·8

  Bedfordshire

  22·8

  26·2

  Cambridgeshire

  21·6

  26·7

  Cheshire

  18·5

  21·5

  Cleveland

  14·9

  22·7

  Cumbria

  18·9

  25·4

  Derbyshire

  28·3

  22·2

  Devon and Cornwall

  23·1

  26·5

  Dorset

  21·0

  30·3

  Durham

  26·5

  27·9

  Dyfed Powys

  17·6

  20·9

  Essex

  21·6

  26·8

  Gloucestershire

  17·0

  23·8

  Greater Manchester

  17·9

  24·5

  Gwent

  18·2

  23·4

  Hampshire

  19·2

  24·6

  231

  Civilian staff

  Percentage of total police service employees

  Force

  1981

  1991

  Hertfordshire

  19·5

  24·7

  Humberside

  20·7

  25·1

  Kent

  23·3

  25·1

  Lancashire

  21·8

  25·5

  Leicestershire

  19·9

  27·2

  Lincolnshire

  22·0

  27·6

  Merseyside

  18·2

  25·4

  Norfolk

  17·5

  23·8

  Northamptonshire

  20·5

  26·6

  Northumbria

  20·0

  25·6

  North Wales

  20·0

  24·8

  North Yorkshire

  19·8

  24·1

  Nottinghamshire

  20·5

  23·2

  South Wales

  21·6

  25·6

  South Yorkshire

  18·1

  23·0

  Staffordshire

  22·9

  25·5

  Suffolk

  23·2

  29·4

  Surrey

  18·4

  25·2

  Sussex

  20·2

  23·4

  Thames Valley

  24·0

  27·5

  Warwickshire

  16·8

  24·3

  West Mercia

  21·9

  29·4

  West Midlands

  18·2

  24·8

  West Yorkshire

  20·1

  26·3

  Wiltshire

  19·8

  28·1

  City of London

  25·0

  26·7

  Metropolitan

  35·6

  33·4

  Total

  24·1

  27·3

  Chief Constables (Tendering)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances he would seek an independent inquiry into aspects of tendering procedures undertaken by chief constables.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In exceptional circumstances my right hon. and learned Friend may choose to exercise his residual power under section 32 of the Police Act 1964 to cause a local inquiry to be held. Anyone who believes that a police authority or a chief constable has acted improperly or unlawfully may bring legal action against them in the same way as they would against any other body.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which EC countries have enacted legislation based on the requirements of the Council of Europe convention on data protection, and have also applied the convention to manual files or have included requirements for obtaining the prior consent of data subjects to the use of their personal information.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All EC countries with the exception of Greece have enacted legislation which meets the requirements of the Council of Europe convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. I understand that in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal, the legislation applies to manual files, as well as to computer files, either as a general rule or in some specific circumstances. I also understand that in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain the data subject's consent is required in relation to the use either of all data or of sensitive data.

  DNA Profiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation which would give a DNA profile the same status as a fingerprint for the purpose of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; what consideration he has given to the comments on DNA profiles made by the Data Protection Registrar in his 1992 annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 29 October 1992, at column 765.

  British Overseas Citizens
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his Department's policy on the deportation or removal of British overseas citizens remaining in the United Kingdom as overstayers;

  (2) what instructions his Department has issued to immigration officials since 1974 specifically on the deportation or removal of British overseas citizens.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  British overseas citizens are subject to immigration control and the provisions of the immigration rules in the same way as any other national. I am not aware that any instructions relating specifically to the deportation or removal of British overseas citizens have been issued to immigration officials since 1974.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices of intention to deport have been issued since 1974 under the 1971 Act on British overseas citizens who remained in the United Kingdom as overstayers; and how many of those British overseas citizens issued with notices of intention to deport have been deported or removed from the United Kingdom since 1974.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 1987–91 no notices of intention to deport were served on British overseas citizens. In 1992, five notices of intention to deport were served on British overseas citizens of which four were for overstaying; so far one of these has made a supervised departure. This information is not readily available before 1987 and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of the drug Ecstasy seized in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is contained in table 1.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. Seizures of Ecstasy—MDMA—were not separately recorded before 1989.

  Offenders, Waltham Forest
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in the London borough of Waltham Forest were unemployed in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of offenders in the London borough of Waltham Forest were under 21 years old in the last three years for which figures are available.
  233
  Mr. Jack
  Information is not collected centrally on the employment status of defendants appearing before the courts. The table shows the number and percentage of offenders by age convicted at Waltham Forest petty sessional division and at the Crown Court who were committed by Waltham Forest petty sessional division 1989 to 1991, which is provisional. Information on cautioning is available for police force areas.

  Number and percentage of offenders under 21 and all ages found guilty at Waltham Forest petty sessional division and at the Crown Court by committing Waltham Forest petty sessional division and type of offence 1989–19911

  Year/Type of offence

  Under 21

  All Ages

  No.

  Per cent.

  = 100 per cent.

  1989

  Indictable offences

  490

  38

  1,291

  Summary non-motoring offences

  233

  14

  1,661

  Summary motoring offences

  159

  12

  1,325

  All offences

  882

  21

  4,277

  1990

  Indictable offences

  468

  37

  1,281

  Summary non-motoring offences

  247

  10

  2,502

  Summary motoring offences

  114

  11

  1,077

  All offences

  829

  17

  4,860

  19911

  Indictable offences

  428

  33

  1,293

  Summary non-motoring offences

  207

  10

  2,115

  Summary motoring offences

  184

  7

  2,564

  All offences

  819

  14

  5,972

  1 Provisional

  Sheffield Community Literacy Team
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no bids were invited from Sheffield local education authority in respect of section 11 grant for the community literacy team.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Sheffield city council successfully applied for section 11 grant for its community literacy team project on the last occasion on which local authorities were invited to submit applications. Sheffield's application on that occasion related to the continuation of activities already being funded under the grant. Approval previously given in December 1990 was on the clear understanding that, in the particular circumstances of the case, grant would not be paid beyond 31 March 1993.

  Vehicle Entry Devices
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 198, if he will consider introducing a sale by licence system for vehicle entry devices so that only those who have legitimate use may purchase them.

  Mr. Jack
  As I explained in the answer that I gave to the question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 3 February, the Government have no plans at present to control the sale of vehicle entry devices, either through licensing their sale or otherwise. We will, however, keep the situation under review.

  Ram Raiding
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many robberies involving ram raiding have taken place in each police authority area for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of employees in his Department are registered disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On 1 July 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 185 members of staff in the Home Office were registered disabled, representing 0·4 per cent. of all staff. The Department employs many other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register, but no record has been kept of such staff.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is estimated that since 1979 there has been a reduction of about 700 staff in the Home Office as a result of contracting out. There have not been any reductions on these grounds in staff of the executive agencies in the Department since they were established.

  Statutory Instruments
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament by my Department in each of the years 1980 to 1992 is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  57

  1981

  36

  1982

  55

  1983

  52

  1984

  34

  1985

  61

  1986

  66

  1987

  61

  1988

  53

  1989

  51

  1990

  53

  1991

  59

  1992

  74

  Drug Offenders (Asset Seizures)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the value of(a) money and (b) assets that have been confiscated from people convicted by courts in England and Wales for drug offences in each of the last three years.
  235
  Mr. Jack
  The number of offenders ordered to pay confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the total amount confiscated from 1989 to 1991—figures for 1991 are provisional—are given in the table. Information collected centrally shows only the value of orders made.

  Offenders ordered to pay confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 by amount 1989 to 19911

  England and Wales

  1989

  1990

  11991

  Number of orders made

  802

  871

  1,005

  Total amount confiscated (£)

  7,851,900

  10,142,500

  5,504,495

  1 Provisional.

  Assaults
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of causing actual bodily harm and of common assault were recorded in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  For notifiable offence purposes, offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm are included within the "other wounding" offence classification which

  Number and percentage of offenders cautioned and prosecuted as a total of all cautions and prosecutions by type of offences 1989–19911

  England and Wales

  Number and percentages

  Year/Type of offence

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Total cautions and prosecutions

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  [= 100 per cent.]

  1989

  Indictable offences

  136,001

  23

  449,056

  77

  585,057

  Summary non-motoring offences

  102,030

  15

  568,469

  85

  670,499

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  238,031

  19

  1,017,525

  81

  1,255,556

  1990

  Indictable offences

  166,349

  26

  468,585

  74

  634,934

  Summary non-motoring offences

  102,763

  15

  576,977

  85

  679,740

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  269,112

  20

  1,045,562

  80

  1,314,674

  19911

  Indictable offences

  179,885

  27

  489,057

  73

  668,942

  Summary non-motoring offences

  98,910

  15

  573,331

  85

  672,241

  All offences (excluding summary motoring)

  278,795

  21

  1,062,388

  79

  1,341,183

  1 Provisional.

  Prisons (Utility Costs)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost per inmate of providing gas, electricity and water at(a) local and (b) remand prisons.
  236
  generally includes all offences of wounding which do not endanger life. The number of offences in this classification for the last five years were as follows:

  Number

  1987

  129,193

  1988

  144,781

  1989

  162,843

  1990

  169,764

  1991

  174,245

  In addition, there were 686 notifiable offences of assault in 1987 and 503 in 1988. Following the Criminal Justice Act 1988, these assaults became summary offences and as such they are no longer collected centrally for the notifiable offence series.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) cautions as alternatives to prosecution and (b) prosecutions in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1989 to 1991, which is provisional, is given in the table.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: The average weekly cost per inmate of providing gas, electricity and water in 1991–92 was as follows:

  £

  (a) Local prisons

  6·69

  (b) Remand centres1

  7·04

  1 The remand centre figure refers only to Hindley which holds exclusively remand prisoners.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in his Department since November 1991; whether the result was the maintenance of in-house provision or whether the service was contracted out; what was the name of the successful contractor where appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: Market testing within the Home Office covers the following areas:

  Accommodation and Office Services

  Computing Services

  Internal Audit

  Pay Services

  Police Nationals Computer (Hendon Data Centre)

  Prison Service

  College, Training and facilities management

  Computing Services

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police, police strength and number of offences per officer

  England and Wales

  1979

  1980

  1991

  Police force area

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  9,059

  2,861

  3·2

  11,484

  2,962

  3·9

  33,961

  3,072

  11·1

  Bedfordshire

  4,731

  923

  5·1

  5,604

  963

  5·8

  12,873

  1,090

  11·8

  Cambridgeshire

  4,182

  1,087

  3·8

  4,859

  1,086

  4·5

  11,897

  1,239

  9·6

  Cheshire

  6,679

  1,803

  3·7

  8,176

  1,833

  4·5

  16,537

  1,867

  8·9

  Cleveland

  7,902

  1,411

  5·6

  8,962

  1,454

  6·2

  17,278

  1,477

  11·7

  Cumbria

  3,801

  1,072

  3·5

  4,064

  1,104

  3·7

  10,826

  1,183

  9·2

  Derbyshire

  8,089

  1,757

  4·6

  9,087

  1,832

  5·0

  18,500

  1,706

  10·8

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,647

  2,639

  2·9

  8,850

  2,721

  3·3

  25,708

  2,876

  8·9

  Dorset

  3,998

  1,159

  3·4

  4,567

  1,167

  3·9

  9,287

  1,280

  7·3

  Durham

  6,017

  1,313

  4·6

  7,711

  1,345

  5·7

  13,565

  1,378

  9·8

  Essex

  10,296

  2,503

  4·1

  11,347

  2,609

  4·3

  24,980

  2,878

  8·7

  Gloucestershire

  3,009

  1,099

  2·7

  3,930

  1,119

  3·5

  12,601

  1,178

  10·7

  Greater Manchester

  39,124

  6,653

  5·9

  46,949

  6,923

  6·8

  97,715

  6,975

  14·0

  Hampshire

  12,518

  2,945

  4·3

  13,297

  3,058

  4·3

  32,003

  3,177

  10·1

  Hertfordshire

  4,603

  1,466

  3·1

  5,807

  1,518

  3·8

  10,890

  1,679

  6·5

  Humberside

  10,912

  1,879

  5·8

  12,710

  1,951

  6·5

  32,949

  2,016

  16·3

  Kent

  10,439

  2,808

  3·7

  10,429

  2,871

  3·6

  26,535

  3,039

  8·7

  Lancashire

  12,448

  3,089

  4·0

  12,728

  3,120

  4·1

  25,045

  3,205

  7·8

  Leicestershire

  5,701

  1,701

  3·4

  7,162

  1,720

  4·2

  21,526

  1,808

  11·9

  Lincolnshire

  3,281

  1,167

  2·8

  3,532

  1,183

  3·0

  8,991

  1,198

  7·5

  London, City of

  1,139

  834

  1·4

  1,071

  843

  1·3

  1,070

  809

  1·3

  Merseyside

  31,183

  4,469

  7·0

  34,801

  4,591

  7·6

  33,609

  4,605

  7·3

  Metropolitan Police District

  117,001

  22,528

  5·2

  125,944

  23,608

  5·3

  191,482

  28,126

  6·8

  Norfolk

  4,306

  1,237

  3·5

  5,273

  1,249

  4·2

  15,336

  1,419

  10·8

  Northamptonshire

  4,451

  926

  4·8

  6,048

  971

  6·2

  12,148

  1,156

  10·5

  Northumbria

  27,014

  3,339

  8·1

  31,068

  3,340

  9·3

  66,101

  3,460

  19·1

  North Yorkshire

  4,774

  1,338

  3·6

  5,283

  1,352

  3·9

  12,338

  1,382

  8·9

  Nottinghamshire

  16,494

  2,125

  7·8

  18,161

  2,209

  8·2

  30,568

  2,334

  13·1

  South Yorkshire

  12,601

  2,644

  4·8

  15,641

  2,842

  5·5

  35,261

  2,989

  11·8

  Staffordshire

  8,005

  2,015

  4·0

  8,750

  2,071

  4·2

  23,523

  2,185

  10·8

  Suffolk

  2,848

  1,105

  2·6

  3,223

  1,122

  2·9

  7,638

  1,203

  6·3

  Surrey

  4,790

  1,460

  3·3

  5,084

  1,589

  3·2

  11,437

  1,681

  6·8

  Sussex

  9,254

  2,777

  3·3

  9,970

  2,823

  3·5

  26,474

  2,969

  8·9

  Thames Valley

  13,858

  2,764

  5·0

  15,227

  3,043

  5·0

  34,065

  3,722

  9·2

  Warwickshire

  2,827

  883

  3·2

  3,289

  916

  3·6

  10,290

  1,005

  10·2

  West Mercia

  5,933

  1,837

  3·2

  7,096

  1,939

  3·7

  14,595

  2,028

  7·2

  West Midlands

  39,863

  6,160

  6·5

  49,783

  6,539

  7·6

  84,084

  6,893

  12·2

  West Yorkshire

  32,145

  4,799

  6·7

  35,303

  5,040

  7·0

  78,626

  5,143

  15·3

  Wiltshire

  3,526

  1,007

  3·5

  3,780

  1,032

  3·7

  8,158

  1,212

  6·7

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,714

  918

  1·9

  1,829

  929

  2·0

  4,696

  944

  5·0

  Gwent

  3,319

  958

  3·5

  3,967

  973

  4·1

  7,477

  995

  7·5

  North Wales

  4,656

  1,271

  3·7

  6,107

  1,290

  4·7

  10,184

  1,343

  7·6

  South Wales

  17,900

  3,025

  5·9

  20,437

  3,068

  6·7

  36,637

  3,142

  11·7

  England and Wales

  544,037

  111,754

  4·9

  618,390

  115,918

  5·3

  1,219,464

  125,066

  9·8

  238

  Dog Services

  Prison Establishments

  Canteens (prisoners' shops)

  Warehousing, Distribution and fleet management

  In addition the provision of prison education is the subject of competitive tender.

  Work on market testing these projects is under way, but has not been completed.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed police officers were in post, and what was the number of(a) reported incidents, (b) burglaries of all types and (c) offences of taking vehicles without the owner's consent per officer in each police authority in 1979, 1980, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 2 February 1993]: The available information is given in the tables. Information for 1992 is not yet available. Statistics are not held separately on the number of uniformed officers.
  239

  Notifiable offences of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle recorded by the police, police strength and number of offences per officer

  England and Wales

  1979

  1980

  1991

  Police force area

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  7,320

  2,861

  2·6

  7,950

  2,962

  2·7

  19,903

  3,072

  6·5

  Bedfordshire

  3,701

  923

  4·0

  3,781

  963

  3·9

  8,292

  1,090

  7·6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,809

  1,087

  1·7

  1,760

  1,086

  1·6

  4,655

  1,239

  3·8

  Cheshire

  3,521

  1,803

  2·0

  3,911

  1,833

  2·1

  8,289

  1,867

  4·4

  Cleveland

  3,344

  1,411

  2·4

  3,046

  1,454

  2·1

  11,712

  1,477

  7·9

  Cumbria

  1,620

  1,072

  1·5

  1,305

  1,104

  1·2

  3,632

  1,183

  3·1

  Derbyshire

  3,253

  1,757

  1·9

  3,177

  1,832

  1·7

  7,410

  1,706

  4·3

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,726

  2,639

  1·4

  3,846

  2,721

  1·4

  7,923

  2,876

  2·8

  Dorset

  2,072

  1,159

  1·8

  2,037

  1,167

  1·7

  4,560

  1,280

  3·6

  Durham

  2,278

  1,313

  1·7

  2,414

  1,345

  1·8

  8,640

  1,378

  6·3

  Essex

  6,830

  2,503

  2·7

  6,622

  2,609

  2·5

  11,377

  2,878

  4·0

  Gloucestershire

  1,449

  1,099

  1·3

  1,456

  1,119

  1·3

  3,927

  1,178

  3·3

  Greater Manchester

  27,181

  6,653

  4·1

  27,776

  6,923

  4·0

  55,338

  6,975

  7·9

  Hampshire

  6,477

  2,945

  2·2

  6,502

  3,058

  2·1

  11,919

  3,177

  3·8

  Hertfordshire

  4,295

  1,466

  2·9

  4,378

  1,518

  2·9

  6,149

  1,679

  3·7

  Humberside

  3,261

  1,879

  1·7

  3,217

  1,951

  1·6

  8,506

  2,016

  4·2

  Kent

  8,212

  2,808

  2·9

  8,652

  2,871

  3·0

  17,962

  3,039

  5·9

  Lancashire

  6,619

  3,089

  2·1

  6,042

  3,120

  1·9

  11,042

  3,205

  3·4

  Leicestershire

  3,692

  1,701

  2·2

  4,025

  1,720

  2·3

  10,751

  1,808

  5·9

  Lincolnshire

  1,006

  1,167

  0·9

  1,020

  1,183

  0·9

  2,779

  1,198

  2·3

  London, City of

  536

  834

  0·6

  504

  843

  0·6

  239

  809

  0·3

  Merseyside

  16,865

  4,469

  3·8

  16,125

  4,591

  3·5

  16,983

  4,605

  3·7

  Metropolitan Police District

  76,188

  22,528

  3·4

  88,112

  23,608

  3·7

  81,173

  28,126

  2·9

  Norfolk

  1,659

  1,237

  1·3

  2,051

  1,249

  1·6

  5,510

  1,419

  3·9

  Northamptonshire

  2,789

  926

  3·0

  2,721

  971

  2·8

  6,514

  1,156

  5·6

  Northumbria

  13,515

  3,339

  4·0

  14,229

  3,340

  4·3

  30,356

  3,460

  8·8

  North Yorkshire

  1,615

  1,338

  1·2

  1,540

  1,352

  1·1

  4,999

  1,382

  3·6

  Nottinghamshire

  6,650

  2,125

  3·1

  6,850

  2,209

  3·1

  17,603

  2,334

  7·5

  South Yorkshire

  6,368

  2,644

  2·4

  7,115

  2,842

  2·5

  16,323

  2,989

  5·5

  Staffordshire

  2,876

  2,015

  1·4

  3,325

  2,071

  1·6

  9,290

  2,185

  4·3

  Suffolk

  1,213

  1,105

  1·1

  1,208

  1,122

  1·1

  2,721

  1,203

  2·3

  Surrey

  2,270

  1,460

  1·6

  2,283

  1,589

  1·4

  4,860

  1,681

  2·9

  Sussex

  3,685

  2,777

  1·3

  3,864

  2,823

  1·4

  9,251

  2,969

  3·1

  Thames Valley

  10,244

  2,764

  3·7

  9,454

  3,043

  3·1

  22,556

  3,722

  6·1

  Warwickshire

  1,400

  883

  1·6

  1,522

  916

  1·7

  4,700

  1,005

  4·7

  West Mercia

  2,940

  1,837

  1·6

  3,215

  1,939

  1·7

  8,652

  2,028

  4·3

  West Midlands

  25,658

  6,160

  4·2

  26,197

  6,539

  4·0

  41,415

  6,893

  6·0

  West Yorkshire

  14,571

  4,799

  3·0

  14,486

  5,040

  2·9

  40,235

  5,143

  7·8

  Wiltshire

  1,709

  1,007

  1·7

  1,426

  1,032

  1·4

  2,967

  1,212

  2·4

  Dyfed-Powys

  783

  918

  0·9

  823

  929

  0·9

  1,476

  944

  1·6

  Gwent

  2,057

  958

  2·1

  1,913

  973

  2·0

  3,240

  995

  3·3

  North Wales

  2,161

  1,271

  1·7

  2,164

  1,290

  1·7

  3,102

  1,343

  2·3

  South Wales

  9,827

  3,025

  3·2

  10,310

  3,068

  3·4

  22,970

  3,142

  7·3

  England and Wales

  309,245

  111,754

  2·8

  324,354

  115,918

  2·8

  581,901

  125,066

  4·7

  Total notifiable offences recorded by the police, police strength and number of offences per officer

  England and Wales

  1979

  1980

  1991

  Police force area

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  51,333

  2,861

  17·9

  57,835

  2,962

  19·5

  153,770

  3,072

  50·1

  Bedfordshire

  28,097

  923

  30·4

  28,185

  963

  29·3

  57,121

  1,090

  52·4

  Cambridgeshire

  24,645

  1,087

  22·7

  29,793

  1,085

  27·4

  58,167

  1,239

  46·9

  Cheshire

  30,396

  1,803

  16·9

  34,280

  1,833

  18·7

  66,298

  1,867

  35·5

  Cleveland

  34,846

  1,411

  24·7

  37,018

  1,454

  25·5

  78,053

  1,477

  52·8

  Cumbria

  19,531

  1,072

  18·2

  18,314

  1,104

  16·6

  45,088

  1,183

  38·1

  Derbyshire

  38,640

  1,757

  22·0

  38,961

  1,832

  21·3

  75,636

  1,706

  44·3

  Devon and Cornwall

  43,480

  2,639

  16·5

  47,860

  2,721

  17·6

  108,208

  2,876

  37·6

  Dorset

  23,260

  1,159

  20·1

  24,763

  1,167

  21·2

  51,552

  1,280

  40·3

  Durham

  27,351

  1,313

  20·8

  30,527

  1,345

  22·7

  65,218

  1,378

  47·3

  Essex

  54,060

  2,503

  21·6

  55,644

  2,609

  21·3

  108,427

  2,878

  37·7

  Gloucestershire

  16,589

  1,099

  15·1

  19,085

  1,119

  17·1

  55,980

  1,178

  47·5

  Greater Manchester

  169,749

  6,653

  25·5

  189,121

  6,923

  27·3

  380,809

  6,975

  54·6

  Hampshire

  66,910

  2,945

  22·7

  66,866

  3,058

  21·9

  143,904

  3,177

  45·3

  Hertfordshire

  38,801

  1,466

  26·5

  35,405

  1,518

  23·3

  55,573

  1,679

  33·1

  Humberside

  48,195

  1,879

  25·6

  51,848

  1,951

  26·6

  118,830

  2,016

  58·9

  Kent

  55,370

  2,808

  19·7

  55,064

  2,871

  19·2

  138,435

  3,039

  45·6

  Lancashire

  57,105

  3,089

  18·5

  61,171

  3,120

  19·6

  122,474

  3,205

  38·2

  240 241

  1979

  1980

  1991

  Police force area

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded Offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Recorded offences

  Police strength

  Offences per officer

  Leicestershire

  30,351

  1,701

  17·8

  35,042

  1,720

  20·4

  89,754

  1,808

  49·6

  Lincolnshire

  17,539

  1,167

  15·0

  19,043

  1,183

  16·1

  44,860

  1,198

  37·4

  London, City of

  6,809

  834

  8·2

  6,459

  843

  7·7

  7,575

  809

  9·4

  Merseyside

  108,433

  4,469

  24·3

  115,906

  4,591

  25·2

  148,835

  4,605

  32·3

  Metropolitan Police District

  557,378

  22,528

  24·7

  584,137

  23,608

  24·7

  926,203

  28,126

  32·9

  Norfolk

  22,655

  1,237

  18·3

  25,919

  1,249

  20·8

  64,115

  1,419

  45·2

  Northamptonshire

  22,966

  926

  24·8

  25,241

  971

  26·0

  58,470

  1,156

  50·6

  Northumbria

  99,512

  3,339

  29·8

  108,303

  3,340

  32·4

  226,193

  3,460

  65·4

  North Yorkshire

  21,887

  1,338

  16·4

  21,699

  1,352

  16·0

  51,471

  1,382

  37·2

  Nottinghamshire

  72,659

  2,125

  34·2

  77,440

  2,209

  35·1

  150,551

  2,334

  64·5

  South Yorkshire

  56,340

  2,644

  21·3

  62,968

  2,842

  22·2

  125,559

  2,989

  42·0

  Staffordshire

  37,952

  2,015

  18·8

  37,988

  2,071

  18·3

  86,285

  2,185

  39·5

  Suffolk

  20,152

  1,105

  18·2

  19,767

  1,122

  17·6

  39,924

  1,203

  33·2

  Surrey

  26,965

  1,460

  18·5

  24,863

  1,589

  15·6

  50,083

  1,681

  29·8

  Sussex

  48,609

  2,777

  17·5

  48,064

  2,823

  17·0

  112,203

  2,969

  37·8

  Thames Valley

  75,740

  2,764

  27·4

  74,423

  3,043

  24·5

  187,185

  3,722

  50·3

  Warwickshire

  13,986

  883

  15·8

  14,606

  916

  15·9

  40,474

  1,005

  40·3

  West Mercia

  35,088

  1,837

  19·1

  37,597

  1,939

  19·4

  74,188

  2,028

  36·6

  West Midlands

  156,671

  6,160

  25·4

  176,580

  6,539

  27·0

  302,864

  6,893

  43·9

  West Yorkshire

  128,675

  4,799

  26·8

  137,390

  5,040

  27·3

  295,479

  5,143

  57·5

  Wiltshire

  20,545

  1,007

  20·4

  20,787

  1,032

  20·1

  39,321

  1,212

  32·4

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,752

  918

  12·8

  11,870

  929

  12·8

  25,970

  944

  27·5

  Gwent

  20,498

  958

  21·4

  20,070

  973

  20·6

  38,673

  995

  38·9

  North Wales

  23,589

  1,271

  18·6

  24,117

  1,290

  18·7

  44,418

  1,343

  33·1

  South Wales

  71,628

  3,025

  23·7

  76,215

  3,068

  24·8

  161,977

  3,142

  51·6

  England and Wales

  2,536,737

  111,754

  22·7

  2,688,235

  115,918

  23·2

  5,276,173

  125,066

  42·2

  Prisoners (Self-Injury)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted suicides took place in prisons in England and Wales in 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 January 1993]: There were 2,920 incidents of deliberate self harm by prisoners in prisons in England and Wales in 1992. No distinction is made according to the degree of apparent suicidal intent.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the formula in paragraph 3 of appendix B to the special grant support report (No. 5) was arrived at; and whether this formula will be applied to expenditure by local authorities incurred and notified to his Department after 8 January.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The formula for the payment of Yugoslav displaced persons grant in respect of 1992–93 expenditure is the same
  242
  as would apply under the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance for emergencies. The threshold under the Bellwin scheme is calculated as an amount per head of relevant population (as defined in schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1988). Different thresholds apply for different classes of authority, reflecting their responsibilities for different services. Only those authorities named in the "Special Grant Report (No. 5)" will be eligible for grant and their entitlement will not exceed the amount specified in the report. A fresh scheme will apply for 1993–94.

  Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of persons registered in Blyth Valley on an electoral register and community charge register.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest information available to the Department is that there were 61,701 persons in Blyth valley on the electoral register in February 1992 and 58,459 persons on the community charge register in September 1991 who were subject to a personal community charge on 1 June 1991. The electoral register will include some people who were exempt from payment of the community charge.

  Yugoslav Displaced Persons Grant
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis Aylesbury Vale, Rochford and Uttlesford were awarded Yugoslav displaced persons grant; which authorities were turned down in their applications for such grants; how many refugees each authority accepted; and how much unreimbursed expenditure each incurred.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.
  243
  Yugoslav displaced persons grant is paid on qualifying expenditure above a threshold. Local authorities were invited to submit estimates of the expenditure they had incurred or expected to incur during 1992–93. Sixty-one local authorities did so, as listed in the table. The table also

  Yugoslav displaced persons

  Local authority estimates of 1992–93 expenditure and thresholds

  Expenditure

  Threshold

  Difference

  Aylesbury Vale

  61,500

  31,000

  30,500

  Rochford

  21,000

  17,000

  4,000

  Uttlesford

  72,049

  14,000

  58,049

  Barnet

  9,000

  424,000

  415,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  13,000

  772,000

  759,000

  Berkshire County Council

  52,239

  1,096,000

  1,043,761

  Birmingham

  32,000

  1,466,000

  1,433,300

  Bolton

  1,964

  399,000

  397,036

  Brent

  66,400

  367,000

  300,600

  Brighton

  7,000

  31,000

  24,000

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  13,000

  926,000

  913,000

  Camden

  81,600

  272,000

  190,400

  Cleveland

  83,783

  822,000

  738,217

  Corporation of London

  4,000

  215,000

  211,000

  Croydon

  16,000

  476,000

  460,000

  Cumbria County Council

  63,000

  745,000

  682,000

  Devon County Council

  24,242

  1,561,000

  1,536,758

  Durham County Council

  13,000

  901,000

  888,000

  Ealing

  73,000

  419,000

  346,000

  East Hertfordshire

  7,000

  26,000

  19,000

  East Sussex County Council

  10,000

  1,055,000

  1,045,000

  Enfield

  32,900

  393,000

  360,100

  Essex County Council

  84,000

  2,330,000

  2,246,000

  Guildford

  12,000

  27,000

  15,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  149,000

  240,000

  41,000

  Hereford County Council

  2,000

  1,020,000

  1,018,000

  Hillingdon

  8,822

  355,000

  346,178

  Hounslow

  57,000

  301,000

  244,000

  Humberside County Council

  27,000

  1,297,000

  1,270,000

  Islington

  20,000

  251,000

  231,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13,060

  212,000

  198,940

  Kent County Council

  11,181

  2,279,000

  2,267,819

  Lancashire County Council

  7,000

  2,070,000

  2,063,000

  Leeds

  28,700

  1,066,000

  1,037,300

  Leicestershire County Council

  6,085

  1,294,000

  1,287,915

  Leicester

  4,917

  57,000

  52,083

  Lewisham

  25,000

  336,000

  311,000

  Manchester

  22,900

  602,000

  579,000

  Mansfield

  825

  22,000

  21,175

  Merton

  33,000

  261,000

  228,000

  Newham

  35,000

  312,000

  277,000

  Norfolk County Council

  31,000

  1,149,000

  1,118,000

  Northamptonshire County Council

  48,000

  856,000

  808,000

  Northampton

  8,235

  39,000

  30,765

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  20,000

  1,513,000

  1,493,000

  Oadby and Wigston

  3,403

  11,000

  7,597

  Richmond Upon Thames

  44,938

  246,000

  201,062

  Sandwell

  56,000

  458,000

  402,000

  Somerset County Council

  4,500

  708,000

  703,500

  South Lakeland

  6,000

  22,000

  16,000

  Southwark

  106,575

  340,000

  233,425

  Stockport

  63,000

  444,000

  381,000

  Three Rivers

  3,320

  17,000

  13,680

  Thurrock

  3,114

  28,000

  24,886

  Tower Hamlets

  10,000

  237,000

  227,000

  Waltham Forest

  8,808

  322,000

  313,192

  Wandsworth

  25,000

  378,000

  353,000

  244
  shows the threshold which applies in each case. Only Aylesbury Vale, Rochford and Uttlesford district councils exceeded their respective thresholds. No figures are available centrally on the numbers of refugees accepted by each authority.
  245

  Expenditure

  Threshold

  Difference

  Watford

  4,090

  17,000

  12,910

  Westminster

  56,048

  274,000

  217,952

  Wiltshire County Council

  87,500

  853,000

  765,500

  York

  830

  22,000

  21,170

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Employees
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employees in her Department is registered disabled.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 3·3 per cent. at 1 July 1992, the latest date for which figures are available. The Department also employs other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Disabled People (Employment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will issue a Green Paper on employment for disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 26 January 1993,Official Report, column 659.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what circumstances it is her Department's policy to invoke prosecutions of employers under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that every effort should be made to educate and persuade employers to adopt positive employment policies towards disabled people and thereby comply with the Act.

  Officials will therefore seek to resolve such matters by negotiation and advice wherever possible. Where this is unsuccessful or inappropriate, prosecution will be considered on the basis of the circumstances of the case, the strength of the evidence and the public policy interest.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) under what circumstances an employer would be refused an application for bulk permits to employ people not registered disabled;

  (2) how many applications for bulk permits to employ people not registered disabled have been refused in the last 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Eric Illsley, dated 17 February 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions to her about bulk
  246
  permits. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  A bulk permit would be refused if my local Disability Employment Adviser considered that sufficient suitably qualified registered disabled people are likely to be available to fill the employers vacancies.
  A bulk permit would also be refused where the employer fails to show they will take reasonable steps towards recruiting suitable registered disabled people. The permit is issued on the understanding the employer will notify vacancies to the Jobcentre and will consider sympathetically the engagement of any suitable registered disabled people.
  I regret I am unable to say how many bulk permits have been refused in the last fifteen years as such information is not held centrally.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many campaigns the Government have organised in the last 15 years to encourage disabled people to register their disabilities with her Department.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: We have not run any specific campaign to encourage disabled people to register under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. However disability employment advisers in local jobcentres provide disabled people with information about registering as disabled.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of funding allocated to the sheltered employment programme and the sheltered placement scheme for the next financial year; and if she will provide comparable figures for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The level of employment service funding for the sheltered employment programme, which includes Remploy is shown in the table:

  1991–92 (actual) £

  1992–93 (actual) £

  1993–94 (actual) £

  Total programme

  122,445,000

  137,870,000

  140,297,000

  Of which sheltered placement scheme

  18,763,000

  18,533,000

  19,635,000

  Sheltered Workshops
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees were in sheltered workshops, excluding Remploy Ltd., at the latest available date and at a year before that date.
  247
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 17 February 1993:
  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 employees in sheltered workshops. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The latest available statistics providing numbers employed in sheltered workshops, excluding Remploy Ltd., that are supported by the Employment Service's Sheltered Employment Programme relate to the end of December 1992. The information you asked for is given in the attached annex.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Annex

  Employees in sheltered workshops

  December 1992

  December 1991

  People with severe disabilities

  4,922

  5,125

  Non-disabled people

  1,629

  1,602

  TOTALS

  6,551

  6,727

  Quangos
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all those non-departmental public bodies, for which her Department is responsible, which have the power to compel individuals, firms, companies or other institutions to carry out their instructions at the expense of the individuals, firms, companies or other institutions, and also to charge fees for the cost to the non-departmental public bodies of assessing the work which needed to be done.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: The Health and Safety Executive is the only non-departmental public body for which my Department has responsibility that has the power to require compliance with legislation which may be at the cost of others. The HSE does not make any charges for the work it undertakes in securing compliance with the legislation by others. It does however charge under regulations for approvals, licences etc. and by agreement for publications and certain services.

  Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the transfer of undertakings directive applies to takeovers by companies based in other EC countries of a British company.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 have the effect of
  248
  continuing certain statutory and contractual rights of employees when an undertaking is transferred from one employer to another. It is immaterial whether the employer in the United Kingdom is or becomes controlled by a company in another country within or outside the EC.

DEFENCE

  Warships
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the proportion of warship-building capacity that is state-owned in(a) France, (b) the Netherlands, (c) Belgium, (d) Italy and (e) Germany.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not maintain records on the ownership of defence industrial capacity in other countries. However, on the information available to me, I understand that almost all of the warshipbuilding capacity in France and Italy is, effectively, state owned, while that in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium is not.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current Independent European Programme Group-Western European Union arrangements for reciprocal purchasing in the field of warship hulls.

  Mr. Aitken
  Efforts by the Independent European Programme Group nations, which now all participate in the Western European Union, to open progressively the European market for defence equipment have not extended to warship hulls.

  UNPROFOR II
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which major unit has been warned off to relieve 1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment as part of UNPROFOR II; when that unit last undertook an emergency tour, and where; from which other units reinforcements to that battalion will be drawn; when they last completed an emergency tour and where; whether soldiers from reinforcing units are trained to operate with Warrior armoured vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  1 Prince of Wales Own Regiment from Osnabruck will replace I Cheshire Regiment, currently forming the basis of our battalion group in Bosnia, in May 1993. The Prince of Wales Own Regiment will be augmented by a platoon of Gordon Highlanders from Berlin; a platoon of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment from Berlin; and a platoon of 1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders from Minden.

  Other units of the present battalion group will be replaced by a squadron of Light Dragoons from Hohne —to replace the squadron from 9/12 Lancers—and elements of 21 Engineer Regiment from Nienburg—to replace elements of 35 Engineer Regiment. Soldiers from units deploying are trained to work with Warrior armoured vehicles.

  It is not possible to say where the earmarked individuals and their sub-units undertook their last emergency tour, but the last emergency tour details of the regiments from which the units are drawn are as follows:
  249

  Last emergency tour When

  Regiment

  Where

  When

  1 Prince of Wales Own Regiment

  Belfast

  November 1991—May 1992

  Gordon Highlanders

  Northern Ireland

  January 1990—July 1990

  Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  Northern Ireland

  February 1987—August 1987

  1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  Northern Ireland

  March 1992—July 1992

  Light Dragoons:

  13/18th Hussars

  Cyprus

  August 1991—February 1992

  15/19th Hussars

  UNFICYP Roulement Regiment

  December 1991—January 1992

  21 Engineer Regiment

  Northern Ireland

  March 1992—September 1992

  HMS Calpe
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current role, annual cost and strength of the headquarters unit at HMS Calpe, Gibraltar; when he intends to close it; how and by whom its wartime task will be fulfilled henceforth; what role HMS Calpe played in the seatrain during Operation Granby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current rule of HMS Calpe is to provide Royal Naval Reserve personnel to undertake naval control of shipping duties. The unit also provides additional operational support to the Commander British Forces Gibraltar including some augmentation to the manning of the maritime headquarters in periods of tension and war. The annual cost of the unit is £180,000. The strength is 21 officers, 56 ratings and three civilians. HMS Calpe will close by 31 March 1993. In future, the naval control of shipping tasks will be undertaken by staff deployed from the United Kingdom should the need arise. Tasks previously undertaken by RNR personnel serving in the maritime headquarters will now be undertaken by service personnel using modern visual aids and computers. HMS Calpe was not involved in the seatrain during Operation Granby.

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RNR sea training centre at HMS Graham, Glasgow is to close; at what annual savings; what is the current RNR strength; what was the rate of usage of HMS Dovey over the last full year for which figures are available; what plans he has for her future use; what seagoing alternatives are to be available for RNR volunteers from the west of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Subject to consultation with the trades unions, it is proposed that HMS Graham will close by 1 October 1993 with annual savings of £150,000. Its current Royal Naval Reserve strength is 90 officers and 200 ratings. The usage of HMS Dovery during the calendar year 1992 was as follows:

  Days

  Per cent.

  Time at Sea

  75

  20·5

  Planned Maintenance

  30

  8·2

  Unscheduled Maintenance

  70

  19·2

  Harbour Training

  22

  6·0

  250

  Days

  Per cent.

  Leave (RN personnel)

  42

  11·5

  Berthed

  126

  34·6

  Note: Total Distance Run–11,672 nautical miles

  HMS Dovey will be transferred to the RNR headquarters unit, HMS Dalriada, Greenock. Arrangements have been made for RNR volunteers from the west coast of Scotland to conduct their sea training activities from HMS Dalriada.

  Mercenary Soldiers
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he takes to prevent those known to have been mercenary soldiers enlisting in regular or territorial forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no specific bar to prevent anyone who has served as a mercenary from enlisting into the regular or reserve forces. Information about an applicant's service as a mercenary should normally be revealed during the selection process and each would be considered on its own merits.

  Electromagnetic Radiation
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) make and (b) model of each type of equipment in use by the military in border areas of Northern Ireland which emits electromagnetic radiation; and if he will indicate details of emissions in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 26, if he will publish similar figures showing the value of the basic retirement pension and state earnings-related pension based on the assumption of earnings uprating, including estimates for 1993–94 (a) expressed as a proportion of average earnings and (b) showing what the monetary equivalents would be if the proportions were applied to estimated average earnings in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is given in the tables.
  251

  Retirement pension as a proportion of average earnings (per cent.)

  1993–94

  2015–16

  2025–26

  2035–36

  2045–46

  Basic pension

  16·9

  16·9

  16·9

  16·9

  16·9

  Average AP (women)

  10·6

  12·9

  11·5

  11·4

  11·4

  Average AP (men)

  17·0

  20·2

  17·9

  16·7

  16·7

  Proportions applied to 1993–94 average earnings (£ per week)

  1993–94

  2015–16

  2025–26

  2035–36

  2045–46

  Basic pension

  56·10

  56·10

  56·10

  56·10

  56·10

  Average AP (women)

  34·95

  42·80

  38·15

  37·90

  37·90

  Average AP (men)

  56·45

  67·00

  59·25

  55·45

  55·35

  Notes:

  1. Amounts rounded to nearest 5p.

  2. Assumes that LEL, UEL and Basic RP increase in line with earnings from April 1994.

  3. AP represents the Additional Pension of an individual on average earnings in each year of his working life.

  Carers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to consult carers and their representatives organisations concerning the income needs of carers.

  Mr. Scott
  We consider carefully all representations made from and on behalf of carers.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research work has been undertaken by his Department to date to evaluate the costs of caring.

  Mr. Scott
  This Department helps to sponsor a number of large-scale surveys that collect data about the financial circumstances of carers. These include:

  British Household Panel Study

  Family Resources Survey and

  General Household Survey.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to(a) raise the level of invalid care allowance to that of the basic state pension and (b) raise the level of income support carer premium to that of a pensioner premium for a person aged under 75 years; and if he will indicate the estimated costs of implementing both (a) and (b)

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  The estimated costs, at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels are:

  (a) £156 million

  (b) £15 million1

  1 Figure rounded to the nearest £5 million and does not include housing benefit and community charge benefit costs.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy for the Benefits Agency to establish a dedicated advice line for carers.

  Mr. Scott
  Operational matters are 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 Michael Bichard to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 16 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational
  252
  matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if the Agency will establish a dedicated advice line for carers.
  The Agency is committed to providing both an efficient and effective service accessible to all our customers. To this end, specific consideration has been given to people with disabilities and those who care for them, and a number of initiatives have been set up.
  With the success of the general Freeline service a number of similar services were introduced including the Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL). This provides advice and information to people with disabilities as well as to the people who care for them. It is also able to assist with the completion of claim forms over the telephone. At present, forms can be completed for visually impaired customers in braille or large print. However, as a development of the BEL, a full form completion service covering the full range of benefits for people with disabilities and their carers will be introduced in April this year. The benefits covered will include Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance.
  With carers being catered for by the Benefit Enquiry Line the Agency does not have any plans, at this stage, to establish a further advice line.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament by his Department in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is shown in the table. Information relating to previous years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statutory Instruments Laid

  1991

  79

  1992

  72

  Vibration White Finger
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for benefit in respect of vibration white finger were made in each of the past six years in(a) Benefits Agency offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and how many of these applications led to the payment of such benefits.
  253
  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestosis
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to allow persons suffering from asbestosis or related ailments who are in receipt of income support or other social security incomes, to be provided with independent medical examinations free of charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  An independent medical examination may be arranged, and paid for, by the Department where it is considered necessary for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefit. Reports of such examinations may be copied free of charge to claimants on request, to the extent that they do not contain harmful information. We have no plans to arrange other independent medical examinations free of charge.

  Mr. Black, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Black of Greenock, can expect to receive information concerning the reference back of his case, for second-tier adjudication, made by social security commissioner Douglas Reith on 19 October 1992—commissioner's file No. CSA/95/92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Following the commissioner's decision on 19 October 1992 Mr. Black's case has received second-tier adjudication and Mr. Black was advised of the outcome on 12 November 1992. Another copy of the findings have been sent to Mr. Black.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to resolve the attendance allowance claim of Mrs. June Stanley—NI number YE 25 22 49 C—outstanding from February 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  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 shortly to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 16 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therfore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, about when he will take steps to resolve the Attendance Allowance claim of Mrs. June Stanley which is outstanding from February 1992.
  A decision on Mrs. Stanley's Attendance Allowance claim was made on 21 January 1992 and a further review decision on 15 June 1992. Mrs. Stanley subsequently appealed on 1 September against the review decision and arrangements are now being made for a Disability Appeal Tribunal to consider her appeal. I have written to you separately and in greater detail about this matter.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency (Leeds)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of replies from the Benefits Agency in Leeds to customer queries is within 20 working days; and what percentage of such replies have taken six months or over, during the past 12 month period.

  Mr. Burt
  The arrangements for reply to correspondence to 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 Michael Bichard to Ms. Mildred Gordon, dated 15 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the time taken to respond to correspondence by the Benefits Agency in Leeds.
  You ask what percentage of letters in the past twelve month period have been cleared within 20 working days and what percentage took six months or over to reply. The information for 1992 is as follows:

  Per cent.

  Total replies to Members from Chief Executive:

  4,461

  (100)

  of which, Replied within 20 working days

  1,274

  (29)

  Reply took 6 months or more

  32

  (0·7)

  I very much regret that the Benefits Agency has not recently been meeting its target for responding to Members' letters and that some very long delays have occurred. As I explained in my letter to you of 27 January on an individual case you had raised, the delays are due to the backlog of correspondence that has built up in the Disability Living Allowance Unit following the greater than expected workload faced by the Unit in the early months of the DLA scheme.
  The delay in replying to Members' letters about DLA does not, of course, mean that action is not proceeding on a customer's claim. In fact in most cases where there is a long outstanding reply the claim will have been resolved much earlier. You will recall that in the case discussed in my letter of 27 January, full benefit entitlement was paid in September 1992. I understand this followed contact you had with the special Hotline telephone enquiry service for Members I have set up at the DLA Unit. But clearly you should have had a reply to your letter from me much sooner than you did and apologise for this.
  A recovery plan for clearing the backlog of correspondence at the DLA Unit is now in operation with a view to substantially reducing the number of letters awaiting reply by the end of this month. Once the backlog is cleared it will be our aim to respond to all future correspondence on DLA, within the Agency's target of twenty working days, as is already the case for correspondence about other subjects.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of regional assistance grants paid to businesses in Knowsley in each of the past three years.
  255
  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the three years to the end of March 1992 my Department supported in the Knowsley area 41 projects with regional selective assistance; 69 projects with regional development grants—the revised scheme — and 54 projects with regional enterprise grants.

  I will publish a more detailed breakdown of these grants in the Official Report.

  In addition, I am announcing this afternoon a grant of £799,000 to Kodak to extend its Acornfield road factory on the Knowsley industrial park.

  Number of projects in the local authority district of Knowsley supported by RSA, RDG, or REG 1989–90 to 1991–92

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  RSA project grants

  15

  13

  13

  Revised RDG

  48

  14

  7

  REG

  12

  20

  22

  Pâté de Foie Gras
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban the import of pâté de foie gras into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Free Flight Offers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he has taken to regulate free flight offers which accompany the sale of goods or services.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he has taken to regulate free flight offers which accompany the sale of goods or services.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no evidence that such offers are other than bona fide sales promotions and have no plans for specific regulation of them.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to monitor deregulation throughout Whitehall.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Progress under the deregulation initiative in all regulatory departments is co-ordinated and monitored by the central deregulation unit in my Department. As the Minister with particular responsibility, for the initiative, I take an active lead in liaising with deregulation Ministers in other Departments and monitoring their activities.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help his Department is giving British railway rolling stock manufacturing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department supports the UK railway equipment manufacturers under its schemes of regional selective assistance, innovation and export promotion. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn statement additional measures to release £150 million for rolling stock orders by British Rail. In addition, he announced the Government's continuing commitment to the Jubilee line extension.

  Coal Mines (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, on the basis of the latest information available to him, what are the prospects for each of the four remaining coal mines in Wales; and what discussions he has had with the NCB of plans for the sinking of new mines in Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  Betws and Taff Merthyr are the subject of a consultation process currently being conducted by British Coal. Point of Ayr is being considered in the context of the coal review.

  We have had no discussions with British Coal about opening new mines in Wales.

  Japanese-owned Plants
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the benefits to United Kingdom industry of experience of working practices in Japanese-owned plants in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department keeps a watching brief on all relevant aspects of inward investment. I am particularly encouraged by the experience of Japanese investors in adapting their own working practices to UK circumstances. I have also noted that a number of UK companies have learnt from these practices.

  Ireland (Market Development Fund)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has received from the European Commission with regard to his representations on the Republic of Ireland's market development fund.

  Mr. Needham
  As a result of representations made to the European Commission a number of important changes were made to the initial proposal so as to minimise the potential impact on United Kingdom businesses. The scheme is confined to companies employing fewer than 250 people and whose turnover does not exceed 20 mecu. Companies which are more than one quarter owned by one or more larger companies are ineligible. The aid is limited for a maximum of six months and will end in March 1993. The scheme can also be suspended if the average rate of sterling against the Irish pound closes below parity within any working week. I understand the Commission has ruled out any extension.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his latest proposals regarding coal mine closures.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We are engaged in a wide-ranging review of the prospects for 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal, in the context of the Government's energy policy. We will shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out the results of that review, which will then be debated by the House.

  Steel Exports (USA)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to protect steel exports to the United States of America.
  257
  Mr. Heseltine
  I raised this subject with Barbara Franklin, the then United States Secretary of Commerce, by letter on 11 December. I have also written to her successor, Ron Brown, urging him to focus on these matters at the earliest opportunity.

  The issue was raised at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 February, when the United Kingdom joined other member states in condemning the United States actions as unacceptable. As a result the Community has requested formal consultations with the United States in accordance with the GATT subsidies code.

  In addition, the EC fully supported Brazil in its denunciation of the United States decisions at the GATT Council on 9 February.

  Timeshare Companies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he is taking to protect consumers against disreputable timeshare companies.

  Mr. Leigh
  The EC Commission has submitted a draft directive on timeshare to the Council of Ministers. The United Kingdom is seeking to secure the early adoption of this directive.

  Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the entry into force of the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made it clear that the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Act 1993 will not come into force until the Health and Safety Commission has had sufficient time to put appropriate safety arrangements in place. We therefore plan to bring the Act into force once revisions to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 are in place, probably early in 1994.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department is making towards setting up one-stop shops.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A total of 57 partnerships have submitted bids for funding pilot one-stop shops. Many of these bids cover wide geographical areas and make proposals for establishing one-stop shops in more than one local area. This is an excellent response. I intend to announce the winning bids by the end of March.

  Steel Exports (USA)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to penal tariffs on the importation of steel into the United States of America.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I raised this with Barbara Franklin, the then United States Secretary of Commerce, by letter on 11 December. I have also written to her successor, Ron Brown, urging him to focus on these matters at the earliest opportunity.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the current value of the assets of the Post Office.
  258
  Mr. Leigh
  The value of the Post Office's net assets at 27 September 1992, as reported in the 1992–93 half-year results, was £2,205 million.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices have been closed in each of the last five years; and what number of Crown post offices there are expected to be by the end of 1993.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Crown office closures

  1987–88

  4

  1988–89

  6

  1989–90

  154

  1990–91

  172

  1991–92

  148

  Up to 31 January 1993

  57

  Total

  541

  These outlets have been replaced by 529 new agency-operated outlets which offer the full range of transactions and in many cases extended hours of opening. The Post Office will continue to review the opportunities for conversion of Crown offices to agency status throughout 1993.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) franchised post offices and (b) non-franchised sub-post offices there are expected to be by the end of 1993.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: There are at present 53 franchise post offices and 18,974 sub-post offices in operation. The Post Office will review opportunities for further franchise offices as they arise throughout 1993 and some modest increase can be expected. The number of sub-post offices is expected to be broadly similar at the end of 1993, although closures occur from time to time as a result of local circumstances. The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) crown post offices and (b) sub-post offices have become franchised sub-post offices in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: Since 1990 42 Crown offices have been converted to franchise status operating in major retail outlets such as supermarkets and newsagents. Five existing sub-post offices have been upgraded to franchise status. There have also been six openings of franchise offices in entirely new locations. No franchise offices were opened before 1990.

  Motor Industry (Energy Strategy)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet motor manufacturers to discuss the implications for the motor industry of his revised energy strategy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his plans for the future of the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I hope to set out the Government's plans for the future of the coal industry in a White Paper to be published later this month.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the cost of continued pumping at pits in the Durham coalfield was taken into account(a) before the announcement of the proposed closures and (b) in the recent review of their viability.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: The factors which British Coal considered before making its announcement of proposed pit closures on 13 October are a matter for the corporation. The studies by John T. Boyd Company of pits proposed for closure have taken account of the costs of pumping at those pits.

  United States of America
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with the United States of America.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United States is our largest trading partner outside Europe and our trading relationship is therefore of the greatest significance. I have already conveyed to my counterparts in the new Administration the importance I attach to finding constructive solutions to the current EC-US bilateral issues, particularly in the steel and vehicles sector, and in bringing the Uruguay round to a successful conclusion. The position adopted by the EC Commission in its talks last week with the United States Administration on these matters has our full support.

  The reviving United States economy provides considerable opportunities for British companies in the United States. I hope shortly to announce a major new campaign to encourage our exporters to seize these opportunities.

  Postage Stamps (Royal Emblems)
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the future use of royal emblems on postage stamps in connection with his proposals to privatise the Post Office.

  Mr. Leigh
  The review of Post Office organisation and structure is not yet complete. No decision has been taken to privatise the Post Office. Full consideration is being given to all relevant issues.

  Arms Conversion
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to consult the Secretary of the National Steering Committee of Nuclear Free Zone Local Authorities about arms conversion.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No.

  Laboratories (Expenditure)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the expenditure of(a) the Warren Spring Laboratory, (b) the National Engineering Laboratory,
  260
  (c) the National Physical Laboratory and (d) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in each year since 1989; what is the projected expenditure for the next three years; and how much income was generated from (i) Government sources outside his Department and (ii) non-Government sources since 1989.

  Mr. Leigh
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the four agencies concerned. I have therefore asked Dr. Richard Worswick, Laboratory of Government Chemist; Mr. William Edgar, National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Peter Clapham, National Physical Laboratory; and Dr. Doug Cormack, Warren Spring Laboratory, to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from Dr. D. Cormack to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 10 February 1993:
  I am replying to your question to the President of the Board of Trade in respect of Warren Spring Laboratory. The figures are as follows:

  Vote expenditure £ million

  1989–90

  10·3

  1990–91

  11·7

  1991–92

  12·7

  1992–93

  13·0

  1993–94

  13·0

  1994–95

  14·0

  1995–96

  14·0

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Vote income from:

  OGDs

  4·2

  5·4

  6·8

  6·4

  Non-Government

  1·8

  1·9

  3·0

  3·1

  1 The figures for 1992–93 are the latest forecast outturn.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 12 February 1993:
  The information you asked for is as follows:

  Gross expenditure

  Income from Government sources ex-cluding DTI

  Income from non-Government sources

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Year to 31 March

  90—Actual

  19·6

  0·4

  4·0

  91—Actual

  18·2

  0·3

  4·3

  92—Actual

  17·8

  0·5

  6·1

  93—Forecast

  23·3

  0·5

  6·0

  94—Projected

  23·5

  95—Projected

  24·5

  96—Projected

  25·1

  I trust this meets your requirements.

  Letter from Peter Clapham to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 11 February 1993:
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the expenditure

  261
  of (a) the Warren Spring Laboratory, (b) the National Engineering Laboratory, (c) the National Physical Laboratory and (d) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in each year since 1989; what is the projected expenditure for the next three years and how much income was generated from (i) government sources outside his Department and (ii) non government sources since 1989.
  I have been asked to reply in respect of the Agency for which I am responsible, the National Physical Laboratory.
  The historic information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Expenditure

  35

  40

  44

  Income from

  (i)government sources outside DTI

  0·6

  0·7

  0·6

  (ii)non government sources

  4·2

  4·4

  62

  The latest published projections of gross expenditure for the current year and the next three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93(estimated outturn)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  47

  48

  53

  56

  However, it is likely that the projections for 1994–95 and beyond will need to be revised downwards in the light of reductions in the budgets available to our major customers.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 12 February 1993:
  As Chief Executive I am replying to this question in respect of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC), an Executive Agency since 30 October 1989.
  From 1 April 1990 LGC has been subject to net running cost control. It is expected to finance current expenditure (including capital charges) from income from payments by customers, principally Government Departments (including the Department of Trade and Industry), for work commissioned. LGC undertakes work for customers on a full economic cost basis.
  Against this background, the details you requested about LGC's Vote Expenditure and Receipts are as follows:

  Table 1: Expenditure

  £ million

  1989–90

  10·2

  1990–91

  11·0

  1991–92

  12·8

  1992–93

  16·5

  1993–94

  16·7

  1994–95

  17·5

  1995–96

  17·3

  Table 2: Receipts

  Government sources outside DTI £ million

  Non-Government sources £ million

  1989–90

  7·0

  0·6

  1990–91

  7·8

  1·0

  1991–92

  7·1

  1·0

  1992–931

  7·2

  1·0

  Note:

  1 The figures for 1992–93 are based on the latest income forecasts for the present financial year.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Coal Imports
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the change in the price of imported coal in 1992 due to currency fluctuations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Based on figures of spot purchases of coal delivered to Europe, published by the International Coal Report, the sterling price of imported coal declined from 93p per gigajoule in January 1992 to 74p per GJ in September, mainly due to a decline in the dollar price of imported coal. The price increased to 92p per GJ in December due to the exchange rate changes.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the manufactured products which have ceased to be manufactured in the United Kingdom since 1980.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are a number of sources of information on manufacturing products, but none is sufficiently comprehensive to allow for an accurate answer.

  KissLine
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken in connection with the KissLine telephone service; and what steps are being taken to prevent such services from being advertised in children's comics.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services sets and reviews standards relating to premium rate telephone services through the ICSTIS code of practice. ICSTIS recognises that children are a vulnerable audience for premium rate services and the code of practice contains a number of measures which help to protect children and their parents. Children's services must not, for example, include references to practices that a reasonable parent would not wish his or her child to hear or learn about in this way.

  ICSTIS has considered the children's service entitled "Kissing: All the Secrets" and has decided that the content of the service was so mild that the appearance of an advertisement for it in a children's comic did not breach the ICSTIS code of practice.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the lack of staff representation on the interim creditor committee of BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Such representations have been received from the hon. Member for Leicester, East and from members of the BCCI campaign committee.

  Insolvency Act
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individual voluntary arrangements under part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986 have been notified to his Department in each of the last three years for which records are available; what is the total value of debt
  263
  written off in this fashion over this period; how many businesses have thereby been thus enabled to continue trading; and how many creditors have suffered irrecoverable losses as a result of the operation of this part of the Act.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of individual voluntary arrangements in each year are published on my Department's behalf in "Business Briefing" by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, copies of which are available in the Library. The further information sought by the hon. Member is not maintained and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he considers that Cornwall should be eligible for grants from the European structural funds.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. The Government believe that Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands, Merseyside, Devon and Cornwall, rural Wales and South Yorkshire should be eligible for grants under objective 1 of these funds.

  Industrial Strategy
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's industrial strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 16 November 1992,Official Report, column 71, and the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 27 January 1993, Official Report, column 735.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  The prototype fast reactor at Dounreay is due to cease operation on 31 March 1994, after which decommissioning operations will commence. Other decomissioning and radioactive waste management operations already under way will continue for some time to come. Dounreay is also the base of the Atomic Energy Authority's fuel services business. Future commercial activities there are a matter for the AEA.

  Hospital Radio
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what discussions have taken place between his Department and the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations regarding the allocation of an FM frequency for hospital broadcasting services;

  (2) whether the use of a freely radiating FM frequency will be made available to hospital broadcasting services.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave on 9 February 1993, Official Report, column 569.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table of information showing for regions of the United Kingdom, with Greater London shown as a separate region, the number of VAT registrations and de-registrations for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: Regional estimates of VAT registratio:ns and deregistrations, for the years 1980 to 1991, were published in CSO bulletin (5/93) on 15 January 1993, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  International Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the IAEA meeting in Oslo from 1 to 5 February on dumping in the Kara and Barents seas.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The meeting was held under the joint auspices of the International Atomic Energy Authority, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority and the Federal Hydrometeorological Committee of Russia. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Ministry of Defence attended.

  The meeting launched "The International Arctic Seas Assessment Project (IASAP) 1993–95", a scientific programme designed to assess the implications for human health and the environment of radioactive wastes dumped in the Kara and Barents seas by the former Soviet Union and to consider any necessary remedial action. I welcome the co-operation being offered by the Russian authorities and look forward to seeing the results of this investigation.

WALES

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which company won the contract for printing the brochure, "Grant-maintained Schools-Questions Staff Ask"; if the contract was open to competitive tender; and what was the total cost of production and distribution;

  (2) which company won the contract for printing the brochure, "Grant-maintained Schools-Questions Parents Ask"; if the contract was open to competitive tender; and what was the total cost of production and distribution;

  (3) which company won the contract for printing the brochure, "How to become a Grant-maintained School"; for school governors; if the contract was open to competitive tender; and what was the cost of production and distribution.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These booklets were produced for the Welsh Office by the Central Office of Information and details relating to their production are a matter for the chief executive of COI. The production and distribution cost of each booklet cannot be separately identified as all three were produced together. The cost of producing and distributing all booklets was £23,900.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the reduction in numbers of posts as a result of contracting out since 1979 in his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is currently undertaken by his Department to ensure that local authorities fulfil obligations outlined in section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We expect local authorities to be well aware of their statutory duties under section 2(1) of the 1970 Act, to provide a range of services for disabled people, where they accept that there is an assessed need. Each case is assessed on its own merits and the decision as to the kind of assistance to be provided is for the local authority to make, being best placed to judge an individual's needs. The Department receives annual returns and, as appropriate, follows up specific cases referred to the Department, where it is alleged that a local authority is in breach of its statutory duties.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what new money and transitional funding he has allocated to each county in Wales in respect of the all-Wales mental illness strategy 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will allocate extra funding to the all-Wales mental illness strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The allocation has been announced of an extra £1·2 million for 1993–94, in addition to what is required to maintain existing projects. The distribution of the allocation has yet to be decided. Discussions are continuing about the amount and duration of transitional funding needed to develop new services within each county.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he will take to boost energy conservation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have already taken several initiatives to encourage the efficient use of energy. In December 1991 I launched the "Energy Plan for Wales for the 1990s", which outlines our approach to energy conservation. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. At the same time I wrote to all local authorities stressing the importance of energy conservation.

  Very recently I have supplemented this initiative by joining the corporate commitment campaign started by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. This campaign is aimed at top management of both the commercial and public sectors. I myself signed the commitment on behalf of the Welsh Office last December. Details of this campaign have also been placed in the Library of the House.
  266
  My officals are at present very active in promulgating this message throughout Wales.

  Community Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make available extra funding for community care in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my announcement of 2 October that £35·9 million will be made available to local authorities in 1993–94 to meet the cost of their new responsibilities for community care. This includes the Department of Social Security transfer of £27·5 million, with a further £8·4 million for additional costs.

  Schools and Colleges
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) infant schools, (b) primary schools, (c) secondary schools and (d) colleges of further education there were in Wales in each year since 1979; and how many places were offered by each category.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of infant, primary and secondary schools and colleges of further education in Wales in each year since 1979 is shown in the following table together with the total number of full and part-time pupils in schools and the number of enrolments in further education colleges. Information on the number of places offered by each category is not collected centrally.

  Number of establishments

  Infant1

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  FE colleges2

  1979–80

  420

  1,505

  241

  45

  1980–81

  410

  1,498

  239

  45

  1981–82

  379

  1,494

  241

  45

  1982–83

  353

  1,491

  238

  46

  1983–84

  337

  1,484

  236

  44

  1984–85

  314

  1,482

  237

  43

  1985–86

  305

  1,469

  237

  39

  1986–87

  299

  1,463

  234

  39

  1987–88

  295

  1,458

  233

  39

  1988–89

  291

  1,452

  232

  39

  1989–90

  279

  1,450

  231

  36

  1990–91

  271

  1,446

  230

  37

  1991–92

  264

  1,440

  229

  34

  Number of students-pupils on roll

  Infant1

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  FE colleges2

  1979–80

  62,091

  233,136

  240,771

  62,207

  1980–81

  57,944

  225,491

  239,641

  61,973

  1981–82

  52,670

  220,532

  237,156

  64,081

  1982–83

  48,858

  213,711

  235,625

  63,671

  1983–84

  48,515

  210,127

  231,512

  67,548

  1984–85

  48,383

  208,912

  226,446

  65,477

  1985–86

  48,901

  207,897

  218,378

  65,870

  1986–87

  47,967

  210,032

  209,909

  70,546

  1987–88

  46,951

  214,750

  199,279

  73,942

  1988–89

  46,847

  221,641

  191,999

  79,534

  1989–90

  45,960

  228,648

  185,723

  84,144

  1990–91

  45,819

  231,016

  185,193

  85,755

  1991–92

  46,316

  232,341

  189,002

  90,860

  1 At January each year.

  2 At November each year. All colleges offering further education courses each year (both further education and higher education

  267
  colleges) are included in the table. The total number of further education enrolments is also shown irrespective of whether the course was run at a further education or higher education establishment.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average class size of(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) sixth form colleges, (d) colleges of further education, (e) colleges of higher education and (f) infant schools in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The average class size in primary and secondary schools and further and higher education courses in Wales since 1979 is shown in the following table. Figures are not available for further and higher education courses before 1982–83 and for secondary schools before 1986–87. Information on the average class size of infant schools and sixth form colleges is not collected separately. Information for the colleges of the University of Wales is not available.

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Further Education2

  Higher Education2

  1979–80

  24·3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980–81

  23·9

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  24·1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982–83

  23·9

  n/a

  13·5

  12·5

  1983–84

  23·7

  n/a

  13·5

  13·2

  1984–85

  24·1

  n/a

  14·0

  13·7

  1985–86

  24·3

  n/a

  13·3

  13·4

  1986–87

  24·4

  19·4

  13·2

  14·2

  1987–88

  24·5

  19·1

  13·5

  14·1

  1988–89

  24·8

  19·0

  314·0

  313·5

  1989–90

  24·8

  18·9

  14·0

  13·9

  1990–91

  23·1

  19·2

  14·3

  15·7

  1991–92

  25·4

  21·5

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Prior to 1986–87 information on the size of classes in secondary schools was collected on a different basis. These data, relating to the numbers of classes by size, are given in the Secondary Education section of 'Statistics of Education in Wales: Schools', copies of which are available in the Library.

  2 Average class sizes for Wales are calculated on a further education or higher education basis and the figures do include a small number of further education courses run at higher education establishments and higher education courses at further education establishments.

  3 Changes in methodology, introduced in 1988–89, may affect comparisons of indicators between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has given to purchasers and providers of health care concerning the use of marginal cost pricing for waiting list initiative expenditure; in what circumstances purchaser-provider arrangements for operations can be based on marginal cost pricing; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Negotiations between purchasers and providers, whether in respect of mainstream business, or specific initiatives such as that on waiting times, take place within the well-established ground rules for NHS contracting.

  Office Furniture
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to order office furniture before 31 March; and if he will make a statement.
  268
  Mr. David Hunt
  Orders to the value of approximatey £600 are waiting to be placed. Futher purchases may be made as required.

ENVIRONMENT

  Halon Bank
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for establishing a United Kingdom halon bank.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government do not plan to establish a Government-run United Kingdom halon bank. However, following discussions between Government halon users and the fire industry, I am pleased to announce the establishment of the project phase of the Halon Users' National Consortium (HUNC). HUNC is being set up by halon users and the fire industry with the aim of managing the United Kingdom installed bank of halons. It will act as a clearing house putting those who need to continue using halons in contact with those who do not. Unlike halon bank management proposals elsewhere in the world, HUNC will be a non-profit making organisation. It will be funded by members' subscriptions rather than from a levy on sales.

  As its contribution to HUNC, my Department is funding publicity which is being issued to UK halon users this week. The set up costs for HUNC are being met by halon users and the fire industry. This is an excellent example of Government and industry co-operation.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to increase the transparency of Ofwat;

  (2) what plans he has to review the powers and accountability of Ofwat;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the powers and accountability of Ofwat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Director General of Water Services already operates an open regulatory regime, for example by consulting widely on issues such as future charging policy. The responses to these public consultations inform his decisions, which are published in press releases. Information notes are also available which explain Ofwat policy.

  The powers of the Director General were reviewed in preparation for the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, which enhanced his powers in certain respects, for example in the resolution of disputes.

  The Director General reports each year to the Secretary of State on the discharge of his duties. The Secretary of State lays a copy of the report before Parliament, and Select Committees may call the Director General to give evidence. Whilst my Department occasionally receives representations from consumers about the powers and accountability of the Director General, I have no current plans to review them further.

  Pay-when-paid Policy
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the pay-when-paid policy of the Property Services Agency and of its
  269
  purpose and origins; and if he will make a statement on the application to this policy of the Government's requiring Departments to pay their private contractors as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Redwood
  New payment arrangements are being implemented by the PSA building management businesses, where they are acting as agents for the Ministry of Defence for payment purposes under MOD property management contracts, such that subcontractors are paid no later than seven days following receipt of payment from the client, MOD. There is an existing obligation on the MOD to pay promptly and this together with the new payment arrangements being adopted by the PSAS will ensure that subcontractors should be paid within 30 days from validation.

  The development of the appropriate systems and procedural changes is underway so that by 1 April 1993 the five BM businesses are operating on this new basis. As these arrangements are introduced, I am demanding better performance from PSA in reducing delays in payments to contractors by getting invoices to MOD more promptly.

  These arrangements create a contractual commitment on the managing contractor to make payment to subcontractors whose invoices have been accepted for payment by MOD and should be distinguished from other forms of "pay-when-paid" for capital works contracts whereby main contractors may withhold payments to subcontractors. This latter practice is inconsistent with the Government's prompt payment policy.

  While the building management businesses are still in Government ownership, and they retain the obligations of the Government's prompt payment policy in their own right, a safety net will be in place so that PSA can ensure prompt payment to its contractors even where MOD has not paid PSA.

  Landfill
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to implement section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering the appropriate time to implement section 61 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Lambeth Council
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of that part of Lambeth's current notional expenditure which consists of(a) interest charges and (b) debt write-off.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The relevant notional amount specified for Lambeth in "The Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94" reflects the authority's own estimate of the amounts of interest charges and debt write-off which it made when setting its 1992–93 budget and community charges.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much Lambeth council is currently permitted to borrow excluding capital projects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The limit on an authority's borrowing is its aggregate credit limit (ACL), or any lower 270
  limit the authority itself may have set. The ACL is determined by a formula. As the ACL can fluctuate from day to day, the ACL which is current at any time would have to be ascertained from the council.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent discretion is used in determining the amount of housing association grant available in each local authority's area; and what performance indicators are used in the exercise of the discretion.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation allocates 80 per cent. of the resources to a particular local authority area, over a three year period, in accordance with housing need, as measured by the housing needs indicator (HNI). The remaining 20 per cent. is distributed in the light of particular local circumstances, including the value for money of projects submitted by housing associations. Local priorities are discussed between housing authorities and the regional offices of the Housing Corporation before decisions are taken.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to make it unlawful for water companies or others to cause a disconnection of a consumer's water supply.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It is right that bills should be paid, but equally that companies should deal sympathetically with customers who are having difficulty meeting their bills. The Director General of Water Services is responsible for protecting customers' interests. He has expressed his concern over the level of disconnections, and issued guidance to water companies last year on the subject of debt and disconnection to ensure they take a consistent and fair approach towards customers with unpaid charges. The Director General is in addition proposing to carry out research to find out more about the reasons people are disconnected. The Government welcome the actions he is taking.

  Tenants Charter
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the full council tenants charter have been requested from his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the full tenants charter were sent to all local housing authorities, housing organisations, citizens advice bureaux and law centres. In addition, over 200,000 copies of the English and ethnic language versions of the full council tenants charter have been directly requested from my Department, mainly by tenants.

  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the full tenants charter were printed in each language; and at what cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  One million copies of the English language version of the full tenants charter have been printed at a cost of £123,176. Five thousand copies of each of the five ethnic language versions (Hindi, Greek, Vietnamese, Bengali and Urdu) have been printed at a cost of £41,422.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the legislation or regulations requiring that information regarding the quality of drinking water is made available to the public by the water companies.

  Mr. Maclean
  Regulation 30 of The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, SI No. 1147, requires that a water undertaker shall make available for inspection by the public at all reasonable hours and free of charge, at such of its offices as are normally open to the public, and record maintained by it in accordance with regulation 29. This includes for each water supply zone, its name, the supplying water treatment works, its population, particulars of any relaxation granted or undertakings given in respect of the water supply in the zone and particulars of the result of analyses of samples taken in accordance with other parts of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations.

  In addition, regulation 31 requires water undertakers to prepare for publication an annual report in accordance with the terms of that regulation. A copy must be sent to the local authority for each area in which it supplies water.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the methods used to monitor direct labour organisations and the publication of comparability studies showing performance indicators of efficiency, effectiveness, employment and value for money in respect of each local authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities carrying out work within an activity defined under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 or the Local Government Act 1988 are required to keep accounts and to meet a financial objective set by my right hon. and learned Friend. They are also required to submit annual reports on these matters to my right hon. and learned Friend who considers in each case whether there are grounds for exercising his sanction powers. The introduction of local government performance indicators is a key feature in this Government's determination to raise the standard of public services. I believe that the methods adopted by the Audit Commission will enable the citizen to judge the performance of their local council in comparison with those of a similar background.

  Tenants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the responses received by his Department to the consultation paper "Compensation for Tenants' Improvements".

  Sir George Young
  Some 61 responses to the consultation paper have been received to date. A list of the respondents has been placed in the Library of the House. The responses will be held for six months in the Department's central library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the ratio of expenditure on administration to total expenditure for(a) county councils and (b) shire district councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The budgeted ratio of expenditure on general administration (not allocated to other services) to total expenditure on services (both measured net of sales, fees and charges) in 1992–93 was 0·3 per cent. in county councils and 3 per cent. in shire district councils.

  Housing
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish responses to the consultation paper draft explanatory note on planning and affordable housing.

  Sir George Young
  We will place copies in the Library of the House of Commons once we have finished considering them and have issued a final version of the guidance.

  Council Leaseholders
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to assist council leaseholders.

  Sir George Young
  The Government legislated in 1986 to meet concerns over high service charges on flats sold under the right to buy. Purchasers now have binding estimates of the maximum charges for repairs and improvements during the first five years of the lease, and the right to a loan for particularly high charges.

  Leaseholders have nevertheless reported difficulties over service charges and over resale. The Department is looking into these with landlords and the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

  Housing, Tower Hamlets
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public sector dwellings were started and completed by the Tower Hamlets local authority and by housing associations in Tower Hamlets in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding starts and completions by sector in Tower Hamlets for each year from 1986 to 1991 and for the first half of 1992 are shown in the October 1992 edition of "Local Housing Statistics" (issue No. 103), tables 1(b) to 1(h). A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Substandard Accommodation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of(a) Asian and (b) white households live in substandard accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available.

  Inner City Projects, Coventry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total amount of grants for inner city projects in Coventry given in each of the last five years.

  (All figures given are in £ million)

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1989–90

  1988–89

  Urban Programme

  4·645

  4·772

  4·798

  4·575

  4·79

  City Grant

  0·580

  0·590

  —

  0·620

  1·630

  Task Force

  1·500

  1·273

  0·808

  0·881

  1·169

  6·725

  6·635

  5·606

  6–076

  7·589

  Derelict Land Grant

  0·109

  —

  —

  0·002

  0·002

  Energy Efficiency

  —

  0·020

  Section 73 Grants

  0·087

  0·079

  0·028

  Home Improvement Agencies (HIA)

  0·037

  0·038

  0·233

  0·162

  0·053

  0·002

  0·002

  6·958

  6·797

  5·659

  6·078

  7·595

  Estate Action (Total for period—£13 million)

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received for schemes for inner city projects in Coventry which he does not propose to fund.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received a number of proposals from Coventry along with other local authorities of support for inner city projects which we have not been able to assist. Clearly we do not have unlimited funds. However it is open to local authorities to support such projects through use of their capital receipts and any private sector or other contributions.

  Inner City Policies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the reviews that have been undertaken by his Department on the operation of the Government's inner city policies.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has carried out a number of evaluations of its various programmes for urban areas including, most recently, the achievements of three of the inner cities task forces; relevant reports are in the Library. Further details of my Department's urban policies and programmes are in the 1993 DOE annual report published 10 February.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will set out the full proposed timetable for the second tranche of the work of the Local Government Commission;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that all local authorities are given adequate advance warning of the start time of the local government review in their area;

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to require the Local Government Commission to begin any review in the period immediately before or immediately after the 1993 local elections.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), my
  274
  Mr. Robin Squire
  This Department has provided the following inner cities grants to Coventry in the last five years:

  hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Inner Cities announced on 4 February the timetable for the Local Government Commission's second tranche reviews, and placed a copy in the House Library.

  All local authorities in the areas in the second tranche were sent a copy of the announcement, together with the timetable. This gives them a minimum of three months to prepare their initial submissions to the commission.

  The Secretary of State intends to direct the commission to begin the first review in the second tranche on 10 May 1993, immediately after the county council elections. There is no need to delay the beginning of the reviews any further.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of(a) ethnic minorities and (b) white people are homeless in London.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 in their quarterly P1(E) return.

  In the quarter ending September 1992 only 17 out of 33 London boroughs provided the information classified by ethnic origin. On average in those boroughs 47 per cent. of households accepted as homeless were from ethnic minorities and 53 per cent. were white.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the Hambros report into the actuarial margin of risk of private sector borrowing by housing associations.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on Monday 18 January at column 113.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the change
  275
  in the share of housing association programmes dedicated to rehabilitation of existing stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has commissioned research into the amount of rehabilitation work undertaken by housing associations. The first part of the research, undertaken by PIEDA plc in association with Rodney Dykes Housing Services Ltd, was published at the end of January. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The results show that there are a number of factors which have resulted in fewer dwellings being rehabilitated by housing associations than in the past. In addition to the changes brought about by the new financial regime, introduced by the Housing Act 1988, they include: the availability of cheaper land relative to the acquisition costs of properties in need of repair, which encourages new build; increasing opportunities for off-the-shelf purchases of new dwellings from private builders; and the drying up of suitable properties available for rehabilitation in some areas.

  The Department has recently let a contract for the second part of the research, which will examine the effects of the decline. The research will again be undertaken by PIEDA, which is due to report in December this year. In the meantime, I have asked the Housing Corporation to aim to maintain rehabat at least at its current level.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority dwellings were reported as vacant in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in 1992; what percentage of the local authority housing stock this figure respresents; and what is the comparable percentage in other London boroughs.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities report the numbers of their own dwellings that are vacant in their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns. At 1 April 1992 Tower Hamlets reported 1,703 of their dwellings as empty, 4·2 per cent. of their dwelling stock. The comparable percentage for the other London boroughs is 2·3 per cent.

  House Completions, Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were completed in Leicester in 1979, 1989 and 1992 respectively.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total number of housebuilding completions in the city of Leicester local authority area in 1979 was 1,247, in 1989, 227 and for 1992, provisionally, 534.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the next uniform business rate revaluation is due to take place.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  New rating lists will be compiled on 1 April 1995 based on 1 April 1993 values.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the sum paid by British Coal in uniform business rates for 1992(a) in total and (b) in respect of the 31 pits due for closure.
  276
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the rates paid by British Coal is not held centrally by the Government.

  English Nature
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to English Nature concerning its obligation to disseminate to the public data and information on the state of the environment; and what steps are being taken by English Nature to advertise its new responsibilities relating to the provision of environmental information.

  Mr. Maclean
  English Nature already disseminates information on nature conservation as one of its key functions. My Department has provided guidance on the new Environmental Information Regulations which took effect in December and English Nature will be taking steps to inform its customers and partners of how it intends to meet its obligations under the regulations.

  Environmental Data
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instruct the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to institute a system to ensure that enviornmental data or information disseminated by English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage or the Countryside Council for Wales are made available in a mutually consistent form.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. This is a matter for the committee to consider in consultation with the three councils.

  Parliament Square (Air Quality)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, columns 654–55, what is the nearest point to Parliament square, Westminster, for which he has records of air quality; and if he will undertake a sample survey of air quality in Parliament square.

  Mr. Maclean
  The site nearest to Parliament square at which air quality is monitored is at Bridge place, Victoria. The Department has no plans to undertake air quality monitoring in Parliament square.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Advisory Committee on the Darwin Initiative and indicate its membership.

  Mr. Howard
  The Prime Minister signed the convention on biological diversity in Rio de Janiero at the UN conference on environment and development. In order to support the aims of the convention he launched at that time the Darwin initiative for the survival of species. The initiative aims to deploy British scientific, managerial and commercial strengths in biodiversity to assist with the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and natural habitats.

  In December a consultation paper was issued to a wide variety of individuals, organisations and individuals seeking views on the scope of the initiative and ideas for projects which might meet the initiative's objectives. I announced at that time that I intended to establish an

  277
  advisory committee on the Darwin initiative. This committee will have regard to the work already in progress on biodiversity and the available resources, and will make recommendations on the areas on which the Darwin initiative should initially be targeted, the relative priority to be given to different programmes, and the financial support to be made available to them. Sir Crispin Tickell has agreed to be chairman of that committee, and I am pleased to announce that the other members of the committee are: Ms. Janet Barber, Dr. Brian Bayne FIBiol, Dr. Eileen Buttle FIBiol, Mr. Robin Herbert DL JP, David Horrobin, professor Robert May FRS and Sir David Smith FRS FRSE. The committee held its first meeting on 15 February.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the Manchester 2000 Olympic bid; and if he will make a statement on Government support.

  Mr. Howard
  The details of the formal bid submitted by the Manchester Olympic Bid Committee to the International Olympic Committee will be made public today. I am arranging for a copy of the candidature file and the executive summary to be placed in the Library of the House.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities previously announced on Tuesday 26 January—Official Report column 600—that the Government are providing up to £75 million to support the bid in advance of the IOC's decision on the nomination. In addition, the candidature file sets out the undertakings made by the Government if Manchester is successful. In particular, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities will be built, partly by private finance and partly by substantial public funding. We also intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity following the IOC's nomination of Manchester to ensure that the Organising Committee for the Games has the necessary powers to plan and implement this event. The Government are backing wholeheartedly Manchester's bid for the 2000 Olympic Games.

  London Boroughs (Debt)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he proposes to make available to London boroughs and the Common Council during 1993–94 in respect of extra costs due to his decisions on housing revenue account subsidy in respect of debt inherited from the former Greater London Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is my right hon. Friend's firm intention to issue capitalisation directions and supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) to authorities facing during 1993–94 extra costs due to his decision that housing revenue account subsidy is not payable under the statute in respect of certain debts inherited from the former Greater London council. The court yesterday upheld this decision.

  Authorities which face such extra costs will be able to apply for capitalisation directions and SCAs during a period which my right hon. Friend intends to specify and which will not be shorter than six months from yesterday when the court gave its judgment.
  278
  In deciding the amount of a direction and SCA to issue to an authority, my right hon. Friend intends to have regard inter alia to the resources available to him under the Government's public expenditure plans, the authority's 1993–94 budget—in particular the scope for the authority to accommodate the extra costs within that budget, and to the financial reserves and useable capital receipts available to the authority. To the extent that costs are covered by directions and SCAs their impact on the council tax is spread over a number of years.

  I am arranging for London boroughs and the Common Council to be sent today the details of the scheme for issuing these directions and SCAs which my right hon. Friend intends to adopt. Authorities will need to take account of these intentions when setting their 1993–94 budgets.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the closure of pits in the Durham coalfield on the pollution of the River Wear and other local waterways;

  (2) what response he has made to the report on the probable environmental impact of the closure of Vane Tempest and Easington collieries by Dr. Paul Younger of Newcastle university; and what steps he is taking to avoid pollution of the River Wear.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 February 1993]: None. It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first place, to assess the environmental effects of pit closures and any relevant reports on the subject, and to consider what action may need to be taken to avoid pollution. My officials and the staff of the NRA have been in frequent contact about pollution from closed mines, and arrangements have been made between British Coal and the NRA for effective liaison over any proposed pit closures.

  Unified Housing Waiting Lists
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold talks with the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of district councils to discuss the establishment of unified housing waiting lists between local authorities and housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 February 1993]: My Department held a seminar which discussed the subject last year; attendance included representatives of the organisations mentioned. We are considering holding a further seminar to review developments.

  Audit Commission (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received from the Audit Commission that arising out of the discharge of its own duties it has discovered substantial fraud, corruption or other crimes, or substantial ultra vires expenditure, in Lambeth.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: Neither the Audit Commission nor the auditor report to

  279
  my right hon. and learned Friend: they perform their duties independently. I understand, however, that Lambeth's auditor is preparing a report which will deal with allegations of fraud, corruption and related matters.

  Seven Estuary (Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total annual discharge into the Severn estuary from English counties of(a) ammonia, (b) cadmium, (c) lead, (d) copper, (e) chromium, )f) cyanide, (g) nickel, (h) mercury and (i) zince in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 February 1993]: The information requested is not held centrally. Details of maximum authorised loads contained in relevant discharge consents, and related water quality monitoring results for the Severn estuary, are available on public registers in the National Rivers Authority regions concerned.

  Minewater Pumping
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had with the National Rivers Authority about the consequences of stopping minewater pumping in the Tyneside area.

  Mr. MacLean
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: My right hon. Friend and I have not discussed this specific matter with the National Rivers Authority. It is for British Coal and the NRA, in the first place, to assess any environmental consquences of stopping minewater pumping.

  Drivers (Criminal Convictions)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has conducted into the extent to which drivers seeking licences to drive hackney carriages and private hire carriages have failed to disclose information relating to(a) rape offences and (b) other criminal convictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such research has been undertaken. Outside London, district councils issue licences to drive hackney carriages and private hire vehicles and since 1 April 1992 they have been able to request a police check of the possible criminal record of applicants for licences. Only each individual council, after obtaining criminal record details, would be able to gauge the extent to which licence holders had failed to disclose previous convictions. I do not believe there is any need to hold such information centrally.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to ensure that licences to drive hackney carriages and private hire vehicles are not issued to men with criminal records which include rape.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 gives local authorities a power to check with the police if applicants for hackney carriage and PHV drivers' licences have any criminal convictions. A copy of the guidance issued to police and local authorities last year on how the vetting arrangements should operate was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  District councils must decide, on the basis of all the information at their disposal, whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. They should not take into account any convictions which are "spent" by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

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

Baroness Williams of Crosby
The Right Honourable Shirley Vivien Teresa Brittain Williams, having been created Baroness Williams of Crosby, of Stevenage in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.

Quangos: Expenditure
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much public money was spent on the authority of non-elected bodies (quangos) in the latest year for which figures are available, what percentage of total public expenditure this represented, and what were the comparable figures for 1979.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, gross expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies was £6.15 billion in 1978–79 and £13.75 billion in 1991–92. Expressed as a percentage of general government expenditure, these figures are respectively 8.2 per cent. and 5.8 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although he has given certain figures, those appearing in the Financial Times show that since 1979 the amount spent by non-elected bodies has increased to nearly £42 billion? The amount spent by those bodies in the public sector has increased by 20 per cent. —one-fifth. Is the Minister also aware that there is serious concern—not in political but in financial circles —that the spread of quangos, in responsibility though not in numbers, is so great that it has become almost impossible for the Secretaries of State officially to control them?
Bearing in mind the financial disasters that have just taken place in the Wessex Regional Health Authority and the West Midlands authority, either through lack of attention or something else, it is about time that the position was reviewed. Will the Minister take that message back to the Government in the interests of all taxpayers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that the number of executive NDPBs has declined from 492 in 1979 to 369 in 1992. The figures I used come from the Cabinet Office paper Public Bodies 1992, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister should look at the figures quoted in the old government financial returns; they are far in excess of the figures he has given today.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, the figures quoted in the Financial Times are different. They are the government figures that I quoted.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not a certain danger in the House of Lords equating quangos—and I understand that means "quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations"—with all non-elected bodies? Surely we are not a quango.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right to draw attention to the fact that we need to tread carefully in that area.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1981 the Government set up a quango called the London Docklands Development Corporation? That money was well spent, but for 15 years local authorities had had it and did not build a single toilet. At any rate, in the period during which I was involved over 30,000 houses were built and we had to deal with 10 miles of derelict land. Will the Minister say that that was money well spent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly compliment those concerned on what has happened in Docklands, which is quite a change from the previous situation, and the effort of the noble Lord was by no means unnoticed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures given by my noble friend Lord Dean came not from the Financial Times but from Hansard of another place of 25th January? The figure that he gave of £41.7 billion expenditure by quangos at present is correct if we include the National Health Service, as we clearly ought. Does the Minister agree that accountability in public bodies is important, and particularly accountability to the taxpayer of those bodies which spend public money? If he does agree—as the Government should do—we have a situation where no less than 20 per cent. of government expenditure is being spent by unelected, unaccountable boards whose members are answerable only to their ministerial patrons. That is not a situation with which one can be happy.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, sadly I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on that point. NHS bodies such as the regional health authorities are part of central government and are not classified in the same way as quangos. As to accountability, not only is there a Minister responsible, but most executive NDPBs operate under powers laid down in statute, and executive NDPBs' annual reports and accounts enable Parliament, the taxpayer and the customer to judge whether an NDPB is securing value for money. The accounts of all executive NDPBs are subject generally to audit by the National Audit Office.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister says that a quango is an arm of central government, does he perhaps risk impaling himself on the other arm of the fork, and inviting the question: "What degree of independence from the Minister do those bodies enjoy?"?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I said that NHS bodies, such as regional health authorities, are part of central government.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, if the noble Earl is correct that a quango—shall we say a health authority—is an arm of government, is it therefore acceptable, as was reported in the Independent newspaper last week, that a member of that quango was also a director of a company that was petitioning in tender form? When the tender was lost, it was referred back to officials for it to be renegotiated. If it is an arm of government, do the Government accept that that is a correct relationship between a health authority and interested parties in what is a sizeable contract?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific issue raised by the noble Lord. It is considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, it is our turn.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am sure that the House wants to hear both noble Lords, and there is time to hear both. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, rose first, so that is probably the best way to deal with the matter.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Earl says that quangos are an arm of central government, does he regard the BBC as an arm of central government, for that is surely the original quango? Further, does he think that those appointed to quangos should be appointed, as they have been under the present administration, on strictly political terms?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, members who serve on those bodies and who have done an excellent job are appointed as the best person available for the job.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind that the £41.7 billion is more than the health service budget and more than half the social security budget, are those organisations to be subject to the same rigorous expenditure review as are health, education, social security, and so on, under the present review by the Chancellor which is taking place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, where there is ministerial responsibility of course there is very close scrutiny of all the finances; and rightly so, because it is taxpayers' money. I think that the noble Lord was again confusing central government with non-elected executive bodies.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, may I inquire about the position of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, which is certainly a non-elected body? I am not at all sure whether they are answerable to Ministers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from personal experience I can tell my noble friend that they are.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are people and financial institutions in the City of London today having some concern about the quango that inflicted the unplanned effects of Canary Wharf on the City?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a most interesting observation.

Oxford: Proposed Bypasses
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bullock Lord Bullock asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the two bypasses proposed for north Oxford and Headington, in order to relieve traffic congestion on the A.40, are intended to form part of a new trunk road from the east coast ports to the west of England, bringing up to 20,000 to 30,000 more vehicles a day into the outskirts of Oxford and the Oxford green belt.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, each of these schemes is free-standing, and designed to resolve different problems on the A.40. A study is at present in hand to identify the most suitable link between Aylesbury, the M.40 and the Oxford area. Any future increases in traffic in the Oxford area will be primarily as a result of general traffic growth.
Lord Bullock: My Lords, the noble Earl's Answer is reassuring, but does he agree that it still leaves unanswered the question as to whether the bypasses will be incorporated into, and are meant to be incorporated into, the east coast ports route, which connects the east coast ports with the west of England? Does he further agree that what interests people is whether they are to be confronted with the same as happened in the case of the road connecting the west of England with the channel ports? Will the Department of Transport repeat the procedure that was followed on that occasion, presenting the route in 30 separate schemes, including 21 bypasses, each of which was planned and assessed individually, without any attempt to carry out a strategic review for the whole route?
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Bullock: My Lords, the question is whether the Department of Transport will follow the same procedure in this case, despite the fact that the Standing Advisory Committee recommended that it should not do that. It said that on all occasions there should be a strategic overview of the whole route and not just local schemes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make the position clear to the noble Lord in my Answer. I shall repeat it. Each of the schemes is

1125
free-standing and designed to resolve different problems on the A.40. A study is at present in hand to identify the most suitable link between Aylesbury, the M.40 and the Oxford area.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, does the Minister agree that already a great deal of land has been taken from the countryside of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire for the M.40 and its extension to Birmingham? Is it not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to persuade more people to travel by rail rather than by road?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend and I share that route to Oxford. We know what land has been taken. I know that she will be equally concerned about the environment surrounding the long queues and the pollution caused at Headington in North Oxford by existing poor roads.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, referring to the actual Question on the Order Paper, can the Minister explain whether any environmental concerns were raised during the lengthy consultation period? Were any issues raised in regard to the position of the green belt? If so, what were they and what was the Government's reply?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is slightly ahead of the game in that the draft orders have not yet been published. The first will be published just before Easter and the second later in the year. Consultation will then take place where the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord —which are extremely valid—will be raised.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at what point will environmental impact assessments be carried out, or have they already been done?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand the procedure, environmental assessments will be made and laid with the draft orders.

Schools Maintenance Programmes: Funding
3.3 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the latest aggregate total bid by local education authorities for funds for maintenance and repair programmes for schools throughout England and Wales and what is the total aggregate sum of the grants being made.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there is no bidding process for repairs and maintenance as such. The resources made available to local education authorities for their revenue costs and their borrowing approvals to support capital programmes are not hypothecated to individual services or to areas within services. It is for local authorities and schools with delegated management to determine their expenditure priorities from the resources available to them.
Lord Judd: My Lords, how do the Government intend to build their brave new world of education if they allow the fabric in which it is to be housed to disintegrate? Why have the Government still not implemented the 1981 school premises regulations? For example, when Cambridgeshire asked for £22.7 million for essential work, why was it allowed only £7.6 million? That is £83 per head for each child in LEA schools. How does that compare with the money being made available to grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be confusing capital bids with moneys for maintenance and repairs, which is the subject of the Question. As the noble Lord is aware, the school premises regulations are under review and we are considering the conclusions of that review. The details will be made available in due course.
Lord Parry: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House what proportion of the aggregate total or the total costs allocated to local government, will be allocated to the modification of existing schools that will become hosts for schools of specially-disadvantaged children?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to help the noble Lord. We do not aggregate the funds in that way. In addition to receiving the annual capital moneys referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, local authorities also supplement that by using their receipts. As we know, this year the rules have been relaxed to enable local authorities to use 100 per cent. of those receipts. They can supplement that with revenue expenditure and within that, within local authorities and their departments, they can re-order their priorities. The money spent particularly on special needs and special schools as opposed to mainstream schools is a matter for each individual local authority.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full answer to my question. Can the noble Baroness give me a further assurance that an adequate sum of money will be allocated to provide the facilities that the host schools need? The headmasters will then not need to provide additional funds from boot sales.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, given a finite sum of money, it is important that the best possible value for money is achieved for any money spent by a local authority. Local authorities should order their priorities where there is a need. Should special schools have a particular need, then that is where the money should be targeted. Local authorities must meet their legal requirements and the requirements under the national curriculum.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is real anxiety that the grants being made available to grant-maintained schools are running at a level around four times higher than those to local education authority schools? Where is the evidence of

1127
the Government's commitment to fair play and equal-handed treatment for LEA and grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the number of grant-maintained schools is growing all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is continuing to confuse repairs and maintenance with capital spending. If the noble Lord wishes to table a Question in regard to capital moneys, I shall address it specifically.
From the coming financial year local education authorities will have to delegate from the centre to their schools money for maintenance and money for school cleaning, which is an extra extension of the local financial management system. However, with regard to grant-maintained schools, as of today there were 712 yes ballots and 337 schools up and running. That number increases substantially on 1st April, again on 1st September and again on 1st January next year. The number is rising all the time. There will be a shift from one sector to the other to recognise that movement, and extra money to bid for this year, which is unsecured from the Treasury, to recognise the growth of the grant-maintained sector.

Israel and the Palestinians
3.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many Palestinian children have been killed or injured since 1st December 1992 by Israeli soldiers and settlers using live ammunition; and what they are doing to secure the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions relating to Palestine.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, 17 children have been shot dead and over 300 injured, mostly by gunfire, since 1st December 1992. We are urging on all parties the importance of an early resumption of the peace talks aimed at finding a settlement on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Should not the Government and the other Community governments be taking a firmer line with those breaches of the Geneva Convention? Can the Minister confirm that in recent years more than 1,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been either shot dead or beaten to death by Israeli soldiers and settlers who have no legal right even to be in the territories? Is it not time, therefore, that the European governments, whose protests are consistently ignored, began to think in terms of stopping Israel's trade privileges in the single market?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have indeed been discussing an EC démarche to the Israeli Government on the basis of those children who have been killed or injured. It will issue shortly. We have further made absolutely clear, as of 1st February this year, the Community's strong views about those
1128
matters. We have our differences with the Rabin Government on the occupied territories, particularly over human rights, but also over deportations. We leave them in no doubt about our views.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a very sad thing that a people who have suffered so appallingly from authoritarian governments are now inclined to behave like one themselves? Does she not further agree that if the United Nations Security Council does not intervene to stop this terrible situation between Israel and its Palestinian inhabitants and does not do what it was created to do there will be no point in having either a United Nations or a Security Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree that these are appalling figures and that the whole situation needs to be rectified. It is for that reason that on 12th February the President of the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed to the Israeli permanent representative in New York the need for Security Council Resolution 799 to be implemented. He welcomed the Israeli decision to allow 101 deportees to return but he urged Israel to follow this through and allow the return of all deportees as soon as possible. He has also noted that all members of the Security Council are convinced of the necessity of the Middle East peace process and he has urged everyone concerned to redouble their efforts to reinvigorate the process. Alongside that we will do everything we can bilaterally and with our partners in the European Community.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when the President of Israel visits Britain at the end of this month, will the Government be impressing upon him the fact that continuing repression in the occupied territories, including the use of live ammunition against children, threatens to derail the whole peace process?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes. I am sure that when President Herzog visits this country on a long-standing invitation it will be a first-class opportunity for the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to range over all the many problems in the region. We have in the meantime taken every opportunity to raise individual problems as they have occurred with the Government of Israel.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes and in that of my noble friend Lord Pearson

1129
of Rannoch, four minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in either debate.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me if I comment for a moment on what the noble Lord the Chief Whip has just said. Four minutes is clearly an inadequate time for anyone to address your Lordships' House on a subject as important as Maastricht. I have to say, as part of the usual channels, that in no way do I blame the Chief Whip for what has happened. It is something that we have brought upon ourselves by having timed debates, which on the whole have been very successful. But it seems to me that we are moving to a situation where noble Lords are putting down subjects for two-and-a-half hour debates which are far too big for the time allowed. In a recent debate on defence noble Lords were restricted to six minutes. In today's debate on Maastricht noble Lords are restricted to four minutes. It is making a mockery of the debating ability of your Lordships' House.
What I suggest is that we take on a self-denying ordinance that, on the whole, we put down subjects of this magnitude for five hours or for an unspecified period and that we also ask the Procedure Committee to look into the whole question of the timing of debates.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on this matter and at the same time congratulate the Government Chief Whip on successfully ensuring that no maiden speakers are to take part in this debate as otherwise the time of everyone would have been spent in congratulating them, probably with every justification, on the wisdom that fell from their lips.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend consider referring to the Procedure Committee the use of these short time-limited debates on major subjects of policy of which this afternoon's debate is an extreme example? Would it not be possible to evolve a convention or rule under which, if there was only to be a short debate, a limited subject, suitable to be taken within that time-scale, alone was permitted?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I may start on the smaller but nonetheless important point of congratulations which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned. I think that he attributes to the Chief Whip powers of influence beyond those which apply.
I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and I am sure that your Lordships will also believe that this is neither the time nor the place to debate the issue. I quite agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the Procedure Committee is the correct place to review the subject. I would also point out though that in the case of balloted debates, which the two debates are today, there will always be an impossible problem of definition of subject which will always, I fear, prove to be a challenge to your Lordships.

Citibank Europe Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.
Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

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 Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages tomorrow.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Students: Financial Difficulties
3.17 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington rose to call attention to the financial difficulties of students; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must, first, thank all the many people who have put down their names to speak in the debate. I must admit, echoing the words of my Whip, that six minutes may be stretching the point of brevity on a subject as complicated as this, but I hope that noble Lords will be able to cover most of the points that they have in mind.
When we first started to discuss the Bill introducing student loans I exploited the fact that I was somewhat lacking in years by comparison with most of the rest of the House by saying that I had something of an advantage having been more recently a student than most noble Lords. I can no longer say that for two reasons. First, my noble friend Lord Redesdale stopped being an undergraduate in 1989 as opposed to 1988. The second reason is that we are now into a totally new system of finance. Before we progress any further into the subject we must, first, deal with those changes—where we have come from and where we are going.
The level of grant had fallen in real terms over a long period of time. There was a genuine case of student hardship. The grant was greatly subsidised by the social security system in a variety of areas and in a variety of ways, the principal one being that housing benefit was payable to students if they paid more than a certain amount of rent. That was a useful benefit for several reasons, the primary one being that it balanced out discrepancies in the cost of living as reflected in housing costs throughout the country. The people paying high rents had one advantage in that they could call upon the social security system to give them some support. Students in London, whose London allowance has never really made up for the extra costs, found that particularly beneficial as did students at my old university at Aberdeen, where people paid locally high rents for the simple reason that it happened to be the UK centre of oil production.
There were other benefits available to students, primarily during the summer vacation. Social security benefits were payable to those students who could not find paid employment. That meant that they had some social security income during the summer vacation, but at a very limited level. But it was there. Housing benefit was also still available to students throughout the holiday period if they happened to be living away from home.
When the student loan scheme came in, basically there were two problems to deal with. The first was an ideological one, which is slightly outside the scope of my debate today. So on that matter I shall restrict myself to saying that many of us felt that the idea of loans and of encouraging people to go into debt was not one that should be inflicted on students from the age of 18 onwards. It was something which not many people liked. There were dozens of other options open to the Government, such as increased grants or some kind of pay-back system, which is effectively a graduate tax.
These alternatives were not taken up and the Government adopted a loan scheme. The primary criticism of that scheme is that it does not provide adequate funding for undergraduates to have realistic living standards. It just did not happen. Initially the sum was £420. It might be said that that would be a benefit to the students because it would be on top of everything else. But it was not, for the simple reason that we removed students from the social security system.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, put the matter far better than I during the debates on the student loan scheme. We were saying that students were removed from the social security system but that they were not like other members of society. I still have been unable to think why they were removed. If we are paying them some kind of maintenance, we are assuming that their parents will not support them and therefore they are independent people. So why did we remove them from the system?
We have removed them from the system and we have not provided an adequate alternative. There is the access fund, which initially was about £25 million, for all students in the country in further and higher education and for postgraduates, plus the loan. On that loan interest is charged at the rate of inflation, which means that, even with stoppages for the periods when pay-back has to start, there is a debt accruing. Even if one charges interest at the rate of inflation, one is still charging a considerable amount of compound interest. That situation is continuing and we have nothing else to fall back on.
Now we have a situation where the classic student —that is, one who is aged about 20—has a guaranteed income which is less than it would have been if he were on social security benefits. His income is actually less than that which is regarded as being the bare minimum for living. Recent reports have severely questioned whether social security benefit is sufficient to enable someone to eat properly. We are saying that a student should survive on that.
The Government respond by saying that there has
1132
been extra money available and the student is available for work during the summer vacation. We have nearly 3 million unemployed—has the figure gone above that? If we had guaranteed full employment, the Government might have a point. I have not seen anything to suggest that the Opposition Benches are going to guarantee full employment for students or for any other section of society. As we have made a great deal of noise condemning the ex-regimes in Eastern Europe which guaranteed full employment, it would be rather strange if anyone here gave that guarantee. People become unemployed and therefore need something to stop them starving, because we do not want them to starve.
We are also speaking about students who are supposed to be an investment in the country's future. The only real natural resource which Britain in particular and the Western world in general enjoy over most of our potential competitors is that we have a better trained and better educated workforce. That is probably the only natural advantage that we can possibly expect to maintain, but we shall not maintain it for very long if we continue to restrict the student body.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords some figures. Students outside London can expect an income of £57.30 a week. That tries to back up the example which I have already given. On benefits, that amounts to £77.45. Such people are on less income. One must remember that students have higher living costs if they are to carry on with their studies. They occasionally need things such as more travel and books. Let us assume that an engineering student has £30 worth of textbooks to buy even if it is only two or three times a year. Where is he to find the money? To some extent the answer has been to borrow it from the banks. Overdrafts of £1,000 are regarded as being reasonably commonplace. The CVCP reckon that an undergraduate should regard an overdraft of about £400 as being part of his income. Taking the initial weekly figure that I gave noble Lords, £400 accounts for about seven weeks of a 14-week vacation at the same level and is below that of social security benefit. It is not that much money. We really have a problem.
There is then the access fund which started at the rate of £25 million, which is a sizeable sum of money until one begins to divide it between the hundreds of thousands of people who are eligible to claim on it. The general level of pay-out—I have taken an overall figure from the variety of figures that I have been given —suggests that about £300 to £400 is a fairly sizeable pay-out from the access fund.
Once again we must look to the person who does not have parents who are providing support. We have 3 million unemployed and many of them are white-collar and middle-class. That means that even students who have been traditionally thought of as being well-off, probably do not have parental back up. It is also worthy of note that the number of students who are not receiving a parental contribution has been increasing. One can combine that with another figure relating to the rolls of the public schools which are falling. That suggests that we have considerable financial problems even in that sector. The

1133
Government have been trying to encourage more people from non-traditional recruitment areas to come into higher education. These people are probably even more susceptible to unemployment and are less capable of getting part-time work or work in the holidays, which often comes from word-of-mouth contact. Therefore, we have a situation where we cannot fund people properly.
I have given noble Lords a series of statements about the level of funding. It can be said that that does not seem to make a great deal of difference because rolls are actually rising in a number of universities and other institutions. That is probably true as the Government have expanded ways into the universities, even if they have not expanded the ways in which students can afford to eat once they get there. What has come to light is that another body has become aware of student hardship. The citizens advice bureaux have found students becoming clients as the student loans legislation takes effect. That body stated that in the summer of 1992 41 per cent. of all the people inquiring of them for help, mainly about financial matters, were students. That was a section of the population which they were not seeing before the loan system came in. That was in July. In August the figure had reduced to 33 per cent. and in September to 26 per cent.
Students are having to meet the costs of holiday periods. Many have to pay rent on houses throughout the summer as well in order to guarantee themselves somewhere to live in the next year. It is sad that those institutions, which generally have enjoyed less prestige in the past, tend to be worse off when it comes to housing. Thus they cannot subsidise their students. So students who have not done so before, are going to citizens advice bureaux asking financial questions.
A series of striking examples of people who cannot meet their financial commitments because of the lack of vacation work was also given. One example was that of a 19 year-old student who had completed the first year of a three-year course. She visited a citizens advice bureau in Essex because she could not find a holiday job and her parents were on income support and could not afford to keep her during the long vacation. The current system means that we are effectively saying that that person must decide whether to starve during the summer or to leave the course. How else can people eat if they cannot get income support and cannot find a job? Other examples of that problem are also given. I could read out a list of them to your Lordships but that one example has probably made the point quite succinctly.
There is, however, another example of something else that has slipped through the Government's net. One citizens advice bureau reported the case of somebody on a sandwich course—that is, a student taking a year out between studies to work in industry. Such students are not entitled to claim benefit because they are on a course but they are supposed to be at work. However, there have been cases of students who have been unable to find jobs during that sandwich period. Not only were they sacrificing 20 per cent. of their degree course mark but they were unable to provide any income for themselves during that period.
1134
Other cases include that of the student who could only find a job for seven months of the year. Having been released to complete the project, that student was without any income at all for the other five months.
The final problem relates to a student who was sick during the summer vacation. A student with glandular fever was unable to claim benefit because he or she was still a student, despite having glandular fever and being incapable of working.
Surely this system has failed miserably. It depended on assumptions of parental support and people finding jobs, but we cannot guarantee that parents will have sufficient funds and will cough up the funding for their student children. I have not dealt with many cases because the variety of problems is so wide, but I hope that other noble Lords will deal with other problems. Unless parents can provide the money or the students can find work, students have no income. That is the difficulty. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has initiated this debate. Although there is much chapter and verse to be given, because of the shortage of time I shall address only some issues of principle, and in particular the problem of postgraduates.
Does the country need graduates? If it does, how can it best protect the national investment in the next generation of innovators and the creative talent which they represent? They are our brightest and our best, and we are in danger of wasting a priceless asset.
The present position is that the loan and a full maintenance grant together are not enough to enable those students without private means who formerly qualified for housing benefit and income support to live and work. A possible discretionary grant of £150 from the Access Fund does not close the gap. Employment in the long summer vacation to earn money has been hard and often impossible to secure for the past three summers. Unexpected redundancy has prevented parents from contributing to maintenance and has deprived some of a home to go to. The Vacation Hardship Allowance, described by the Government themselves as a safety net, was withdrawn in April 1991 before the new arrangement had been in place a year.
In my own university, Oxford, the 20 to 24 per cent. of undergraduates living in private rented accommodation (as a proportion have to do for one year out of the three), paid £2,132 in rent alone out of their total income (of full grant and loan) of £2,845. Those are the 1992 figures. They ended up with £3.06 a day for food, clothes, travel and books. They cannot get a bank overdraft of more than £400 and they can no longer count on earning money in the long vacation.
We are not talking about all students but we are talking about a substantial part of the student population. Much has been done to improve the school structure. Presumably when those taught there leave and enter higher education we intend them to do just that in the national interest as well as their own.

1135
However, under the present system they are expected to live on less than they would receive as young unemployed people.
The plight of graduates doing research is another matter of particular concern. They do not qualify for loans or benefits. The Access Fund can do relatively little for them. The median grant in Oxford is £188. They have the same serious housing bill as undergraduates and in many cases will already be carrying over debts from their undergraduate days. Moreover, those who receive grants from the British Academy and the research councils are seriously under-funded. The guidelines requires them to limit the work they do which is not connected with their research. Teaching and library work, or work as demonstrators, is limited and not well paid. Because they must work through the calendar year to complete their research, they cannot get—even if it were available—more lucrative work in the long vacation. To survive at all they are undoubtedly having to work for many more hours a week than a productive graduate student should.
The chief causes of general concern are, first, the high cost of rented accommodation and the absence of any targeted mechanisms to fund students who cannot afford to pay. Students cannot manage their finances if they have no money to manage. Housing is the one large cost they cannot control. They cannot begin to plan their finances if there are no certainties. A possible but unpredictable and insufficient discretionary grant from the Access Fund is not the same as a means-tested benefit. A second cause for concern is the very great stress and anxiety which are widespread among those students who have no money and who can no longer make up their shortfall by work in the summer.
Universities are deeply concerned about the effect which this palpable stress and anxiety must have on academic performance. I suggest that we, too, should be concerned. When we are investing taxpayers' money to spend extensively on higher education, we should spend enough. We are not talking about all students but about a very substantial minority. It seems plain good sense to ensure that the return on public investment in the education of our undergraduates is not diminished by the damaging effects of financial hardship and the consequent stress on students. It is already difficult enough to understand why a whole group of taxpaying citizens should have been arbitrarily excluded from access to benefits on the grounds that they had "opted out of the labour market" by "taking the decision"—which I should have thought that the country would want them to take—"to undertake full-time study". The argument is that the Government intended "to place the responsibilities for student support where it properly belongs—in the education system". I hope very much that in the light of the experience of the past three years that responsibility may be reassessed.
I have followed carefully, as I am sure has my noble friend the Minister, the work done by the Select Committee on Education in another place in the previous Session of Parliament. The evidence it
1136
received of student hardship from an extensive and fully representative body of opinion, which included the CVCP and, unusually, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the CAB, as well as the institutions, demonstrated clearly that there was both widespread and growing student poverty. We are now a year on and the situation is worse. It is my hope that my noble friend the Minister will, since I know that she cares about education, agree that there is now a need to take a fresh look at the mechanisms in place and to find a formula to provide targeted support within the educational system of funding—whatever it may be called—to alleviate the difficulties of those students who are in trouble.
Students are sensible people. They know that money is short, but they need to know also that their problems are recognised and that the Government will think again. I sat on the Hebdomadal Council with graduates and undergraduates and know them to be sensible, responsible, reasonable and brave. We should not destroy their spirit but be seen to listen to their just representations. They are citizens. They are also our future.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I, too, should like to offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating this debate which will be regarded with considerable interest in all the universities and colleges in this country.
In this time-restricted debate on the financial troubles of students, I shall confine myself to what I know best—namely, the position that we face in Cardiff where I have held various academic offices during the past decade or so. Our Welsh capital city accounts for not far short of 10,000 students in its main university institution, the largest unit being the Federal University of Wales. The Welsh College of Medicine, the nearby University of Glamorgan—formerly a polytechnic—the College of Music and Drama and other units of higher education add considerably to the total student population of the city. In other words, there are literally thousands of young people, not to mention more mature students, trying to find lodgings, trying to find opportunities to supplement their inadequate incomes and trying to span the hiatus when sources of income disappear in the long vocation.
I have recently consulted our experienced Dean of Students, senior members of staff in various departments and, of course, our student president and her able and dedicated colleagues. There is no doubt that the academic work of a significant proportion of students is suffering because of the time and effort needed under present conditions to make financial ends meet.
I shall not pursue the matter of student loans, inadequate and costly as they are proving to be. What is causing more anxiety, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is total personal indebtedness, especially the accumulation of bank overdrafts. As we all know, even two or three years ago some banks were all too ready to lend. Now some are cutting off credit quite savagely.

1137
I have seen documented cases where properly negotiated overdrafts have been slashed without notice or consultation. What does one do if one's grant cheque, paid in at the start of a new term, is used to clear the overdraft without notice, leaving an impossibly small sum to meet essential expenses? For students receiving full grant, it can be fairly assumed that parental help is unlikely to be forthcoming. Students can wear themselves out taking early morning or late evening jobs, or in many instances both, at very low rates of pay. Some resort to undesirable work which interferes with academic studies and have to miss lectures or tutorials every so often. I cannot believe that spending hours, even days and nights, as subjects for relatively well-paid drug testing in the local hospital is the best use of academic time, especially when there are plenty of unemployed people to provide that service.
As long ago as May 1991, our principal, Sir Aubrey Trotman-Dickenson, currently Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wales, wrote to the Department of Education saying:
"The pressure of recession, redundancies and unemployment are putting great strains on the family unit, so that students receive less support, both financial and emotional, from home".
Nothing has improved since that was written. The stresses increase almost daily.
In the current academic year more than half the students attending the Dean of Students' office are seeking financial guidance. An additional member of staff has had to be engaged merely to deal with money management problems. That has nothing to do with academic work or accommodation. Last term there were also almost 2,000 written applications for access grants.
Students have not just lost vacation allowances and seen the value of grants diminish. They are even more depressed by the knowledge that after successful graduation there is nowadays no certainty of a job, however hard one may have worked.
I conclude by reading the final sentence of one of the letters sent to me recently. Mr. Frank Harris-Jones, the Dean of Students at Cardiff, writes:
"I am sorry if my comments sound bleak, but I feel especially depressed by it all, because I have R. A. Butler and the 1944 Education Act to thank for funding my university course and in consequence my whole career".
I do not know what the Minister thinks of R. A. Butler, but some of us respected him as a person who really cared about education and student welfare.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I join in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having initiated the debate. All noble Lords will be aware of the difficulty because there may well be:
"no serious alternative to the introduction of a major contribution from private, as opposed to public, funds".
Those words were taken from an article written by the vice-chancellor of one of our universities located in Newcastle.
The debate will no doubt concentrate upon the most equitable and generally fair means of arriving at the appropriate public and private contributions and
1138
will also seek to establish the point that cases of hardship are by no means so few and far between as is sometimes implied. The chief problem about which one hears in every part of higher education is the conjunction of two factors which, like the handles of a nutcracker, hold many students in their grip; namely, the loss of long vacation housing benefit and the discontinuation of social security benefit for full-time students. That affects their finances during the long vacation in particular.
If there could be just one change to the present arrangements, the most generally helpful one would be funding for the whole year, thus providing for the cost of maintenance during the summer vacation. That said, I should like to develop two other general points upon which noble Lords have already touched. The first is difficult to establish statistically, but there is some evidence that the present system acts as a deterrent to entering higher education for young people who come from families and areas which have not traditionally sent sons and daughters to university. There has been a remarkable increase in the proportion of young people in higher education in recent years, but that increase may not be so marked, or as marked as we should wish, in those families where the parents' income leads to the award of a full grant to a student.
No student can any longer manage on a full grant alone. The very fact that a full grant has been made means that the student may feel compelled to take out a loan. But debt culture and credit cards are thought by some to be characteristic of the affluent. Many of those who have few financial resources have a laudable abhorrence of debt. So, on the one hand, we may still be unable to attract into higher education bright children from such families, children who could well profit from a university education and as a consequence make a better contribution to the country's well-being, and, on the other hand, by making student indebtedness an almost inevitable part of the culture of those who gain a place we may he threatening standards of thrift, carefulness and honour which we lose or weaken at our peril.
The second consideration is different. I listen to my godchildren and young friends at university when they talk about their work. Sometimes I do not know whether they are referring to the work they have to do in connection with their course—writing their next essay or conducting their next experiment—or whether they are referring to the work they do perhaps in the vacation or more probably in the evenings, say, in a bar or some other place of entertainment. Surely in sending young men and women to a university we are not providing them with part-time education, a sort of liberal arts programme in which they can dabble if they please; we are hoping that they will engage in it with heart and mind and find it absorbing and compelling because, properly speaking, a university course should provide more than enough work for the ablest student. How regrettable it would be if study came to be thought of as a luxury or a pastime, to be contrasted with the real work which students do to keep body and soul together.

1139
We all know that for years many undergraduates have had paid employment during the vacations. But there comes a point when the amount of such work interferes with their studies. Then the general public do not receive value for money in providing grants which enable young people to study. No doubt more detailed points will be raised during the debate. Particular difficulties are experienced by research students, mature students, those on sandwich courses and candidates for longer courses which have a clinical element.
We all know that it would not be realistic to expect the Government to go back on their general policy on the whole matter. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to express the Government's willingness to consider modifications to the present arrangements and say that they will take account of some of the more acute difficulties to which noble Lords will have drawn attention.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for providing us with an opportunity to discuss the problems facing students. Your Lordships will not be surprised if I concentrate on students with disabilities or if I say that they too have financial problems. However, I should like to start on a positive note.
The increase in 1990 of the disabled student's allowance has meant that many students with disabilities have been able to go on to higher education. SKILL, the national bureau for students with disabilities of which I have the honour to be president, states that the City Lit Centre, which provides support for deaf students in London, has seen sharp increases since 1990 in the number of deaf students. That applies in particular to those who use sign language, because in the first year the number doubled from eight to 16.
However, despite the increased allowance, some students find themselves in considerable difficulties. The first group comprises students who need more than the maximum amount of the disabled student's allowance. There are a small number of profoundly deaf students on lecture-intensive courses who are finding themselves out of pocket or missing out on lectures. The RNID has evidence to support this claim. A qualified sign language interpreter costs £15 per hour plus expenses. The non-medical helper's allowance pays for about 10 hours interpreting per week. At that level of education one needs highly-skilled interpreters and note-takers. They will probably need to take part in workshops and seminars if the student is to obtain the maximum benefit from the course.
In Scotland the problem has been overcome by discretionary top-up grants from central budgets. However, that is not possible in England and Wales because discretionary grants are the responsibility of the LEAs. It is not that the allowances have not been uprated; they have. Rather it is that for that small number of profoundly deaf students on lecture-intensive courses the maximum amount of grant has
1140
never been enough. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that problem and how to solve it so that those students may obtain the maximum benefit from their education.
My second point relates to the means testing of the disabled student's allowance. I agree that it is reasonable that better-off parents should have less government help with students' living costs. But however well off the parents are they should not be expected to pay extra to put a student with a disability on an equal footing with his peers. Loans were introduced because it was recognised that many parents did not make up their contribution. Yet loans are insufficient to pay, for example, for an adapted computer for a student with MS or for readers for a blind student. If parents do not make up the contributions, students can be thousands of pounds short of the cost of their additional support needs.
Thirdly, I turn to part-time students. The welcome increase in the number of opportunities to study part time has been of particular value to students with disabilities because, as a result of the nature of their disability, some cannot study full time. Obviously, those students may be among the most severely disabled and therefore most in need of the disabled student's allowance. However, they are unable to claim that. I plead, as I am sure will many other noble Lords, for the Government to look into the question of help for part-time students.
Fourthly, I turn to students in further education. The problems with the withdrawal of support for students with disabilities and learning difficulties when they reach the age of 19 should lessen when the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 begins to take effect. The good news is that last week the FEFC told college principals that from September 1994 such students will be covered for the whole course if they are below the age of 19 on 1st September of the year in which they start the course.
I also welcome the establishment by the FEFC of the specialist committee. It is important to monitor the impact of the new legislation on students with disabilities. I imagine that the committee cannot look at the problems which remain for part-time FE students or those who start their courses after the age of 19. They will have recourse only to discretionary grants, which are the LEAs' responsibility. If the committee cannot look at that issue I put in a plea to the Minister to consider who might be able to do so in order that those students too can benefit from the increased opportunities now available to students with disabilities.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I am sure that all of us share the desire to see as many of our young people as possible leaving secondary education fully equipped to enter the higher educational institutions and with the necessary resources to do so.
It seems a very long time since my student days but even so my memory is crystal clear on the financial

1141
difficulties that I experienced at that time. But I believe that it was ever thus. Students from every generation have always felt under-funded and financially stretched—or perhaps in today's jargon and to be politically correct I should say "financially challenged". Students have always had to come to terms with the reality of deciding on priorities. That is not an easy thing to do but it is essential if one is to make ends meet.
I believe that from time to time we should remind ourselves of the very real strides that have been made to increase the number of young people who are fortunate enough to go on to further and higher education after leaving school. In 1989 the number was one million; that was an increase of 36 per cent. since 1979. In simpler terms the figures show that in 1979 one in eight young people went on to higher education. Today the number is one in four and it is increasing every year.
Of course, that can bring transitional problems at the beginning of the academic year while students try to find appropriate accommodation. But only about half of all students need to find private rented accommodation because 37 per cent. are placed in colleges and 11 per cent. live at home with their parents. In order to alleviate some of those problems, exciting initiatives have been taken by universities and colleges. For example, Sussex University is creating an extra 550 rooms by teaming up with the Kelsey Housing Association and the Bradford and North Housing Association. Stirling University has joined forces with the district council, Scottish Homes and the Dunfermline Building Society to build 185 rooms. Of course I could quote other examples.
It is for the universities to concern themselves with accommodation appropriate for and affordable by their students. The institutions are, after all, autonomous bodies responsible for deciding their own priorities within their available resources. The support given to students through grants and loans is now nearly 40 per cent. higher than when the grant only was available three years ago. That will be increased next year, thereby maintaining its value in real terms.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, it is good to know that students with extra needs—that is, the disabled and those with dependants—receive supplementary allowances such as housing benefit and income support. That gives special support and encouragement to those who might otherwise be unable to consider taking a course. I believe that it is for each individual to decide whether to invest in his or her own future. It seems to me that taking such decisions should not be based on reliance on the welfare system. Dependence of that nature is completely inappropriate, in particular as those who have qualifications almost always have a higher standard of living than those who choose to enter the labour market on leaving school.
There has been criticism about the whole system of student loans. However, I believe that the policy has been successful and has broadened the base of student support. I know that some Members of your Lordships' House believe that the top-up loans act as a disincentive to many potential students. That is
1142
difficult to believe when the number of full-time students has increased by 20 per cent. in the three years 1989 to 1991, doubling the figure for the previous three years.
There has been much discussion of the drop-out rate, but it is interesting to note the tables in the educational statistics for the United Kingdom for 1991. The data show that the UK ratios are among the highest in the 13 countries quoted, with only Canada and Germany exceeding the UK rate of 90 qualifiers per 100 new entrants. Italy has a record of only 33 per 100. Perhaps the grants-only system which they have in Italy is not the best way to ensure academic success.
Of course I understand the very real difficulties which a comparatively small percentage of students suffer, and we should see that they receive wise counselling. However, I feel that we can acknowledge the significant achievements gained and the initiatives taken in recent years to support and encourage young people to seek qualifications, an opportunity denied to so many earlier generations.
4 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for introducing this debate on the financial difficulties of students. By the time we reach the end of the debate, some latter-day Charles Dickens may find that he has enough material on the sufferings of students to write some fresh novels. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was right to remind us that those who suffer those appalling hardships—if they are successful—end up with a qualification which is the Open Sesame to a very rewarding career, often substantially remunerated. That is in sharp contrast to the position of those who do not have access to higher education and may spend their entire lives doing a repetitive clerical job or working on a factory production line. Therefore let us try to maintain a sense of proportion.
Two years ago I visited China on behalf of the Docklands Development Corporation. In conversation with my hosts, the two aspects of this country of ours which they mentioned were football hooliganism and homeless people. Perhaps a steady diet of CNN news is not the most objective way to learn about a country; but, nevertheless, the question of homelessness is serious. It places a great burden on councils. Not only councils such as Westminster but also boroughs in the East End of London such as Newham are facing appalling problems with the influx of homeless people.
That problem is not unrelated to our debate today. Most of our debates in your Lordships' House in the end boil down to one word: resources. When I explain our higher education system to people from abroad, they think that we are quite mad to pay out to send students away to study instead of them studying while based at home. They simply cannot understand it. One does not have to go abroad to find that, because in Scotland many students in higher education live at home. In Strathclyde the number is as high as 90 per cent.
There is no evidence to suggest that academic results are better if a student studies away from home

1143
rather than while living at home. If there was any such evidence, it would have been produced a long time ago to rebut the argument that I am putting forward. There is no suggestion that Scottish university education is in any way inferior to English university education.
I have made speeches on these lines before. I have been lobbied by students about my reactionary views. They tell me that going away from home is part and parcel of growing up, maturing, ripening and so on. When I suggest to them that they must therefore, apart from their own needs, also be pressing for the return of national service which extends that benefit of maturing away from home throughout the nation, they react with horror. I am written off as Genghis Khan. However, the same arguments apply.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for putting the figures in simple terms. There are 1 million students in higher education, of whom half are in the private rented sector. Anybody who has been a Member of another place knows that probably a good half of one's casework relates to housing problems. That is not essentially a Member of Parliament's responsibility but that of the local council; but one cannot turn away people who come with such problems because if one does so that simply reinforces their whole experience of life up to that date. Therefore one does what one can. Of those 1 million students in higher education, approximately half are accommodated in halls of residence and other university accommodation and half are thrown on to the private rented sector. There they compete with people who, if they cannot compete successfully, join our monstrous queue of homeless people. Therefore, a very serious social evil is directly linked to the tradition in this country of sending students away from home to study if at all possible.
I have researched the subject over a period of years with the assistance of young people. If only 50 per cent. of our students in higher education lived at home and took the nearest available course, we could virtually clear up the problem of homelessness in three years, the duration of a normal degree course. We are asking for what might be considered a sacrifice on the part of the ablest and most gifted in our society to help the most deprived. Some £3 billion to £4 billion of resources would be tied up in a change of that nature and would become available for other uses.
It is very difficult to get the argument across because most of the opinion-formers and decision-makers in society are successful products of the system and cannot contemplate a change of this nature. Also, they want their own children to go through the same process as they went through. But I ask your Lordships to consider the proposal seriously because it would help to solve one of the gravest problems in our society today.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this important debate. The financial difficulties of students is a subject close to my heart
1144
because I have two daughters in, respectively, their third and fourth years of higher education. That means that they both started in the now seemingly halcyon days of unfrozen student grants and the availability of housing benefit, income support and unemployment benefit—all now withdrawn. Those four measures—the freezing of grants and the withdrawal of social security benefits (students no longer get an interview at social security offices)—have made what was often for many students a precarious financial situation with them a wholly untenable situation without them and are, either individually or collectively, the main causes of student poverty.
Hardship is increasing in both severity and breadth. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals believes that the current financing shortfall for a standard single student after receipt of full grant and loan is approximately £1,100 per annum in the Home Counties.
Nor is the availability of emergency funds certain. The last resort funds—the access funds administered by the student's institution—have recently become far more uncertain as a prop. At the end of 1991 the number of awards was up by 80 per cent., but the amount paid in total rose by only 15 per cent. so that the average payment had fallen drastically.
The final twist to the financial screw has been the withdrawal of the Government's safety net for the financially bewildered, the local education authority paid vacation hardship allowance. That was withdrawn in March 1991 after only eight months of the new system of student support, which was then still an untried scheme, and against a background of great difficulty in finding vacation jobs, as many noble Lords have already said. That left many students technically bankrupt but had even worse overtones of governmental moral bankruptcy since the scheme's availability had been used to reassure—or perhaps bribe would be a better word—those in this House who were concerned about the loss of other benefits, for example, social security benefits. The allowance was pledged in this House on 15th May 1991. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, not why her Government withdrew it, but rather: how could they bear to withdraw it?
I am thoroughly against young people ending their education and starting out in life in debt. According to a survey carried out last autumn by Barclays Bank and the National Union of Students, the average student will leave college with debts of £2,200. Four years ago, average debts were closer to a few hundred pounds. A majority of students cannot manage without some form of borrowing. The Barclays/NUS survey found that almost 50 per cent. had taken out government student loans, but the loans scheme does not yet account for as great a proportion of student borrowing as many believe. Last autumn it represented 31 per cent. of money owed; another 25 per cent. was owed to banks; 21 per cent. was owed to families, and six per cent. to credit card companies.
The problems arising from financial stringency are severe. Students at Anglia University are said in The Times Educational Supplement of 9th October last not only to work in vacations but in term time too. They

1145
not only do bar work and early morning sandwich making and cleaning, but several work night-shifts in a local jam factory. This must surely leave them exhausted at the times when they do do academic work, quite apart from the fact that for much of the time spent in the occupations quoted they should be working or, in one case, sleeping. The same source points out that accommodation costs, which can swallow up more than 70 per cent. of a student's weekly income, rose by 12 per cent. last year. Many have to rent a room in the private sector for the majority of their course, and to rent it for 52 weeks of the year.
Meals and books are probably the next greatest absorbers of overstretched funds. Many students, perhaps particularly the men, are poor cooks and rely on supermarket-type prepared meals for variety. These are inordinately expensive compared to staples and represent an unbalanced diet. But man cannot forever live on peanut butter sandwiches. Even second-hand academic books are surprisingly expensive compared to new ones; and, even worse, they are usually in rather short supply. However, they are essential for proper participation in an academic course and many of them have to be bought right at the year's start, often before a grant has arrived late.
Finally and intriguingly, our student loan system, which looks set to absorb more and more of student debt, seems to be a copy of the widely successful United States Guaranteed Loan Program. In a journal article on student loans, subtitled Throwing out the Baby to Keep the Bathwater, an American now studying in the United Kingdom writes that:
"A true comparison of the two schemes, as implemented, is instructive since it provides a classic example of the present Government's proclivity for examining a foreign situation, and then deciding to create a British analogue which incorporates the worst aspects of the original model".
In the USA the interest is, first, not applied until the loan becomes due nine months after the student finishes his or her course. In the United Kingdom it accrues at the moment a loan is taken out. Additionally and comparatively, the moneys loaned to supplement the United Kingdom student grants are meagre and bear a market-based interest rate. In the United Kingdom if a student takes out a government student loan in year one then during year one interest is being charged although not yet payable. In year two a further loan bears interest, plus interest from year one's interest, which has effectively become part of the capital loan. In year three a loan bears interest, plus interest on year two's interest, plus interest on the interest arising from year one. My mind boggles at continuing this to year four. But I thought that students went into higher education to learn their chosen subject, not to have to become a latter-day John Maynard Keynes.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us an opportunity to debate what must be one of the more urgent topics facing us. As the expansion of higher education has been unprecedented in the last few years, some way must be found to
1146
sustain those students during the time they are in higher education. That there are many students now in higher education who are facing real hardship is undisputed. Of course the Government's access funds are very welcome indeed and they have helped very many students. But they have not been able —nor I believe, will they be able—to expand at the rate at which student numbers are expanding.
There are many contributory factors to student hardship which I would call unnecessary factors and which I believe could be tackled. It is not always a question of more money but of better management. One major contributory factor to student hardship has been the delay in the receipt of LEA grants from many LEAs where students have been left without help for long periods—for weeks or even months. A case came to my attention in my own institution only a week or two ago. It concerned a young civil engineering student who had not yet—this was on 4th February—received his LEA grant either for the autumn term or for the present term. He has been living on loans and hand-outs from other students throughout the whole of that period. I believe that this is unacceptable and the Government should put much more pressure on LEAs to pay students promptly.
Mature students with family responsibilities, of course, face particular difficulties and hardships. I was talking to a 26 year-old woman working for a degree in architecture in my own institution a few days ago. She tells me that she has a two year-old daughter whom she is supporting herself while undertaking full-time study. In order to do that, in addition to her grant she is working four nights a week, and there is no question that she is falling behind in her work and in her ambition to make herself independent and self-supporting.
The banks also have been far from sensitive to students' needs in recent years. It frustrates me that at one point they seem to be encouraging overspending and the taking out of large loans through credit cards and other facilities, and then at the drop of a hat when students, who are often inexperienced and unwise, overspend and run up debts, they foreclose in a totally arbitrary and very damaging way.
I have been given the story of another student at the new University of Plymouth, a second-year student who could not get a summer job and ran up an overdraft during the summer and at the beginning of the autumn. When her grant arrived the bank took the whole of it and withdrew her credit. Her tutors found her recently begging in the streets to enable her to continue her course. Again, this is totally unacceptable.
Students who have failed part of their course and have to retake it are in a particularly difficult position because they get no grant whatsoever. Again, from Plymouth I was given the story of one student who is struggling to live on a £715 student loan for the year, with £300 a term from the Access Fund, and is now telling his tutors that he will drop out of his course because he is quite unable to keep going.
These are real stories, and we all know that this hardship exists. However, I would suggest that the public purse is not limitless. We cannot go on simply

1147
demanding more and more money from the British taxpayer to support what is always going to be a minority and, as others have said, a privileged group, even though they do not feel very privileged at the time they are going through their undergraduate studies. Nevertheless, as others have said, they will become the better paid and the higher earners of our society.
The problem of how they should be funded both for maintenance and perhaps in part for the costs of their tuition requires a radical solution. It is a major problem. We have increased the expectations of young people and of mature students in society. Ways must be found to make it possible to meet those expectations without endlessly drawing on the public purse. I would commend to my noble friend the Minister at least an investigation into the Australian system, which has been introduced with apparent success in recent years. It involves the imposition of a 2 per cent. graduate tax, whereby students repay part of their maintenance grant from the Government. This seems to have been working well. It is ideal in the sense that it allows the repayment of the cost not to be spread throughout the whole tax system and to all taxpayers but only to those who have benefited.
I would also commend a recently published book by Nicholas O'Shaughnessy of Cambridge and Nigel Allington of Cardiff. The title is Light, Liberty and Learning: the idea of a University revisited. In fact the book is very largely about that title but it strongly recommends also a system whereby universities would receive a voucher for each student who came to them which would in part—though only in part—go towards the payment of fees, because tuition is rightly supported in large part from the public purse. Part is also passed on to the student as a maintenance grant. It is suggested the students repay this either through the imposition of a graduate tax or perhaps through their national insurance contributions. I know that the Inland Revenue always resists the idea of a dedicated tax, but I would argue that higher education is a private as well as a public benefit. It is a private benefit to those who will enjoy the benefit of it throughout life.
I particularly like the idea of repayment of money undertaken not as a huge and unbearable loan but rather in the form of a graduated payment which would cease entirely if the person paying it became unemployed or was obliged to stay at home raising a family. It would be matched entirely to his or her ability to pay. As the writers of the book say, it would be not a tax but a user payment simply administered through the tax system. I urge my noble friend to think of other ways to meet this increased demand—and it is an important demand—from our young people.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend Lord Addington for initiating this debate. I took great pleasure in thinking that I could speak on this subject with some genuine knowledge. As my noble friend has pointed out, I graduated from Newcastle University only in 1989. However, as regards the issues involved in this debate I know as
1148
little as most other people who have not graduated from university recently because of the changes that have been brought about through the reduced availability of student grants and the introduction of student loans. Many of the benefits that helped my student friends and flatmates to survive at university have disappeared. Perhaps we should consider what benefits have disappeared.
I accept that the majority of students will be able to fund their education. It is right that that should be the case as those students will then earn high salaries through having been students. I trained as an archaeologist. Therefore I do not think I could obtain a job which would pay off a student loan immediately. However, we are discussing the students who will find it increasingly difficult to avail themselves of higher education because they do not have the funds to repay a student loan. Others whose parents can support them financially will view student loans in a totally different way.
In the past seven years the Government have gradually eroded the resources available to students through alterations to the grant system and changes to the state social security and tax systems. Students have lost reclaimable travel expenses above the provision in the grant. The reclaimable travel expenses were introduced to help students who lived far from university and whose travel costs to and from home and during term exceeded the £139 allowed for in the grant. The reclaimable travel expenses were lost to students in 1986. The special equipment grants were also lost to students in 1986. Those were grants available to students in laboratory or studio-based subjects who had to pay for special equipment.
In 1988 tax covenants for students ceased. That step has placed additional burdens on parents who have to contribute to students' maintenance. Also in 1988 short vacation, unemployment and supplementary benefit were lost to students. Students' grants have to cover their living costs over the Christmas and Easter vacations in addition to the basic 30 weeks and three days for which they are intended. Also in 1988 the long vacation housing benefit paid during absence from term-time address ceased. As has been pointed out, students have to rent houses for the full year. No landlord will rent out a house on the understanding that it can be sublet to another tenant during the summer holiday.
Most students attend universities outside their home towns as those are the universities of their choice and also because the courses they wish to follow may not be offered in their home town universities. Some students therefore have to leave their home towns to study. Students who are obliged to carry on renting accommodation over the summer vacation when they are not there find that a great burden.
In 1988 and 1990 the entitlement in certain cases to free prescriptions for dental and optional treatment was lost. In 1990 social security benefits for full-time students were lost. Students can no longer sign on during the summer vacation if they cannot find work, even though the basic grant is not intended to cover that period of time. In 1991 the vacation hardship grant was lost. It seems that the safety net that could

1149
have protected students who are at the bottom end of the scale, who are vulnerable and who will be forced to consider leaving their courses if they find themselves in financial difficulties will be lost to the very students who will be most affected by the loss of benefit.
I do not believe student loans will compensate for the loss of benefit I have mentioned. That has been shown to be the case by the fact that the Access Fund had to be introduced. But that fund is woefully inadequate to cover the problems that many students face. In Newcastle there are 9,500 students who potentially could apply to the Access Fund. Some 1,000 students applied for help from the fund last year. If each of those students received £171 from the Access Fund, that fund would be entirely used up. That shows that the Access Fund system is not working.
4.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, previous speakers have already established beyond dispute that students are suffering financial hardship. I do not wish to repeat that point but I shall underline it by drawing attention to one or two less commonly mentioned areas. University chaplains report an almost universal increase in the number of students approaching them with debt problems. There is a corresponding increase in the number of students who approach welfare officers and others. There is further corroboration of student financial hardship from an unusual source. I am told that the profits from student union bars are down. That is the clearest evidence of student impoverishment.
I have received information on student financial hardship from my local university in Guildford, the University of Surrey. The cost of living in Guildford is every bit as high as it is in London; but the cost of living allowance for students in Guildford is an out-of-London allowance and that imposes financial hardship on students. A survey indicates that 24 per cent. of students are now taking part-time employment that lasts more than 10 hours a week. That is not only an indication of hardship but it is also an indication, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said, that students may not be giving their full attention to the rigour of academic discipline. They may be distracted and they may not be giving themselves to that leisured analysis of the world's problems which is part of the benefit of a university education that many of us have enjoyed. It is easy to blame the Government for this situation. That, after all, is one of our major national industries and it is one totally unaffected by the recession.
However, it is not adequate just to say to the Government that they ought to be producing more money. They have made mistakes, and the withdrawal of the vacation hardship allowance is an unhappy episode. Nonetheless, we cannot blame just the Government. We need a much more corporate response from many different elements in society. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out, the LEAs carry a substantial responsibility. I was appalled to read that over 24,000 students had to wait
1150
at least a fortnight before receiving their grant at the beginning of the academic year. That is inexcusable; and we ought to say that quite bluntly.
Again, student unions, though it is quite right that they should put before us the needs and anxieties of students in relation to finance, could do more in ensuring that students have access to debt counselling, financial advice, and proper budgeting. I was particularly impressed to see, for instance, a leaflet issued by the York university students' union helping people in this direction, and I hope that is reflected in other student unions in universities across the country.
Mention has already been made about the banks and how they could do much more to help students. It is sad that they seem to show a lack of sensitivity to the particular problems of these students, and not least mature students, where there seems to be evidence that they experience hardship even greater than others.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, thought that the problem might be solved in large measure if everybody went to their local university, and he hoped that might be resolved in three years. I think he would find that a number of universities would have significantly to change their arrangements, because there are many universities, such as the University of Surrey, which do not offer a complete set of courses across the subjects. Many students in our area would necessarily be trying to study technological subjects which are totally beyond me, and I suspect beyond a great many of them as well.
I do not think that is a solution. We need far more radical solutions than we have yet faced. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, also say that. I do not think that just modest adjustments to the present position will meet the situation. We have to be prepared to look much more radically at the situation. Is it not possible to think in terms of a graduate tax, or some other such process whereby the money can be recouped? It is right that we should try to re-establish the fact that higher education is not a right to which people have access, although I wish them to have access to it. It is a privilege, and we need to make that quite clear. Because it is a privilege, people should be ready to contribute towards the cost of it; but the present loan system is not satisfactory. As the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals say, it is not adequate, not certain, not simple and not socially just. We need a much more radical solution.
I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to say that such investigations are being inquired into, because we need to ensure that there is increased access for people to higher education and that they should be ready to contribute in some way to the cost of it.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, as others before me, I acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject. In so doing I declare my interest as the chairman of the London Guildhall University. In the limited time I shall concentrate on two topics. One is the issue of

1151
hardship itself, and the second, the Government's proposals, so far as they can be determined, for revising the financial arrangements for student unions.
The leading article in Higher of last Friday opened with the question, "What is student hardship?" and offered this answer:
"The most often cited measure is the growing volume of student debt."
There is logic in that. And this hardship is increasing. There are reasons for this, and there is evidence in support.
Let me cite just three reasons out of many. The first is the increasing number of students who, to my knowledge, are receiving their grants late—a point already twice referred to—by weeks or even months. It seems that the London boroughs are the worst offenders in that regard. Almost one quarter of our own students sharing their problems with our student adviser last term cited that as a reason for their problems.
It is not for lack of self-help on the part of the students. The second reason is the increasing difficulty of supplementing income by working. In summer last year only 31 per cent. of our students were able to get vacation work. The average wage they received was £64 per week, of which on average £45 went on rent. That is not even a break-even situation to enable students to reduce their overdrafts. The third reason is that, despite the best efforts of staff, many sandwich course students do not get paid placements. If they can afford it they will take unpaid placements; if not, they must take placements unrelated to their courses.
A further consequence is the increasing number of students driven to seek earnings during term time and not just in the vacations, to the obvious detriment of their course work. Our student union now, from their own funds, pay for a full-time counsellor, and in the university we employ one and half people full-time equivalent on that work. Certainly no one is suggesting that students should be feather-bedded, coasting along without effort, and the students themselves are not suggesting that. But they do—and reasonably—expect to be able, with frugal living and good husbandry, to complete their courses. Increasingly, and tragically, increasing numbers are unable to do so.
Let me offer some quantification by reference to our own experience with the Access Fund. In the last academic year, using round numbers, my university received £160,000 of access funding. With 5,150 eligible students, that would enable support of 60p. per week if evenly spread. Of course it was not evenly spread. Nine hundred applied for assistance, and almost exactly half received some help in amounts varying from £50 to £1,200, the average being £380. About half of the awards went to students who were either totally self-supporting, generally in fact not receiving the assessed parental support, or to help with child-care costs, more than half of our students being mature. The evidence, as always, is inconclusive, but it is our belief that many of these students would have
1152
had to abandon their courses without a helping hand from the Access Fund. I hope that this will be well in mind when the fund is reviewed for next year.
I shall spend the remainder of my time on the question of student unions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has promised some changes in their basis of financing. He has not spelt out the basis of his concerns so it is hard to offer intelligent comment. I can only speak for my own institution, where our student union provides, on a consistent and responsible basis, services well used and well valued by its members, being services which otherwise would have to be provided by the university itself.
In the process the students managing the union's finances acquire valuable experience, and they address their duties very seriously. By no definition that I can find could that part of their expenditure classified as "political" be said to exceed 2 per cent. If that is the focus of intended change, let us deal with it on a more rational basis than throwing out the baby with the bath water. Legislation certainly is needed to define the status of student unions, and no one would deny that expenditure from public funds should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
However, references to the voluntary principle are no substitute for consultation on desirable changes; and it would be ironic indeed if the pursuit of freedom of speech were the occasion for producing far-reaching legislative proposals without proper discussion. If legislation is produced which is not preceded by such discussion, I believe that it might have an awkward passage through Parliament.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated in his opening remarks, the truth behind today's debate is that, unlike other members of the community, there is no safety net for students. The assurances of the Minister for Social Security at the time of the Student Loan Bill in 1990 have proved sterile. Universities are being left with growing costs in administering the Access Fund, a fund which cannot cope with the needs of students.
I give two examples of problems from my own experience. In the University of Leeds, after earmarked deductions and an average rent of £32.50 per week, students are left with £17.67 per week to live on. In Bradford with a rent of about £25 per week, they are left with £24 per week to live on. That is still well below the government poverty line of £33.60 per week.
Those are the lucky students who receive the full grant, including parental contribution, and who take up the full loan. The position of students who do not receive a full grant is even worse. Out of the amount that is left, students still have to pay for poll tax, water rates, heating and lighting, and any essential equipment needed for their course, as well as food. At Bradford University, which is attempting to be completely computerised, that is likely to mean an individual computer for each student. It is no wonder that the student welfare officer cites students not

1153
eating for days and fainting for lack of food. The collection and distribution of food parcels is now routine throughout the year.
That is the position of full-time students. But I wish to refer to another group of students who do not receive the mandatory grant or the student loan. They are part-time students, a category which the Government would like to see grow in number. A recent circular from the funding council for England indicated that there would be a financial incentive to those universities which increased their part-time student numbers. Currently, excluding the Open University, in England there are about 137,000 undergraduates and higher level sub-degree students and about 86,000 postgraduate students on a part-time basis. Despite the pressures under which they operate, part-time students do well academically. Most are working, or unemployed, or are women at home with children. Many are single parents. All those factors make full-time study difficult. They have to pay their own fees, and the cost of books, travel and essential equipment out of their already taxed income. Most seek to improve or establish career prospects. A decreasing number are able to obtain discretionary assistance from a local education authority. At Birkbeck College, about 12 per cent. of those students have their fees paid by employers. Ironically it is usually the more highly paid students who receive that financial assistance.
Birkbeck College, part of the institution about which the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, spoke, leads in the field of part-time study. It has its own long list of severe financial hardship among its 4,200 part-time students. Its fees range from about £500 to £1,000 per annum depending on the course. Add to that books and travel and one arrives at a minimum of £900 for an undergraduate student to £1,390 for a post-graduate student. The nature of the university scene has completely changed. More than 50 per cent. of students are mature students. A growing number are part-time or associate students. Modularisation of courses will enhance that process.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford stated, we need a complete reappraisal of the student grant and support system. There must be a system which is both adequate and equitable to all students. We cannot continue with the present hotchpotch system which leaves a large proportion of students in such financial hardship that their studies are jeopardised.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I endorse the many expressions of appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for initiating this important debate. I speak because I thought that it might be of interest to have some impressions from the viewpoint of a centre which sees a wide cross-section of university students.
At Cumberland Lodge in Windsor Great Park we receive every year over 3,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, including many from overseas, from about a dozen universities. We therefore obtain a good overall picture of the financial circumstances of
1154
today's student. Based on that experience I wish to make two points. The first concerns UK students. When I was at school in the 1930s hoping to go to university there were no grants and only two ways of getting to university: either to have parents who could afford to pay for you or to win a scholarship—and scholarships did not cover the full cost. As a result, many who should have gone to university did not do so, and the country was the poorer. I met many such people among my RAF aircrew friends during the war.
After the war, grants were introduced and the whole scene changed. Those deserving of going to university were able to do so without being prevented by lack of money. That was the position until about 10 years ago, when grants began to fall behind the cost of living. I do not argue for lavish style for undergraduates, but lack of money is now beginning to be a deterrent to undertaking a three or four-year university course.
The position of undergraduates and postgraduates has become much more serious as a result of unemployment making vacation jobs more difficult to find. Already we are in a situation where undergraduates are expected to take loans amounting to £2,000 over a three-year course in order to top up their grants. Even so, they are getting further into debt. At the age of 26 I came down from university and married, having to live on my salary of £396 a year as an assistant principal in the home Civil Service. I do not know what we would have done if we had been faced with paying off a loan as well.
For the sake of the future of this country we desperately need young men and women with university training. I ask the Government not to let the level of grants drop so much that money again becomes a real bar to university education.
My second point concerns overseas students in this country, and especially those from the Commonwealth. British university education has always been enormously attractive for students from the Commonwealth for three reasons: the English language, the quality and worldwide standing of our universities and the traditional links with Britain. Many of these students have gone back to occupy influential positions in their countries and their good will has proved invaluable to Britain. But fewer potential Commonwealth leaders are coming to university in Britain today. The disastrous decision in 1980 to introduce full cost fees for overseas students resulted in a large drop in the numbers coming from the Commonwealth. In terms of numbers, the position is now better, but the Commonwealth students are coming in the main from those countries where parents can afford to pay the UK fees—from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Those from the poorer countries—Africa especially—in many cases cannot afford to come. That means that in the long run we shall inevitably have fewer links with such countries.
By contrast, students from EC countries get lower rates. These EC students are welcome and their presence is further evidence of the high standing of our universities, but we must not lose the Commonwealth

1155
students. The most helpful thing the Government could do is to extend the EC concessionary rates to students from the Commonwealth. The present situation, giving EC students preferential rates over those from the Commonwealth, is very difficult to justify and I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to making that concession.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in his useful speech introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a number of important points. One which I think is generally agreed is that most students today finish their degree courses substantially in debt. That is scarcely surprising, when they are invited to fund their courses through a student loan scheme. There is not necessarily anything wrong with that. Debt is not necessarily hardship and sometimes, in the course of the debate, in my view one is blurring the distinction between debt and hardship. But it is also clear, as we have heard abundantly documented, that there are many cases of hardship. The withdrawal of housing benefit, income support and so on has meant that many students, even when they have drawn on the financial resources available to them, find themselves on the margin. That is a cause for concern.
We live in a new world for students, a world where they have to concern themselves with the financing for their courses. It is a world, therefore, of financial uncertainty. I give the Government great credit for expanding the higher education sector and I do not think that they are in an easy position—it would not be easy for any government. Clearly the education budget is not infinitely elastic. Today we must probably accept that, if we are expanding education at such a rate in the higher education sector, it cannot all be free, with grants on a scale which we feel are adequate. That is to say, an element of self-financing is inevitable. So I respect the Government's dilemma and think that they have been right to try to move in that direction.
However, I wish to emphasise one consequence of the present arrangements which I find very worrying. It is a point already emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. It is the extent to which these adverse financial circumstances deter pupils from low income families from entering the higher education sector at all. For that reason I fear that some of them will not show up in the statistics of student hardship because they do not even enrol as students. There are good arguments to suggest that it is precisely students from low income backgrounds who are reluctant to take on a debt burden in order to undertake or complete their courses. Students from more affluent backgrounds are perhaps more easily persuaded of the merits of low interest loans and, of course, there are real merits in them.
I know that the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge experience considerable difficulty in attracting appropriate numbers of students from lower income backgrounds, although the colleges' endowment funds allow them to offer significant hardship grants. I
1156
believe that it is the case that a lower proportion of such students enter higher education in this country than in various other education systems.
The suggestion that, quite apart from the grant problem, some universities are thinking of charging "top up" fees is deeply disturbing, since once again it is students from low income backgrounds who are most likely to be deterred.
The Government have grasped the nettle and introduced an element of self-financing. I do not feel that that is wrong in itself, but we are not at present getting it quite right. The burden of debt introduces hardship for some, and that has been the main theme of this debate, and appropriately so. But equally important, it is introducing a deterrent for many.
A number of noble Lords suggested that the situation needs reviewing and I think the time has arrived when that is the case. The solution may well be a graduate tax. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made a good point in emphasising that. It was advocated by a number of groups, including, I believe, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, at the outset. The Government would do well now, in reviewing the matter, to ask other groups—including the National Union of Students and the CVCP—how, within an overall budget figure, they feel the system could be better operated. I am sure that there is a case for increasing the budget figure in view of the hardship element, but self-financing is here to stay. However, it must be a self-financing system that does not introduce the deterrent element, for I fear that there is a real danger that our fine record in developing and maintaining a higher education system open in practice to all—that is, to all students suitably qualified—may not be sustained. It would be a sad day if university education in this country were felt to be available once again only to those with the means to afford it.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I wish to open by re-emphasising our debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for this debate. As is so often true when one is batting late in the batting order, I am delighted with the many points that have been made.
I spend some time, in my decrepitude and old age, being attacked by people who say, "The students are a dreadful lot, some of them were drunk the other day", and similar remarks. I wonder whether it would be appropriate if I could use some of the ripostes that I have had to use in the field to support and encourage the Minister in the battles that she must have in the Department of Education, standing up for our students and no doubt letting her maternal instinct towards them express itself.
Minister, I wish first to say: please close your ears to some of the things that I hear: for example, "I believe that the bar takings in your college bar went up last year. How on earth can you say that any students are hard up?" Of course, some people drink and others do not have enough money to drink. Please do not be wooed by that argument. Others will produce all kinds of arguments such as: "We know that some of your hardship funds were not taken up last year.

1157
What on earth is this cry that the students are hard up, if they can't even be bothered to apply?" There are two reasons for that. One is that it becomes common knowledge among the porters and in the common rooms if people apply for grants. Some of them, bless them, are too proud to come forward if they can possibly manage. I admire them for that, but I see that the door is being left open for the thought that they cannot be very hard up if they are not prepared to apply.
I was terribly hurt, worried and distressed to hear of a girl who has been begging in the streets. Cambridge streets are full of musicians, I do not know whether any are musicians from the colleges but they certainly play very well. I give them my 10p whenever I can.
Minister, I wish to encourage you in your struggles on behalf of our seed-corn, the young people who are well endowed and reaching out for the future. They will need every skill they can produce when the financial situation begins to change and the sunshine industries look for the likes of our present students. Incidentally, do not forget that those sunshine industries may also include the leisure industries where those much-reviled young people on the arts side may come forward and be able to show the rest of the world that we still have great young artists in the making.
I was very taken with the powerful argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, which I have heard before, encouraging people to stay at home and go to university. I would not be opposed to that. I think that some feel a desperate need to get away from home and try their wings, but I believe that the great civic universities might well increase their public relations effort to get people to stay at home. We have with us a member of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and I have not had a chance to take that up with her. But I do not think that the Minister should completely neglect the noble Lord's proposals but should see whether that is a way of reducing the overall demand on student funds.
In my remaining minute, I should like to tell noble Lords that when I was at Nottingham I had one lady student who came to see me to say: "Vice Chancellor, I think you should know, and I would like to give you warning, that I am going to have my common-law husband in my room with me next year". She was appalled when I replied: "My goodness, you will be my heroine. If you can take two people into your room, it can become a general rule and we will have double bunks everywhere". I heard no more about the matter. I do not know whether it is a possibility—I am not suggesting that there should be mixed rooms. But it is true that in American rooms there are two young men or two young women in many bedrooms. We should not forget that as a possibility. Perhaps the universities would be willing to look into it. I am not sure what the educationists might say to me, but I am old and decrepit and before long I shall slip away out of their grasp.
Finally, I was in Australia at the meeting of the Association of Commonwealth Universities when the then Minister of Education for Australia was
1158
beginning his drive for the 2 per cent. tax on the loans the students were to get. He was reviled by the academics. Now it appears that it has worked. It is awful to think that one will have the first tax aimed at a certain repayment, but I hope that we can encourage the Minister to give serious consideration to it. We are talking about a very important part of our society. It is worth cutting new ice to try to support our young students.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is based on the opportunity to pursue my concern about student finance which began last November, when I asked a quick question about the possibility of student fees being tax-deductible. I declared my interest as a student of the Open University and was grateful for the good wishes and encouraging noises from noble Lords.
The Open University is an educational institution which is part-time and self-funded. Students study at home but attend tutorials and summer school. The only qualification for entry is the ability to read and write. Students are of all ages. All want to better themselves, either to improve their present careers or, in the case of unemployed, retired or senior citizens, to seek new directions. Great encouragement and assistance are given to handicapped students. I will give a small example. My own wife is handicapped, and it was arranged that we (I am her helper as well as a fellow-student) did not have to attend an exam centre. With an invigilator present, we wrote our exam answers sitting across our dining-room table.
To obtain a degree a student must obtain six credits. Most students study one course a year. A pass is obtained not only by sitting an exam, usually held in October, but on the marks obtained with written assignments. A pass provides the student with a credit. There are shorter courses which produce just half a credit. The majority of Open University students pay their own fees, but loans and grants—as has been said —are not easy to obtain, particularly if one is over 50 years of age. In order to meet shortfalls between income and expenditure, the Open University has had to raise its fees by well above inflation rate. Since 1979, tuition fees have risen by more than 70 per cent.
The estimated average cost to a student for a six-credit course at 1992 prices is £2,500. On top of that sum is the cost of the set books and the week's attendance at the residential summer school. That is further expense. There is the matter of travel to tutorials, and costs for stationery, use of computers, telephone calls and postage. Parent-students have to arrange childcare in order to attend tutorials and the handicapped students have their own particular problems and expenditure. It all adds up.
The university operates a means-tested financial assistance fund. The fund has to be cash limited. Since 1990, awards to new students for their initial tuition fees increased by 70 per cent. For 1993 the Open University has budgeted over £2 million for financial

1159
awards. However, I am informed that the demand is so great that quotas are likely to be imposed to protect the interests of continuing students.
Her Majesty's Government encourage increased participation in higher education by opening opportunities for so many young people. But there is another category of persons who need assistance. Those are the mature and senior citizen professionals. Part-time education is a cost-effective way in which they can be encouraged to contribute valuable talents to industry and business. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister to give serious thought to lessening the financial hardships of many adult part-time students.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for instigating the debate. I have already apologised to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the fact that I might now be considered to be a trifle tangential. I am aware of the romantic notion that poverty encourages study and that working late at night in a freezing garret by the light of a candle is good for the soul. But those who praise that lifestyle have not, I suspect, tried it. Certainly it is not one recommended by the CVCP, nor, I believe, by Dr. Faustus, who went to the devil in somewhat similar circumstances.
As a member of the Arts Council and as chairman of the Arts Council drama panel, I want to raise specifically the issue of discretionary awards granted by local authorities for courses concerned with dance and drama. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, touched on that.
In the time of good Queen Anne, as noble Lords may know, actors were still termed, in line with Elizabethan precedents, "rogues"—not "and vagabonds"—"rogues and sturdy beggars". We are rapidly returning to the time when those training for the profession will probably be known as beggars. I doubt the roguery, and the sturdiness will rapidly be undermined by lack of both food and funds.
I was personally lucky in that I never had to gain my training through being a student. The war was on and there was a desperate lack of actors. Those not fighting were either too young or too old or what was euphemistically known as "temperamentally unsuited for active service". I would like to assure noble Lords that I fell into the first of those categories. But, as in today's debate, I was in those days at the bottom of the bill.
However, young people now are faced with convincing hard-pressed local authorities to fund places at their discretion or with being pushed into degree courses which will gain them a mandatory award but which may be quite unsuitable.
In the field of dance and drama, training in the real world is probably more important than in many other areas, and it is that which is being lost. The Arts Council has been asked by the Department of National Heritage to look into the decline in discretionary awards from local authorities. I hope
1160
that I can have the assurance that the Department of Education will be just as interested as I am in seeking a solution to that problem.
While there are courses in dance and drama in universities, vocational training in that field is provided through independent academies or schools, none being centrally funded and all being dependent on student fees. Most UK students need a discretionary grant from their local authority in order to pay those fees. The number of students turning down places because of the lack of a grant for fees has increased significantly since last year. It is estimated that 40 per cent. of dance and drama students are unable to take up the places that they have been offered. We are facing a loss of revenue to schools and their possible closure—but how much talent is being lost?
More and more, only better-off families will see that kind of training as an option and as a result the profession will be impoverished. It would be an extremely unbalanced profession, with no recruits from ethnic minorities or working-class backgrounds. The system of discretionary grants is not working. It is not providing equality of access, guarantee of quality, economic efficiency or appropriate accountability. Direct central funding to the schools would ensure such outcomes. There would be an efficient and effective use of public funds and schools would be able to select students on the basis of talent and focus on raising standards.
With the rapid decline in the availability of local authority discretionary awards, many of us would like to know what the Government intend to do to protect and encourage funding for both dance and drama training. We are lucky in that we have progressed from an era when only the rich benefited from education to one in which some form of further education is at least known to exist by all. But can we all take advantage of that opportunity? Regrettably, I must conclude that we cannot.
On many occasions I have had the privilege of speaking on behalf of people with a learning disability—people who in many cases can and do speak for themselves when the educational opportunities exist to help them do so. Access to adult education for people with a learning disability is not a mere pastime but an essential step forward. It may seem less important to fund classes for basic cookery or simple numeracy, but in terms of producing full participating citizens in our society it is crucial.
I realise that the debate centres on the financial difficulties of students. But I wish to know from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that sufficient education is available for people with learning disabilities and whether they intend to produce guidance for local authorities on the provision that must be made for people with learning disabilities if they are to learn the basic living skills of life. To me it would be a luxury to talk of the amount of money in the pocket of a student with a learning disability when the vast majority have no access to adult education at all and too often in the current climate have no hope of ever living off anything other than state benefits.

1161
It was Samuel Butler who wrote:
"An art can only be learned in the workshop of those who are winning their bread by it".
I was one of the lucky ones. There was a war on—I could practice my art. Now, thank goodness, peace reigns, but poverty for students—mature and teenage alike—plus poverty pleaded by local authorities, is denying a basic grounding for thousands of those eager to learn and then win their bread from the knowledge gained.
5.13 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the past two weeks some 20 per cent. of my working time has been used in trying—usually unsuccessfully—to solve the problems of students who, through no fault of their own, are spending too long earning money to be able to do the amount of work the college would otherwise require of them. Some of them involve stories of hardship as great as any mentioned by my noble friend Lord Addington, including one student who has been attempting to live on £20 a week. On two occasions I have been faced with a situation so urgent that I thought it my duty to default on an ordinary commitment to the inconvenience of my other pupils in order to deal with the problem. It makes my point that those inconvenienced felt that I had my priorities right. Therefore in declaring my interest as a university teacher and as a parent I do so with some feeling.
I always admire, when there is a stampede in the House, those who stand against it, even though I may be part of the stampede. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, on her speech. But if she believes that it was ever thus she has no idea of the gravity of the present situation. I have been listening to student problems for 33 years and I have never known anything remotely like the present situation.
The average amount of work done by under-graduates has halved since I came back from the United States in 1984. Financial difficulties account for some 80 per cent. of that change. The two right reverend Prelates hit the nail on the head; it is students doing jobs during term time which is the hub of all our difficulties. The figure supplied by my own students' union is that 67 per cent. of them are doing jobs for an average of 10 hours a week in the term. It is a difficult subject on which to obtain honest answers to a survey. I believe that that figure is an underestimate and the accurate figure would be nearer 75 per cent.
It makes it extremely difficult for the students to do that for which they are obtaining their grants; in fact, it interferes with the object of the exercise. The noble Baroness the Minister will probably raise three arguments against what I have said. She will refer to the low take-up of student loans. I advise all my pupils individually to take the student loan, so I know something about it. I find regularly that they prefer to work during term rather than take up the student loan; they have just that dislike of going into debt which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, during the passage of the loan Bill in
1162
this House. That is not the noble Baroness's problem; it is my problem. But I ask her not to misinterpret that low uptake.
Secondly, the noble Baroness will probably point out that the proportion of first and upper second degrees has not fallen. In my opinion ability is constantly rising. I do not believe that I am the only academic who feels that penalising an undergraduate for not doing work that he could not do is a bit like penalising a dyslexic for his spelling. That therefore conceals a sharp fall in the amount of work done by undergraduates.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness will quote the continuing flow of applicants. I see them in their first week. It is clear that they do not know what they have let themselves in for. They think that the grant is still meant to cover the whole of their expenses. It may be worth remembering what Mrs. Rumbold said about child benefit; it is deep in the culture. So is the assumption that students live off grants. They do not.
The total amount of grants plus loan in London is £3,675 a year. The college advises overseas students that the minimum amount that they need to live on is around £5,000. That discrepancy may be £100 or £200 too high. But it is in the right target area. Mr. Nicholas Scott on 20th April 1990 admitted that student incomes are below social security benefit level, and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux now calculates that in London they are £474 per year below benefit level and in the provinces £459 below. That is a national problem compounded during the recession by parental contribution cheques bouncing.
That is the sort of situation in which the social security safety net is vital. But it is not available. The noble Baroness will say that there is not enough money. But there is a point of economy beyond which the job is not worth doing at all. We have not only reached that point; we have passed it. I have advised sixth formers, and will advise them again if asked, that it is not worth doing if they cannot obtain any more money than the Government provide. I advise them to take a year off and earn money before they come up. If they cannot do that, they should not do it at all.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the House is deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having made this excellent debate possible.
Higher education should be a liberating experience for those enjoying it. It should enable them to throw themselves into their books and learning and to savour the stimulus of associated cultural and social activity in a community of scholars. It should be an enriching investment in talent, excellence and character, all indispensable and vital to our nation's future. Instead, as we have starkly been reminded, it is for far too many students a cramping, anxious time of acute financial stress, a time when potential is never fulfilled because of the basic struggle to survive.
This academic year the Student Loan Company recorded 89,000 applications by November 1992–60 per cent. up on 1991. One high street bank reports that 44 per cent. of students have overdrafts. Recent research at Leeds Metropolitan University reveals

1163
that expenditure exceeds income for 40 per cent. of students and that for half of these it exceeds it by more than £1,000 per annum. Across the country students fear that they will never be able to repay their debts and it is obvious that this discourages potential students from low income households.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is conducting a survey of student support. Its interim report reveals that the success rate in applications for access funds on the valid grounds of hardship dropped from 79 per cent. in 1991–92 to 60 per cent. in 1992–93. Indeed, the pressure on access funds has begun to call into question their effectiveness. One institution reported in the survey argued that,
"amounts awarded to individuals are often too small to deal effectively with their problems".
As announced in the last Autumn Statement the total resources for grant and top-up loans will be increased by 2.75 per cent. in line with GDP. However, consistent with government policy, the grant element will again remain frozen and the increase in resources will be reflected solely in the loan. Even with the loans the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has calculated that a student receiving the maximum grant and loan for 1992–93 could receive almost £460 less than the basic income support level of an unemployed claimant aged under 25 receiving the lower rate of income support together with housing benefit, a level which is widely recognised to represent the poverty line.
Paradoxically, whatever the well-founded anxieties about the adverse effects on study of too much time spent earning, the financial difficulties of students are compounded by the increasing non-availability of vacation and term-time jobs, hitting sandwich course students especially hard, often leaving them with no prospect of alternative support. Medical students are at a special disadvantage because they have little time in which to earn. This inevitably favours those from more affluent families. Difficulties are also aggravated by the steady decrease in the number of discretionary grants which cash-strapped local authorities now make and by the decreasing number of grants for postgraduate studies.
The case histories of students facing difficulties are distressing. The special report of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux made sober reading. The House will be grieved that some students, it seems, have even in desperation turned to prostitution. A student at Bristol University told the Guardian newspaper how she was paid £40 for her services, enabling her to survive financially for another two weeks. She had been £1,100 overdrawn, her bank was demanding payment of her overdraft and she had had three student loans. Her parents could not help.
There must be acute concern for the well-being of our student population. It is high time that the Government gave a clear indication of how, on a basis that is demonstrably fair, they intend to fund their much repeated commitments to higher education. As things stand, the whole sector is being undermined by an atmosphere of insecurity and, frequently, of sordid struggle to keep going. What should be creative years
1164
are for too many becoming desperate years. What should be a fulfilling experience is becoming a nightmare.
For the immediate future I hope that the Minister can give three specific undertakings which the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals seeks. First, will the Government undertake to ensure that access funds become what they should be—namely, hardship funds—and that they will be increased in line with expansion of student numbers rather than just by the rate of inflation? Secondly, will they reinstate housing benefit as a targeted and therefore cost-effective benefit? Thirdly, will they extend the review of student support by the DFE to cover postgraduates and part-time students, with particular reference to the present ineligibility of part-time students for loans? Will the Government ensure that the DFE review covers the complete academic year, including the summer vacation?
I would suggest that in the context of this very poignant and indeed moving debate—indeed, in the name of civilised values—there is a need for urgent action.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the time available it will not be possible for me to do justice to this very important debate. But I shall do what I can to address the points made and I will of course write to noble Lords whose points I miss.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for choosing this subject for the debate because it gives me the opportunity to show how this Government can be proud of their achievements in higher education generally, despite what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and can take credit for the system we now have for student support, which is working well.
Let me deal first with our overall commitment to higher education. There are now more than one in four young people entering higher education compared to one in eight in 1979, when the Conservative Government came into office. That is a remarkable achievement. And beyond that, by the year 2000 we expect it to rise to one in three. Public funding for higher education now stands at record levels and will total over £4 billion in 1993–94.
The Autumn Statement provided for 8.5 per cent. growth in full-time equivalent student numbers next year which will enable the current record levels of participation to be maintained. Looked at in broad national terms, opportunities for participation in higher education have never been better.
But this debate is about the financial situation of individual students. I recognise that that lends a different perspective. Let us look at the realities. There are many misconceptions about the arrangements for student support. I hope the House will bear with me if I set the debate in context. We introduced the present student support arrangements in 1990, after announcing our proposals in the White Paper Top-up Loans for Students published in 1988. The previous system of publicly funded grants and parental contributions had

1165
been with us since 1962. A radical overhaul of the system was, I think all noble Lords will agree, by then long overdue.
Expenditure on grants had not kept pace with the increase in student numbers. There had been a fall in the real value of the grant to the individual student. Added to this the burden of the parental contribution had become increasingly heavy. That system was unsustainable.
In the absence of any other form of support from education funds, students were turning to the benefits system for extra help. But the benefits system was never designed to support students; nor should it have been. It was for the education system to find ways of funding students. The student loans scheme, introduced in 1990, provided the answer. It complements the existing awards arrangements in a way which largely eliminates the need for students to look elsewhere for help.
The declared aims of the new student support arrangements were: to share the cost of student support more equitably between the students, their parents and the taxpayer; to increase the resources available to students; to reduce the parental contribution over time; to reduce direct public expenditure over time on grants; to reduce students' dependence on benefits; and to increase students' economic awareness and their self-reliance. Those were the aims and I believe that we are well on the way to achieving them.
The cost of student support is now shared more equitably. Students—although they contribute nothing while studying —will contribute a fair share once they have graduated and started to earn a good income. That has reduced the burden that would otherwise have fallen entirely on parents and taxpayers.
The resources available to students have increased very substantially. Since the introduction of the student loans scheme, full year students can now receive nearly 40 per cent. more from grant and loan than they received from the grant alone three years ago. This increase has been achieved at a time when other members of our society, including those in employment, have not been as financially fortunate.
Parental contributions are now indeed falling in real terms. The introduction of loans has allowed us to reduce the burden on parents and that is, I believe, extremely important for many families in these difficult times. Those parents whose income has risen in line with the rise in average earnings have seen their contribution to their children's grant held steady in cash terms for the past two years.
In conformity too with the original objectives, students' dependence on benefits has been greatly reduced. But I would like to remind the House that we have not removed students' entitlement to benefit altogether. Housing benefit and income support remain available for students in vulnerable groups. Ending students' wider dependence on social security benefits, however, has, along with the introduction of the loan, contributed to an increasing economic awareness among students and a greater self-reliance—the final one of our original objectives.
1166
The arrangements we now have are true to the objectives we set for them. One of the strengths of the arrangements is their flexibility to meet individual circumstances. The present system not only consists of grants and loans. The Government have not neglected those students whose particular circumstances give rise to additional needs. As well as the main rates of mandatory grants and student loans, there is a range of supplementary allowances. Extra, means-tested allowances are available for disabled students. I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said about that. It is about ordering priorities, and for the moment they are means-tested.
There are also allowances for students with dependants and for older students. These have continued to be uprated in line with the basic grant plus loan. In particular, the three allowances available to disabled students are widely seen as generous. They are £4,430 on top of the grant and loan system for the non-medical personal helper; £3,325 again on top of the loan advance system for major items of specialist equipment; and a further £1,110 available for other incidental expenses for a disabled person, again on top of the grants and loan system. Those allowances are in addition, as I have just said, to the main grants and loan system and any other allowances which may be paid.
On top of that, the Government have made available access funds worth over £26 million this year. These are for the minority of students who are in particular financial difficulty and need more help than the grant and loan system can provide. Mature students, many of whom have family commitments, students facing high accommodation or travelling costs and single parent families are among the principal beneficiaries from these funds.
In spite of that, we continue to hear calls from time to time for the restoration of benefits and the abolition of loans. Some people believe that this would alleviate student hardship. Perhaps I can put the record straight. When loans were introduced they were set at a level above that of the average amount of benefit claimed. Most students have more money available through grant and loan than they ever claimed in benefit. Under the present system support for students is now primarily and rightly directed through the educational programme. The benefits system exists to help those people in our society who are in involuntary difficulty, although, as I indicated earlier, access to benefits remains an option for the most vulnerable groups.
I believe it will be clear from this that there are substantial resources available to students and the Government have honoured their obligations to provide and, where possible, increase these funds.
What then are the facts about student hardship? Facts, unfortunately, are hard to come by. We all know of individual students who are in financial difficulties, but without wanting to seem unduly harsh about this, I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe that 'twas ever thus. Some students, for reasons that may or may not be within their control, always run out of money faster than others. There have of course been several surveys of students'

1167
finances in recent months, some of which were referred to today. But these have generally been based on small or partial samples from which it is hard to draw any reliable conclusions. Such evidence as they have offered certainly has not pointed conclusively to widespread hardship. I will place greater reliance on the comprehensive survey of student incomes and expenditure, following up earlier such surveys, which the education departments have commissioned. The survey is now well under way, and we shall have the results later in the year.
That will give us hard data. In the meantime, all I can say is that other broader indications do not support the argument that hardship is widespread. For example, still under half of eligible students are actually taking out the loans on the very generous terms which we are offering. I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that some of his energies could be directed to persuading those young people to take advantage of what I believe is a generous loan.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: I appeal to the noble Earl. Time is extremely short and we have not one minute more allowed to us in the course of the debate. I will take up the noble Earl's particular point after the debate.
It may come as something of a surprise to the House, but it does suggest that more than half of the student population is finding it possible to manage on their grant alone, supplemented by any other income they may have. The fact is that far from students being hard up, many of them do not seem to need all the resources that we have provided. Of course, cautiousness about debt may play some part in students' avoidance of loans if they can get by without. It is right that they should think twice about these things. But any who look into it will know that the student loans scheme has generous provisions to defer repayments until the former student's income has risen to a point where repayment can be afforded.
Another indicator that hardship is not as widespread as some would have us believe is the sheer growth of student numbers that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks. Young people are certainly not being deterred from entering higher education; and from what we can tell they are not having to give up because of financial difficulties on any large scale either. My noble friend Lady Seccombe gave us the figures. We are third in the international league not only for the number of students entering higher education but also staying to the end of their courses.
Drop-out rates from universities remained broadly stable between about 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. throughout the 1980s and early 1990s and there are certainly no grounds for thinking that the new student support regime has driven them up.
It may be worth putting on record exactly what students are receiving. With grant and student loan combined, it amounts to £58 per week for 52 weeks of each year. If one takes the number of weeks for the average course, it is £99 per week for students during course time. Any course which lasts more than 30 weeks is given extra funds pro rata to that. That is for
1168
students out of London. In inner London students receive £70 per week for the full 52 weeks in the year and £120 per week for term time weeks, which again, if it is more than 30 weeks, increases pro rata according to the length of the course.
The actual burden of repayment also needs to be well understood in this Chamber. No student is required to pay during the period of taking the loan. It starts in the April after the course is completed and no student pays one single penny back to the Government until he is earning at or above 85 per cent. of the national average income, which at this moment is £13,560. Until a person is earning £13,560 he does not begin paying but when he does he pays over a five-year period. That is not burdensome.
What is more, if a student wishes to remain partially in the voluntary sector or to take low-paid work, or for one reason or another does not ever earn £13,560, which is indexed for inflation each year, then he will not have to pay that back if he either reaches 50 years of age or he has been within the system for 25 years. Loans can be deferred year after year if young people are not earning sufficient to pay them back.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, I believe I have dealt with it in saying that the system is not a deterrent to young people. The value of the grant plus loan in 1979 has been fully restored today. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has spoken before on the point that he believes that if more students—he did not say all students—took courses in universities and institutions closer to home, it would have some impact on the issue of homelessness. It has been said that that is not an entirely straightforward concept. I understand that the savings in money are not great in that we give a disproportionate grant to those students who learn from home. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that if fewer students required housing, more housing would be available for the homeless. That can certainly give us all food for thought.
The right reverend Prelate referred to counselling and advice. I agree absolutely with his point and am pleased that most university and higher education campuses have systems for offering counselling to students who may need it.
My noble friend Lady Perry, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and others were concerned about local authority inefficiency. I agree absolutely. It is monstrous for students to have to wait a day longer than is absolutely necessary to receive what is their due, especially when we are talking about something that involves only a mechanistic function for local authorities. I promise the House that I shall redouble the efforts of my department to put pressure on local authorities to make sure that young people receive their grants on time.
My noble friend Lady Perry, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and other noble Lords have pressed me to reconsider the idea of a graduate tax. This was discussed previously and we have been urged to consider also the idea of collecting payments through the national insurance system rather than the loans scheme. That has been studied carefully and in some

1169
detail. Collecting loan payments through national insurance would not be straightforward. In particular, it would pose real problems for employers in collecting and accounting for payments from graduate employees. Payment through the national insurance system would not necessarily be able to deal with the problem of graduates with low incomes.
The difficulty with a graduate tax is that it would not distinguish between those graduates who receive public support for their higher education and those who do not. A system which was so sensitive and which did distinguish in this way would be administratively extremely complex. A loan, on the other hand, relates only to those who have made use of the facility and gives the student the choice of how much to borrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew comparisons between student support and income support. I should say, first, that that is not a legitimate comparison. Students are expected to bear some of the cost of their support themselves on the ground that higher education is an investment in their own interest. Income support is designed for those who are involuntarily dependent on resources provided by the Government. However, I should add that, as the grant is equivalent to £58 per week for 52 weeks per year for students out of London and £70 per week for 52 weeks per year for students in London, a student's income probably compares favourably with that of someone on unemployment benefit.
Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, was concerned about vacation hardship. It is alleged that the withdrawal of the Vacation Hardship Allowance in 1991 subsequently contributed to student hardship in the summer vacation. However, the fact is that that is simply not so. The allowance was withdrawn because it was no longer needed. Very few students ever claimed the allowance before it was withdrawn and the Government's new support arrangements make more resources available to students to compensate for the loss of that part of their assistance.
I believe that I have dealt with the point about students not being asked to pay back the loan until the April after they have finished their course. I do not believe that the burden of repaying the loan acts as a deterrent.
The right reverend Prelate said that the loan system was not adequate, not certain, not simple and not just. We could argue for a long time about what we all believe is adequate, and the Government have taken a view about what should be borne by parents, students and taxpayers. We rest our case on that judgment. Students can be certain—if they qualify, the loan is certain. I believe that the system is simple. It is not difficult for students to apply. I believe also that the system is just.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), was concerned about means testing. As I have said, it is a matter of priorities.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth spoke about the disproportionate effect on postgraduates. Again, most postgraduates are not eligible for loans,
1170
but those who are supported by central government, bursaries or the research councils have continued to have their maintenance allowance uprated each year.
The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, referred to the proposals for student unions. I understand what he said. He expressed his concern about the maintenance of services for students. I can advise him that that matter will be taken into account in the proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was also concerned about sandwich students. Institutions are responsible for doing all that they can to obtain placements but can, if necessary, make alternative arrangements for full-time provision on college premises, thus entitling students to grants and to loans.
Time is running out. Unlike many others in this recession, students' income and status have been protected. I believe that we have reason to be proud of this country's flexible and relatively generous student support arrangements. They are all of a piece with our wider achievements in higher education.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, although it fell far short of the mark and misinterpreted the situation. The noble Baroness claimed that a student on a full grant with a loan would receive £58 per week. Perhaps I may remind her that somebody below the age of 24, living away from home and receiving social security benefit could expect to take home about £66 per week. Bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Maastricht Treaty
5.46 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to call attention to the constitutional effects of ratifying the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by apologising to all of your Lordships who are to speak this afternoon if I have chosen an inappropriate subject for a short debate. I am painfully aware that the large number of speakers means that each may only speak much more briefly than me, when nearly all are far better qualified to open the debate than I am.
My only qualifications for doing so are that I have had the honour to sit on your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities for about a year, and I have worked in Europe and elsewhere as an international insurance broker for some 30 years. In this latter capacity, I have formed strong commercial friendships in every country in Europe, and I have close personal friends in most of them. In that sense, my Lords, I am a good European.
Some of your Lordships have asked me what is a "constitutional effect". I am advised that the answer is anything which affects the Constitution of this country or the absolute sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. To quote from one of your Lordships' Select Committee reports:

1171
"The supreme authority in the internal order of the United Kingdom is the Queen in Parliament. The doctrine that Parliament has an unfettered legislative power is the fundamental principle of the United Kingdom's constitutional law".
So the question is: how would the Treaty on European Union, if ratified, affect the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament? In other words, since it does not appear to add any useful powers to our parliamentary democracy, what further powers would the treaty cede to Europe which have not already be ceded by the Single European Act and the Treaty of Rome?
I must say, my Lords, that reading this proposed treaty and its predecessors, and attending your Lordships' Select Committee, have opened my eyes. There seems to have been a relentless march towards a federal European union for many years now, to an extent which I for one have found quite shocking. I am sure that the vast majority of the British people would also be similarly surprised.
Reading back over some of your Lordships' debates, particularly your debates in 1986 on the Single European Act and in 1990 and 1991 on political union with Europe, it appears that your Lordships have been increasingly reluctant to move towards this federal goal. It appears to me—and I may be wrong—that most of your Lordships seem to have favoured ceding only that part of our sovereignty to Europe which was necessary to achieve the single market, which is now in operation. The main exception to this general rule is that we gave powers over some environmental matters to Europe in 1986, under Article 130R of the Single European Act. But by and large we only ceded our sovereignty to create the single market, which most people agree is an important achievement.
However, it seems to me that the Treaty on European Union goes much further than that. It seems to be a positively gigantic step towards a federal Europe and the cession of our parliamentary sovereignty to Brussels and to Luxembourg.
To start with, it is actually called the Treaty on European Union, and its very first sentence in Title I establishes a European union amongst the parties to it. I know there is controversy about the meaning of the word "union", but Article 8 of the treaty proceeds to set up citizenship of the union for every person holding the nationality of a member state. We are all to be subject to the duties imposed by this new status, but those duties are not spelt out.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could tell us what these duties are likely to be, and how we are to square them with our duties here, if they happen to be in conflict. Also, and I hope that your Lordships will not regard this as an offensive question, could my noble friend go further and tell us whether Her Majesty the Queen is to become a citizen of the union, and, if so, what that does for the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament?
I suppose the most obvious way in which our sovereignty is ceded to Europe under these treaties is when we agree that certain areas of decision making will be taken over by qualified majority voting in the
1172
Council of Ministers. The 12 Community countries have 76 votes between them, of which 54 constitute a qualified majority. Britain has 10 votes. I am advised that the Luxembourg court is likely to uphold the decision taken by qualified majority voting in the Council.
The powers of the Council to take decisions by qualified majority voting would be much extended by this treaty. Some of them are included in Articles 102 to 109 which would give the Council new powers intended to lead to economic and monetary union, and to an independent European central bank. Britain has reserved its position on monetary union, and the Germans have said that they want another look at it before finally signing up; so perhaps it will not happen anyway.
The turmoil in the foreign exchange markets and the shambles of the exchange rate mechanism make the prospect of economic and monetary union less likely now than when the treaty was negotiated. This is very significant because these aims were perhaps the treaty's most important. With such prominent aims in doubt, one must begin to wonder whether it is worth pressing on with the treaty at all.
Be that as it may, the union treaty would introduce the competence of the Council by qualified majority voting, or by co-decision, into areas of education, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks and development co-operation. It would extend such competence in the fields of transport, research and technological development, the environment, and our old friend social policy, out of which we may, or may not, have opted—I am not quite sure.
I submit that all these areas represent a substantial extension of Community power at the expense of our national sovereignty.
I come then to Titles V and VI of the treaty which further pool our sovereignty with the proposed union in foreign policy, defence, justice and home affairs. The most worrying article I find here is Article J, which deals with security and defence. On my understanding of this article, it appears to allow the Council of Ministers, by qualified majority voting, to start, or at any rate to continue, military action against our wishes. The relevant paragraphs are J.8.2 and J.3.2 which appear to say that, although the Council will have had to be unanimous when deciding, shall we say, to send troops somewhere, it could act by qualified majority voting in the development of the ensuing action. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can put my mind at rest on this point.
The rest of the clauses in Titles V and VI, or J and K of the treaty, would contribute to the march towards federalism in foreign policy, justice and home affairs. This is reinforced by such items as the "Declaration on Voting" in the field of the proposed common foreign and security policy. Here, Britain would agree that we—and I quote—
"will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision".
The drift towards federalism in this vital area of our national interest is to be further encouraged by what are known as "common positions", agreed by the

1173
Council. The elaboration of common positions already takes place in the framework of political co-operation, but they are not now regarded as legally binding. However, I understand that the Foreign Office has recently made clear that common positions will be legally binding in future in international law. At the moment we do not have have the machinery to scrutinise them. I wonder whether my noble friend would care to comment on this development.
Before I leave the detail of the Treaty on European Union, I should perhaps mention "subsidiarity", which is to be found in Article 3b, and which is supposed to safeguard our sovereignty from the further erosion I have mentioned. To refute this claim I can do no better than to quote the clause in question:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
The weaknesses inherent in this clause are plain for all to see. They have been much debated publicly, and so I shall not dwell on them now. The question is, of course, who decides? And the answer is the Council, often by qualified majority voting.
I am aware that "interpretive declarations" on the meaning of this clause were issued after the Birmingham and Edinburgh Summits last year, but I am advised that they have done nothing effective to remedy the deficiencies in Article 3b of the treaty text. So I am afraid subsidiarity offers little protection to our sovereignty; it merely emphasises the member states' role as agents in carrying out Community policy.
To conclude on a general note, I have to ask if we really need this union treaty. Do we not have enough on our plate with the Single European Act and the Treaty of Rome? After all, even if this union treaty is not ratified, we shall still have the single market, the effects of which are difficult to judge. I say this because we still put more in than we take out, and because in at least one important field (insurance) in which I work, I think it unlikely that we will gain the advantage which we sought through entry. This is not the fault of the single market so much as it is of the fact that for many years British insurance companies have not enjoyed a level playing field with their European competitors in their reserving and distribution policies. The result is that our competitors are now very much stronger than we are, and better able to take advantage of the single market. Yet insurance is one of our industries which was always supposed to be going to benefit most from our entry into Europe. I have to tell your Lordships that I am afraid that it may not.
Other problems arising from what we have done so far with Europe are emerging. Of course it is fun to laugh at Europe when it tells us we cannot shoot vermin out of season, or when it decrees that carrots are henceforth to be a fruit, or when it prescribes in law the length, curvature and thickness which cucumbers must possess before they may be sold in the single market.
But it is not quite such a joke when one learns of the many billions of pounds which are stolen annually through fraud in the Community, and when one reads your Lordships' report to the effect that the political will to stand up to this immense scandal simply is not there. Nor is it so funny when Europe tells us where we can, and where we cannot, put our roads, and what the quality of our water should be. The time and energy wasted by our Ministers and others in Europe must be very expensive and debilitating. Public opinion against the treaty is mounting daily.
I have mentioned just some of the problems which result from our present involvement with Europe. These are far from resolved, and will require all the stamina and wisdom of my noble friend on the Front Bench and her colleagues in government. Are they sure that it is really wise to press on with a new treaty which must surely exacerbate the problems we already have? Of course, I know that their colours are somewhat nailed to the mast, but might one way out not be to offer the British people a referendum? Like most of your Lordships, I dislike referenda—I dislike them very much—because I trust our system of parliamentary democracy to take our national decisions, and to protect the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. But it seems to me that that trust can no longer hold when the decision in question would undermine the very system upon which we otherwise rely. In my view, the Treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht, would, if ratified, so start to undermine our parliamentary democracy as to make it eventually worthless.
That is why I very much hope that the Government will not proceed with it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I congratulate him on the competent and concise way in which he introduced the subject. I too am concerned that every citizen of this country is to be forced to become a citizen of the European union without consent and without consultation. There is no provision in the treaty for any person to renounce his citizenship of the European union unless he also renounces his British citizenship.
In my view, the benefits of the European union are chimerical and the duties are unspecified. They are to be written in at some time in the future. In that respect I believe that we may be buying a pig in a poke. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether Her Majesty the Queen would become a subject of the European union. I believe that that question was answered in another place by the Home Secretary; she will become a citizen of the EU. She will, therefore, become a citizen of an embryo superstate and will owe a duty to its constitution and to its institutions. Many Royal Prerogatives will no longer he exercised solely by the Crown but by a foreign-dominated junta sitting in a foreign capital.
As regards economic and monetary union, it may well be that the whole scheme will collapse; but it may

1175
well not do so. The fact is that EMU transfers economic, financial and monetary power to EC institutions thereby reducing and in some cases eliminating parliamentary control of Britain's economic well-being. The opt-out of Stage 3 is a meaningless concession because Stages I and 2 inevitably lead on to Stage 3, complete with a single currency. Furthermore, convergence will cost the United Kingdom taxpayers thousands of millions of pounds extra with consequent damage to our own economy, infrastructure and social services. British people are not being informed of the additional costs arising out of the treaty.
The fact is that the Maastricht Treaty takes a large step towards a federal European state. Of course the Prime Minister and his Ministers assure us that that is not so and Erskine May lays down that Ministers do not lie to Parliament. But they can conceal the truth and I believe that they are doing just that in respect of the Maastricht Treaty. The sad thing is that we shall not know the truth until it is too late. But Herr Kohl, Martin Bangemann, M. Mitterrand and many more people in Europe know the truth. They have no doubts about the meaning of the treaty and they have proclaimed the treaty as federalist. Indeed, they exult in that fact.
Finally, I wish to protest once again at the failure to involve the people in decisions which have far-reaching consequences for their future and that of their children. The Government have no mandate to force the treaty through. At the general election in April the English text of the treaty was not available. As all the political parties were agreed about the treaty, there was no real discussion during the general election campaign. Noble Lords should remember that when the Front Benches are harmonised the British people are disfranchised. That is why there must be a referendum. Without that the people of this country will never finally accept the binding shackles of the Treaty of Maastricht.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for initiating this debate. It cannot be disputed that the constitutional implications of the Maastricht Treaty are considerable. One has only to read the title; "Treaty on European Union". Surely there can be no doubt that the original drafters of the treaty were envisaging ultimately a federal European state? It will be said that such was the purpose of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. No doubt there is truth in that. However, I do not believe that when the majority of people in this country voted in the referendum to join the European Economic Community they envisaged that Britain might end up as part of a European federal state.
The argument for joining Europe was an economic one. The Treaty of Rome had been most successful in establishing a powerful new economic bloc. Britain, as a trading nation on its doorstep, could not afford to stay out. The opinion in financial, industrial and commercial circles was pretty unanimous. The
1176
Commonwealth hated the decision and, as a result, Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth will never be the same. However, Britain could not stay out of the European Economic Community.
But that was a vote to join an economic bloc. Today the future as presented by the Maastricht Treaty looks very different. A majority of the member states of the EC, led by France and Germany, want to move towards a political union. Only skilful and determined negotiation by the British Government has prevented that from being spelt out in the Maastricht Treaty. But the long-term aim has been made clear. People in this country have become aware that a major constitutional issue may be at stake in deciding whether to approve the Maastricht Treaty. Referenda have been held in Denmark, France and the Republic of Ireland. Denmark rejected the Treaty and France approved it only by a whisker. To add to the public's confusion, Britain has been forced to leave the exchange rate mechanism and even the ERM is in jeopardy.
In those circumstances I submit that the British people should be allowed to vote in a referendum on whether this country should approve the Maastricht Treaty. I was interested to hear that the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart, share that view. No question of principle is at stake because in recent years we have had referenda on Europe, Scotland and Wales.
I also have the impression that such a decision by the Government would be very well received in the country. The Government may well be right in proposing to go ahead with Maastricht with the safeguards for Britain that they have managed to have built into the treaty. But the threatened collapse of the exchange rate mechanism, such a vital part of the way ahead as envisaged in the treaty, has created serious doubts and great anxiety, even among those most pro-European. The closeness of the vote in another place at the end of last year was a vivid illustration of that general unease.
My conclusion is that the issues are too important and recent developments are too serious for the Government to take such a decisive step without a new endorsement by the people which a referendum would give.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Ridley of Liddesdale: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for introducing the subject. The fact that it is so popular that we are allowed to speak for only four minutes each forces me to concentrate on only one point. It does not give me time to say all the things that I think about the Maastricht Treaty. That point is the relationship between what is happening in regard to the Maastricht Treaty and the confidence which is necessary to bring about an industrial recovery in this country. I am talking not only about special interest groups such as the farmers, the fishermen, those who have abattoirs and those who suffer from the myriad regulations which come from Brussels. I am not even talking about the sovereignty issue per se. I want to

1177
talk about the damage and demoralisation which has been inflicted on British business as a result of trying to move to fixed parities and a single currency.
In relation to the ERM, I agree that it may have been necessary to have high interest rates to reduce inflation. However, unemployment is now nearly 1 million higher than two years ago. The effect of unemployment has been to make people fearful of spending, borrowing and consuming, thus deepening the recession. There are record numbers of bankruptcies and there has been a horrible fall in the level of industrial investment as a result of the unprofitability of British industry. Asset values have fallen disastrously, again making people frightened to spend and to borrow.
Worst of all, we have lost about four per cent. of our gross national product as a result of membership of the ERM. That stores up huge problems for the public sector borrowing requirement. It is an extreme worsening of the state of the nation's wealth.
It is to be hoped that that is all behind us because we have left the ERM. However, the Government keep saying that they want to rejoin at some stage. If we proceed with the Maastricht Treaty, we shall have to rejoin. That inspires the opposite of confidence among investors and businessmen. Wherever one goes people say that they do not know what the Government's economic policy is. Is it to go back into the ERM eventually, with fixed exchange rates operating under the single currency, or is it to remain out of the ERM and have our own economic policy? That doubt is worsening the prospects for recovery.
I also draw attention to the fact that the fall in our gross national product means that this coming year our borrowing requirement will be 8 per cent of GNP. The Maastricht Treaty requires it to be 3 per cent. Therefore, we have to cut our public sector borrowing requirement from 8 per cent. to three per cent., a sum of approximately £30 billion. What shadow does that cast over the future of British business? We joined the Community in order to become better off. We prospered until 1990, but ever since we stopped pursuing the single market as our main objective and started to pursue the single currency we have become worse off. Surely it is time to recognise that it is the single market which matters and that the single currency does not.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I fear that I shall break the happy consensus which has united the previous speakers by trying to make one simple point. That is that Britain's influence in Europe has been gravely impaired in the past two years by a civil war inside our government party over the Maastricht Treaty, a civil war in which both sides have grossly exaggerated the importance of the issues at stake and often misrepresented the facts.
Seven years ago, in 1986, Parliament passed a Single European Act which committed Britain to work for European Union, including a common foreign policy, a common defence policy and economic and monetary union. That Act was forced through another place on a guillotine Motion by the
1178
noble Baroness who sits opposite me today, who was then at the height of her powers, with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, acting as her familiar. It was a real witches' sabbath.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has pointed out to us on many occasions in the past few years, there is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty, now so strongly opposed by those who supported the Single European Act, which is not already in the Single European Act except a timetable and conditions for European monetary union which is now universally accepted as quite unrealistic, as the European finance Ministers made clear on Monday. Incidentally, this is the third time in the past 20 years that a target date for EMU has been missed. I suspect that will happen again before it finally comes about. If Britain fails to ratify the Maastricht Treaty that will be seen by all its partners in Europe as a gross breach of faith.
There has also been some argument in the government party about the protocol which lays down procedures for operating the social chapter of the treaty and which specifically excludes Britain. Those who oppose the Maastricht Treaty have tended to describe the social chapter as a Marxist invention, although it is strongly supported by every Conservative Government in Europe and by all the parties with which the Conservative Party associates at Strasbourg. In fact the only party in Europe which takes the view of the opponents of Maastricht in the Conservative Party is the National Front of Monsieur Le Pen in France.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made it clear in a letter today—and I shall not repeat his arguments —that the scope of the protocol which governs the operation of the social chapter offers nothing which anybody in Britain, employer or worker, should fear. However, the past week has seen the Government express four contradictory views on the legal consequences of deleting the protocol. The latest view is that it makes no difference if Parliament decides to delete it. The Government have spent a year opposing a referendum in order to protect the sovereignty of Parliament, and now they are destroying the sovereignty of Parliament to protect their own face.
Equally serious is the fact that the Government are devoting nearly two years of precious parliamentary time to discussing arguments over the Maastricht Treaty in a period when Britain's own economy is in ruins, when unemployment is at unprecedented levels throughout the western world, and when the ex-Communist world faces terminal collapse. Meanwhile, the Government are wandering in a wilderness of mirrors; the Prime Minister is continuously uncertain whether he wants to be at the heart of Europe or is the greatest Euro-sceptic of them all. Our partners in Europe do not know whether to laugh or to cry. There is one point on which I hope we can all agree: the generalship shown by the Government in dealing with the Maastricht Treaty makes Fred Karno look like the Duke of Wellington.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, unlike some other noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to whom we are indebted for this rich foretaste of great days to come, I am not a Euro-sceptic. I believe that if we had not already joined the European Community we would, like almost every other European country not already a member, be seeking to join today, even though it would be to a Community less to our liking than the one we have now since our influence would not have been exerted, as it has been, on its development.
I believe that the single market was a great achievement, not least for my noble friend the former Prime Minister. It brought the prospect, which is still barely in place, of the largest free market in the world for goods and services and the movement of people —a thoroughly desirable objective and one close to our liberal tradition. Similarly, the Treaty of Maastricht represented a negotiating triumph for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and at the time, little more than a year ago, it was generally so seen.
Of course the Maastricht negotiations presented a different type of problem from those for the single market. Unlike the single market, which was a concept we could wholeheartedly embrace and use our influence to advance, the impetus behind the Maastricht Treaty was something for which we had, and today still have, less enthusiasm: the desire by other member states for economic and monetary union. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister therefore set out to achieve a compromise we could live with, and in this I suggest he has succeeded. The Maastricht Treaty presents a framework in which the Community can develop.
Political co-operation, for the first time given legal status, will proceed outside the treaty framework, as will defence co-operation. Within the treaty framework the principle of subsidiarity has been given legal recognition. It has been accepted that national powers should be the rule and that Community powers be the exception which need justification. The treaty gives the courts new powers to act against non-compliance with Community regulations by member states, for long a bone of contention with us. Also there are the opt-outs for us on the social chapter and the single currency.
All that was achieved after many months of effort and skilled diplomacy. But has the time come for us to throw out the treaty? Has the world changed so much in a year? In both cases I do not think that it has. If Maastricht is not ratified the Community will still continue to move ahead without us. All member states, save ourselves and Denmark, have ratified the treaty and it is a Community which they expect to be governed by Maastricht that the EFTA countries today and other countries tomorrow are seeking to join. The Community will certainly proceed along alternative but similar lines if this treaty falls as a result of our not ratifying it.
The difference is that we shall be outside those developments, looking on without influence and having brought much odium upon ourselves for forcing this course upon the Community. Indeed, not
1180
only should we have lost influence on the future development of the Community but we should have lost influence where it is still needed to protect what we might have thought to be already achieved, as currency instability threatens the single market. We should lose out not merely relatively but also absolutely, as inward investment to this country dried up, deprived of the certainty of access to the rest of the European market.
So I suggest that we need to remain at the heart of Europe, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble friend the former Prime Minister before him have said. We must use our undiminished influence to fight for what we believe to be in the best interests both of ourselves and of Europe: free trade, a community open to the world, a community of nation states co-operating to meet their responsibilities in the world and acquiring greater strength by so doing. I do not believe that we should invent new reasons for succumbing to an old temptation, the temptation to believe that we can so organise our lives as to remain unaffected by what happens on the Continent. We are perhaps the first generation to learn that that cannot be so, and to see that lesson applied. Let us not start to unlearn it now.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I must venture to dissent from my noble friend Lord Healey, who asserted to the House that the Treaty of Maastricht contained no new powers that were not already enshrined in the treaty establishing the single market. I have no time now, but I will take him through the treaty clause by clause and, believe me, I can point them out to him.
What is really important is this. I cast my mind back some 50 years or more where we had unanimity between the parties: Liberals, Conservatives and Labour alike. That was in the face of an outside danger and my own party was non-party enough to assist in Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) in becoming Prime Minister. We were united as a nation, and in Parliament all the parties were united behind that. Since then there has been no unanimity among the parties in the United Kingdom, until now. It is rather ironic that there is one thing on which the Conservative Party, my own party and the Liberal Party can agree; namely, that it is necessary in formal terms to limit the authority of another place to deal with the affairs of this country.
There can be no doubt in my mind that that stems in part from a lack of confidence in politicians of all political parties who progressively, and in the face of the events that have occurred over the past few years, find themselves in the position where they cannot entirely cope with the problems that have arisen in the modern age—partly, I am bound to say, of our own making but partly due to events outside. And of course no party and no country can remain immune from the effects of living within a wider society.
The supporters of the Maastricht Treaty point out that to that extent we have lost sovereignty. That is because they do not understand what sovereignty means. I and most of my friends would agree that we

1181
operate within areas that are from time to time constricted by trade, finance, movements of capital and other things. None of us can be immune from those, but we can retain our own ability to work within those constrictions; whereas Maastricht creates a formal and legal limitation to our own powers to deal with the difficulties that we face.
I believe that it is not too late to ask the leaders of all political parties to start thinking in terms of purpose and conviction again rather than in terms of what the public opinion polls tell us are popular with the people at large. There ought to be sufficient political courage on all sides of the House to work out our own solutions within the constraints within which we operate. Are we that low that we have to rely upon civil servants in Brussels—a growing band of foreign civil servants—as well as on international bankers to do the job for us? I believe that we can do it for ourselves. For that reason I think that the Maastricht Treaty ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I wish to make one point and one point only: the debate is about the constitutional effects of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty. I strongly believe that whatever those effects may be they should not occur without the endorsement of a referendum. I happen to have the honour of being president of the Campaign for a British Referendum, or CBR in the acronymic world in which we now dwell. This is not an organisation which is either anti- or pro-Maastricht. No doubt some members have strong views one way or the other, but they are united by the view that whether one is for the treaty or against it the issue is of such constitutional importance that it ought to be submitted direct to the popular vote.
The referendum is not, as some claim, un-English and unprecedented. Mr. Harold Wilson, as he then was, promised in 1974 a referendum on the renegotiated terms of Britain remaining in the EC. That was duly held in 1975, very much on a cross-party basis. Referendums have been held on other matters, as noble Lords have said.
We shall no doubt be told that there is no need for a referendum because all three parties supported Maastricht at the general election in April last year. But that, of course, is precisely why we should have one. The issue was never properly discussed. In any case, elections turn on a host of other matters such as Mr. Major's soap-box or the war of "Jennifer's ear". One can never, or hardly ever, have a single issue election. Nor, in general, would one wish to have such an election. However, there are single issues of such importance that they deserve to be put not only to Parliament, which is elected on a multitude of issues, but to the people as a whole. That particularly applies to major constitutional changes which are in effect irreversible. I am not saying that irreversible changes should never be made. I am simply saying that they should not be made without the express agreement of the nation.
We shall no doubt be told that the issues are too complicated and difficult to be put to the public and
1182
that they will not be able to understand what it is all about. If a referendum on Maastricht can be held in Eire, Denmark and France without any complaints that it was too obscurely worded or that people did not know what they were voting for, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of a British Government to achieve the same.
During the discussion about the Statement on Maastricht on Monday in your Lordships' House it is recorded at col. 928 of Hansard that my noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lady Chalker both said it would be desirable for noble Lords to be adult and sensible in considering this matter. Ought not the Government to recognise that the British public by and large are adult and sensible and are perfectly capable of making up their own minds in a coherent fashion on the subject of Maastricht?
6.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, long before Maastricht loomed into view liberal economists who favoured the Common Market nevertheless foresaw that centralised power from Brussels might over-whelm the competitive market of the Treaty of Rome. In an IEA Hobart paper 20 years ago Professor Harry Johnson shrewdly anticipated the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, today by predicting that a common European currency,
"would involve both a heavier sacrifice of economic sovereignty … and a larger risk of economic stagnation".
In 1971, on the eve of the British referendum on membership, the IEA commissioned an assessment from Russell Lewis who had headed the European Community Information Office in London. He reluctantly acknowledged the danger of what he called,
"a new European-scale version of the bureaucratic, national, corporatist over-centralised style of government".
Yet in 1988 the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was pilloried for daring to warn at Bruges against the spectre of a European super-state. Four years later her successor as Prime Minister suddenly declared himself a Euro-sceptic and clutched at the shadow of subsidiarity to fend off the substance of M. Delors' super-state.
Much constitutional confusion follows from the total misconception that centralised law is appropriate to impose uniformity and standardisation on widely differing economies in varying stages of development. It was one of. Adam Smith's seminal insights that all trade, whether within or between countries, was based on differing costs and the division of labour as the chief cause of the wealth of nations. All the complex, international division of labour springs from a single elementary fact. It is that through natural and acquired advantages of differing locations and resources costs of production are not level. As shown most dramatically by Hong Kong, foreign trade is the means by which by which lower-cost areas expand exports, trade Up, and so raise their own standards of living.
The folly of Brussels has been lightly to misuse the law, including the Single European Act, in the vain pursuit of a level playing field. All we need for free trade is a legal framework of broad, general rules for competition based on mutual recognition of differing

1183
national standards. What we have instead is an impenetrable jungle of detailed, specific regulations that are often shaped to placate union lobbies, business pressures and blatant national interests.
It is a misguided egalitarian perversion to debase the majesty of law in order to impose uniform conditions of production at the starting line. The result is not only to frustrate gains from trade, to inflate subsidies, to harden rigidities and thereby impair the spontaneous process of economic growth. Towering above such visible costs is the damage from needless centralisation and politicisation of economic life. This is already provoking fierce tensions and even hatreds both between and within the Twelve. By extending qualified majority voting, imposing monetary union and increasing the Commission's so-called "competence", Maastricht would carry this malignant process past breaking point.
Meanwhile such insensitive and coercive remote control threatens to bring our unique heritage of parliamentary self-government into increasing conflict with the edicts of the Brussels Commission and with the ceaseless imperialism of the Luxembourg Court. Those edicts and that imperialism will be the more bitterly resented for being not only unnecessary but positively hostile to the single market which was their bogus pretext.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has done this House a great service in enabling noble Lords to discuss what is of vital importance and interest to our country; that is, the Maastricht Treaty. Never was it more timely to say that truth has many facets. We talk about the sovereignty of our country and about the British constitution. One of the main principles of our British constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. The powers of Parliament in exercising its sovereignty include, among many other things, the conclusion of treaties and the definition of who comes within the sovereign territory.
It is worth recalling that the right to conclude external trade treaties was lost in 1973. They have been decided by qualified majority vote ever since the EEC Treaty of 1957. The Single European Act not only condoned that but it further empowered the European Parliament with the task of assenting to or rejecting both accession and association agreements —there are many of the latter—thus depriving the United Kingdom Parliament of the ability to exert its sovereign powers in treaties which came under those particular provisions of the Single European Act as it amended the EEC treaty.
The freedom of movement of persons was reinforced in the Single European Act by Article 8A in the formation of the single market. That means that in law the United Kingdom is restricted in controlling who comes into the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom as regards European Community citizens. Further, the right of the European Parliament was established to use the co-operation procedure to amend draft legislation of the European Community.
1184
About 50 per cent. of amendments now adopted by that Parliament appear in European Community legislation which then comes back to our Westminster Parliament. The Maastricht Treaty —perhaps this is not recognised—seeks to impose limitations on some powers which have been acquired over the years and have apparently slipped to Brussels. Much of this imposition of limitation is due to the work of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the negotiations on the treaty.
Much has been said about subsidiarity but the fact is, it is working. The Commission has already struck out a whole list of matters on which it intended to draft legislation. That will no longer happen. EMU is now subject to strict convergence conditions and, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Ridley has pointed out, even those convergence conditions will probably be impossible to achieve. Therefore EMU may not even happen. We also have the protection that Parliament will be able to vote before entering into the third stage. Foreign policy and Home affairs, including migration, are firmly entrenched into inter-governmental procedure. The Court of Auditors has been strengthened, which is vital in the fight against fraud.
The question of European citizenship is one of interest. At least it is going to be on a reciprocal basis throughout the Community, unlike Commonwealth citizenship. Some people may remember that Commonwealth citizenship gave Commonwealth citizens the right to come to this country and to vote in our elections, but that was not on a reciprocal basis.
Finally, I should like to point out that there is for the first time a declaration in the Maastricht Treaty of the importance of the role of national parliaments and of better co-operation with the European Parliament. I hope that this is an opportunity which our Westminster Parliament will not reject, and that it will seize it and use it for the benefit of our own country and our own Westminster Parliament.
Ratification of the treaty will ensure that these checks, some of which I have briefly mentioned, will be applicable to the existing treaties in force, including the Single European Act, concluded by a government some of whose members apparently did not understand its effects.
There is no option for Britain now to go it alone in an unstable world and raise barriers with our most important trading partners. The Acts of Parliament in accordance with our constitution in recent years acknowledged the transfer of sovereignty on some issues to a system of co-decision with other member states, and that requires and demands that negotiators on behalf of Britain need the strength and support of a majority of Parliament behind them. Undermining the Government's position serves only to undermine their strength in Community negotiations. The present ploys of seeking to overthrow the treaty will not succeed, but they do serve to weaken the negotiating power of our Government at the present time. This is a service neither to the Conservative party nor to Parliament, and nor is it a service to Britain.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would just remind your Lordships that when four is on the clock we are in the fifth minute.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I think that somebody in this debate must protest against the arrangements for debating a subject of first importance with so little time allowed to each speaker. It was almost as bad last week in the defence debate. Such arrangements are an assault on the dignity of the House and on the dignity of the participants. The Procedure Committee must find a solution. After all, the House is not short of time at this point in the year.
There is another difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, deployed a long, elaborate, excellent argument, but nobody has a chance of replying to it until the Minister herself comes to wind up. She is the only one with the scope to do it. It is a highly political subject, yet even my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has only four minutes like the rest of us. This is not a subject for this kind of debate.
I do not belong to the minority in this Parliament which is exciting every fear, fighting the battle very hard, and sparing no extravagance of rhetoric to repudiate Maastricht and of course closer union with the European Community. On the contrary, I belong to the majority in this Parliament which I think is well aware of the shortcomings of the treaty yet believe that it is the best thing on offer to this country and the best thing likely to be on offer. It is our turn now to say that there is no alternative.
Of course from our Labour point of view there is one egregious deficiency in the Government's proposals, and that is to keep Britain out of the agreement on the Social Chapter, a measure that for us Labour people, and almost everybody else in Europe, helps to develop what could be a mere efficient trading bloc into a closer and more human community. It is of course to our embarrassment that we have been joined in our demand to restore the Social Chapter by some of those who hate it most but thought it would be a wrecker. Fortunately, they seem to be wrong.
Some of us Labour supporters of Maastricht this morning were relieved that Mr. Smith apparently has insisted that Labour should not support any wrecking amendments. We can only hope now that the parliamentary battle will not after all be fought in a fog of legal conundrums. Though in the end we shall ratify the treaty, the hope of achieving economic and monetary union in good time seems less feasible than it once did. The preliminary need will be hard enough—to end the recession and to get the Community back on the road to full employment.
The Foreign Secretary is not my favourite prophet, but he spoke wisely on Monday when he said that the world is in an economic and social turmoil and that the destruction of the Maastricht Treaty would add substantially to that turmoil; and if, he said, we were held responsible for the destruction of Maastricht it would reduce our say on matters of vital concern to us in Europe and the world.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson for one thing at least, in that he has flushed out of the undergrowth a whole covey of unreconstructed anti-marketeers. We have heard for most of this afternoon arguments I well recall hearing in the early 1970s when we first joined up to the Treaty of Rome—arguments we heard again when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, renegotiated the treaty in 1975, arguments we heard again in 1986 and arguments we are hearing again today.
I should have a good deal more respect for the people who hold those views if they would make clear to everyone that they were actually against the European Community and our continued membership of it. That is what this argument is about. It is not really about the Maastricht Treaty. The Maastricht Treaty is just the frontispiece for the usual arguments that have so plagued politics in this country for 20 years about our continued membership of the Community and so damaged our position inside the community and in the world.
The first step is always the most important step on any journey, and the most important step we took was back in the early 1970s when we joined up to the Treaty of Rome. The second most important step was in 1986 when we joined up to the Single European Act. I would contend, if I had time, that the step we took then was a good deal more important than the step we are being invited to take this year by joining up for the Maastricht Treaty.
I jotted down just a few things in the Single European Act and I should like to read them out quickly to your Lordships. Qualified majority: all over the Single European Act are the two words "qualified majority"; acting unanimously, it is suggested, towards harmonising indirect taxation; co-operation to ensure convergence of economic and monetary policies; strengthening economic and social cohesion; strengthening the scientific and technological basis of European industry; jointly formulating and implementing European foreign policy. That is what we signed up for in 1986.
I did so gladly. I voted for that treaty and that Act gladly, and I did so led by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I was tempted to read out the Division list of those Members of another place who agreed to that treaty being passed, but that would take rather too long. There are a few familiar names who appear to have had a conversion as on the road to Damascus since they led their party into the Division Lobbies on that treaty. People who demanded loyalty from their colleagues, and rightly received it, seem to have dropped the word "loyalty" from their lexicon. We are going to have to decide quickly whether we want to stay in this European Community and act as members of a club or whether we want to get out. The economic consequences would be hugely damaging. For my own part of the United Kingdom inward investment which comes because we are members of the European Community is very important to our economic health and to employment.

1187
But more importantly—and this is perhaps more important for a younger generation—all over the world today we are seeing a descent into tribalism. Surely in Western Europe we know enough about the evils of tribalism through our long centuries of history. The European Community is an attempt to turn our backs on that tribalism. Surely our future deserves that.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, the ERM is barely surviving. The United Kingdom has had to pull out. There is no sign of the convergence of European economies. We await the second Danish referendum. Opinion in Europe seems to be hardening against Maastricht. In those circumstances many people outside this House regard the Maastricht Bill as a stupendous irrelevance and believe that the Government should be concentrating on urgent matters such as 3 million unemployed, the plight of manufacturing industry, the breakdown of family life and the appalling increase in juvenile crime.
But the essential point is that the Treaty of Maastricht marks a major step towards the achievement of what is called an ever closer union, with a single currency and a central bank with sweeping powers. Anyone who studies the treaty can be in no doubt that its whole thrust is towards a single European state. The lessons of the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are ignored. In such a state this Parliament would become subordinate. Britain would cease to be an independent country. This House would become as irrelevant as the GLC. Eventually the Palace of Westminster could, like County Hall, be sold, perhaps to become a Japanese-owned hotel.
I much regret that Ministers consistently avoid telling the British people down what road they are travelling but insist that there is no question of a super-state; that the Community is now moving towards the transfer of power from Brussels back to national governments; that subsidiarity is a real safeguard; and that we are preserving our freedom of action and our status as a sovereign nation. It seems to me that none of that is true.
I am quite sure that a change of this magnitude should not be brought about without the wholehearted support of the British people. But they have not been asked what they want. Since all three parties are agreed on Europe, they cannot express their views through the normal electoral process. A referendum, as urged by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and my noble friend Lord Moore, is therefore unquestionably needed. Parliamentary approval achieved by arm twisting by the Whips or legal sleight of hand is no substitute. If the British people are asked and declare that they want a single European state run from Brussels, so be it. Those who dislike the prospect can lump it or leave. But to take that step without the clear support of a majority of the British people would be wrong and dangerous.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I suspect that I am in a majority in this House in not much admiring the Treaty of Maastricht. However, I part company from some other noble Lords who have criticised it and asked for a referendum. I do not believe that a referendum is appropriate for the exact reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Healey: that in the form in which we have signed it, the Treaty of Maastricht commits us to nothing that we have not long agreed to. It is an absurd proposition that we should have a referendum on whether we have a floating or fixed exchange rate. That has never been the case in the past. I believe that by far the best way to stop some of the dangerous potential of the treaty from being realised is to fight for its revision at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 rather than withdrawing now into insular isolation.
It is a great over-simplification to say that the Maastricht Treaty is a blueprint for a federal Europe. It is more complicated than that. It is a compromise between the French and German models of the state. The French model is bureaucratic. The French president governs through an echelon of higher civil servants, often without regard to his Prime Minister or to his cabinet. A Europe moulded in the traditions of Napoleon and in the practice of the Fifth Republic is the official French version of the European dream.
The current German model is at the opposite end, although German history offers grimmer alternatives. It is a decentralised model with a weak centre, strong states and a strong constitutional court. A federalised Europe or part of Europe is a logical extension of that model and is foreshadowed in the German constitution.
Both those models are exportable constitutional blueprints. The British model, which takes its constitution for granted and relies on agreements and good sense to make illogical institutions (like your Lordships' House) work, is uncompetitive in that market. That is one important reason why European unity has developed along Franco-German rather than British lines. What Maastricht portends is difficult to say at this point. The likeliest potential is for a weakly federal Europe with a strong self-confident bureaucracy, a community overregulated by officials but without the power to act decisively in international affairs, which only the power of national governments can give.
It is at that point in the argument that I part company with those who simply wish to reject the treaty. To say that it is not what we would like, and that therefore we should have nothing to do with it, is to give up too easily and too early. If there is a danger of Maastricht growing into a monster, it must be in our interest to try to tame and domesticate it, not to turn our back on it and let it grow unchecked. If it is the emergence of a new Carolingian Empire we fear, we do not escape its dangers by running away from it.
Although we count less in Europe than we should, we are not without influence or allies. Our Presidency of the Council, and the conclusions we got it to reach in December prove that. I note in particular the widespread support for the British attempt to use the

1189
principle of subsidiarity to start clawing back some of the powers usurped by the Commission. That was no mean achievement. The Commission's own submission in October 1992 was an alarming document. It seemed to suggest that over wide and increasing areas the role of national parliaments should be limited to implementing Community law. We fought and resisted that. We have begun to have the principle of reversing unnecessary legislation accepted and have introduced specific criteria for Community action and a more restrictive approach to harmonisation. It is only a start but it indicates what can be done if vision, will and willingness to seek allies is present.
My vision is of a free trade, liberal, confederal Europe based on the close and durable co-operation of its leading powers in the pursuit of common goals. I wish that we spent less time debating Maastricht and more time considering why Europe, as it now is, still has to rely on the United States to try to stop Bosnians, Croats and Serbs from massacring each other. Let us get Maastricht over and done with, and in the meanwhile work with our partners to bring about the tasks worth doing: reviving the European economy; re-equipping the former Soviet Union; and bringing peace to our borders.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the Treaty of Maastricht commits us to the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates. I believe that that removes the ability of the Government to run the economy of the country. It seems extremely cynical to take the view that because such an event may not happen it must be safe to sign the treaty. The treaty is not just a piece of paper, I hope.
Perhaps I may advance the argument further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government holds executive powers over interest rates and taxes. In his speech in the emergency debate after "white" Wednesday my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose work I much admired when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that a chancellor has three policy options: a prices and incomes policy; the medium term financial strategy; and an exchange rate policy. My noble and learned friend believed that the prices and incomes policy had been tested to destruction. The point about the prices and incomes policy was that it was not only tested to destruction; it was destroyed by the people of this country who refused to abide by it. Not only did that action destroy the policy, but it also destroyed two governments: the miners' strike destroyed the Conservative Government in 1974 and in 1979 a Labour Government was destroyed after the winter of discontent.
One can make the same criticism about an exchange rate policy. We have just seen it destroyed by market forces. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe got around that difficulty by stating that he recommended a system of regulated movements in currency exchange rates. But that is not what the Treaty of Maastricht provides. We are committing ourselves to the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates.
1190
That seems to leave us with the option of the medium-term financial strategy, in which the Government can use their executive powers to have a domestic monetary policy for the benefit of the British people.
There is no doubt in my mind that the treaty removes the power of the Government to run the domestic economy for the benefit of the British people. The thought makes me fear for the stability of the country. If the Government have no control over their financial policy, for whom do we vote in an election, and why?
7 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Healey and others are right in saying that there is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty which was not already in the Single European Act, then presumably we do not need the Maastricht Treaty or the Maastricht Bill. However, all I wish to do in the four minutes available is to draw four conclusions from the remarkable speech on the Maastricht Bill made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday in the Commons.
First, the Government have, I am afraid, gone a long way in the past few weeks to shake the public faith, both in the authority of Parliament and in our legal system. On Monday the Foreign Secretary made this astonishing statement about the social chapter:
"there are legal considerations on either side of the argument. The question at the end of the day is not [which is more legally] valid but which set of considerations is the more important".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/93; col. 33.]
That does not sound quite like the rule of law to me.
Secondly, if it is true on the Government's view that the treaty on the social chapter says that the Government are entitled to opt out, and if the Bill were to say that they are not so entitled, then at any rate to the non-lawyer there still seems to be a wholly unresolved contradiction.
Thirdly, the doctrine that the Crown—that is, the Government—is entitled to make treaties without parliamentary approval becomes untenable when a treaty alters in a major way the whole constitution of the United Kingdom. On that doctrine, the Government can make a treaty with anyone from China to Peru, abolishing the wish of Parliament, and then inform Parliament that it had no right whatever to intervene. That is surely absurd.
Fourthly, in my view the whole deplorable muddle over the treaty and what it does or does not mean overwhelmingly supports the case for a full and fair referendum, to enable the electorate to make up its mind. The treaty, after all —and there is no dispute about this—proposes revolutionary changes in the constitution of the UK and a major surrender of power over the economy, as has just been said, over foreign affairs, security and defence and on the legislation about citizenship.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, has been justly described as the British substitute for a written constitution. Both for that reason and for his admirable speech today, it seems to me that his voice is a most powerful, indeed overwhelming vindication of the case for a referendum on the issue.
7.4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate this afternoon in the hope of understanding the panic and near hysteria to which mention of the Maastricht Treaty seems to give rise in some quarters. I cannot say that I am much the wiser or that the arguments that I have heard today are any different from the arguments we have heard since 1973 and before that. In that, I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It has nevertheless been a reasoned and thoughtful debate and it gives my noble friend the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight where necessary.
My own approach to the issues raised by the Maastricht Treaty is certainly one of caution. I believe that it is right to be cautious in this, as in other instances where the future of our country in the world is under consideration. I also believe that nothing is to be gained from rushing in headlong. But the Government can hardly be accused of rushing in or, indeed, of casting caution to the winds. After all, we have been active in the development and evolution of the European Community for 20 years and we gave it considerable attention and scrutiny during the period of our applications for membership before that.
We must also, I believe, recognise that our Prime Minister —alone of all the leaders in Europe—negotiated hard and well before signing the treaty, not after. He initiated a full scale debate in the House of Commons which was the envy of French and Spanish politicians to whom I talked at the time.
My right honourable friend's successes in getting the best possible deal to coincide with our national interests have been dealt with perfectly adequately by other speakers this afternoon, particularly in relation to the opt-outs on monetary union and the social chapter. That surely proves that it is possible to have our special interests taken into account when necessary.
However, in mentioning the social chapter, I would nevertheless point out that we already have a perfectly good social charter which we signed in 1976. That is the social charter of the Council of Europe, which is the counterpart of the European Convention on Human Rights and guarantees the enjoyment without discrimination of a number of fundamental rights: for example, safety and health at work; fair remuneration; protection for children and young persons. So by all means let us consider ways of strengthening the supervisory system of that social charter, but we certainly do not need another one.
I am a convinced and enthusiastic European, both as a former member of the European Parliament and now as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. But that does not mean being blind to the difficulties. So, combined with my cautious approach, I also believe that we should be realistic and recognise how greatly the European Community has changed and developed since we joined, and how much, indeed, the world and our national circumstances have changed. That, in my view, is the strongest card in favour of the Maastricht Treaty. It dots the "i"s and crosses the "t"s on the European Act and what has gone before. What
1192
Maastricht does is to limit increasing centralisation, as my noble friend Lady Elles put it so well, to clarify and define, to provide sanctions and scrutiny procedures where they are much needed.
For example, Article No. 128 requires cultural aspects to be taken into account in other EC policy areas. That surely is a safeguard for those who fear losing our national identity. Article 129 provides a definition of public health in which I certainly took considerable interest, as a Minister for Health, and ensures that Community activity cannot impinge on our National Health Service. Budgetary scrutiny procedures are introduced and increased powers given to the European Court to ensure that implementation is fair and the famous level playing field is achievable.
To those who advocate a referendum, I ask: what about the constitutional effects of that? What does it do to our parliamentary democracy if Parliament is to be bypassed every time something really important comes up? I believe that what we are talking about is institutional change which is necessary in a changing world and I certainly look forward to supporting the Bill to introduce the Maastricht Treaty when it comes to your Lordships' House.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I also am a good European but my idea of Europe is not confined to where the writ of Brussels runs. In 1949 we were all anxious to see Europe at peace and the countries of Europe learning to co-operate with each other. At that point, we were approached by Mr. Jean Monnet with the suggestion that there should be a joint Anglo-French economic plan. That was examined by the Foreign Office in the person of Mr. Roger Makins, as he then was, now our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. The reply was returned that Britain could not sacrifice her long-standing and important ties with the United States and she could not abdicate from her right to control her own economic policy.
Since then, there has been what can only be described as an open conspiracy. The French and Germans got together for different national reasons to create a United States of Europe. That is their entitlement. If they wish to do it they are obviously entitled to do so. But the attempt has been made to bring this country into that combination by a mixture of threats and blandishments. The blandishments are economic. But it takes someone with the political innocence of Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish to believe it.
Let us take the simplest form. We have been in the Community for over 20 years. We knew at the time that the common agricultural policy was very damaging to us. Over those years we have not succeeded in getting it changed. So much for being at the heart of Europe. We are now being landed with a trade war with the United States. Can anyone believe that this country, if it still controlled its own foreign trade policy, would be engaging in a trade war with the United States? If Sir Leon Brittan would still glory in the name of Briton, like George III, he might not be prepared to represent French protectionism (which is what it is all about) in international negotiations.

1193
Nor is it true, alas, that any of the safeguards referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Skidelsky, and others are genuinely there. It is not only that the Commission said: "Subsidiarity is an old idea. It is always there in any state and any federation of states". In other words, in October the Commission already described what was being created as "a federation of states". The declaration from Edinburgh did not alter that. One cannot have safeguards unless one has, as the United States has, a written constitution with an independent judiciary to interpret it.
The European Court at Luxembourg is not independent. It is an instrument of European integration, as are the Commission and the council—not the Council of Ministers, but those who do the work; that is to say, the permanent representatives. It is simply not true that the safeguards are there. I am sure that the Prime Minister did his best. I am sure that he intended to seek to protect this country's institutions. But in fact those institutions are now under threat. To those who say, "The Europeans won't like us very much if we now turn our backs on the treaty", one can only reply that there are more Europeans than one would think of if one takes one's view of Europe from the cafes of Brussels.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues are entirely sincere in their belief that the Maastricht Treaty can be manipulated so as to ensure the survival of our nation state and prevent the formation of a federal or, worse still, unitary Europe. But equally, I have no doubt that Herr Bangemann and those numerous senior politicians and officials on the Continent who share his philosophy—notably those from Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries—are equally sincere in their belief that Maastricht represents a giant step forward in the creation of a united states of Europe, broadly on the lines of the United States of America, but more centralised. Even at this early stage, the ancient nation states of Europe have less autonomy in certain matters than do the individual states of America, Australia or the provinces of Canada. Clearly, those two sincerely held but totally opposed interpretations cannot both be right. Which will be proved correct in the long term?
Mr. Major has a country to run, as have all British Prime Ministers. There are and always will be urgent problems to contend with relating to health, education, law and order, social security, energy, transport, and above all the economy. No British Prime Minister, and no prime minister anywhere, can afford to spend even as much as 10 per cent. of his or her time dealing with what is still legally the European Economic Community. In contrast, the Utopians in Brussels can choose, if they wish, to devote 99 per cent. of their time plotting to phase out gradually the individual nation states and create a unified Europe. I say "plotting"; it is done with the very best of motives, as they would judge it.
This being so, it is fairly obvious who is going to win, particularly as the idealists are reinforced by the
1194
hard headed pragmatists in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece, for whom the treaty is a means of extracting much more money from the so-called wealthy countries. As it is, every man, woman and child in the Republic of Ireland, for example, receives a net £121 a year from the British taxpayer, and that sum is set to rise once the treaty is ratified.
But let us suppose that this interpretation is over-pessimistic and that we end up in the year 2015, say, still retaining some notional degree of national independence. Are we then out of the wood? No, my Lords. The massive extension of qualified majority voting deprives the British people, and all other peoples, of control over large areas of their own lives. Not only is that wrong, but far from promoting friendship between the peoples of Europe, which is one of the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, it will create tension and even hostility between them. Individuals the world over will reluctantly and grudgingly submit to most laws they dislike and to most taxes they dislike provided they are imposed by their own kith and kin, so to speak, people with whom they share a common culture and a common history. The moment such unpopular laws or taxes are imposed by distant people with whom they have no affinity, there will be the risk of civil disobedience and even physical resistance. The notion that the gracious bestowal of subsidiarity will compensate for finding oneself in a small minority in all major areas of decision-making is frankly laughable, especially when one studies the pathetically tiny list of trivial items that is to be devolved back to us in consequence of last December's Edinburgh summit.
Last but by no means least there is the question of the compulsory citizenship of the union and the rights and obligations attaching thereto. The nature of those obligations is nowhere spelt out. But very senior lawyers whom I consulted believe that they entail a general duty of loyalty to the new union, and therefore there is a danger that disloyalty to the union or to any of its component states—for example, by supporting Turkey against Greece in the event of a conflict between those two countries—could be construed as treason by the European Court. That is a very worrying possibility.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, while he is still in his place, would not think it impertinent if I echo the first part of his speech and suggest to my noble friend Lord Pearson that perhaps the questions that he addressed in his speech, matters which have been addressed by other noble Lords who agree with him, are now yesterday's questions and not today's.
What has gone wrong with the Community so far, and what has gone right (and we have not heard enough about that this afternoon) has flowed from previous treaties, not from Maastricht. Now we have the Maastricht treaty. It contains a number of provisions. Many are there at the behest of the United Kingdom. They should begin to reverse the

1195
centralisation trend and the rate of increase of Commission activity, which we who serve on the European Select Committee know is right.
The Maastricht Treaty also contains at its heart a timetable for moving to stage three, which is a monetary and economic straitjacket. Even if we exercised our opt-out option, it would prove pretty uncomfortable for the United Kingdom. When the treaty was signed, it gave many of us who were European enthusiasts a lot of anxiety. It still gives anxiety to many speakers in this debate. But time has moved on. Federalism is seldom mentioned nowadays in the reports about what is being said in Europe. Denmark said no. France said yes by a small margin; were it not for France's Caribbean vote, it would have said no.
We have had the currency devaluations and seen what speculators can do when currencies within a system are put under strain. Germany is struggling with the political and economic effects of reunification. German and French elections are approaching. It is not surprising that this week we hear that the Community Finance Ministers—apparently led by Germany—have agreed that the timetable for stage three should be lengthened at least until 1998 and probably longer. It seems that in the end stage three may never happen at all.
At any rate, there is now a lot more time and room for manoeuvre for the Community to sort itself out. Yet we need the treaty for all the advantageous and necessary provisions it contains. It seems to me that it should be ratified; the benefits within it should be enjoyed and on the currency and central bank issues we go on from there together with our colleagues in the Community. I suggest that the main anxieties about the Maastricht Treaty now are yesterday's questions.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have heard every speech in the debate, not for the first time. There is nothing new. We have been doing this for 22 years from a date in 1971 when we were questioning whether or not the Treaty of Rome was the direction in which we should go. At that time only 39 Conservative Members voted against it because of the power and influence of the government of the day—mainly from Mr. Harold Macmillan as he then was. The argument is there.
The message that I hope my noble friend will take back to her colleagues in the Government is this: that there is an honest, deeply felt difference of opinion on an important matter involving the future of this country. The debate has reflected it. Those people who have taken the trouble to look into it find that it is felt also by people outside. The Government must face up to the fact that honest, decent, sincere people, many of whom have tried to study what it is about, hold different views. We live in a democracy. The only constructive contribution came from my noble friend Lord Blake.
One must accept the difference. We must go on. We do not want to scratch one another to bits. We do not
1196
want to ruin the party system upon which our parliamentary system is based. The difference of view in my party was reflected in the debate today and we know that there is a difference of view in the Opposition party.
When one has those divisions it is the Government's duty, in order to preserve our system of government, to find a way out of the impasse. The only way I can see is the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blake—a referendum. No one is in love with the referendum system. Our parliamentary control has worked well for more than a century and it is a good way, where power of attorney is given to Members: they give some thought to the detail and deal with it. They cannot do that with Maastricht. Therefore it must be referred in some way to the people who will either suffer or benefit from whatever flows from whether or not the treaty is signed.
I give this warning to my noble friend Lord Mackay and many others. Those of us who have been a long time in Parliament —I have been in the Palace of Westminster for 43 years—have learnt many lessons from the various tactics that can be used. I remember when in company with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others trying to point out the downside of the European treaty. We were told that we could not say that certain things would happen. It was said, "We have the power of veto to stop those things happening". The power of veto hardly exists. We have gone down all the roads that we warned about and the veto is no longer there.
Maastricht comes along and what do they say? They say exactly the same. They use the power of the Whips to push it through because they are so wedded to it. They are saying, "Maastricht does not contain the dangers you talk of. We have achieved subsidiarity. Subsidiarity will prevent the dangers occurring"—just as the veto was supposed to prevent them happening.
I therefore ask my noble friend when she reports, as I hope she will, what happened in the debate to indicate that nothing less than a referendum will do, or some alternative which will allow the people to have a say, since those who are supposed to represent the people are divided. That is a constructive suggestion. I hope that my noble friend will heed it.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, when the terms of the debate were first announced I was particularly concerned to deal with the gross misrepresentation by the Government of the terms of the social chapter. But there are other issues with which I should deal on which there ought to be Community action fairly soon.
First, there is the scandalous speculation in currencies of member states. Our states are being picked off one by one. That can only be dealt with by unified action by the Community. Secondly, there is the dangerous rise of nationalism—to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred—in parts of what was the USSR and other parts of Eastern and Central Europe. It is extremely worrying. The Community can play a large part in dealing with the appalling position

1197
brought about by the growth of nationalism. There is also the fearful trend towards racism which is gathering in parts of Europe, even in states within the Community. Those are issues which have not been dealt with by other Members, but they are vital issues on which the Community could act through the Maastricht Treaty.
There is also the question of confusion occasioned by those who helped to lead us into the Single European Act. Now they are prominent in opposition to the Maastricht Treaty. I should like to know why and how they justify those different actions.
When the treaty was first produced—I have read it —I realised that it was not a perfect instrument. Equally, the Treaty of Rome was not a perfect instrument, yet I found it possible in the referendum of 1975 to vote to join the Community. I still regard that treaty as being imperfect and it contains points that need to be improved. My colleagues have sincerely taken a different view.
The last Labour Party conference in October made a declaration that Britain is intimately involved with Europe. It reaffirmed its commitment to closer economic and political co-operation in Europe. On that we must keep in mind that Britain's trade with Europe is substantial. In 1991, 55 per cent. of our trade was with European states; it was worth nearly £59 billion. I was able to support the referendum in 1975 and I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the attitude of the Labour Party on the Maastricht Treaty, even though we know it is imperfect. Rejection of the treaty is likely to move the United Kingdom out to the periphery of Europe, but Britain's future requires that we should be at its heart.
I wish to make some brief points on the social chapter. The Government have grossly misrepresented the social chapter. I emphasise one point only. There are no provisions applying to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lockouts. Other provisions can be determined only by qualified majority voting. Other provisions regarding directives require unanimous decisions. We should condemn the Government's misrepresentation of the social chapter and deal with it accordingly.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the Maastricht Treaty, albeit in a somewhat shorthand way. It is an issue of great constitutional importance. Indeed, I think a good many people in this country, including sometimes myself, believe it is a treaty of union by stealth, unlike the treaty of union between Scotland and England which took place nearly 300 years ago. In that case at least both Parliaments knew what they were talking about.
The title of the treaty surely must mean something even if the interpretation appears to be confused. It is called a Treaty on European Union. The word "union" in the constitutional sense, as I understand it, has or used to have a precise meaning. There are so far as I know only two kinds of constitutional union; first, federal or confederal, as with the United States or
1198
Switzerland; and secondly, incorporating, as exemplified in this United Kingdom. We are given to understand that Her Majesty's Government fought a long and bloody battle to exclude the word "federal" from the wording of the Maastricht Treaty. It was not to be allowed at all. So, as we are evidently going to have a union, I have to ask what sort of union it is if it is not confederal, federal or incorporating.
I am driven to the conclusion that we have here a federal union, and, as we have seen this afternoon, I do not think that I am alone in my conclusion. If we are not going to have a union, why is "union" the principal word in the title of the treaty? Indeed, without the word "union", the title would be meaningless. We have heard endless talk about the European train which is supposed to be going towards a closer and closer union and to be carrying Britain into the heart of Europe, wherever that may be. I have a home outside Krakow in Poland, which I think is actually in the heart of Europe. It is also outside the EC, but that is incidental.
I believe that we should move with great caution in this matter and it could be that with the Single European Act we have gone too far already. At all events we ought to be consolidating any gains that have been made and not madly accelerating towards some nebulous Eldorado.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister one question. Granted that this is a union, whatever else it may be, do the states so united have the right to secede after the union? This may not be an immediate issue but the failure to be precise on this point in the constitution of the United States resulted after 70 years in a bloody civil war. Her Majesty's Government ought to tell us what we are in for.
Secession would be far from easy whether or not there was to be a right to it. Indeed, a legal exercise of the right could in certain circumstances lead to war. We are very far in already in this Community but it could still be possible to get out, though I myself would not advocate that. But I believe that this is a "treaty too far" and, no matter what may be said by its proponents, that it is an entire surrender of sovereignty.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I should have been a great deal happier if today we were debating the implications of the Single European Act and even happier if it had been the Treaty of Rome itself, for that is what today's debate has been about. I wonder what happened to the idealism which gave birth to the European Community in postwar Europe. I still subscribe to it, even if no one else in this Chamber does. It is not simply about what we gain from it. It is also about what we give to it.
It was the Treaty of Rome which foreshadowed the Single European Act by stating that the single market should be completed, at the latest, by 1973, though it took 20 years to put that into effect. And it was with the Single European Act in 1986 that we gave away what the detractors of Maastricht will have us believe we are giving away now. On the contrary, as many noble Lords have already stated, Maastricht is

1199
attempting to roll back the power of the European Commission and return the decision making to the national governments. Subsidiarity is not a new invention of the Maastricht Treaty but it is only under this treaty that the burden of proof is placed on the Community institutions to show that action should be taken at Community level rather than at national level. This more than anything else is likely to blur M. Delors' vision of a super state with himself at its head.
We were late in joining Europe but we joined and we took a huge leap when we rushed the Single European Act through our Parliament. It is surprising that some of the greatest detractors of Maastricht saw nothing to fear from that. Dare one wonder whether all the implications were clear to them at that stage? But it is less than becoming now to forget their own central role in taking Britain further towards a federal Europe than does anything in the Maastricht treaty. It was the Single European Act which made the European Commission all powerful, not Maastricht.
We cannot stand on the sidelines of Europe. We need to be at the centre. The Europeans need us and we need them. We must approach our present situation with both realism and honesty. It is not a question of better late than never. We cannot turn back the clock even if we should wish to do so.
Maastricht has become a bandwagon for anti-Europeans. What I have heard this afternoon suggests to me no more than a total dissatisfaction with the existing situation—something in the nature of "Don't get me wrong. Some of my best friends are Europeans". They know that not only do people not understand the provisions of this treaty, they do not know what the position is under the Treaty of Rome or the Single European Act. If the treaty is not signed, let us be in no doubt. The rest of Europe will still move on, with or without us. The train has left the station. Let us be willing passengers on it.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, this is a most important matter, which raises complicated issues. It is to the great credit of noble Lords who have spoken before me that they have allowed me to rise to speak only six minutes after the appointed time under the timetable set by the Government. I do hope, with the concurrence of my noble friend, that this canter can come to an end. The next two speakers from the Front Bench were formerly Commissioners in Brussels. I would ask your Lordships to agree that they should have longer than the four minutes that has been allocated to the rest of the speakers.
I also come to this matter as a lawyer who has practised European law; as a lawyer who has appeared in the European Court; and as a member of your Lordships' Subcommittee E on law and institutions. I also come to this matter in support of the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that the case as regards federalism has been greatly overstated, as the noble Lord, Lord Healey, suggested. If your Lordships look carefully at the treaty they will not find
1200
the evils in it. Indeed the Maastricht Treaty improves considerably on the position under the Single European Act of 1986.
In introducing the debate, my noble friend Lord Pearson referred to Article 3b. When he said that it is the "Council that decides" on the issue of subsidiarity, he missed altogether the role of the European Court. If the Council has not properly applied Article 3b there is an immediate remedy in the European Court. Therefore it is important when considering the Maastricht Treaty to look at the strengthening of the powers of the European Court and of the rule of law in Articles 165 and 184. It is important also to look at the strengthening of the European Parliament in Articles 137 to 138e.
My worry, particularly as regards the debate that has gone on in another place, is that political manoeuvring—I do not attach that criticism to any single party—is obscuring the debate. What I care about is our commitment to the affairs of Europe and that we should play a central role in it. That means not just obtaining a squeaky majority in another place, but demonstrating a commitment by the people of this land as a whole. In my view it would not be out of place for that view to be tested in a referendum. I should be happy to go to the hustings and I am confident of the result.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his generous appeal to the Government Front Bench, but I am ready to surrender my sovereignty and accept the collective discipline that we have all had to submit to in this debate.
This is the second rather curious debate on Maastricht which has taken place this week. Together they underline the damage which has been done to one of the true interests of the British people in our interdependent world and, as members of the European Community, through what must be said to be the drift which has been allowed to take place by Government. One of the most important and astonishing sentences in the Statement made earlier this week about the social chapter was right at the end where the Foreign Secretary reminded the House that the Government won an overwhelming majority on the Second Reading in another place for the Maastricht Bill.
I felt at the time, and I do so even more now, that the Government made a very great mistake in not pressing ahead at that time on the basis of their own election victory and instead allowed themselves to be attached to the coat tails of the Danes following their referendum. Appeasement never works in politics and the Government, the House and the British people are paying a pretty high price for the kind of political appeasement that the Government have conceded to the tiny minority of unreconstructed anti-marketeers, to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who have been able to conduct their campaign so vigorously over so many months.
I am both puzzled and saddened by the tone of so much of this debate this evening and by the way in

1201
which the opponents of United Kingdom membership of the Community, whose convictions we all respect—we have heard it all before, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said—continue to clamour to close the constitutional stable door long after the horse has departed.
As has been mentioned, when we adhered to the Treaty of Rome, we accepted that we committed ourselves to an ever closer union. It did not mean a federal union. I do not believe that the great federal vision is at all a reality in the foreseeable future. We were committed to a closer union at that time. Since then we have had a referendum on the subject, a re-negotiation of our terms of entry and successive general elections. A major consensus was built up in this country on the real issues regarding sovereignty.
What does sovereignty mean in the modern world? It means that we should conduct our affairs in such a way that we are ready to pool our sovereignty in our own interests. We have pooled our sovereignty as regards our interests in self-defence through NATO. We have done so in the various developments in the European Community because we believed that it was the best way to ensure our future prosperity as part of a single market and to ensure the proper influence of Britain in world affairs.
The European Community will go on without us. The real question for us, and the real meaning of sovereignty in this matter, is how we use our role in the Community. As has been mentioned, the Single European Act was carried through Parliament by the Administration led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. It made far more constitutional modifications to our theoretical independent sovereignty than the Maastricht Treaty does. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, recited some of those modifications. If he wishes to, Mr. Major can claim that he has been far more conservative over constitutional changes in the negotiations which he conducted on the Maastricht Treaty than his predecessor was over the Single European Act. Perhaps the only significant change was as regards citizenship.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, tapping her watch, and quite rightly. I apologise. I shall conclude on citizenship with the rhetoric that I used through the 20 years of debates on that subject. By nationality I am a Scot. I am proud to be a British subject. By conviction I am a citizen of Europe and I see no conflict at all between those three propositions.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to this debate in one sense but not in another. Perhaps I may join with those who have complained about the fact that we are all limited to about four minutes. I shall do my best to keep to four minutes, but I gather that the noble Baroness does not need to rise for about another 10 minutes to give her her 20 minutes, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I leak a little around the edges—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Richard: The House is obviously divided. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has not graced
1202
us with his contribution this evening. We look forward to what he has to say on this subject with great anticipation. I have no doubt that it will be relevant and stimulating and will no doubt have a profound political effect. We are sorry that he did not think that he could do it in this House in four minutes, but nevertheless we look forward to hearing him.
I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to respond to the modest and moderate strictures on the European Community of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. For him, I believe that he expressed himself in a somewhat restrained and subdued way this afternoon. We look forward to him reverting, I suppose, to his more vigorous self in due course. As for my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Bruce of Donington, it would take more than four minutes for me to discuss some of their contributions and therefore I shall not try.
I wish to make two preliminary points and then say a word or two about the social chapter. The first and basic point as regards what we are supposed to be considering tonight was made by my noble friend Lord Healey. If the Government do not ratify Maastricht now, having gone through the detailed process of negotiation of the treaty and having secured the accommodations which they claim to have secured from our other 11 European partners, it will be the most enormous breach of faith on the part of this country. Secondly, it would diminish our influence inside the Community almost to vanishing point.
As regards those who say that we should not ratify, a great deal of the argument has been couched in words not that we should not ratify the treaty but that we should not be in the Community anyway. That is not the argument that is now before us, but whether we ratify the treaty. Having negotiated it in the way that Mr. Major did and having secured the concessions that he did, it would be a monstrous breach of faith not now to ratify.
I do not recognise the Community that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and I worked in from some of the descriptions that I have heard in the course of this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to the all-powerful Commission. Good heavens! In my day the Commission was so powerful that every issue of social policy I put up was knocked down by the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had exactly the same experience. The idea that the Commission is somehow formulating great plans for a federal Europe which it can then force through on unwilling individual member states is a travesty. The Commission does not work like that. As those who know the Community realise, the Commission attempts to produce an answer to a problem which it perceives to be a European-wide matter and it tries to produce a European-wide solution to it.
That may be the Commission's view, but when one gets to the Council of Ministers there is a good, solid battle among the individual countries to get their slice of the action. It is the modern European equivalent of the American smoke-filled room in which deals are done, some inside the room and some outside. They are done by the Ministers of the individual nation

1203
states and not by the poor old commissioner, who is frequently trying to defend his policy against the depredations of individual and national interests. I do not recognise the description of the Community that has been given tonight by some noble Lords.
Perhaps I may now turn to the one point that I should like to make. It relates to the social chapter. We have heard so many versions of the legalities relating to the social chapter and the opt-out that, if the House will forgive me, I think that I shall venture to give my own. It seems to me that the starting point is what we have accepted already in the social field. There is quite a lot about it in the Treaty of Rome. Article 2 of the treaty again emphasises the importance of such things as a high degree of convergence, a high level of employment and social protection.
The next stage is that we come to the so-called social protocol, which can be found on page 117—at least, it can on my copy of the treaty. What does the social protocol do? It incorporates the so-called UK opt-out but in a very strange way. It does not refer to "The UK opt-out", but states, "The other 11 shall be permitted." According to the so-called "UK opt-out", all the 12 countries agree that 11 of them shall,
"have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the Treaty".
I see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, nodding in agreement. I am not sure whether I should take comfort from that.
But let us continue. According to the opt-out, the other 11 states are permitted to use the mechanisms, institutions and procedures of the Community. As I understand it, the opt-out and Amendment No. 27 in another place, which is a very simple amendment, take out the protocol on social policy. That means that we do not agree that the other 11 member states shall be permitted to,
"have recourse to the institutions, procedures and mechanisms of the Treaty",
for the purposes of using those procedures and mechanisms in order to give effect to the agreement on social policy, which is an agreement only between the 11. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is still with me—and that I am being frowned at by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. If your Lordships will allow me to finish this point, I promise that I shall sit down.
If that amendment were to be carried, as I see it, it would mean that the other 11 countries would have to re-ratify the treaty because it would not be the same. Indeed, they would not be able—again, as I see it—to use the procedures and institutions of the Community to pursue the social policies to which 11 of them have agreed. In order for the United Kingdom to opt in, we should have to take a further step.
Although I have done the best that I can with the varying interpretations of the decisions and judgments that the Government have issued on this matter, for the life of me I do not understand the latest one which the Foreign Secretary gave to the House of Commons on Monday. The idea that accepting Amendment No.
1204
27 would not mean re-ratification of the treaty by the other 11 is beyond me. I regret very much to see that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is still nodding.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for giving the House this opportunity to debate the constitutional effects of the Maastricht Treaty. We have gone a little wide of that but no matter. His speech, like those of other noble Lords, was indeed thought-provoking. I shall try to address his many concerns.
Perhaps I may say right at the beginning to the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who said that this debate is an insult to the House, that earlier today your Lordships considered whether this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, because this is not the first time that an issue of major importance has been limited to a debate of two-and-a-half hours. We shall, of course, have ample time to debate the Maastricht Bill when it comes to this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Healey, and many others, were absolutely right when they said that not to ratify the Maastricht Treaty would be an enormous breach of faith. We have heard a lot about the technicalities and complexities of the Maastricht Treaty and about where some of your Lordships think that it is going and how it might affect the United Kingdom. However, I beg your Lordships not to lose sight of the basic positive benefits that the treaty contains. Several of my noble friends, including Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lady Hooper, have commented on that fact. The treaty checks the centralising trend in the Community. But it recognises that inter-governmental co-operation is just as European, and just as effective, as action under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. For the first time the principle of subsidiarity has been given an explicit treaty base. We have built on this with the agreement at Edinburgh on guidelines for the application of subsidiarity. The treaty clarifies and codifies the new competences; it reduces the scope for Commission initiatives beyond the scope of the treaty's intention. It strengthens the rule of law; it empowers the Court of Justice to fine member states which fail to comply with legal obligations. I remember over many years that both Houses of Parliament have wished for those things, and they are now there in the treaty.
The financial accountability of the Community institutions has been improved, with strengthened financial control for the Parliament over the Commission and an enhanced status for the European Court of Auditors with the tightening of accountancy rules to prevent fraud, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson referred. Special arrangements have been secured for the United Kingdom where it is in our interest. We retain the right to decide whether, and then when, if we decide to go forward, to join Stage III of economic and monetary union. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour was right to express that point.
Thus, we are helping to formulate policy, but have managed to keep our own options open. We will not

1205
be committed to the social chapter, with all the consequences for jobs and industry that industry in this country firmly believes would follow. That is an impressive list by any account. However, although I understand the real anxiety which has been expressed by many noble Lords, there are concrete achievements in this treaty which I believe are a tribute to the negotiating skill of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. There is no reason why anyone should seek to undermine this.
I am aware of the difficulty of producing a definitive constitutional analysis of the European union. Several noble Lords have referred to this, including my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton. The European union is a unique animal, but the word "union" was in the opening line of the original Treaty of Rome. There is no reason to be frightened of that word, which is now to encompass the Community and the separate pillars which are to be inter-governmental. The concept of the union was, in fact, a setback for the federalists. It does not enhance federalism.
The establishment and status of Community law may indeed have had implications for Britain and its Constitution. But this is not a new innovation to be found only in the Maastricht Treaty. This concept was established by the original Treaty of Rome in 1957. It remained unaltered by the Single European Act in 1986. In fact, the Maastricht Treaty improves on the status quo through the intergovernmental provisions of the European Union.
The union provides a structure for alternative forms of co-operation between member states outside the existing framework of the Treaty of Rome, where the Commission enjoys the exclusive right of proposal and the European Court of Justice has ultimate jurisdiction. I shall refer in a moment to intergovernmental co-operation in common foreign and security policy and in justice and home affairs, the two areas in which we have IGCs. However, just as the structure of the European union does not lead to the existence of a super-state, so it would be similarly misguided for anyone to read too much into the citizenship provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. Many fears have been expressed tonight about citizenship, but that is not dealt with in the way that has been suggested.
Let me now come to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton about seceding from the Treaty of Rome. At the time of our accession to the Community, the Government of the day stated that membership did not endanger parliamentary sovereignty, since a future Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act and withdraw from the Community. Obviously it would now not be just the European Communities Act but the embodiment of the Single European Act and of the Maastricht Treaty. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I do not believe that that would be in Britain's interests.
Let me turn to what was perhaps the most common theme in the debate; that is, the call for a referendum on Maastricht. As I have often said before in the House, the Government do not believe that it is necessary or right. Maastricht itself introduces no
1206
constitutional innovation. While the doctrine of the primacy of Community law may be viewed as having a "constitutional" significance, that is not a new concept. Parliament accepted it in 1972 in approving Britain's accession to the Community. In 1975, we had a referendum in which the people also endorsed Britain's membership of the Community. That was the referendum on the constitutional step and the result was a majority of two to one in favour. The Maastricht Treaty amends and adds to the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, but the status of Community law in the United Kingdom's legal framework remains unchanged.
I firmly believe that the essence of our parliamentary democracy is that Parliament is elected to represent the people, and to take decisions on their behalf. That was obviously the view of my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she led the Conservative Party through the "No" Lobby in the 1975 EEC referendum debate. She has changed her mind now as have others. I sometimes wonder why there has been such a change.
The Bill currently before another place is being debated in considerable detail. There are a number of highly complex and legal issues to be dealt with. I look forward to discussing them with your Lordships later this year. It is notable how long the other place has spent discussing the Bill. It is important that we should do the same.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that nothing less than a referendum or some alternative would do. The alternative is called a general election. I discussed the European Community when we had the general election last year, and we saw the result.
I shall leave the social chapter and Amendment No. 27 tonight, not because I do not want to tussle with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but merely because we went over it clearly on Monday when I announced the Government's decision at the Dispatch Box, and time is short. My noble friend Lord Pearson and a number of other noble Lords asked about citizenship. It is important that we should consider that point carefully. The concept of a union citizenship is additional to national citizenship. It does not replace national citizenship. It constitutes a means of linking some existing rights with limited additional rights. Many thousands of our citizens already use the right of free movement outlined in Article 8a to live, work and study in other member states, just as citizens of other member states can come here. They may now also take advantage of some new rights. EC nationals may vote in local and European elections in another member state where they are resident. General elections will be unaffected. It is right and proper that people should be able to exercise democracy where they live.
Citizens of the union will also enjoy the right to reciprocal consular facilities in countries where the nation of origin is unrepresented. Another provision allows citizens to petition the European Parliament and to take grievances to the European ombudsman. Those are rights which will benefit the British citizen. I do not see that they pose a threat to our Constitution.

1207
Let me now turn briefly to duties. Nowhere in the citizenship provisions is there any mention of a duty of the kind normally regarded as deriving from national citizenship; for example, military service. The reference in the treaty to "duties" is not a reference to specific duties. Neither the Maastricht Treaty nor any previous Community treaties impose specific duties on individuals. It is therefore an unnecessary and empty reference. In many ways I find that it is a misleading reference, and I wish it had not been included, because it has no value. I assure your Lordships that there is no power to add new duties under the Maastricht Treaty. Even the addition of new rights will require unanimity in the Council and ratification in each individual member state and, in this country, by both Houses of Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked two other questions on that topic. First, he asked about the position of the Queen. I made that clear to my noble friend Lord Tebbit on 10th February in a Written Answer. Let me just add that the Maastricht Treaty in no way alters the Queen's constitutional position in the United Kingdom; nor does it impose specific duties on any individuals. If she chose, Her Majesty would be entitled to exercise the rights set out in the citizenship provision provided for in Articles 8 to 8e of the treaty. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch also asked about renunciation. He asked whether one could renounce citizenship. That is a non-issue because citizenship confers certain rights but no obligations. Citizens are not obliged to take advantage of the benefit.
Another theme in the debate has been Community competence, and the fear expressed by some of your Lordships that that is increasing. I find the Maastricht Treaty a welcome step forward because it constrains what many noble Lords have claimed to be the Community's creeping competence. In areas such as education, health and culture, harmonising measures are explicitly excluded. The content of primary and secondary education, and healthcare, for example, rightly remain matters for each member state to decide. The same is true for vocational training. The Commission will no longer be able to propose wide-ranging measures to be voted through by a simple majority of member states. The scope of the Commission's competence has been reduced and the voting arrangements toughened to qualified majority voting.
Those examples show how, for the first time, the Community's centralising tendency is being checked and reversed. In the past, the Community seemed to be drawing more and more areas of policy into the separate framework of Community institutions operating under the Treaty of Rome. What we have done with the clarification of competence, as well as the new forms of inter-governmental co-operation, is to move away from that. They were points made by my noble friends Lady Elles and Lady Hooper.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Hacking mentioned the role of the European Court. The European Community is a community of law, as he rightly said. It is founded on treaties and institutions,
1208
especially the Council of Ministers. That is the law-making institution. Such a system must contain provision for judicial review and settlement of disputes, otherwise there could be an abuse of power by institutions, and unchecked breaches of the rules by member states, businesses and firms. That is the function of the European Court of Justice. It is one which we in Britain should and do support.
I do not believe that the European Court of Justice is a centralising force. I know that some people accuse it of that. What I do see is that by expanding the powers and scope of the Community with constructive interpretations of the treaties and Community legislation, those who do so simply mislead. We have seen clear signs recently that the court is readier now to give due weight to national arrangements and states' rights, to be less inventive in interpreting Community law, and to give greater scope to exceptions and derogations. I would cite in July last year the national insurance contributions case in the field of social policy where the court upheld the maintenance of different state pension ages for men and women in the United Kingdom. It did so, having taken full account of the national financial consequences of so doing.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said about centralisation. I wish it were true that general rules, mutual recognition and gentlemen's agreements were enough to maintain open trade not only in the single market but in the great wide world too. That was not the experience of the 1960s, the 1970s or the early 1980s. Mutual recognition is our preferred approach but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, recognised in negotiating the Single European Act, an efficient single market needs a common framework in many areas. As I have said, the Maastricht Treaty expressly excludes harmonisation in the new areas of co-operation.
As regards subsidiarity we must remember that it is right that the principle enshrined in Article 3(b), now with the guidelines agreed at the Edinburgh European Council should make sure that every institution is committed to applying the principle at every stage of the legislative process. Any one member state can raise subsidiarity if a legislative proposal from the Commission appears to ignore the principle of subsidiarity.
Other noble Lords spoke about the increase of qualified majority voting being a blow to parliamentary sovereignty. We extended the qualified majority voting under the Single European Act. Without that we should never have been able to complete the single market, which has already been of great benefit to British industry. The Maastricht Treaty extends the qualified majority voting to some areas related to the single market, for example, the energy, telecommunications and transport infrastructure known in the jargon as trans-European networks. The objective of qualified majority voting is to secure greater efficiency in the Community's decision making. It is true that we could be outvoted but often others are out voted to our advantage. It is worth remembering that in hundreds of decisions we have been outvoted only five times and on only three issues.

1209
In common and foreign security policy we proceed by unanimity. I am glad to see that through the inter-governmental arrangements we have brought both the common and foreign security policy and the policy on justice and home affairs together in a sensible manner.
The debate has been interesting. The European community has never lent itself to neat constitution analysis. It is a union of nation states and that is set out clearly in Article F in the Maastricht Treaty
A number of noble Lords have implied this evening that we should remain members of the Community but preserve the right to pick and choose those elements we implement and those we do not. That is simply not practical. Opt-outs have already been secured where it has been in our interests to do so; that is in economic and monetary union, the move to a single currency and the social protocol allowing the other 11 member states to move beyond the provisions of the treaty.
Far from undermining Britain's Constitution and the authority of the Government the Maastricht Treaty safeguards Britain's sovereignty. Crucially, the treaty strengthens the hand of our Government against legislative intrusion by the Commission. I heard it said:
"far too little credit has been given to the Prime Minister for the skill with which he has created a new structure for co-operation at intergovernmental level which is distanced, above all, from the Commission".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/91; col. 322.]
That was said by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
It was thanks to the Prime Minister's supreme negotiating skills at Maastricht that Britain was able to reject those things that did not fit our needs. We rejected the imposition of a single currency without an Act of Parliament at a later date. If the Labour Party had been in power it would have signed Britain up to the social chapter, probably to a single currency and many other things besides—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, they now agree. We would then have been legally beholden to the Community. It was the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary who ensured that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice was limited, the powers of the Commission contained and the balance between Community and national institutions tilted to strengthen national governments.
That is the way to go. We can win the argument in Europe only by fighting our corner. We shall be there to do it as we have done. We shall continue to do so and that is why the Government will support the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it only remains for me—
Lord Healey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will she answer the question—
Noble Lords: Order Order!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry but there is exactly one-and-a-half minutes before the debate will be cut off.
Lord Healey: My Lords, it will take me 30 seconds to ask the question. Will the Minister answer my noble friend's question? Is it not the case—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is out of order.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There is a certain amount of confusion in some of your Lordships' minds about the difference between a single market and further political union. I urge those who support the Treaty on European Union to think more about that. Beyond that, it may be that many of us are waking up to the evils of European union precisely because the effects of the Single European Act are beginning to be felt and precisely because we are beginning to see that the political cart has run so far in front of the commercial horse that it is now almost out of sight.
Finally, I can but apologise again for the short time for which each of your Lordships was able to speak. Perhaps the usual channels will offer your Lordships a better opportunity to discuss the matter before the Bill in question comes to this House. With that somewhat slim hope, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Humanities Research Council
8.16 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish a Humanities Research Council.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish a Humanities Research Council I wish to emphasise the value to this country and more widely of research into what one may term the liberal arts and to argue that the humanities are currently disadvantaged in not having a research council of their own.
I confess that I am a little intimidated by the eminence of the noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in the debate. They include several Fellows of the British Academy and of the Royal Society and also the Chancellor of what in my home town is thought of as another place. I am delighted to see him taking his place.
It is also encouraging to see that the reply for the Government is to be given by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Her meticulous care, not least in educational matters, inspires so much confidence, and I greatly hope that she will find herself in agreement with some of the points that I shall raise tonight.
It is an exciting time for British universities. The enlargement of the university sector, inaugurated by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, is undoubtedly increasing access to university education. There had been significant growth—about 25 per cent. in the five years to 1991—in the number of students reading art subjects and the increase continues. But it is not clear that the Government have given such

1211
thorough and careful attention to the development of research in that area as they have perhaps in science and engineering.
The hope that underlies my Question is that the Government will modify and improve the arrangements for funding the humanities by setting up a Humanities Research Council. The well-tried device of the research council is already employed in nearly all other areas of research. There are the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Agriculture and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the National Environment Research Council.
Until now funding for research in the humanities has been channelled through the British Academy by the Department of Education. In general, the British Academy has served the humanities very well in organising the postgraduate studentship scheme, in making grants to researchers and in other ways. But recently the Government changed the environment for research in this field and in others by determining that in the sciences and social sciences the dual support system, in which research in universities is supported via both the Higher Education Funding Council and through the research councils, has shifted significantly in favour of the latter. The humanities have been left out of the change. They alone are not represented at the Advisory Board of Research Councils because they do not have a research council. Therefore, when research funding is discussed they are not present. In that sense they have been overlooked. They need a seat at the table and a significant voice. They need a research council of their own.
The matter was reviewed recently by a joint working party of the British Academy and of the Economic and Social Research Council chaired by Sir Brian Follett. It recommended a separate humanities research council within the Office of Science and Technology alongside the other research councils. That view is strongly supported by the British Academy, which now finds itself in an anomalous position because it is working both as a funding channel for the humanities—a surrogate humanities research council—and as the major national learned body in this area and for the social sciences. It is the equivalent in its own field of the Royal Society in the field of the sciences. A national academy is the proper role of the British Academy.
The Royal Society exists alongside the Science and Engineering Research Council and the other scientific research councils as the leading academic voice among scientists. It has its own scheme for Royal Society professorships and readerships. The British Academy would likewise continue to represent British scholarship both in the field of the humanities and in the social sciences at home and overseas. It would continue to have a professorship and readership scheme as well as a small grant scheme for grants of up to £2,000, which are the life blood of the research of so many individual scholars in the humanities. It would still be the appropriate base for the organisation and overseeing of the prestigious British research institutions in the humanities overseas such
1212
as the British School at Rome and the British School at Athens. But it would hand over to the new humanities research council the responsibility for postgraduate studentships, project funding and the further developments in the funding of the humanities which accompany the present revolution in information technology.
There is a general consensus in the academic world that the humanities now require their own separate research council. There is no good case for assimilating its function with that of the existing Economic and Social Research Council.
Admittedly, funding of the humanities is currently at a surprisingly low level, namely some £19 million a year through the British Academy, compared with some £45 million a year through the Social Science Research Council and more than £800 million a year for the sciences through the various scientific research councils. However, the British Academy and the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council agree that the new organisation should be independent, although there could be a case for sharing various administrative services and thus keeping down any additional administrative costs. After all, those two fields—the humanities and the social sciences—together represent more than half the university teachers in this country. At the same time often the humanities practise a different kind of research from that in the social sciences where some form of centralised policy for research can sometimes have a role. The very different character of research in the two fields should be appreciated.
This proposal is not a bid for massive new funds. The additional administrative costs are estimated to be of the order of £200,000 or £300,000 a year. Certainly research in the humanities is currently underfunded in comparison with other fields, especially when the number of university teachers in this area is taken into account and the increasing number of students, and perhaps also the diminishing unit of resource for teaching in the humanities. In this context, we are talking of £1 million or £2 million per year of extra money and certainly not in terms of tens of millions of pounds.
I should like to make it clear that I am not asking for a change in the dual support system for the humanities which might parallel the change recently implemented for the sciences, and might to some extent undermine the direct funding of the humanities in the universities through the Higher Education Funding Council. The present system for the humanities has worked well in the past. It needs to be improved and upgraded by the institution of a new research council. It does not need more radical restructuring, nor is more than a modest increase in resources required at this time.
The proposal which I have made commands the support of the British Academy, the Economic and Social Research Council and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. With the transfer in responsibility for research funding from the Department of Education to the Office for Science and Technology, it is essential that the humanities should be given a role and a level of recognition equal to that

1213
of other disciplines. Literature, philosophy, classics, theology, languages, the law, history, and—dare I say it? —archaeology, have a central role in the intellectual life of any civilised society. Your Lordships will surely agree that while science and technology may facilitate the path of progress, and while economics may dictate its pace to some extent, it is the climate of philosophy and of ideas which conditions the world in which we live and our aspirations for it. It is our responsibility to ensure that the English language and the ideas to which it may give expression continue to develop and to achieve renewal, drawing upon original investigation and enlightened contemplation.
I hope that your Lordships will encourage the Government to give these matters the further attention and continuing commitment which they undoubtedly merit.
8.25 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as a university teacher in the humanities I must declare an interest in this Question, which I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, for introducing.
Opinions on the proposal have been submitted by a large number of bodies, many of them bodies of which I am a member. We have opinions from King's College, London, the council of the Royal Historical Society, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the British Academy and the Liberal Democrats. Quite often when a large number of bodies to which one belongs express opinions there may be a need for a certain amount of adjustment. However, on this occasion all those bodies are unanimous, and my personal and private opinion happens to coincide with their view.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, has already mentioned the report by Sir Brian Follett, FRS, commissioned by the British Academy. That report said:
"It is of paramount importance that the humanities remain part of the mainstream national research effort and in no sense be isolated: only in this way do we believe that long-term excellence can be maintained".
Since the shift to dual funding of research and away from the link with student numbers to the research councils, it has become important that the humanities are the only disciplines that do not have their own research council. That creates some risk of being left out. The British Academy does the best it can, but the British Academy is stressing as strongly as any other body the need for a research council. The British Academy is not involved in debate at the stage of formation of policy. That means that on occasion policies for research are evolved without the needs of the humanities being considered as closely as they might otherwise have been.
For example, I do not believe that the new scheme for postgraduate training which is just coming into effect would have been introduced in precisely its present form if the humanities had been consulted at an earlier stage of the process. In the conduct of the recently completed research assessment exercise I do not believe that either the categories of classification or the categories of publication into which our output
1214
was divided would have been described in precisely the way in which they were if the humanities had had rather more input earlier in the process. The crucial argument is that one cannot afford to be left out of the discussions in which policy is formed.
I listened a few moments ago to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, saying how important it is to be present when important decisions are being taken and to be able to fight one's corner. That puts the case for the humanities as well as it puts the case for the United Kingdom.
Research is often the residuary legatee of an academic's time. It takes what is left over after everything else has been done and, as this House has always known, being the residuary legatee of an encumbered estate is not always a happy situation. There are a great many things going on which take up what might otherwise have been research time. Of course the current expansion has put a lot of pressure on everybody's research time. I think that that pressure is in danger of being particularly acute in the humanities.
If we look at the actual figures for expansion in the five years to 1990–91, the expansion in student numbers in the humanities has been 26 per cent. while in science, medicine and engineering it has been 11 per cent. I suspect that when the next year's figures are taken into account that differential will be a little wider. So there is a danger of pressure on research in the humanities being more acute than pressure in other subjects. If our standing in research in the humanities, which in this country has always been very high indeed, is to be preserved, it is important that the case for the humanities should be heard alongside the cases for science, engineering, medicine and the social sciences. It is only in that way that all the disciplines will be placed on the equality which I think is the only proper and reasonable basis on which they should compete.
There is also a strong point to be made about research libraries. I have some colleagues in the United States working in the same field as I do who cannot check the ordinary basic points that need to be checked every day without travelling to a library 300 miles away. There is nothing in this country that is that far away, but there are a number of places which are quite a long way away from the nearest decent research library. I am not saying that that need to travel can be eliminated but I think that on occasion it could be reduced, and reducing it might in the long term save money on applications for grants for casual travelling to undertake ordinary basic research.
I think there is also a stronger case for a humanities research council in the light of the end of the binary line and the recognition of the research potential of the new universities. There are a considerable number of people in the new universities whose research abilities are excellent and the recognition they have hitherto had is not always commensurate with their abilities. Their institutions are not used to funding research; they are not used to thinking in research terms sometimes. They do not always have basic research facilities. If we are to make a genuine commitment out of that ending of the binary line and develop the

1215
talents of those people, there is a need for central funding and also a need for an institution which can recognise the excellence and guide the central funding in the direction it should go.
There is a final question—and on this also the policy of the Liberal Democrats is in entire agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, has asked. The question is whether it should be a joint humanities research council or a joint humanities and social sciences research council. Anyone who is a spokesman on social security has a profound respect for work done in the social sciences. I use it very often and am deeply grateful for it. However, the point is that the research methods are slightly different, the questions are different, the skills are different and the discipline is different. My noble kinsman Lord Henley has many times rebuked me for the use of anecdotal evidence, but I think he is well aware of this point. So because the humanities are in research funding terms a small part of the total effort, and also because our interests are in some ways separate and different, I think there is a case for a separate humanities research council which can be argued in terms very similar to the case for having a Scottish Office and a Welsh Office.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I must confess to feeling a little lonely in this company, as the only scientist here and one who many years ago deserved a headline in the national press which referred to "that illiterate Dainton". My mind goes back to some 60 years ago when I went to Cambridge and the late Lord Rutherford was then, in the early 1930s, reputed to be facing a financial cutback in the funds of the Cavendish Laboratory. He called his staff together —there were no ladies—and said "Gentlemen, we have less money: we must think harder." Forty years after that, Rutherford's words came back to my mind with great force during my first year as chairman of the University Grants Committee. In the financial year 1973–74 inflation was rising to reach ultimately almost 30 per cent. and the Government broke with past practice and withheld the supplementation that would have maintained in real terms the value of the UGC grant.
This created a financial crisis for many universities, with real prospects of insolvency for some of them. I am not going to weary your Lordships with the stratagems we had to adopt to get through the following year, because I want to emphasise that it was this financial stringency which focused the minds of myself and the then secretary, Mr. John Carswell, on the uniquely vulnerable position of British university research in the humanities, to the plight of which the Arts Sub-Committee of the University Grants Committee had drawn my attention.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has explained, the natural scientists and engineers, the medical scientists, the agricultural scientists, the environmental scientists and the social scientists each had and still have a research council empowered to make grants to academics, either individually or in teams, to finance
1216
their research. In marked contrast, the humanists had to rely for their help on whatever their universities could afford to give from the block grant. The experience of 1974 showed that when times were hard one of the easiest areas in which universities could make economies was in financial help to academic staff in the humanities, despite the fact that work in these areas often could not progress without travels to institutions which had unique collections of artefacts or historical or literary material. We therefore decided to discuss these issues with the British Academy and during these consultations the case for a humanities research council was advanced, I think for the first time. It was hoped that it would resemble in some respects arrangements which already existed in some other countries of comparable size and development to Britain.
Because of the certainty at that time that a humanities research council would not be established, the University Grants Committee decided to make available to the British Academy in 1975 £125,000 per annum for an initial period of five years. They succeeded in persuading the Department of Education and Science, the Scottish Education Department and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland to cough up from their resources a year later. That was all done with the idea of fostering research work of high quality in the arts and humanities. Earmarking the money in this way, they passed it on to the British Academy to act as agent in its distribution, simply because the Academy knew most about the individuals who would be applying. We guessed that would be a good way of protecting the funds available for arts and humanities research from erosion in individual universities. As I say, a year later the other departments in other parts of the country, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, joined in. Later of course came the development which resulted in more work being put upon the British Academy, which became responsible for the award of research studentships, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has described.
I have recounted this history not just to explain the origin of the responsibilities which the British Academy now discharges, but also to illustrate how financial adversity can concentrate thought. Furthermore that adversity is now afflicting the universities once again but for rather different, and perhaps more importantly, more permanent reasons.
The first is that part of the price which the Government have decided must be paid by the universities for expansion of higher education is that the unit of resource for undergraduate students in humanities and the arts shall decrease. In fact an immediate decrease of 30 per cent. was announced recently. Secondly, large funds hitherto allotted to, but unearmarked within, the universities' own block grants to enable them to meet the indirect costs of research grants made to universities in subjects other than the arts and humanities, are now being transferred, as we have heard, from the funding councils to the various science research councils for the latter to distribute as they think fit, thereby further diminishing the resources over which universities have individual and complete control.

1217
If one adds to those two factors the increased cost in pounds, due to deflation of our currency, for those scholars whose research work necessitates foreign visits to libraries and archaeological sites, it is certain that funds from university sources for humanities research are facing a disproportionate squeeze. Therefore it is clear to me at any rate that the time is ripe, if not over-ripe, for a reconsideration of the role and responsibilities of the United Kingdom in humanities research and of the means by which policy in that area can be reviewed, made and implemented.
The British Academy considered this problem and two-and-a-half years ago recommended the establishment of a humanities research council. Then it held discussions with the Economic and Social Research Council through the mechanism of a joint working party under an independent chairman, and that group came down firmly against a joint research council embracing all these three subjects and on the side of an additional humanities research council. It is evident that this conclusion will be widely supported by the research community in arts and humanities. The Academy has thought further about these matters and considered which of its existing activities, at present funded by the Government, should be transferred to the proposed humanities research council. Broadly speaking I agree with the division that it has proposed, and for a reason which has not yet been mentioned but which I believe is fundamental to the proper development of the world of learning in this country. It is that the learned societies, among which the British Academy is an acknowledged leader in its field, should not become, or in any way appear to become, the merely mechanical agents of whatever Government are in power, but should be completely free to express their unfettered and, if necessary, critical opinions on any matter which is within their competence. Any step which would put that independence at risk by making them too dependent on government funding should, in my view, be avoided at all costs.
So far, I am at one with the Academy. But on one issue I would part company. The British Academy would like to see a humanities research council as an additional and therefore sixth research council and funded by the new Office of Public Service and Science. I must take this opportunity to reiterate once again my view that to have six independent research councils each protected by a Royal Charter, each doing essentially similar administrative tasks in subject areas whose boundaries cannot be precisely drawn because the areas overlap, and within a single one of which several fields of research cannot be confined, is undesirable because it is inflexible, wasteful, productive of excessive bureaucracy and emphasises distinctions in the map of learning and of knowledge where none should exist. To my mind the argument of a single research council or national research foundation drawing its resources from the Office of Public Service and Science (which might be renamed the Office of Public Service and Research) is overwhelming.
In conclusion, therefore, I would urge the Government to take very seriously what is being said today and, forgetting about nomenclature, accept the
1218
case for the humanities and arts research to be treated in a similar manner to research in other subjects, thus giving some degree of policy coherence and protecting good research in whatever institution it may be being carried out.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renfrew for having tabled this Question. I welcome very much the opportunity to support his proposal. I do so as a former member of the Economic and Social Research Council and as a one time student and then teacher of philosophy. I might claim to have my foot both in the social science and in the humanities camps.
I support the proposal for a separate humanities research council for three main reasons. First—this has been well rehearsed—the present arrangements are not working. The British Academy is not happy with its present role and it is not right that the humanities are treated in a way which is totally different from all other research. The importance of being able to argue the case for the humanities alongside the case for science, technology, social sciences, agriculture and other subjects has been well made.
Secondly, I wish strongly to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, as regards the idea that any kind of amalgamation of research councils into one overall body would be desirable. Experience on the Economic and Social Research Council led me strongly to believe in the importance of having a lead body for research and scholarship in a particular area not only because of the practical work it was able to do—the ESRC has carried out splendidly practical work in the past few years particularly in the provision of regulations for postgraduate training—but also because of the focus it provided for the academic community in that particular field. I have never been persuaded by the argument of amalgamation or of a single research council. I believe that the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, properly strengthened and perhaps somewhat reorganised, could do the job that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, requests.
In particular, I believe it would be wrong for the humanities council and the Economic and Social Research Council to become one and the same, if that were to be proposed, not least because the splendid work which has been done, most particularly under the chairmanship of Professor Newby in the past few years at ESRC, has done so much to raise the standards and the standing of British social science. That is something that could only be detracted from if we were to ask that body to take on the substantial responsibilities for humanities as well.
My third reason, however, concerns what I believe is the crucial importance of research and postgraduate training in the humanities. I was moved recently to hear, on a visit to Lithuania, the rector of Vilnius University talk about the immense and daunting task which universities in the former Soviet Union face to recreate, so to speak, the idea of a modern university. He made the point that the universities in the former Soviet Union need to catch up with technology and

1219
science. It is right that we in the West have placed tremendous emphasis on the importance of technology and science to take us into the future. I thought the rector's words constituted a wise lesson for us when he said how tremendously difficult and how important it would be for the universities in the former Soviet Union to recreate the concept of humanities and liberal education. He said we live in a society where for the past 70 years the qualification for being either a senior administrator or a politician has been to have as little education as possible. He said that we in the West take it for granted that we produce people with a liberal education who can take their place as senior members of government and senior politicians whereas the universities in the former Soviet Union have to recreate that from nothing.
It seems to me that he had well described the reasons why we have not only university education but also postgraduate training and research across the whole gamut of the academic spectrum. I believe that a humanities research council would enable us to keep that balance right. There is a danger in that in our quite proper anxiety to increase the vocational and technological nature of our education and of our academic community we may forget the foundations of what a civilised society needs. That could be only further strengthened by the creation of a humanities research council.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Bullock: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dainton suggested that the present structure of research councils is far from perfect, and that, while sympathetic to the cause of the humanities, it would be a mistake to add yet one more embattled research council. We have five, which is already too many. I understand his argument, but the real point that strikes me about it is why, in that situation, should it be the humanities that is the one left out? That is what troubles me, and where there has been a serious lack.
It is because they have no research council of their own that those teaching and working in the humanities have not had the opportunity to contribute to, and take part in, discussions, perhaps the battles, between the various research councils on the Advisory Body for Research Councils by which the division of their grants is settled. They are also alone in having no access to the Office of Science and Technology, which has taken over responsibility for funding project-based research in everything except the humanities.
This anomalous position, if continued, will work still more to the disadvantage of the humanities in the future for two reasons. The first is because of the changed arrangements for the funding of universities, the effect of which has already been mentioned, and I shall not go further into it. But clearly, unless there is a change there, the humanities will just lose out more than they do at the moment. The second is because the burden of student expansion has fallen disproportionately on the humanities and social sciences,
1220
leading to a continued deterioration in the staff-student ratio for the humanities and a steady increase in the amount of time demanded of academic staff for teaching undergraduates.
There is a tendency to speak about research in the humanities as if it were a form of self indulgence, or self promotion, when what dons are really paid to do is to teach. But hitherto it has been the hallmark of university teaching in this country that it has been in the hands of men and women who are not only able but, as part of their duties, are required to keep up with and contribute to the development of their subject. This double obligation to teach and to research seems to me to be to the benefit of both sides. My own experience of teaching is that it continually stimulated many thoughts that I might otherwise not have had. As for the benefit in teaching, there is nothing that can equal the intellectual excitement and benefit of contact with a teacher who is also actively engaged in research and in forwarding his subject.
It may be that the expansion of student numbers is going to make that less common than it was. I was taught by people who today would be very unlikely, because it would either be vice-chancellors or regius professors who would have that contact with undergraduates, but it was decisive for me. It was that element of teaching by somebody who not only knew about the subject but was continually adding to what could be known about the subject that was important. Even today, with the expansion of numbers, at some time in their three or four years an undergraduate should have experience of that contact with somebody who is actively engaged in research.
Even to do that means that we have to make special provision to provide protected time for research at least for our ablest people. Above all it means time, because it is that that is always encroached on when there is competition between teaching and research —time in the form of postgraduate studentships to begin with; full-time post-doctoral research fellowships in the early stages of a career, and, what is most important, grants, also competitive, enabling established scholars to "buy out" time off from teaching and administration for up to two years of full-time research.
These are provided under the present arrangements to a small degree, but they are not on a scale comparable to the percentage of academic staff in our universities—which I am told is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the total—engaged in the humanities. Leaving aside the support grants received from the Universities Funding Council, the 1991 figure for research income from all sources for humanities, language-based studies and the creative arts together, was £16.5 million. When compared with £860 million for all other subjects this shows how serious is the disadvantage that the humanities suffer, and will continue to suffer, so long as they are excluded from the research council set-up.
This still leaves open the question whether there needs to be a separate research council for the humanities. It is striking that a joint committee of the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy considered this alternative seriously

1221
and rejected it unanimously. They showed in their report that the financial saving was not important, would not be more than £500,000 a year, and was far outweighed by the disadvantages.
One disadvantage that has not been mentioned is that such a combined research council for social sciences and the humanities would have to cover over half—52 per cent.—of the academic community, while the other four research councils would share the responsibility for less than half. If it is to be representative, that would mean a large, unwieldy council, and still risk leaving important areas of research unrepresented. The social science constituency would resent having to give up places and would be concerned at the drain of funds from social science research to the humanities, while those working in the humanities would never overcome the feeling that, as the only branch of the academic community denied a research council of their own, they were being treated as second-rate citizens.
There would be—and I think that the Follett Committee was right on this—a risk of perpetual friction between the two disciplines. It is a set-up designed to produce that. I am sure that it is not only those who are working in the humanities who would urge the Government to think again and to create a humanities research council, but equally strongly those who are working in the social sciences. Those two together represent 52 per cent. of the academic community.
Finally, I am equally sure that the present arrangement has also worked to the disadvantage of the British Academy simply because it was unable to bring sufficient weight to bear, and because of its status—it was not a research council—to secure what many of the Fellows felt was a proper provision for the humanities. If the present makeshift arrangements could be got rid of and replaced, that would not only be welcomed by the academy but would do a great deal for the academy.
The responsibility for public support for the academy would be transferred to the Office for Science and Technology, which would place the academy on an equal footing with the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineers. That seems to me to be most important. Secondly, relieved of the burden of acting as a substitute for a humanities research council, the academy would then be in a much better position to take much-needed steps to give more adequate representation to social scientists in its membership than it can at present.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, as a Fellow of the British Academy since 1967 I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for asking this Unstarred Question. I strongly support the establishment of a humanities research council and always have. The reasons have been well set out by other noble Lords, so I shall not speak at any length this evening. The situation about the humanities in relation to the Government is anomalous and confused. The position of the British Academy, as the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, points out, is curiously ambivalent.
1222
I am clear in my own mind that it ought to be as an essentially private institution or society, having the same sort of relationship with the Government as the Royal Society. It ought to have been transferred after the general election to the responsibility of the newly-created Office of Science and Technology, the OST, as the Royal Society was transferred. More important, the humanities ought to be given the same status of having a research council of their own, as with every other branch of academic learning. It would be possible to amalgamate humanities with the Economic and Social Research Council. One could not say that that was impracticable. But that would save little money and would involve a built-in formula for friction. I believe that such an amalgamation should be avoided at any cost.
The truth is that under the existing structure the humanities have only a muffled voice in the Government's consideration of academic research. They can make their views known only indirectly to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC). The British Academy has no direct access. Its president is unable to fight his corner with the advisory board or whatever other authority is involved, as do heads of research councils. That cannot be right.
The academy accepted the role given to it in 1974–75 with considerable doubt. There was much misgiving about being a conduit for government funding of the humanities. At the time I was either a current member of the council of the British Academy or had been a member. However, I remember the discussions and general anxiety. It seemed somehow dishonourable at that time to reject that role, and the British Academy would have appeared in a bad light if it had done so.
The academic world and its problems have greatly changed since that time for reasons set out by several noble Lords. I believe that a humanities research council is the only satisfactory way forward if we are to avoid the humanities becoming metaphorically neglected, second-class citizens of the academic world. In many respects that is what they are at present. If matters continue as they are they will become third-class citizens.
I do not know what my noble friend Lady Blatch will say in reply. However, I hope that she will not take the view, since the arrangement with the British Academy has worked up to a point, that all is well and that there is no need for change. It is not a matter of changing the role simply because it is anomalous and peculiar. Many things are anomalous and peculiar in life, including perhaps your Lordships' House. But the system is not functioning well. What worked 18 years ago does not work well now. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on that point when she replies.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I believe that I am safe in saying that your Lordships' House has never heard five Fellows of the British Academy among the first seven contributors in a debate. It is all the more surprising that they all agree with each other. The case has been well put by my colleagues. However, I wish

1223
to approach it from a slightly different angle: that is, to explain historically why part of what we seek is to clear up an anomaly in the organisation of this country's intellectual life.
The Royal Society was founded by His Majesty King Charles II and therefore has a long and distinguished history in this country, in Europe and in world science generally. It was the only internationally-recognised learned body until the end of the last century. Only then did the humanities and social sciences begin to be organised for research purposes.
Part of its important task, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out, was to maintain intellectual contacts with other countries. At that time most other countries had academies. Many still have. Everyone knows that the Academy of Sciences in the former Soviet Union covers almost every form of knowledge. Most countries had academies which stretched across the divide. Therefore we created an academy which would do for those left out of the Royal Society what the Royal Society did for those included in.
Over almost the century that has elapsed, that has produced this curious fact. The academy includes fellows in the humanities and the social sciences. However, through developments over the past few years in public funding of research the social scientists have a research council of their own, and the British Academy has been asked to act for the remnant. As the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, said, that could produce a neglect of the importance of the humanities in our general intellectual world.
Therefore to leave the situation as it exists at present would be a mistake from both the national point of view and that of the academy. It is not that the academy cannot do the job that it has been assigned, as my noble friend Lord Blake pointed out. But it does so by going outside the normal activities of what is essentially a private learned society. No one imagines that the fellows of the academy spend their time controlling the distribution of postgraduate studentships, for instance. As soon as one has large sums of public money for which one is an agent, it is bound to distort the central activity.
Another serious point has been touched upon by preceding speakers. The expansion of the university community to something approaching 100 institutions needs the machinery to make sure that those who teach in some of the more remote or newer institutions are not discriminated against in any way and do not feel themselves discriminated against when public money is spent to assist their researches.
Given the slowness with which academies renew their membership, it would take decades before we had anything like an even representation. Without a fairly even representation, there is always the possibility that some promising scholar who needs financial assistance will be overlooked. That is particularly true in the humanities, because the necessary concentration of humanities research near major deposit libraries—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about this—and also near the great national archives makes the Oxford-Cambridge-London
1224
triangle difficult to steer against. Therefore, it seems to me that from the national point of view it would be a great advantage to have a separate body with a single purpose—the distribution of public funds in a way that could at the different levels promote research in the humanities.
It would be good for the academy, as the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, said, to be able to limit itself to its prime tasks. The schools overseas have been mentioned. But equally the proposal would include a certain number of senior research posts and, above all, I repeat, building up what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out—the important element which ought now to enter into our relations in the world generally, if you like, but in Europe particularly and in the newly enfranchised countries which are beginning to feel their way towards the idea of free research in a free society.
I believe that the arguments against trying to do that with the social sciences within a single research council have been amply stated. I only add to them something which was alluded to but was perhaps not sufficiently emphasised. It is difficult to harness an elephant and a donkey. We require in the social sciences—particularly as they now develop—the idea of project research, teams and rather large expenditure on major projects of different kinds. The Economic and Social Research Council has now developed this on the whole in a satisfactory way.
Humanists are mostly—there are exceptions such as the new edition of the Oxford English Dictionary —concerned with relatively small impediments to their individual pieces of research. It may make all the difference if someone can have £500, not, as may be the case, for a huge team in the social sciences, but to visit a particular library in a city which they would otherwise be unable to afford, especially in the current straitened circumstances of universities. I am sure that it is even truer of those who are still active on the university scene that one constantly comes up against relatively small needs which, even taken together, would probably do no more than match a single major project in the social sciences, let alone a single major project in the natural sciences.
Therefore, although I can see that there is a temptation to say, "Well, either leave things as they are or let us have a joint research council", the argument for an independent humanities research council has been made. I hope that the noble Baroness will take that with her to her colleagues.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I intervene briefly in the debate in order to draw attention to one matter which would be involved in a decision to fund humanities research in a new and different way. It concerns the 11 British scholarly institutions which operate abroad and which are at present funded through the British Academy. Those bodies are engaged in academic field work with a prime concern for archaeology and history, although they also have other interests and cover a wide range of disciplines. Typically, their origin lies in archaeological research conducted by British scholars in the last century. I should explain

1225
that I am interested in the subject because I am a member of the council of the British School at Rome, which is an institution I have known for over 40 years. I am also familiar with the British School at Athens which I came to know well when I lived in Greece some years ago.
The present arrangements by which the British Academy supervises the funding of the schools from official sources is generally held to be satisfactory. Budgetary supervision by the academy is thorough and effective. Also there is the advantage that the academy understands very well the nature of the research which is going on in the schools themselves.
The British School at Rome greatly hopes that its financial relationship with the Government can continue to be conducted through the academy in future, should a humanities research council be established in one form or another. I cannot speak for the academy, but I understand that that is also its view.
A strong reason for such a solution is that supervision of the schools would fit in well with the academy's role, which is shared only with the Royal Society, as a point of focus for relations with learned bodies in foreign countries.
The sums involved in supporting the schools are not small; namely, about £2.4 million in the current year, which is about 8 per cent. of the academy's total budget. Most of the schools have other sources of finance and are attempting to do all they can to maximise revenue at the present time.
I should add that the schools which I happen to know personally are very important as acknowledged centres of British academic activity. They operate in areas of study where our scholars have a deservedly high reputation. It is important that a solution can be adopted for the future to fund humanities research so as to safeguard their position. It is very much in the national interest that that should be done.
I mention the subject tonight not because I believe it to be controversial, but because of its importance. If the noble Baroness could find time to visit some of those schools in the course of her travels, I am sure that she would find much to interest her. I also believe that she would be very welcome.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, I am inclined to believe that the difficult situation in which the humanities find themselves at the moment in regard to research may partly be due to certain sniffiness on their part in the past as to the whole idea of research. I do not think that Gibbon and Macaulay would have described their activities as engaging in research. It was study; it was something different. It is true that the style of study or investigation carried out in the traditional humanities is different from that which prevails in other forms of intellectual inquiry. As my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out, it is more individualistic and is not a matter of large collective projects. That is reflected on the whole by the fact that what scholars in the humanities most require to assist them is comparatively small grants of money, in so far as we are talking about money. Humanists (if I may so call
1226
them), or persons engaged in study of the humanities, have been reluctant for a long time to regard their activity as describable as research. That does not mean that it is not or that their situation is not difficult.
Let us get down to the concrete basis of the whole matter. It has two aspects: first, providing for youngsters emerging with their first degrees who want to go on for one purpose or another to further graduate study; and, secondly, supporting established scholars in their work. In the humanities, both have been conducted by the British Academy. But the British Academy was the sole agent for the support of the young emerging student seeking a grant for graduate study; whereas all it could do was provide rather modest sums in the form of small grants for individual scholars who applied to it. It acted as an agent for the Government who gave it substantial, if not exactly generous, sums for young, newly-graduated people. But it had extraordinarily little influence on how that was to be done, who was to get it or, in particular, how much was to be received. They exercised a remote control over the selection of successful candidates.
Besides that, they had a very small role in distributing moneys to mature, established scholars. One says that the position of the British Academy is anomalous. It is a peculiar kind of anomaly—that is to say, it is a deep, or real or "not British" anomaly. What I mean by a "British anomaly" is the MCC. Why should that salubrious but not particularly rural borough exercise through its cricket club such an extraordinary imperial control over English cricket? It does not matter; it is just a name.
The British Academy is not like that. As has been said, the British Academy is a private, learned society primarily concerned to arrange foreign exchanges, organise lectures and support rather refined kinds of research and publication. It is certainly not well-suited to the major task which one would hope a Humanities Research Council would be able to carry out.
It is therefore a great illusion that the British Academy is a kind of humanities MCC. It is nothing of the sort. If anything, it is a kind of Wisden editorial committee, much more distantly related to the hard nuts and bolts of life for a person doing research in the humanities. What researchers in humanities are short of, as has been pointed out in recent reports on the subject, are two things—time and money. British universities are becoming more like the trains in India one sees in news programmes where one cannot actually see the train because of the number of people who are hanging on to the outside of it. With the British Academy it means that the staff of universities are so busy preventing the passengers falling off beside the track that they have little time to polish the door handles, clean the seats and generally render the train a more fit and adequate mode of transport.
The way to deal with that is to provide tracts of time in which research can be pursued. In humanities that is thin on the ground. At the highest professorial level at the moment there are two such posts, both provided by a private benefactor. There is no publicly-supported professorial research post in the humanities. There are some readerships, and they are

1227
gratefully received and valuable. But they do not remotely compare in volume with the support that is given to other fields of learning.
The other point—which has already been touched on and I have already prepared the way for it in a Freudian slip—is that students in humanities, pursuers of knowledge, need libraries. Libraries are very much Cinderellas. In the general ambit or view of the university budget they are the facility on which economies can be made so that the absolute front line activities can be carried on. It is said, "The library has a lot of stuff in it; it does not matter if we do not buy books for a few years. A lot of the books are decayed, but they decay fairly slowly". In fact a lot of the material that researchers in the humanities require is the kind that is particularly in need of conservation. That is something which has fallen completely between all possible stools of public funding which a Humanities Research Council might have the force to address.
To return to the limitations of the British Academy—I do not suggest anything more than the most devoted filial attitude to the organisation; it would be a limitation that the academy would admit—it is in no position to exercise any pressure to bring about the desirable purposes it envisages but does not see as its task to realise. All it can do to approach the centres of power is to make occasional visits, rather in the manner of the Burghers of Calais hoping that some Queen Philippa—if my humanities research has not hopelessly gone to pieces—will be there to control the frown of the cruel king. They have no regular institutionalised method of bringing pressure to bear on the ultimate funding authorities, whichever government department it happens to be.
The case for a Humanities Research Council is extremely strong. It rests on three things; first, that there really is research in the humanities and it is vitally important nowadays that it is not carried on by people in velvet coats living on private means but that it will be carried on by variously hard-driven university teachers; secondly, the circumstances of university teachers nowadays with pressure on time because of the enormous expansion of student numbers without increase of teaching personnel; and, thirdly, the neglect and decay of the libraries which are the essential tools, as the laboratories are for the scientists, on which humanistic research depends.
It is perfectly clear, as other noble Lords have said, that for all its excellent qualities, the British Academy cannot do this. It is in an embarrassing position as the powerless distributor of grants which the recipients all feel to be inadequate. It has a minute quantity of genuine patronage for research by established scholars. In a sense its position is extremely invidious. It should not have these responsibilities loaded on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, specifically mentioned the overseas schools, which have always been a central part of the British Academy's activities. These, one would hope, it would continue to support, administer and oversee. The responsibilities which it has discharged are not appropriate to it and it has not been equipped to discharge responsibilities which no
1228
one else is discharging—which provide for exponents of the humanities in this country things that they get everywhere else. We have no Collège d'Angleterre here; but for the serious, advanced scholar in France there is the Collège de France, where one is required to give one lecture a year. That might be abused a little; be that as it may.
In the United States there is the concept, admittedly not generally publicly-funded, of the distinguished service professor, who is released from the normal pressures of academic duty. There is in America the National Endowment for the Humanities; but no such thing exists here. Equally, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there are academies or research organisations in other countries where the humanities figure alongside everything else. It is an absurd anomaly that the humanities should not be accorded a position comparable with everyone else—not identical to everyone else but comparable with everyone else—at the research table.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn for giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject. I immediately move on from that to say that I enter this debate with some trepidation as an unreconstructed amateur following so many very distinguished professionals in the academic field. Although, to my permanent astonishment, I am a Fellow of the British Academy, I have never been engaged in funded research as a participant, a supervisor, an administrator or in any other way. This gives me the opportunity to see some of these questions not in a different way but perhaps from a different perspective. I wish to comment only briefly on these matters because they have been covered thoroughly by those who have already spoken.
I want in particular to deal with three points. The first is the question of money. It seems indisputable that the humanities are not generously endowed with public funds in relation to the research activities across the spectrum of other subjects. The academy and those who represent the humanities are fully justified in making that point powerfully and clearly to government even if by seeking extra resources the consequence might be at least in part disadvantageous to other areas of research and scholarship. That point is an important one but it is a separate point from the question of whether there should be a humanities research council.
It could be thought that one of the motives—perhaps an unspoken motive—for seeking a humanities research council would be to put the humanities in a better bidding position and that the proposal is financially driven. It could be suspected by government that this might be a consequence of setting up a humanities research council. We should be absolutely plain in saying this that the humanities need and deserve more funding for research but that that is a separate issue and the case for a Humanities Research Council exists on intrinsic grounds quite apart from the financial issue.

1229
My second point is about the anomalous position of the academy itself. Not being a professional academic or engaged in that field, I have been very struck by the awkwardness which is faced by the academy in having to fulfil this dual role and these two rather incompatible functions. The first role is that of a direct agent of government fulfilling the same kind of function as research councils do for other purposes and carrying on the administrative, functional and financial exercise of the research funding programme, and the second is that of an independent body of academic specialists in the field of the humanities which clearly look at matters from an entirely different viewpoint.
Having passed a little of my misspent youth as a Treasury Minister, I know how tempting it is from a government point of view to look at a body, whether it is the British Academy or any other body, in relation to the single basis on which that body is in communication with government. If a second basis is very different and the two may cut across each other, I believe that the effectiveness of each role may be complicated and probably diminished. I see a difficulty which has been expressed, and which genuinely exists, that the academy is not entirely free, particularly in its role as an independent academic body, but it is perhaps equally not entirely free to fulfil the administrative role in relation to being a proxy for a research council as it would be if it were pursuing only one of those two roles. I hope that that point can be fully registered.
The other side of that particular coin is that because the academy covers not only the humanities but also the social sciences, it seems to me that there is inevitably a tendency for the structure of the academy to be skewed towards the humanities because it has to provide an administrative role for the humanities which it does not provide for the social sciences. Although it is something which the academy manages at least adequately, it is an anomaly and the academy would be in a much more comfortable and sensible position as regards its own internal affairs if it did not have to face that problem.
The final point I want to touch on is the question of what kind of humanities research council might be needed. I share the view which a number of noble Lords have expressed this evening that a combined research council covering the ESRC and the humanities, although possibly superficially attractive in that it might appear to enable administrative economies to be made, would, if the amalgamation related to anything other than the secretarial and administrative infrastructure, and if the council itself was a joint body, impose impossible tensions between the two different strands within that joint council.
I have some experience of what kind of thing goes on in the way of social research because for many years I have been a trustee of my family's charitable foundation, which funds research of that kind. Although not on any formal basis, I have also been involved in a good deal of research in the historical field. I am therefore very conscious of the differences in the approach to research in these different areas. It is not just that different sorts of people are involved;
1230
the objectives of the research are often different. They are defined differently in the social sciences and in the field of the Economic and Social Research Council as compared with the humanities. ESRC projects may be jointly run by a number of people and may have a specific end in sight for a practical purpose for which they may have been commissioned. In the humanities, however, the work is inevitably more personal and less structured, but that does not mean that it is totally unstructured. One of the advantages of a humanities research council which might appeal to the Government is that there are areas in humanities research—let us not be shy about saying this—which could do with a little more structure. The completion rates for work by postgraduate PhD candidates in the humanities do not measure well against those of candidates in other fields. It is perfectly right that such issues should and could be addressed by a humanities research council, if one existed.
Equally, it is extraordinarily difficult for the British Academy, given its constitution and nature, to tackle such problems. I believe that there would be advantages for both the Government and the academy (as well as for the universe of the humanities) if the proposals which my noble friend Lord Renfrew has outlined this evening were accepted. I hope that they will be considered seriously by the Government in that light.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the normal purpose of making a wind-up speech on behalf of one's party is to reply to the debate and to endeavour to deal with any hostile points that may have been made. However, that is not possible this evening because there is nothing to reply to. Your Lordships have shown a powerful, surprising and welcome unanimity, and that unanimity can be a many-faceted thing. It is not the same thing as repetition. Agreement has been expressed in a way that is a tribute to the plural traditions of the British humanitarian tradition. I hope that the Minister will take due notice of that remarkable unanimity when she replies.
Not only can I not make a normal winding-up speech but, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, hinted —we are most grateful to him for initiating this debate —I am here as much in my capacity as Chancellor of the University of Oxford as of Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I was reassured, therefore, to be informed by my noble friend Lord Russell that my views are fully in accordance with party policy. I was not wholly aware of that previously, although I had assumed that that might be so as my views are very sensible on this issue.
In my chancellerian capacity, I am more worried about the future of research into the humanities at Oxford than I am about the future of research into the natural and applied sciences and medicine. If that is true in Oxford, which some may think of as the home of the humanities in this country—and compared to the university of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, it is a comparative newcomer to, at any rate, large-scale research into the sciences—how much more true is it likely to be of other universities.

1231
There are at present several factors working against research in the humanities. The first is the increase in the number of undergraduates—much more in the arts subjects than in the science subjects, a point to which my noble friend Lord Russell referred—and the pressures that go with that when it is not accompanied by any comparable increase in the numbers of academic staff. A balance has to be struck. It is important that teachers do research. It is also important that those who are outstanding in research also do some teaching. I would venture to claim that Oxford is a better undergraduate university than Harvard because that is more true of Oxford than it is at present of Harvard, where good people are not prepared to devote time to teach undergraduates.
In the interests of fairness, I do not believe that Oxford, as a graduate school, would be able to hold a candle to that of the vast graduate school of Harvard which has 22,000 graduates compared with our 4,000. As an undergraduate university, Oxford is bigger and in many ways better than that most distinguished of American academic institutions.
Secondly, working against effective research in the humanities is the fact that, nonetheless, we are all becoming relatively more important graduate schools. Graduate studies hardly existed in Oxford in my days as an undergraduate. Now they are becoming, as is the fashion throughout all academic institutions, more important than previously. Having graduate students helps research in the sciences; they rather get in the way of research in the arts.
Scientific research is more of a team effort. Graduates can be useful to those who are conducting it, whereas, to some extent, they are a necessary and desirable distraction for those who are conducting it in humanities.
However, humanities research—the case for which I do not believe needs to be argued in your Lordships' House, although it was most neatly done by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry,—needs a little fostering and cosseting at present if this country is to maintain its tradition of research in the humanities. That, as has been strongly argued this evening, requires a humanities research council.
There is one last point I should like to make in relation to the British Academy. I, unlike nearly all noble Lords who have spoken this evening, am not a Fellow of the British Academy and so I can perhaps speak more freely about it than others can. Looking at the papers relating to this issue, I have been struck by the British Academy's unselfish approach. Some of the things it is required to do in the absence of a humanities research council may not fit well with other aspects of its work. Nevertheless, empire building, or at any rate empire holding, is a tradition in institutions even of considerable academic repute.
I have been struck by how the academy, under the leadership of Sir Anthony Kenny, has recently shown no desire to pursue a policy of, "what we have, we hold", but has been much more interested in achieving a sensible structure for humanities research in this
1232
country. As has been so well argued by many of your Lordships tonight, that points strongly in the direction of a humanities research council.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in one way, this is the easiest speech I have ever had to make in your Lordships' House. The subject was cogently and persuasively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who covered pretty well all the ground. If he missed any points, other noble Lords covered them.
The logic of the case is clear cut. Although I am sympathetic to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, about an umbrella body, in so far as we are discussing present realities, we need a separate funding body for the humanities. That follows logically with no problem at the present time and I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, to be saying anything other than that. He merely had a few additional ideas.
I have always had a slight difficulty about using the word "research". I know that in order to impress the powers that be one must use the word "research". I always assumed that the humanities engaged in scholarship and that the rest of us engaged in research. However, I have a feeling that in the present climate there is no money in scholarship but there is money in research.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, that logically the issue is not about money; logically the humanities deserve their own body. However, in practice it is all about money and about nothing else. The humanities need money and because the dual support system is ending they are being squeezed. I wish to convey the message to my colleagues in the humanities that I am sensitive to the fact that they need money rather than being told that they are jolly good chaps and women.
I agree and disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Quinton. Of course, they were right in saying that in respect of the humanities one is mostly talking about relatively small sums. It is amazing how productive of scholarship small sums can be. However, I do not believe that one should go to the other extreme and assume that there are not areas of work which require large sums, not least in the field of the noble Lord, Lord Quinton. I discovered that in the United States philosophers are spending vast sums of money. I am not clear about what they do with it but scholars have no difficulty in feeling that they need it. I do not believe that we do a great deal of justice to our colleagues in the humanities when we say that they need only small sums of money. Some need large sums and I hope that when the time comes the relevant body will bear that in mind.
I have been a member of what is now called the Economic and Social Research Council. It was the Social Science Research Council, a title which I much prefer. I have also sat on sub-committees of the Medical Research Council, the Science Research Council and so on. I have always been struck by the way in which my colleagues in the humanities are like church mice; they do not like to ask for money. They

1233
ought to be persuaded to say that the small change of the scientists is a great deal of money to the social scientists let alone to those in the humanities. Therefore, one should not say that only small sums are involved; although small sums are important. I hope that my colleagues in the humanities will push themselves forward more. I should like to see the setting up of the new body because it would give leadership and confidence to those people enabling them to push themselves forward more. That is another good reason for supporting them.
I wish to refer to an error of omission. I had always assumed that the beginnings of the humanities were the classics and that the other subjects—English literature, philosophy and history—followed on. I do not believe that any noble Lord mentioned the classics. There is one area of academic life of this country about which I am worried. Because no one can see any connection between the classics, economic performance and all the other issues which dominate us today they are being more and more neglected. The classics department of my own college does not exist any more, although it was quite brilliant. It is the easiest department to get rid of and perhaps it will not be long before only Oxford and Cambridge have classics departments.
An area in which big money is required is libraries. Even if we were to argue that everyone else does not need a great deal of money, a modern library requires millions of pounds not only in capital investment but in order to keep it going. I have argued previously in your Lordships' House that in comparison with the library facilities which my Alma Mater, Princeton, enjoys no university in this country has anything comparable or can even begin to understand the ambitions of the great American universities for libraries. That involves very large sums of money, on the same scale as the physicists used to enjoy. I hope that we shall not forget that.
Those are my main points. I have managed to find enough to say to fill five minutes, although I was fairly desperate to think of anything to say. My main purpose has been to be as supportive as possible of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. Like other noble Lords, I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic response from the Government which will encourage us and our colleagues in the humanities to feel that they have a worthwhile academic future.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had a most distinguished list of speakers in the debate. It has made it a special evening for me and has resulted in a most interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords, but particularly to those noble Lords who have stalwartly sat through a number of debates today and spoken in at least two of them.
I welcome this opportunity which my noble friend Lord Renfrew has given us to consider some important questions about research in the humanities. First, I can reaffirm the Government's commitment to promoting high quality research in this area. For reasons which noble Lords will understand, I shall not be able this evening to respond to all the requests
1234
made of the Government during the debate. However, I shall say what the Government have done in recent years to sustain research in the humanities. I shall briefly describe the present structures for supporting that work and the proposals which have been made for changing those structures. I shall also explain the Government's stance towards those proposals.
As many noble Lords know, there is a dual system of public funding of research in the humanities analogous to the funding of scientific research. Our universities have a well-deserved reputation for academic excellence. The Government want to ensure that the excellence of British scholarship in the humanities is maintained and developed. The bulk of the funding comes through the general institutional grants from the Higher Education Funding Councils. In addition, the Government provide specific support for humanities research through their funding of the British Academy.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, were concerned that the new dual support system could mean reduced funding for the humanities. The new dual support arrangements involve a switch from funding council to research council support. They will not affect total funding for university research. The new arrangements apply only to scientific research. The Universities Funding Council has made no reduction in its funding for humanities research and there is no reason why individual institutions should do so.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bullock, referred to the status of the humanities without research council status. The Government do not accept that the needs of the humanities are overlooked in national research policy. It is true that a research council could act as a voice for the humanities, but so can the British Academy. That is not to say that a research council would bring no benefits to humanities research. Indeed, I have heard a very pressing case for that this evening. The Government are considering carefully where the balance of advantage would lie.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, implied, as did a number of speakers, I hope unintentionally, that there might be grounds for dissatisfaction with the way in which the British Academy discharges its functions. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, in particular addressed that question. I do not believe that any criticism of the British Academy was intended and I wish to take this opportunity to say plainly that my department is far from dissatisfied with the academy's stewardship. I hope that the increase in grant for next year—11 per cent. in a very difficult PES round —is proof of that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, will accept my assurance that there is certainly a basis for serious debate and that the issue must be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper, to which I shall refer again in a moment.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will use his influence to persuade my department to send me out to see the schools abroad. I would very much welcome an opportunity to do so: I seem to find myself in Bognor Regis and other unattractive places. I apologise to anybody in the Chamber who might

1235
come from Bognor Regis. Perhaps I could use, as a reason for going out, inspecting the new roof which I know is under way up there.
The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, made the very important point about libraries. I want to say that the Government recognise the particular importance to humanities scholars of good library facilities. In his initial guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked the council to consider what initiatives it might launch in support of libraries for teaching and research, recognising in particular the needs of the humanities. The council has established a working party, again chaired by Sir Brian Follett, to consider library provision in higher education. Indeed, the President of the British Academy is a member of that working party, and thus I can say that the humanities are well represented.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out the particular connection between this kind of research and teaching in the humanities. It is of course true that for some the policy of research selectivity may mean an increased emphasis on teaching and would reduce time allocated for research. This applies in all disciplines and is intended to ensure that research funds are used effectively. Funding for scholarship, on which high-quality teaching depends, will continue to flow through funds for teaching. Universities will be able to support talented individuals from their general funds.
We attach great importance to the work of the academy. The Government's grant-in-aid enables the academy to make awards for fees and maintenance to research students in the humanities, to provide post-doctoral fellowships and readerships, and to support a variety of research projects and institutes, including the overseas archaeological schools.
The Government's grant-in-aid to the academy in the current financial year is some £19.5 million. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced an increase to £21.5 million for the next financial year 1993–94. This represents, as I have just said, a cash increase of some 11 per cent. Given the current pressures on public expenditure, I believe that this substantial increase provides clear evidence of the Government's commitment to the work of the academy.
As I have also said, in addition to the grant-in-aid to the academy, resources for humanities research are included in the allocations to universities and colleges by the Higher Education Funding Councils. The allocation by the Universities Funding Council in the 1992–93 academic year includes £78 million for research in the humanities.
As your Lordships know, the resources allocated to institutions by the funding councils are not earmarked: it is for each university and college to determine how the funds available to it will be deployed. As a number of noble Lords have made clear, the proposal for a research council for the humanities is not a new one. There has for some time
1236
been a debate within the humanities community about the need for such a development and the form that it might take. Different proposals have been discussed with my department and most recently, as has been mentioned, there has been a report on the matter from the joint working party established by the British Academy and the Economic and Social Science Research Council under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Follett.
The Follett Report argues that, as a result of changes in structures and funding for higher education and scientific research, the existing arrangements for the public funding of humanities research are no longer satisfactory. It recommends that a new agency should be established for the public funding of project-based humanities research, to bring it into a position comparable to that of the social and natural sciences. The new agency would take over certain of the British Academy's responsibilities in this area.
The Follett Report further recommends that the new agency should form part of the research council structure under the Office of Science and Technology, and that it should offer the full range of functions appropriate to a research council. The report asserts that the success of the new body would depend on extra resources being devoted to project-based humanities research.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, informed the House that he, the Liberal Democrats and the Follett Report—I understand he informed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, of this—have considered whether there should be a joint research council covering both the humanities and the social sciences, or whether there should be a separate research council for the humanities alone. The report concludes that it would be technically feasible for a single research council to administer project-based funding across both sets of disciplines. It argues, however, that such a change would disrupt the present Economic and Social Research Council and that, relative to the alternative of the ESRC and a new humanities research council, it would save little in administrative costs. Accordingly, the report recommends the establishment of a humanities research council. It also recommends that the responsibility for continuing public funding for the British Academy be transferred to the Office of Science and Technology. I noted the conflicting views that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark held on these matters.
The Follett Report has been endorsed and commended to the Government both by the British Academy and by the Economic and Social Research Council. As will have become clear, the report raises a number of important issues. Several of them have been raised during the debate. Some of them also need to be considered within government, and they have of course already been the subject of discussions between the departments concerned. My honourable friend the Minister for Further and Higher Education—I am absolutely delighted he has given his time to hear the entire debate from.below the Bar in our Chamber this evening—only yesterday evening had a discussion

1237
with the president of the British Academy. I understand that that was a useful and constructive dialogue between my honourable friend and Sir Anthony Kenny.
As I explained to your Lordships at the beginning, I am not in a position to give the Government's response now: it is our intention to announce our response in the Science and Technology White Paper, which we will he producing later this year.
The Government recognise the strong views within the humanities community about the need for a research council to provide a distinctive voice for the humanities and to enhance the status of humanities research. We are aware that some see the humanities as somewhat isolated under the present arrangements; and we understand the argument that bringing the humanities within the research council system would enable the humanities to be considered alongside the scientific disciplines when decisions are being taken about the allocation of resources for research.
I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about timorous mice. However, the noble Lord has never been reticent about asking for money. It is possible that he could teach a humanities research council some lessons in that respect. But proposals for change can have disadvantages as well as advantages. The Government need to consider the issues fully before they can decide how the interests of the humanities would best be served.
An important question is the pattern on which any research council for the humanities should be established. Would it make best sense to establish a humanities research council on the model of the existing research councils? Such a body could certainly be expected to provide greater coherence, direction and control over research in the humanities. But is that type of management appropriate for humanities research? As your Lordships are aware, humanities research is in most cases very different in nature from research in the sciences.
Most humanities research requires the time of individual scholars who have access to good library facilities. These activities are integrated with the basic functions of higher education institutions, which are supported by the grant from the funding councils. This system gives scholars the flexibility they need to pursue their interests. Would it be helpful to the humanities to have a research council which identified a limited list of priority areas for research, as the existing research councils do, and directed resources accordingly? Is there a risk that such a process would unhelpfully distort the pattern of research in the humanities?
A further issue is what functions a humanities research council would assume. A research council on the existing pattern might be expected to be active in monitoring and evaluating the quality of research projects, in promoting inter-disciplinary work and, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, in monitoring the health of the humanities community through such activities as forecasting the demand for new scholars to replace existing staff as they retire and in co-ordinating library provision, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has suggested. However, in practice the
1238
British Academy already discharges many of these functions in collaboration, as appropriate, with the ABRC and other agencies. The higher education institutions have responsibilities in these areas too. Do we need a humanities research council to take over and develop these functions; and what would be the division of responsibilities between a humanities research council and the British Academy? Which of the academy's current functions would a research council assume? It is generally supposed that a research council would take over from the academy the responsibility for the administration of the postgraduate studentship scheme in the humanities. The Follett Report so recommends. But what other functions would be assigned to a humanities research council?
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, raised the question of the location of the responsibilities for schools and institutions abroad. Given that there are few large-scale projects in the humanities that would require research council support, should the Government be considering a rather different type of body than the research councils we have at present? If so, what form should it take?
There is also the question of the basis on which a humanities research council would be funded. The academy has made no secret of its wish to see additional funding provided for a new body. That is perfectly understandable. But the reality is that any new body would probably have to be funded within the existing resources available for humanities research. The Government have always made that clear. When my honourable friend the Higher Education Minister met with the British Academy only yesterday, the academy assured him that for its part it would want to see a humanities research council even if the new body was funded initially on the relevant proportion of the academy's existing budget. It is helpful to have that clarification of the academy's position. Of course, as I have made clear, the Government's position on the question of a research council for the humanities is wholly reserved.
My noble friend Lord Stewartby pressed us to consider these two issues as separate issues, one of finance and one of structure. The question for the Government is whether a research council would be a more effective mechanism for distributing the resources available for humanities research. That is a structural question which must be looked at on its merits aside from the question of the size of the sum to be distributed. Presumably a research council would concentrate resources. Would that be helpful for the humanities, given the distribution of humanities scholars and the patterns of humanities research; and might the existence of a humanities research council make it harder for the humanities to argue for a fair share of universities' general funds?
I make no judgment on these questions. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I am unable to give your Lordships an answer this evening. The issues I have outlined are currently the subject of active consideration by the Government. We recognise that our consideration of these matters cannot go on indefinitely.

1239
The science and technology White Paper provides an opportunity to determine the appropriate structures for supporting humanities research. There are essentially two options: to bring the humanities within the research council system under the Office of Science and Technology or to retain the existing arrangements. We intend to consider in the White Paper whether any changes are necessary to the organisation of the existing research councils, and it is right that the proposal for a humanities research council should be considered in that context.
I have listened carefully to the points made during this debate. They will make an important contribution to the deliberations of the two departments. I can assure your Lordships that I shall report your views to my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am sure that they will want to consider them most carefully. I know that they will appreciate this debate tonight, and they will consider all that has been said before
1240
reaching a decision on this important matter. I again thank my noble friend Lord Renfrew for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  LEGAL AID IN SCOTLAND
  LEGAL AID IN SCOTLAND
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 9th AND 10th FEBRUARY
  AGRICULTURE COUNCIL, 9th AND 10th FEBRUARY
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1992: IMPLEMENTATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY CAR PARKS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY CAR PARKS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM SET BOOKS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM SET BOOKS
  GOOD PRACTICE COMPLIANCE: COST MEASUREMENT
  GOOD PRACTICE COMPLIANCE: COST MEASUREMENT
  SINGLE PARENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES
  SINGLE PARENTS IN THE ARMED FORCES