Sitting of 9 March 1993

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

    Procurement
    Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with how many United Kingdom companies his Department was involved in procurement contracts in 1992.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My Department was involved in procurement contracts with some 7,000 United Kingdom companies in 1992. That figure excludes minor contracts placed by local establishments, details of which are not held centrally.
    Ms. Eagle: Is it not the case that the decline in procurement volume due to "Options for Change" has led directly to the loss of 78,900 jobs since 1990, 900 of which were at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead which is currently facing closure? Will the Minister now pledge Government support for the creation of a defence diversification strategy in order to help convert those jobs to civil use, keep Cammell Laird open and ensure that we do not lose skills which are important to the British economy?
    Mr. Aitken: I regret the loss of any defence jobs. The number of lost jobs since 1990 is approximately 40,000, considerably lower than the figure given by the hon. Lady. Like the hon. Lady, I lament the closure of Cammell Laird in her constituency because it has played a proud role in the history of British shipbuilding. However, it is not right for the Government to invent a diversification strategy. The owner of Cammell Laird, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited, is already diversifying into areas such as oil rig technology. Defence diversification is best left to companies, not Government quangos.
    Mr. Trotter: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Swan Hunter last week. His sympathetic and understanding remarks were well received by the representatives of the work force whom he met there. They were encouraged by his statement that the helicopter carrier had not been cancelled and that the tendering process was continuing in good faith. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he was impressed by what he saw of the management-work force team and the quality of their work on the four Royal Navy ships being built in the yard?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciated the chance to visit Swan Hunter in his good
    770
    company. I can confirm that I was extremely impressed by the quality of the workmanship and the dedication of the work force. The landing platform helicopter project is still in our long-term costing. It is being reviewed in the light of defence resources, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the messages that he and the Swan Hunter work force gave me have been faithfully passed on throughout Whitehall.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware of the importance to many defence contractors of the batch 2 Trafalgar order? Can he confirm that that order remains part of the Government's programme and that it is his intention to replace all the Swiftsure class with the new batch 2 Trafalgars?
    Mr. Aitken: I can confirm that the batch 2 Trafalgar project is in the long-term costing. All such projects depend on the availability of future defence resources, but I can confirm that it is in the programme. I fully understand its importance to the hon. Gentleman and to his constituents at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited. VSEL has recently executed a design study contract which we are now studying in considering the way forward.
    Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend take the time to consider the effectiveness of the demountable rack off-loading and pick-up system—DROPS—the battlefield ammunition resupply carrier, during the Gulf conflict, which is a useful and essential piece of kit? Will he bear in mind the need for flexibility in his Department as the chill winds of recession are banging around the country and consider the long-term future of that particular carrier which is built in Shrewsbury and whose future may be in jeopardy?
    Mr. Aitken: A question about DROPS appears later on the Order Paper. The DROPS medium ability vehicle that entered service with the British Army in 1990 has put up an impressive performance, especially in the Gulf campaign. Overseas customers have been particularly impressed and are interested in its progress.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister clear up a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie? What is he up to in respect of the Upholder class submarines? Will they be sold to Canada? Do we not need diesel submarines any more? Will they be sold at their full cost of £800 million? Will the receipts be used for the helicopter carrier? Is that not another illustration of the muddle and confusion at the Ministry of Defence, which has no defence strategy because there has been no defence review?
    Mr. Aitken: I think that my reply should be, elementary my dear Hercule Poirot. That project, like many others in the long-term costing, is currently under consideration by Ministers, and no decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Viggers: Is it not a fact that the moderates on the Labour Benches are a minority in their party—a party which consistently votes at its annual conference to cut defence expenditure? Should not those who really believe in defence and procurement jobs place their trust in the party that puts defence at the top of its priorities?
    Hon. Members: Say no.
    Mr. Aitken: I am choosing my words with care, because I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights the continuing ambivalence and absurdity of the

    771
    Labour party, which calls for more jobs and orders and for a stronger defence policy in Westminster, but then, at its annual conference, votes for cuts of £6 billion in the defence budget. That is the theatre of the absurd, and it fools nobody ultimately.

    Strategic Review
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will institute a full strategic review of Britain's current defence requirements.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We continue to keep our defence policy as a whole under review, both with regard to the strategic situation and in respect of specific commitments.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for a serious review of Britain's defence expenditure, which now totals more than £23 billion a year? Should not we cancel the nuclear missile programme and consign all nuclear missiles back to base as part of a programme of worldwide disarmament? Should not we try to cut conventional expenditure to at least the European average, which would save £6 billion a year? Should not we also ensure that skilled workers who are at present manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and other forms of armaments are put to making socially useful products, including materials for the health service and housing industry—and recognise that world peace is best achieved by people working for peace rather than by arming themselves for war?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is good to hear the legitimate voice of the Labour party speaking without fear or favour, representing the views of the Labour party conference, and no doubt putting in even more eloquent form the words that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) would like to say but dare not.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-examine the respective benefits of a static, costly and inflexible presence on the central front in Germany— subsidising in effect German jobs—as against the flexibility, mobility and fire power of the landing platform helicopter assault carrier, which can be sent anywhere in the world when required, either to preserve the peace or to intervene in case of war? Surely the benefits are to be found with the latter rather than the former.
    Mr. Rifkind: We certainly recognise that priorities have changed, which is why the strength of the British Army of the Rhine, for example, is to be reduced from 60,000 men to 23,000 men, and the reason for a 50 per cent. reduction in our dual capable aircraft and other changes of that kind. My hon. Friend's general proposition is already well recognised and is built in to the plans and programmes that we currently have available.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Secretary of State owe it to his own reputation, if not to the House, to show a little more intellectual rigour in the matter of a defence review? At a time when resources are falling, how will we be able properly to match commitments to resources unless there is a robust analysis of our commitments or there is likely to be? When the Chief Secretary to the
    772
    Treasury told the House a few weeks ago that it should be willing to think the unthinkable, did not that apply to defence as much as to health?
    Mr. Rifkind: Of course it is desirable to look rigorously at each and every element of our defence policy. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's yearning for a formal defence review appears to be based on the belief that such a review would provide a once-and-for-all assessment of our defence needs that would attract unanimous support. In fact, controversy would remain, many people would dismiss the review's conclusions as out of date as soon as the print had dried on the paper, and we should be left only with a considerable increase in uncertainty and instability.
    Let me emphasise to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, although we must examine specific components on a continuing basis, the world changes from year to year. The idea that a defence review would somehow answer all the problems in a simple and straightforward way is naive and unrealistic.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When conducting his regular on-going reviews, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that, below a certain level, any outfit or organisation ceases to have a critical mass? Will he remember that the Royal Air Force has already carried out a one third reduction in its all-weather air defence capability and a 38 per cent. reduction in its long-range strike capability? Even in the current changing circumstances, it should not be a candidate for further reductions which are likely to cause it to fall below the level that will make it viable in future.
    Mr. Rifkind: I properly attach great importance to the needs of the RAF. My hon. Friend should be reassured by the news that the RAF's single most important project —the Eurofighter 2000—is to continue, thus ensuring that the RAF will be able to cope with the responsibilities imposed on it for generations to come.
    Dr. David Clark: In view of the story emanating from the Secretary of State's Department last week that the Royal Marines are to lose their landing capabilities, and this week's story that the Parachute Regiment would lose its parachutes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what daft scheme he has cooked up for this week? Has he thought how much money he could save by depriving the RAF of aircraft? Does not all the nonsense emanating from his Department prove our point about the need for a full-scale strategic defence review, so that the shape of British defence spending may actually match our defence needs?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is not at his most impressive when he relies on unattributed press rumours for his questions. He is well aware that those who call for formal defence reviews normally do so because they are scared of commiting themselves to any individual defence policy.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, in January 1992, an Opposition Treasury spokesman said that defence cuts could arguably become the North sea oil of the 1990s? Does not that comment put in context many of the current criticisms—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows better than to question a Minister about policy for which he has no responsibility.

    Trident
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government now intend to make a statement on the award of the Trident contract.
    Mr. Aitken: We will announce our proposals for future refitting arrangements— including those for Trident—as soon as possible, but I do not expect it to be until after the Easter recess.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that, as a west country Liberal Democrat, I believe that Devonport has put forward the best bid. The real problem, however, is the extraordinary series of delays in the making of the announcement. Families—both those throughout Devon and Cornwall, who depend on Devonport, and those in Scotland, who depend on Rosyth —are being forced to wait with increasing uncertainty about their future. That has caused them all great difficulties. Can the Minister be a little more specific about when those people can expect a decision, and will he explain the series of delays that have taken place so far?
    Mr. Aitken: I have sympathy for dockyard employees and their families: I know that the uncertainty is causing them concern. None the less, I think it a little churlish of the hon. Gentleman not to accept that a great deal of uncertainty was lifted by my right hon. and learned Friend's written answer on 9 February, when he made it clear that we were now planning to continue with two royal dockyards. We are therefore no longer in a life-or-death situation at either Devonport or Rosyth.
    As for the timing of the announcement, we hope to be able to make it as soon as possible after the Easter recess. The first reason for the delays that have taken place so far is the need for us to be sure that we can accept the figures in the proposals as sound and certain, on behalf of the taxpayer. Secondly, new information has been coming in, not least from the dockyard managing companies themselves, and that new information has taken extra time to evaluate.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware, none the less, that despite the assurances given some weeks ago that both dockyards would remain open, there is genuine concern in Plymouth and the far south-west about the delay? There is recognition that nuclear work is the jewel in the crown. Can my hon. Friend therefore assure me that this decision will be made as soon as is humanly possible? Is my hon. Friend further aware—[Interruption.] Finally, is my hon. Friend aware that the Liberal Democrats' defence policy would scrap Trident and that there would be no choice—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question for which, again, the Minister has no responsibility. The Minister will answer only the first part of that question.
    Mr. Aitken: It is perfectly fair for my hon. Friend to point out that a Liberal Government, if we were ever to have one, would have no Trident submarines to refit at all. Therefore, this is a highly academic question.
    To answer my hon. Friend's principal point, I can confirm that we hope to make the announcement as soon as is humanly possible after the Easter recess.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister comment on reports that the United States is proposing to limit production of Trident missiles and that a Bill is already before Congress? Would that not increase enormously the unit cost, including the cost to Britain? The reports talk of a figure of £200 million extra. Would not that be an even greater waste of British taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Aitken: I have to give the hon. Gentleman some news which I am sorry to say he will probably find disappointing—that he should not believe all that he reads in the morning newspapers. We have long been aware of the fact that the United States proposes to reduce the annual production rate of Trident D5 missiles. We are confident that there is no risk of a significant variation in United Kingdom missile costs as a result.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the sea trials of the Trident submarine.
    Mr. Aitken: The United Kingdom's first Trident submarine, Vanguard, completed her contractor's sea trials in January. The trials were highly successful, with all major systems and equipments performing well. This was a particularly impressive achievement for the first of a new class.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that that answer will he warmly welcomed by all those who recognise that the nuclear deterrent has kept the peace of the world for over 45 years? Does he also accept that that would not have happened if he had listened to the Labour party and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) when he was a member of CND?
    Mr. Aitken: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's trenchant support of the Trident programme which has been an enduring feature of our debates and of Question Time for many years. I agree entirely that we need an absolutely first-class independent nuclear deterrent system to take us ahead for the next 30 years. I agree, too, that the Conservative party is the only party which is able to provide such a system, in terms of its political will and commitment.
    Mr. Cryer: What does the Minister say to people who argue that countries such as Canada, for example, will neither manufacture nor deploy nuclear weapons? Canada, under a Conservative Prime Minister and Government, and 150 other nations take the same view and have signed a solemn, international obligation to maintain a nuclear-free area. Does not what the Minister has said prejudice that treaty? Is it not terrible that a Minister can stand up at the Dispatch Box to support, to the cheers of his Back Benchers, a nuclear weapons system that involves mass extermination on an unprecedented scale? Is it not immoral for anyone to support such a policy?
    Mr. Aitken: There are different views of morality from that held by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he was referring, in his rather sweeping assertions earlier, to the non-proliferation treaty and, in particular, to article 6. We accept that we must undertake to pursue negotiations on the cessation of the nuclear arms race in good faith and as early as possible, but we think that disarmament can be achieved only step by step in verifiable stages. We do not think that the time is right, in the present atmosphere of

    775
    strategic uncertainty, either to abandon our nuclear weapons or even to abandon the testing that keeps them safe and credible.

    EH101 Helicopter
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress with the development of the EH101 helicopter and its variants.
    Mr. Aitken: The collaborative development with Italy of the EH101 aircraft is progressing well.
    Mr. Nicholson: Despite the blase remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. Friend will be aware that many people in the south-west are concerned about employment in defence industries. He will also be aware that a number of my constituents work at Westland in Yeovil. The Government have spent £1·4 billion on developing the EH101 and have already ordered 44 Merlins for the Royal Navy, so why should there be a delay in placing the contracts for the 25 utility support helicopters for the Royal Air Force when the money for those was allocated by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, in 1987?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's pride in the EH101 helicopter and its variants, and in the craftsmanship and skill achieved at Westland, in his constituency—or rather, where many of his constituents work—is entirely justified. But his impatience, although understandable, is not entirely justified, in view of the ministerial duty to achieve value for money on such a massive procurement project. The right course is to have a fair competition, and we intend to hold one as soon as possible for Britain's support helicopter requirements.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister recall a previous Conservative Secretary of State announcing to the House on 9 April 1987 that the Government intended to order 25 utility EH101 helicopters? In view of the desperate and dire shortage of helicopters in our armed forces, what has happened to that order?
    Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise how much the world and the strategic environment has changed since 1987. For helicopters alone, we face a wider spread of less predictable scenarios, in terms of the distance that troops may have to cover, the equipment that they will carry, the terrain over which they will have to fly, and the nature and intensity of the air defence threat that they may face. It would be remiss of us not to take account of those changes in reassessing our support helicopter requirement. I am sorry that that has taken rather a long time.

    United Nations Commitments
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary for Defence to discuss international obligations arising from United Nations commitments.
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet Les Aspin, the United States Defence Secretary, at the meeting between NATO Defence Ministers and those of the co-operation partners on 29 March. We will take this opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues.
    Sir Michael Neubert: If the rather improbable patchwork quilt of a peace plan for Bosnia finds acceptance with all parties, will Her Majesty's Government contribute a contingent of troops to ensure its enforcement? Would it not be regrettable if one consequence of that were a further reduction in the number of Territorial Army battalions, and in our Reserve forces generally?
    Mr. Rifkind: If a ceasefire is agreed between the various warring parties in Bosnia, the first and crucial test will be whether it is a genuine ceasefire, respected by the various factions on the ground. We have seen ceasefires in the past which have not in practice turned out to represent any change in circumstances.
    The future of TA battalions is an important issue that must be considered on its merits. I assure my hon. Friend that any thoughts on that matter will be given the most careful consideration, because of the importance that we attach to the Reserves.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Secretary of State accept that, in order to meet our international obligations within the United Nations, we shall need to maintain our amphibious capability and does he recognise that the helicopter carrier will have a vital role to play in ensuring that we can do so? Does he agree that that carrier, and the order for it, is vital not only for our future defence needs but to secure thousands of badly needed jobs in areas of high unemployment such as Tyneside?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have an amphibious capability already, without the helicopter carrier; the question is whether a carrier would provide a viable improvement in that capability. It is an expensive item and it is at present in the programme. We are considering that and other issues in the context of the overall resources available to the Ministry of Defence.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is not it a fact that in fulfilling United Nations commitments in Bosnia, British forces have stripped themselves of the last of their useful utility helicopters? We are desperately short of such helicopters, as the Select Committee on Defence has pointed out. Am I to understand from the previous answer that the Government are considering either the 23-year-old Chinook or the 30-year-old Puma designs as alternatives to the modern and up-to-date EH101?
    Mr. Rifkind: We recognise that the helicopter is a most important and essential requirement for the armed forces in the 1990s and I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise that for the Army and other services to carry out their responsibilities, it is important that they should be provided with the number and type of helicopters necessary to deal with the likely challenges that they will face in the years to come.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to distance himself from the statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations yesterday—that he will ask the United Nations to enforce a settlement if there is no peace settlement in Bosnia fairly soon—is not an urgent review of United States and United Kingdom defence requirements necessary?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am very willing to distance myself from any statement that suggests that international forces, including those of the United Kingdom, should be used in

    777
    a combat role to enforce peace in Bosnia. We are prepared to give serious consideration to the help that we could give if a genuine ceasefire were delivered on the ground in Bosnia, but any proposals for a combat role do not accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the absence of a suitable command structure in the United Nations for the delivery of military and humanitarian missions throughout the world, NATO is uniquely well equipped to carry on its excellent work as a force for good in the world and to organise the delivery of such future missions?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. NATO is an institution and an organisation which has tremendous experience of co-operation between countries that are part of the alliance. It has very valuable assets which can be used in co-operation with the international community and I believe that it should always be willing to consider seriously requests for its assets to be made available, when the interests of international peace and stability could be advanced in that way.
    Dr. Reid: Despite whatever differences we may have, all parties in the House have learnt one thing from our debates on defence—that any rational defence policy must be based on a match between resources and commitments. Is not it a sad fact that when the Secretary of State meets the United States Defence Secretary, he will have to explain to him, among other things, the fact that Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council, was unable to deploy ground troops as part of the United Nations relief operation in Somalia? Is not it clear to the Secretary of State that our armed forces, especially the infantry, are still too overstretched? Does not he see that as an indictment of his presidency over the Ministry of Defence and of the way in which the non-review has been conducted?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not need to give any such explanation. The decision not to send ground forces to Somalia was not taken because of the absence of such forces. We could have sent a battalion if we had thought it appropriate. We decided that the best contribution that we could make to Somalia was with RAF Hercules. Our judgment was similar to that of the United States, which decided not to send ground forces to Bosnia—not because they did not have any such forces, but because they believed that there were other ways in which they could make a contribution.

    NATO
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with the United States Defence Secretary about out-of-area commitments by NATO.
    Mr. Rifkind: As I said a few moments ago, I hope to meet Mr. Aspin shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are still considerable uncertainties, on the fringe and out of area of NATO, especially in the Balkans, the Gulf and the southern areas of the Commonwealth of Independent States? In those circumstances is not it vital that NATO and the Western European Union should
    778
    work closely together, in case they need to be used to resolve or calm down those problems and should not we work closely with the French on such matters, through an integrated command structure, whoever might be the commanding officer?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that it is desirable that NATO and the WEU should work closely together. However, we should work towards a situation in which one or other of those organisations makes a contribution in respect of the international community. I hope that we shall not have a repetition of the situation that occurred in the Adriatric, where both organisations were making provision simultaneously. That was an inadequate and unfortunate use of scarce resources of all the countries concerned.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: In an earlier answer to a Labour Member on out-of-area commitments, the Secretary of State seemed to disagree with an answer given previously by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to a Conservative Member, in respect of landing platform helicopter procurement. The Minister of State confirmed that the vessel has been reinstated in his Department's long-term costings. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will be ordered on time this autumn?
    Mr. Rifkind: The proposal for a landing platform helicopter was never taken out of the programe. My hon. Friend and I have both said to the House, as we have done on previous occasions, that that project, with a whole range of others, has to be considered in the context of the long-term costings that we normally carry out at this time of the year.
    Mr. Dickens: With the British armed forces dispersed throughout the world to meet our obligations under NATO and the United Nations, is not it clear to the House and the country that it is sheer common sense to have the Trident submarine cruising beneath the oceans of the world, ready to strike any aggressor towards the United Kingdom? Why do the Opposition, time and again, run down our defences? The Conservatives are the only party which would defend the realm.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed the case that the stalwart defence policy that Conservative Governments have pursued over the years, despite the bitter opposition of the Labour party, has made an important contribution to the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the end of the cold war and the resulting enhanced security for the people of this island.

    British Forces (Germany)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his estimates of the total annual cost of British forces in Germany for each year from 1990 to 1995 and the proportion of that covered by offsetting arrangements.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): The total cost of the British Army of the Rhine and RAF Germany for 1991–92 was £1,966 million and our estimates for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are £1,706 million and £1,543 million respectively. As a result of changes in budgetary procedures, there is no directly comparable figure for 1989–90 or 1990–91. While no direct offset payments have been made by the Federal Republic of

    779
    Germany since 1980, the German Government make a substantial contribution to the upkeep of our forces, mainly through the provision of rent-free land and accommodation.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why do not the Government come clean about their intentions concerning our commitment in Germany? What is the strategic justification for having our troops there at all? What role are they to play in the future? Why do not the Government tell us how they justify the necessary budget provision? Does not the lack of information prove that we need a full review of our defence commitment, instead of day-to-day improvising by the Government?
    Mr. Hamilton: The strategic justification for the Rhine Army and, indeed, for the support of the Royal Air Force in Germany is that these forces are our contribution to the rapid reaction corps, which is at the heart of NATO. We consider that the future security of these islands and of Europe as a whole lies in maintaining NATO, the Atlantic alliance, with American involvement in the defence of Europe.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in considering these costs, it is essential that we do not have a repetition of the 1920s, when American and British forces were withdrawn from the continent of Europe at a time when that continent was moving into political instability? Does he agree that, against that background, the best possible aspect of our conventional forces is our commitment to mainland Europe?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely correct. We can never divorce the security of the United Kingdom from that of Europe as a whole. Indeed, it is very difficult to make it clear to the United States of America that we want to see that country involved in the defence of Europe and playing a role in our future defence requirements if we are to withdraw our troops from Germany, which is right at the heart of NATO.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of the United States of America on the use of military equipment in Bosnia.
    Mr. Rifkind: Both bilaterally and at the United Nations and in other international forums, I and my officials have had many discussions with representatives of the United States Government about developments in Bosnia and about the current operations there under the auspices of the United Nations and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has President Clinton totally ruled out the use of military force in Bosnia to end the ethnic cleansing? Equally, has the United Kingdom totally ruled out the use of military force?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United States Government have said that they are prepared to consider making a contribution with regard to the implementation of any ceasefire that might be agreed between the parties in Bosnia. They have not yet said explicitly whether that involves the deployment of ground forces. As for the United Kingdom, as I said in answer to an earlier question, there is no
    780
    possibility of our providing ground forces for a combat role in Bosnia. We are prepared to consider what contributions we may make in the event of an effective ceasefire being implemented and seen to be working on the ground.
    Mr. Robert Banks: On the possible deployment of American, and more especially NATO, peacekeeping ground forces in Bosnia, will my right hon. and learned Friend exercise great caution bearing in mind the fact that peacekeeping ground forces can be tied down for many years? There are heavy costs involved. Is not it better for such peacekeeping to be done under the auspices of the United Nations, given the wider compilation of forces that it can deploy?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct to urge caution with regard to any deployment of United Kingdom forces to the former Yugoslavia. I believe that it is also the case that the United Nations should be the sponsoring body for any initiative of this kind. It has been the experience in many previous United Nations operations that an initial commitment can have implications for years to come.
    I believe that the time has arrived for the United Nations to consider rotating its forces to carry out its obligations in various theatres around the world. There should no longer be an assumption in any part of the world that countries that contribute to a United Nations operation should continue to contribute as long as the United Nations is present in that particular territory.

    DROPS
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the demountable rack-off loading and pick-up system.
    Mr. Aitken: Negotiations with the receiver of Leyland DAF, which we hope will result in the completion of the order for medium mobility DROPS vehicles at Leyland, are in progress.
    Mr. Hall: The Government have a contract with Leyland DAF to provide this particular system at a cost of £387 million, of which £80 million has already been spent. Will the Minister confirm that Dr. McIntosh, the chief of defence procurement, has written to the Department of Trade and Industry to say that it is in the taxpayers' best interests if the production of this system remains at Leyland DAF? What response has Dr. McIntosh had from the DTI?
    Mr. Aitken: The chief of defence procurement does, of course, consult Ministers and did so before writing that particular letter. It is our hope that the order can be completed at Leyland. It is encouraging that the receivers have managed to restart some production, including that of DROPS vehicles. We are working with the receivers to see how we can best facilitate the completion of the order, which is in both our best interests.
    Mr. Martlew: On 12 February, in a written reply to a question regarding the future of Leyland DAF, the Minister stated that a preliminary assessment was being carried out with regard to the fact that the MOD had ordered 2,400 Army vehicles that had yet to be delivered by Leyland DAF. Did that assessment state that there was

    781
    an urgent need for those vehicles and that if Leyland DAF did not carry out the order there would be a considerable delay in delivering them? Did that assessment also point out the possibility that the order could go to the continent if it was not met by Leyland DAF?
    Mr. Aitken: I do not think that the assessment was quite as far ranging and sweeping as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I shall certainly check the true position. The fact is that in the present unhappy situation we are co-operating to the full with the present receivers of Leyland DAF.

    Royal Irish Regiment
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what is the current (a) full-time and (b) part-time strength of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, the former Ulster Defence Regiment; and if he will make a statement on the current progress of reorganisation.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: As at 28 February 1993, the strength of the full-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment, home service, was 112 officers and 2,789 soldiers. The strength of the part-time element was 136 officers and 2,564 soldiers.
    The reorganisation that followed the formation of the Royal Irish Regiment is proceeding well.
    Mr. Trimble: The Minister knows that the part-time element is vital to the success of the regiment. Could he advise some of the regular officers who have recently been posted to it to revise the excessive training schedules that some of them are operating? Former UDR soldiers have decades of operational experience, more so than some of the officers in question. There is a limit to the amount of time that can be spared for training unless one wants to drive the part-timers out of the regiment, which 1 assume the Minister does not want to do. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment is essential for the future of the regiment and gives us the reserve capability that can be called up if at any time it should be needed. I know that the part-time soldiers are concerned about the amount of training that they have to do, but that is true of all elements of the British Army: we have to ensure that our soldiers are fully trained. I am afraid that that is one of the requirements we make of them, although I know that they feel that they would be better employed on operational duties. I cannot give the hon. Member the satisfaction that he wants. We must ensure that all our soldiers are properly trained for the tasks that they are asked to do.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is particularly noisy today. I should be much obliged if hon. Members would now settle down.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.
    Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?
    The Prime Minister: It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason: we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?
    The Prime Minister: The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford: the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.
    Mr. John Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is

    783
    not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen —including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.
    The Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2–25 billion, an increase of 8·5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime
    784
    and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?
    The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?
    The Prime Minister: In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?
    Sir George Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill; the Education Bill; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill; the National Lottery etc. Bill; with one exception, the Railways Bill; the Chancellor's autumn statement; and his leadership?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year's parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?
    The Prime Minister: I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.
    As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.
    Mr. Faber: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Faber: Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the

    785
    good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1·4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.
    Mr. Garrett: Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?
    The Prime Minister: Only when it is untrue.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.
    The Prime Minister: I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooney: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan-Smith: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House knows that points of order are taken after statements.

Scottish Government (White Paper)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, I should like to make a statement about Scottish constitutional issues.
As the House will know, since the general election —[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House will appreciate that this is yet another important statement to which Members wish to listen. Will those Members who are leaving, including Members who are having conversations across Benches on both sides of the House, please leave quickly and quietly? Perhaps we can have the doors closed so that we can hear what is going on.
Mr. Lang: With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Scottish constitutional issues.
As the House will know, since the general election the Government have been conducting a wide-ranging examination of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and the way our Westminster Parliament works for Scotland. I am today placing before the House a White Paper setting out our conclusions—"Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good".
The Act of Union of 1707 secured for the Scottish people a strong and special place within the United Kingdom. It guaranteed the continuance of Scotland's separate legal, educational and local government systems. The more recent establishment of the Scottish Office itself, as a Department responsible for administering much of Scotland's government, is another illustration of the capacity of the Union to accommodate—indeed, to encourage—diversity. Equally, the Union has enabled Scotland to participate fully in the affairs of the United Kingdom, and Scots have done so to considerable effect. The United Kingdom is a partnership of peoples which has achieved great things and from which all its constituent parts have benefited.
The initiative known as taking stock has led us to come forward with a range of proposals aimed at reinforcing the Union and Scotland's place within it.
First, recognising Scotland's separate legal system and its other legislative needs, the Government propose a number of initiatives to improve the existing parliamentary arrangements for handling Scottish business. The Scottish Grand Committee at present has powers to debate Scottish matters and the Scottish estimates and to take the Second Reading debates of Scottish legislation. It is also empowered to meet in Edinburgh.
We propose to build on these arrangements, providing for up to 12 general debates each Session, with the Opposition parties selecting the subject for debate on a set number of occasions, though, of course, Scottish matters, like Scottish legislation, will where appropriate continue to be debatable on the Floor. We also propose a new procedure allowing for debates on affirmative resolutions and on prayers against negative resolutions to be referred when appropriate to the Scottish Grand Committee.
The arrangements enabling the Committee to handle Scottish legislation will remain unchanged, with any Second Reading vote being taken formally on the Floor of
788
the House. The Report stage and Third Reading debate will also continue to be taken on the Floor of the House in the usual way.
We further believe that the Secretary of State's responsibilities have become sufficiently wide to justify augmenting these arrangements by proposing that from time to time sessions of questions to Scottish Office Ministers be held in the Scottish Grand Committee in addition to those that take place every four weeks in this House. These sessions could be held either at Westminster or in Scotland.
We also propose that, at the end of each meeting of the Committee, there should be an opportunity for an Adjournment debate specifically on matters of concern to Scotland. It may occasionally be appropriate also for statements to be made by Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish Grand Committee. In addition, we propose to establish a new procedure to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to invite the Scottish Office Minister in another place and also the Lord Advocate to give evidence before it on matters within their fields of responsibility.
Some of these changes will require amendments to the Standing Orders of both Houses, and we will bring these forward for debate in due course, having first consulted Opposition parties in the usual way.
Standing Orders of the House already contain a provision that enables Bills to be referred after Second Reading to a Special Standing Committee. We consider that this provision can provide a particularly appropriate mechanism for scrutinising some Scottish Bills and we propose its wider use for some Scottish legislation in future, with provision for the evidence-taking sessions to be held where appropriate in Scotland.
Taken together, I believe that these measures will lead to a significant improvement in the handling of parliamentary business relating to Scotland, in a way which is less remote, which is more responsive to Scottish priorities and concerns, and which may relieve some of the pressures on the Floor of the House. I stress, however, that in all these procedural changes Scottish Ministers will remain fully accountable to the House, and the Scottish Grand Committee will remain wholly a Committee of the House. The integrity of Parliament will and must remain intact.
We also propose changes in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. Recognising the important role of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies and their capacity to meet local needs in the delivery of the Government's training schemes, from April next year the responsibility for training policy in Scotland will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, within the framework of the Government's overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies.
Responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council will be transferred to the Scottish Office from the Department of National Heritage, also with effect from April 1994. We also propose to transfer the ownership of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. from the Civil Aviation Authority to the Scottish Office. And, in the context of the policies emerging from the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology, we will review the scope for transferring to the Scottish Office responsibility for schemes for encouraging industrial innovation.

789
These proposals represent a worthwhile integration of decision-making powers in the areas I have mentioned, with the other activities for which the Scottish Office already has responsibility.
I am also pleased to be able to confirm to the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy at the Department of Trade and Industry is today announcing that his Department will open a major new oil and gas office in Aberdeen to serve the offshore industry.
I also wish to ensure that the Scottish Office is more visible in Scotland and more accessible to the general public. I propose to publish in future a concise and accessible annual report on the activities of the Scottish office and the non-departmental public bodies and next steps agencies for which I am responsible. The annual report may be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for scrutiny and debate.
Although my Department already has offices throughout Scotland, we shall seek opportunities for further dispersal within Scotland. This will apply both to parts of the Scottish Office and to non-lepartmental public bodies for which I am responsible. In addition, in accordance with the principles of the citizens charter, we shall establish a central inquiry unit accessible from all parts of Scotland for the cost of a local telephone call. This unit will be backed up by the designation of many of the existing departmental offices as Scottish Office information points. We shall examine the case for supplementing this facility with other information points in smaller towns around Scotland, operated on an agency basis.
The White Paper also sets out other plans I have to further the goal of the citizens charter by making my Department more responsive to the needs of the people of Scotland.
Last December, the leaders of the European Community met in Scotland for the successful Edinburgh summit that marked the climax of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community. We will seek to hold further such events in Scotland in the future. In that context I am pleased to announce that the European Community will hold a Europartenariat conference of small businesses in Glasgow in December. Further details of this major event will be published shortly.
The partners of the Union need to work at bringing the reality of the Union alive for all the people of the United Kingdom. The White Paper outlines how Scotland's status as a nation within the Union can be more effectively recognised. The Union was and still is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that it cannot be made better; and we stand ready to consider other measures to this end which may emerge over time, to the benefit of all its partners.
The White Paper that I am publishing today does not mark the end of the taking stock process, but the start of a renewed emphasis by the Government on the importance to the United Kingdom of all its component parts. We will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it.
We reject utterly the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through the direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament. Our firm commitment is to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, secured through this House and this Parliament. The United Kingdom is a partnership of
790
nations that has endured. We believe strongly that it is a partnership for good. In that spirit, I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State not agree that his statement makes it plain once and for all that the Tories do not understand the Scottish people and never will? Does he accept that 11 months ago today the lion's roar from Scottish voters, who at the ballot boxes demanded a Scottish parliament, has been met with a weak, unworthy whimper and that he has squandered a unique opportunity?
The Scottish people wanted action on industry, on jobs and on keeping water in public hands. Is it not disgraceful and a complete repudiation of the assertion that the statement represents democracy that a few minutes ago the Prime Minister, almost by sleight of hand, said that water privatisation will be introduced in Scotland? That makes a mockery of the charade in which the Secretary of State claims to be involved. It is the complete opposite of democracy at work.
Above all, did not the Scottish people in April last year vote for home rule? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The response to that is not the acceptance of the overwhelming view of the Scottish people, but today's ludicrous statement containing sheer tokenism, talking shops and timid and tired policies. These conclusions to the stocktaking exercise surely make a laughing stock of the Prime Minister's pre-election promises in Scotland. Why is the party that complains about unaccountable bureaucracy in Europe now increasing unaccountable bureaucracy in Edinburgh? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are in good voice today, but I would appreciate it if they kept their voices to themselves in all parts of the House until I call them to speak. I hope that that is clearly understood.
Mr. Clarke: Despite the few laudable suggestions on training, industrial support schemes, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., the Arts Council and relocation policy, does the Secretary of State agree—if he ignores the ill-informed interruptions by people on the Conservative Benches who were not elected by the people of Scotland to decide on Scottish issues—that the real issue is not administrative but political devolution, and nowhere is that in the Government's policy?
For example, the Scottish Grand Committee proposal makes it clear that decisions will be taken not by those elected to deal with Scottish issues but by the House alone. Where is the political devolution there? Where is the sensitivity? I say to the Prime Minister, as he sits there sneering at Scottish views, that he ignores the views of the people of Scotland at his peril.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the solutions offered by the Government only make the democratic deficit worse? What is the point of increasing the power of the Scottish Office without in any way increasing its accountability to the Scottish people? More bureaucracy, but no democracy.
On information points and outposts, are we to look forward to more Tory lawyers and accountants in offices in the main street? The Government will say that that is on the French model, but I remind the Secretary of State that the French support real subsidiarity, real powers to the

791
regions, the kind of powers that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are denying to the people of Scotland.
Why is the Secretary of State ignoring the largest neglected group in Scotland—Scotland's women? There are no proposals concerning the Equal Opportunities Commission—no devolution there. The right hon. Gentleman talks in paragraph 9.4 about inspectors for social work, police and schools, but who guards the guards, and to whom are they accountable?
The Secretary of State tells us that the Government will consult much more openly on the appointment to public boards. Does that mean that they will rescind the decision on health boards and trusts—when they ignored the views of local communities and appointed Tory placemen and women?
Finally, how can the Secretary of State claim that his philosophy is strengthening the Union when he was prepared last night to make deals with parties whose philosophy is to break the Union? The House will be aware, despite the sneers on the Conservative Benches, of the "Dear Margaret—Yours sincerely, Ian" letter. Oh dear, oh dear.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish nationalists cannot claim that they are leading the opposition against the Conservative Government when they spend their time making private deals with the Conservative Government? Is it not the case that this week's events show that one can never trust the nationalists or the Tories and one can never trust the nationalists not to make deals with the Tories?
The truth is that this unrepresentative Chamber—in terms of Scottish affairs—ignores the simple fact that the Labour party does trust the Scottish people and the Scottish people trust the Labour party because they know that only the Labour party will deliver a Scottish parliament and real democracy to Scottish affairs.
Mr. Lang: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble, and not a very sound one at that.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) calls for action, but if he sits down and reads the White Paper that I have published today, he will find no fewer than 50 specific commitments from the Government of value and importance to the future of Scotland within the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will not recognise that Scotland can enjoy benefits from being within the United Kingdom, because he is so besotted with the idea of a separate Scottish parliament, which would inevitably lead to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.
Wrapped up among the sound-bite rhetoric, I detected a quiet welcome for a number of our specific proposals. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he and his party and other Opposition parties reject the proposals, they need not happen—but the people of Scotland would be the poorer.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a democratic deficit. The reality is that the proposals give Back Benchers on both sides of the House a better opportunity to pursue Scottish issues and initiatives, hold Ministers accountable, and protect the interests of their constituents.
The hon. Gentleman asked about water. There are no proposals in the White Paper affecting the future of water. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right when
792
he spoke about the advantages and benefits of privatisation. I have no doubt that privatisation, if we decide on that, will be better for the water industry, as for others.
As to voting for home rule, the hon. Gentleman keeps praying in aid the support of all those whom he says voted for home rule. The reality is that on the Opposition Benches one can find unionists, federalists, separatists, devolutionists, don't knows, and don't cares. That adds up to 75 per cent. of nothing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about health boards and health trusts, and complained that too many Conservatives and not enough socialists sit on them. The only complaint that I have read in the Scottish press was about there being too many socialists. When I wrote to the hon. Gentleman's party and to the other parties inviting nominations for those boards and those trusts, I received not one suggestion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentleman must resume their seats.
Mr. William McKelvey: That was a lie.
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
Mr. McKelvey: The Secretary of State is seeking to mislead the House, by making that statement.
Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman, who interrupted without being called, to withdraw his remark. I ask him to do that because—[Interruption.] Order. I need no help from below the Gangway. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that because I hope that he will catch my eye later and be able to put his point. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark?
Mr. McKelvey: Of course, Madam Speaker. I withdraw it.
Madam Speaker: I am much obliged. That is all that we need.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is answering the points made by a Member from the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Monklands, West raised the question of an alleged deal between my party and the Scottish National party. I do not know whether the letter that the hon. Gentleman flourished was given to him by the Scottish National party, or whether he has been rummaging in the handbag of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not break a confidence—especially when a lady is involved.
Why should the hon. Gentleman complain about my party doing a deal with the Scottish National party when his party has been trying for weeks and weeks to do a deal with the Scottish National party? Sooner or later, Labour will have to choose—are they unionists or are they nationalists? They cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who were elected to represent Scotland's interest in the House are delighted with the White Paper's proposals? He and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to be congratulated on their understanding of what the Union really means to true Scots. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cornerstone of this unitary Parliament is the right of right hon. and hon. Members to ask questions?
For many years, one of Opposition Members' main complaints has been that they have not had the opportunity to put more questions to Scottish Ministers. Surely they can only welcome the proposal for questions and Adjournment debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. If the new practices are to benefit the Union and Scotland, the participation of unionist Opposition Members will be required.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for the welcome that he has given my proposals.
Of course it is important for Scottish Office Ministers to answer questions in the House every four weeks, as before, so that such questions can be asked by hon. Members representing every part of the United Kingdom. It is fair to say, however, that, as the Scottish Office has responsibilities for health, education, roads, industry, housing and a whole range of other matters—each of which is separately the subject of Question Time on the Floor of the House—Scottish Members should from time to time have an additional opportunity to pursue such matters further in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has managed to pull off the impossible by producing a feature film that is even more disappointing than its many trailers.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we have said in the past that we will support measures that will lead to improvement in the government of Scotland, and in the way in which we can discharge our duties to our constituents—including more Question Times, and the opportunity to question the Law Officers? Will he also confirm that evidence given to Special Standing Committees in regard to any Bill to privatise Scottish Water will be treated with more respect than the consultation responses that were dismissed and cast aside by the Prime Minister today, when he said that there "would be" privatisation of water in Scotland?
Notwithstanding all the PR hype and gimmicks that have been provided at the cost of a local telephone call, what are the realities of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Is it not true that he has been unable to transfer fisheries responsibilities to Scotland; that, instead of a full petroleum engineering division, we have only a few jobs—welcome though they are; that we are still slavishly following the English in regard to legal aid cuts; and that the Ministry of Defence has reversed its policies on jobs for Glasgow? Is not the statement summed up by the fact that, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, while we debate in Edinburgh we will still vote here in London?
Mr. Lang: Again, wrapped up in the rhetoric was a broad "thank you" for some of my proposals. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman: alone among Opposition Members, he took the opportunity to come to me and put his suggestions. I took them into account when drawing up my proposals.
794
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the fisheries question was not on my agenda. The question of the Department of Trade and Industry office in Aberdeen has been dealt with by the full and welcome announcement of a considerable number of high-quality jobs: the number will increase as more oil companies transfer the relevant parts of their activities to Aberdeen. That will be of great value to the United Kingdom's offshore industry.
As for voting, it is true that power remains in the United Kingdom's Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that should not be so, he should join the Scottish National party.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: First, give that Scottish education is under my right hon. Friend's command, may I plead for the immediate extinguishing of the new word "Europartenariat"? May I also ask him to remind the House that the strength of the Union, along with the variety of our systems of law, has enabled us to teach those who live south of the border—as 80 per cent. of the Scots who live in Britain do—how much better is our system of law? Those factors have allowed us to prevent many difficulties that have resulted in the release of people who were apparently properly convicted because of flaws in the law of England. Long may my right hon. Friend's proposals strengthen our law.
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am not very happy with the Eurospeak word Europartenariat. Nevertheless, that will be an important conference of small businesses, many hundreds of which will come to Glasgow in December, thus creating major opportunities for United Kingdom businesses, particularly Scottish businesses, to exchange contacts and contracts, to their mutual advantage. My hon. and learned Friend is also absolutely right to draw attention to the differences between Scottish law and English law. That is precisely the kind of diversity that is accommodated within the United Kingdom and that results in the cross-fertilisation of each system, to the benefit of both.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. May I appeal, before calling any other hon. Member, for one question only? Many hon. Members want to put questions to the Secretary of Stale. Therefore, I should be obliged if one question only were put, briskly, so that we can make progress.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: How much will these extra summits cost? Will the cost be similar to the last one we had, which cost the Scottish taxpayer £16 million?
Mr. Lang: Two thirds of the cost of a Europartenariat is met by the European Community. I have no doubt at all that the benefits that will flow from such a conference will more than outweigh any other costs.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all right-thinking Scots will welcome these well balanced, well thought out and constructive proposals? Does he accept that they will welcome the "Scottish Offices" set up throughout the land? Will he consider setting up one in Ayr?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting and positive suggestion, to which I will give close consideration.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Is the Secretary of State aware that the last time that such a response was given to so dire a situation, Nero played a fiddle? Now Ian Lang has played with a White Paper, to much the same effect. If he is so sure of the proposals that he has given us today, and if he thinks that the Scottish people want devolved bureaucracy, when what they want, in fact, is real democracy, why will he not put his proposals to a multi-option referendum?
Mr. Lang: There speaks an hon. Lady who is a member of a multi-option party. She is a member of Scotland United. I learned the other day that when the Labour party conference held a fringe meeting organised by Scotland United last autumn, there were five speakers on the platform and three in the audience, one of whom was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), so I do not think that Scotland United speaks for anybody.
Mr. George Kynoch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the electors of Kincardine and Deeside will particularly welcome his commitment to strengthen the Union with the rest of the United Kingdom? They will also particularly welcome the news that the Department of Trade and Industry is to open a new oil and gas office in Aberdeen. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that swift progress in setting up that office is made?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly assure him that all due speed will be used to ensure that that office is set up as quickly as possible. Initially, there will he 60 jobs, but that number will rise as industrial activity moves north.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What could Lord Sanderson have meant this morning when he said that the Government were contemplating changing the powers of local government? Has the Secretary of State told the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to him, that local government reform will cost at least £600 million extra?
Mr. Lang: Local government reform is not covered in my White Paper or statement, but, since the hon. Gentleman raises that question, all the estimates that we have seen will, far from adding to the costs of local government, reduce them.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Union's greatest strengths is its dynamism and its constant ability to evolve and change in order to meet changing circumstances, new opportunities and different demands? Does he agree that the reforms that he has outlined today will set up the Union in fine style to meet the challenges of the new century, just as previous reforms enabled it to meet the specific and unique challenges of previous centuries, and that we can look forward to the 300th anniversary of the Union in 2007 with the Union in great shape?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, of course, won a seat from the Labour party at the last general election and did it through his stout defence of the Union. This announcement today reinforces that defence of the Union.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: One of the difficulties that I have noticed in Edinburgh is that, when the Grand Committee meeting stops at 1 o'clock,
796
very few Back Benchers have been given the opportunity to speak. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
As someone who is keen to ensure that the Union stays together, may I suggest that one of the things that the Secretary of State and the Government could do is to reduce unemployment and the despair that exists in many communities in Scotland? Where there is such despair, people become disillusioned with the present form of government and are then easy prey for the fanatics in the Scottish National party.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful response to the proposals that I have announced. Unemployment is the kind of issue which could be fully debated in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Sir Anthony Grant: I welcome my hon. Friend's sensible reform, but is it not high time to address the scandal of Scottish over-representation in the House? Is it not wholly undemocratic that Glasgow seats have only 30,000 or 40,000 constituents, whereas Cambridgeshire seats have 80,000 or 90,000?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for my announcement. The number of seats in the House derives from the Act of Union, which guaranteed Scotland a certain number of seats. However, I entirely agree that it is high time that the boundary commissioners got down to work on the relative sizes of constituencies.
Mr. Ernie Ross: If there is one thing that we can say with certainty on behalf of the people of Scotland, it is that, although the Secretary of State may have tried to placate the elected representatives in the House, he certainly has not satisfied the needs, demands and aspirations of the Scottish people. There is nothing about greater accountability in the proposals for Committees to meet in Edinburgh for extended periods and question times. When the Secretary of State addresses the question of accountability, and stops dealing with people who, on the day on which he tries to deal with them, talk about civil disobedience, the people of Scotland may start believing in him.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree. If he believes that any Scottish Committee should be accountable to a body outside the House, I believe that he is wrong. I believe that the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament is central to the future well-being of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend accept a warm welcome for his proposals, which keep the integrity of the Union, and can he assure us that, in consequence, we who represent the much larger population of the south-east of England will no longer be constantly elbowed out of debating time by the disproportionate number of Scots who pontificate on our affairs?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that my proposals show the capacity of the United Kingdom Parliament to accommodate the diversity of the different component parts of the union.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Why does the Secretary of State not have the courage of his convictions

797
and put his proposals and the White Paper to the test with a multi-option referendum, along the lines of the Bill that I shall present to the House later this afternoon? The other option would be a Scottish parliament, whose exact powers would be decided by the people of Scotland, most of whom are fed up with the treachery and skulduggery of that parcel of rogues on the Government Bench.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman represents a party which one might call a multi-option party. It was the general secretary of the Labour party, Mr. Larry Whitty, who described a multi-option referendum as "a fairly ludicrous suggestion".
Madam Speaker: Sir Teddy Taylor. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has only just come in."] Order. I saw precisely when the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome the modest but useful proposals. Is the Secretary of State aware of the huge admiration among supporters of the union for the guts and courage that he has shown in consistently resisting the divisive and costly devolution proposals, especially as he was standing in a marginal constituency and the whole of the Scottish press told him that he would have to change his mind to survive? He has shown the kind of courage that we should be proud to see in a Conservative Government and in this Parliament.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I well remember the fine example he set when he was the Member of Parliament for Cathcart.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I do not need instruction, Madam Speaker, from the party that tried to sell out Scotland's water campaign. Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that he and the Prime Minister have laboured for a year to produce this constitutional charade? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Grand Committee is not the number of meetings it holds, but the fact that it does not have the power to decide anything? Does he not understand that what is wrong with the Scottish Office is not the number of functions he has, but the fact that he is in charge of it without a democratic mandate from the Scottish people? Does he really believe that 50 propaganda offices around Scotland, peddling policies like the privatisation of Scotland's water, will endear the Scottish people to his bankrupt Union?
Mr. Lang: First, may I say how glad I was to see the hon. Gentleman in the Government Lobby last night? I am, however, grateful to him for not welcoming my announcement. I should have been deeply worried if he had welcomed it. The hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic mandate, but I remember that not so long ago he was shouting, "Scotland free by 93." Then he went to a general election, his representation in this House went down by 40 per cent. and his party now has three seats.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend will know that some of us have watched our party struggle for more than 20 years with the problem of coming to terms with the situation. Is he aware that those of us who were not attracted by Lady Thatcher's regime will find his proposals a move back in the direction of compromise, towards trying to satisfy the aspirations of the Scottish people? Does he agree that this afternoon we have really seen the continuing battle between the Labour party and
798
the Scottish National party for the soul of the Scottish electorate which, as far as those on the Opposition Benches are concerned, seems only to be represented by a minority of the people of Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome, but I would not wish him to think that the package represents a compromise. It represents a firm commitment to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and we shall not budge one inch down the slippery slope towards devolution. With the package I believe that we can show that Union need not mean uniformity and that the United Kingdom Parliament can adapt its procedures to suit the needs of all its component parts.
Mr. George Galloway: They might be dancing in the streets of Raith this evening at the news, but certainly not anywhere else. The proposals will be treated with derision and disgust by the majority of the Scottish people, including a considerable number of Scottish Conservatives, according to a poll in The Scotsman this morning. Scotland deserves better than that —better than the ridiculous raft of proposals and better than the shabby, squalid manoeuvrings of the Scottish National party or the culture of political sectarianism that exists elsewhere. Why will not the Secretary of State answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)? Why will he not have the legendary courage that his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred to a few minutes ago? Why will he not put the proposals to the Scottish people in a multi-choice referendum?
Mr. Lang: I read in the newspapers today a poll that indicated strong support for the type of approach in our White Paper. I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a lot of people in Scotland want what he calls home rule. I am indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), speaking with all the authority of the shadow Chancellor, who said last week:
"I think we are making a mistake if we just assume somehow there is huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland".
The hon. Gentleman asked for a multi-option referendum, but we had one on 9 April last year and it returned a Conservative Government.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that English Members are used to special treatment being given to Scotland and to Scottish Members in this House? He referred to the Act of Union and to the gross over-representaiton of Scottish Members here—20 per cent. more than is appropriate for English Members of Parliament. As we hear so much about democracy from Members on the Opposition Benches, would he increase the number of English Members by 100 so that there is a balance?
Mr. Lang: Decisions of that kind should be made by the House. But the House has continued to take the view that the treaty of Union should be honoured. That is the reason for the present representation.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State will not be surprised that right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench give a wholehearted welcome to this measure to strengthen the Union, especially as many families in Northern Ireland trace their roots to mother Scotland. At the end of the

799
White Paper the Secretary of State enunciates two principles—that the Government will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it; and that they utterly reject the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that those two principles are supported by all his Cabinet colleagues? If so, will he direct the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to them and remind his right hon. and learned Friend that an even greater proportion of people in Northern Ireland vote for the Union than is the case in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for hs welcome for the statements in my White Paper. He will appreciate that, as I am a territorial Minister, my responsibilities relate to Scotland, and my statement today is clearly directed towards Scotland. However, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did the other day, that the Government remain committed to the unity of the United Kingdom, as it affects Northern Ireland, so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland support it.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I thank my right hon. Friend for doing nothing to undermine the key role that Scotland plays in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that Scotland and England have much to learn from each other? For example, England could learn lessons from the Scottish legal system, while Scotland could learn lessons from England's highly successful introduction of grant-maintained schools and water privatisation.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for his confirmation of my expressed view that union need not mean uniformity.
Mr. Norman Hogg:: I should like to give a warm welcome to the Secretary of State's statement that the Europartenariat exhibition is to come to Scotland and to compliment the Minister for Industry, who, in Thessalonika last June, worked hard to that end. The exhibition will bring jobs to Scotland.
However, I must ask the Secretary of State for an undertaking that if there are to be any inter-party discussions about his proposals and about changes in our Standing Orders he will refrain from taking part in any shabby negotiations with minority parties and other hole-in-the wall organisations, which have discredited him in the past 24 hours. I make that point in the hope that we shall get back to doing things properly, and away from arrangements such as those that so discredited the Government last night.
Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the decision to hold the Europartenariat in Glasgow in December. It does indeed flow from the visit of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has been working so hard to secure this outcome for Scotland.
Consultations regarding the amendment of Standing Orders will be conducted through the usual channels and
800
in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman is a former deputy Chief Whip, and I myself am a former Whip, so neither of us is an amateur in these matters.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the taxpayers of Scotland will be very grateful that my right hon. Friend did not take the route towards having tax-raising powers in Scotland. I wonder whether he could move towards a system fairer to Scottish Members and taxpayers. I refer to the fact that the spending powers of his Department should be proportionate to those of the English and Welsh Departments. We ought not to have a situation in which a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money is spent in any part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The approach that the Government take in these matters is to secure a comparable level of service in all parts of the United Kingdom. Given the varying circumstances within the United Kingdom, it is inevitable that more resources are directed to some areas, be they Merseyside, East Anglia or the central belt of Scotland, than to others. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the important thing is to try to achieve a uniform standard of service, as far as possible. The formula for distributing resources to achieve that is reviewed regularly.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in reality, his statement changes nothing in Scotland? The Scottish people remain as before, wholly at the mercy of a Tory majority in the House which they did not elect. Does he not understand that, despite the parliamentary cretinism shown by some on the Opposition Benches last night, he cannot count on continuing disarray and disunity on these Benches to see him safely through to the next general election? The Scottish people are beginning to understand that if the fight against Tory policies, the fight for socialist change and the fight for Scottish self-determination is ever to be won, it will not be won in the House but through mass extra-parliamentary action by the Scottish people back in Scotland.
Mr. Lang: Promises, promises. What is clear from the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that he has no right to claim to speak for the people of Scotland, any more than have the Scottish National party or the Liberal Democrats. We stood for election to a United Kingdom Parliament in April last year and the Conservative and Unionist party won that election.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is extending the number and use of forums where Scottish questions can be asked and debated without the presence of hon. Members representing England, Wales and Ireland? If that is to be the case, will he ensure, as a member of the Cabinet, that when matters concerning England, Ireland and Wales are debated in the House, Scottish Members will not be present? Otherwise, we shall have a constitutional problem.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend will be familiar with the experience that Scottish Members can have from time to time when they seek to intervene in health or environment questions on the Floor of the House only to be told by the Minister that they are matters for which the Scottish Office is answerable. This is something which cuts both ways. It

801
is important in this Parliament that we arrange the mechanisms for delivering government to ensure that the varying and diverse interests of different parts of the United Kingdom are fully accommodated. That is what I am trying to achieve.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State trumpets that the White Paper and his statement address the real problem of open government and giving information. Why, then, did he choose today of all days to smuggle through the House, by a planted question from one of his hon. Friends, the announcement about the petroleum engineering directorate? Does he not realise that it is not a matter of information being given that is at the root of the problem, but the Government's total insensitivity to the problems facing the people of Scotland? If he really wants to strengthen the Union he must begin from the ground up, by strengthening local government, rather than weakening it and by taking on the Scottish nationalists and not getting into bed with them. Above all else, he must stop pandering to them with some of the nonsense that he has in the White Paper.
Mr. Lang: Far from trying to smuggle in the oil jobs, I am delighted to be able to proclaim that announcement, as I have done today. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is in Aberdeen holding a press conference to announce the precise details. I hope the hon. Gentleman can find it in his heart, as a Member representing Aberdeen, to welcome the announcement, which is of great value to his constituents.
Of course we are keen to reform and strengthen local government and we will bring forward proposals on that. As to relations with the Scottish National party, I hope that those on the hon. Member's Front Bench are listening to what he said.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Scotland have always wanted more say over their own affairs? There is only one party that is willing to give parents more say over the education of their children, council house tenants more say in the running of their estates and taxpayers more say in the spending of their own income. Is it not paradoxical that those who call for a multi-option referendum today were, on 9 April, promising constitutional change without a referendum?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not put it better.
Mr. William McKelvey: We have heard much from the whingeing English about the preferential treatment given to the Scots. Could I ask the Secretary of State why preferential treatment, or even-handed treatment, was not given to the Scots two weeks ago when a statutory instrument went through the House on the opening of betting shops in Scotland? The Government side of that Committee was nine Anglos and a Scottish Minister. Not one member of the Back-Bench committee for Scotland was allowed on it.
Mr. Lang: That is a matter for the Selection Committee and I am sure that it will note the hon. Gentleman's point, with which I have some sympathy.
Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reaffirmation of the fundamental importance of the Union will be widely welcomed in Wales?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that the interests of Wales will also be taken into account in considering these matters further.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that this is not going to be taken as much of a stocktaking for a nation which has voted consistently and overwhelmingly for the establishment of its own parliament within the United Kingdom? Does he appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had it wrong when 'he said that the most important right that we have in Parliament is the right to ask questions? The most important right that we have in Parliament is to vote and if these reforms are serious surely the right hon. Gentleman should have the courage to submit any legislation on the future of the water industry in Scotland to a vote in the Scottish Grand Committee, elected by the people of Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am glad that the hon. Member recognises the importance of the vote in our democratic system. I will do nothing to diminish the importance of the vote; nor will I do anything to diminish or dissipate the power of that vote here in the House of Commons, where it matters most.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for reminding us that the quisling SNP has been reduced to "three in 93". May I suggest that it might be reduced to "none in 2001". That might be appropriate. On the question of partnership, I cannot agree with the Secretary of State. I wonder if he might address this. This is not a partnership that he is talking about but an unequal and unrepresentative fix that he is attempting to obtain. I share his concern—and I hope that he sees that—for the Union. I wish to see the continuing Union of the United Kingdom, but I am concerned that the present set-up may diminish it and make it an even more devalued arrangement.
In terms of accountability, I am glad that the Secretary of State said that he would not reduce the power of the vote. May I ask him to put together a Scottish Grand Committee that reflects the voting power of the people of Scotland and then allow the legislation that he and I discussed to be judged by a representative committee that reflects the people's voting pattern in Scotland? That is why people will reject this. Does he not realise that, so long as he uses his English colleagues' Tory majority—
Madam Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Connarty: I am asking a question. Does he not realise that he will never get the credibility of the Scottish people for what he is trying to sell?
Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Member is wrong about the SNP having no representatives in 2001. I hope that we shall achieve that result long before that time. The route that the hon. Member is suggesting for the Scottish Grand Committee would mean either that some Members of Parliament, notably from his own party, would have to be disqualified from the Scottish Grand Committee or that English Back Benchers would have to be brought in. We had English Back Benchers on the Committee in the past,

803
and the Labour party was against that. For some incomprehensible reason, those of my hon. Friends who served on the Scottish Grand Committee were no longer keen to remain on it, so we now have all Scottish MPs on the Scottish Grand Committee, and I think that that is generally recognised as sensible.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State can wriggle all he likes, but the whole House heard the Prime Minister commit Scotland's water to be privatised. Does that careless and casual announcement by the Prime Minister not indicate his contempt, not only for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but for the Scottish people?
Mr. Lang: I heard what my right hon. Friend said and the hon. Gentleman heard what he said and he did not give the commitment that the hon. Gentleman indicates. He certainly spoke of the strength, the value and the qualities of privatisation and that is demonstrated by a large number of privatisations that have taken place in the past. it is not, however, part of my statement today.
Mr. Barry Porter: It is a fact that a disproportionate amount of taxpayers' money, taking the United Kingdom as a whole, is spent in Scotland, as, indeed, it is in Northern Ireland and in Wales. It is part of the price which I gladly pay for maintaining the Union. We should not fail to recognise the special needs of Scotland in that respect. I would suggest one item of public expenditure that should be given to a public body in Scotland to bring it up to the standards of England. I refer of course to the Scottish Rugby Union.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, despite the barb in the tail of his question. The fact is that, in a sense, England is playing at home in this Parliament; and as my hon. Friend will know and as Twickenham demonstrated, that gives some advantages.
Mr. Mike Watson: If the Secretary of State does not already know it, he will soon be aware that his proposals will be greeted with universal contempt throughout Scotland. They amount to a tawdry little collection of half measures and non-events; they mean nothing to the people of Scotland, and will give them no more say over their own affairs, which is what they clearly voted for in the general election last year.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not have the confidence in his views to put these matters to a referendum, will he at least allow a full debate in the House on the matters, to ensure that the points that the Scottish people sent us here to make are clearly put across to him in a way that there has been a failure to do hitherto? We want a Scottish parliament: we will settle for nothing less.
Mr. Lang: The suitability of the changes that I have proposed today will be shown by whether the hon. Gentleman's party takes advantage of them in due course. Debates are not a matter for me, but Standing Orders will have to be amended and the subject will be debated at that time.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the transfer of Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd. to the Scottish Office: will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the employees of that company that there will be no reduction
804
in their pay and conditions or in the quality of their pension plans? A number of the employees are worried about that and would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give them a categorical guarantee now.
Mr. Lang: We have no plans to make any changes in that respect.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State agree that an occasion such as this prompts the thought among many that we enjoy exceedingly good fortune, in that the secessionist movement in Scotland is so honourably eminent but so poorly represented in this place—by this lot? Will he at least concede that there is a widespread belief in Scotland that we live in a highly centralised multinational state, which is more and more firmly embedded in an over-centralised European union? Why not settle the argument among federalists, unionists and separatists by holding a referendum?
Mr. Lang: We see the best way of resisting centralisation as devolving power to the people. That is what we are seeking to do by setting up local enterprise companies and hospital trusts, by privatisation, by council house ownership, by reducing taxation and by a range of other means—developing the citizens charter, which permeates many of the ideas in the White Paper, for instance.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing a comprehensive series of questions—that certainly goes for our side—on the vague statement that the Secretary of State has made.
The right hon. Gentleman has removed confusion and introduced confusion. He removed it by publicly thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchanan (Mr. Salmond) and the SNP for supporting the Government in the Lobbies last night, so no one is in any doubt about what took place then. He introduced confusion by appearing to be in conflict with the Prime Minister on the issue of water privatisation. The Prime Minister's statement was quite clear; what is not clear is whether the Secretary of State's consultation is a charade. The House must return to that important matter before too long.
This document, for which we have had to wait 11 months, offers little to the people of Scotland. It offers no real democracy; it offers devolution of power but not responsibility or accountability to the people of Scotland. It falls far short of the clearly expressed views of the Scottish people as recorded in April of last year.
The Government have ignored the opinions of the Scottish people. It is interesting that the document was published in a blue cover, the colour of the Tory party, whose supporters amount to a small minority of the people of Scotland—a minority becoming smaller still because of the Government's attitude. They have rejected the real democracy to which the Scottish people are committed but the Government clearly are not.
Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman's initial response showed that he agrees with and supports quite a number of these proposals. He talks of conflict. If he is looking for conflict, he should look to the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who has said, as quoted in the Courier last December:

805
"I acknowledge there are too many Scots still sceptical of the value of a Scottish Parliament in bringing better government".
That clearly differs from the hon. Gentleman's view.
The colour of the White Paper is the blue of Scotland—[Interruption.]—the blue of Scotland in the Union. I believe that the presence of Scotland in the Union is a partnership for good.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Scottish people who will have been following our proceedings this afternoon must be greatly concerned about the Government's thinking on water privatisation. We heard earlier from the Prime Minister that water privatisation would be good for Scotland and would be beneficial for the people of Scotland, as it has been for the people south of the border. When the Secretary of State was questioned, he appeared to suggest that his consultation exercise was still continuing.
The people of Scotland are aware that water is of the utmost importance to them, as it is to every individual and family in the land. They are entitled to have the matter clarified, but it must be clarified quickly, now or this evening. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether, in the light of the confusion and differences in pronouncements between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the people of Scotland will receive the clear statement on that important issue to which they are entitled.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must deal with one point of order at a time.
It seems to me that the hon. Member is attempting to pursue a policy matter on which the Chair cannot pronounce. His remarks will have been heard by the occupants of the Government Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Madam Speaker."] One at a time, please.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that meetings of Standing Committees of the House studying legislation upstairs—I am thinking particularly of statutory instruments—may be attended by any hon. Member? Will you further confirm that the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) were wrong and out of order? I attended the Committee about which he was speaking, using the rules of the House to do so, which demonstrates how well Scots rules are covered in this place.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow me to answer one point of order at a time.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When responding to a question from me, the Secretary of State suggested that I might like to welcome the fact that some jobs would be going to Aberdeen. I am not in a position to say yea or nay, since the relevant information is not available to me, although apparently it is to be made available by way of a planted question.
There is no point the Secretary of State referring to the opening of a new Department of Trade and Industry petroleum office when hon. Members have no idea what
806
that is all about and are unable to question him about it. It is nonsense to refer to better communications when the Secretary of State behaves in that manner.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. If it is a point for the Secretary of State, the hon. Member must find other means of pursuing it.
Mr. Kynoch: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it an abuse of the House that copies of the White Paper, which appear to have been given to occupants of the Opposition Front Bench prior to the statement being made, should have been photocopied and given to Opposition Back Benchers—[Interruption.]—and were clearly visible while my right hon. Friend was making his statement?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Just a moment, please. I can hear quite well.
Mr. McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The next business on the Order Paper is the presentation of a Bill by my hon.Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) designed
"to provide for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament."
Given the hostility that was shown this afternoon by Opposition Members to the Secretary of State's announcement, do you agree that we should not waste any further time on Maastricht but instead should give over the whole of tomorrow to debating the question of holding a Scottish referendum, which seems the only way—
Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should waste no more time on points of order, but let the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) introduce his Bill.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are 11 Scottish Conservative Members and, on the basis of the questions that were asked following the statement, no fewer than five Conservative Back Benchers had the opportunity to ask questions. It is no criticism of you, Madam Speaker—I am aware that other hon. Members were not selected to put questions—but is it a reasonable balance on Scottish issues that virtually every Conservative Back Bencher should have an opportunity to ask a question, whereas a party with nine Members gets only one? May I ask for your consideration to achieve a more even balance in future?
Madam Speaker: I cannot take that any further without other opportunities for debate. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I deal as fairly and justly as I can with the entire House.
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know the considerable interest that all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament take in the important statement that we have just heard. I appreciate that you allowed the period for questions to run on for some time and tried to encourage Members to ask just one concise question. I therefore have to ask whether it is in order to allow a Front-Bench spokesman to ramble on at length and be called twice on the same statement.
Madam Speaker: It is not for me to determine whether hon. Members ramble on or get directly to the point.

807
[HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Madam Speaker".] Order. Just a moment, I have not finished yet; show me some courtesy. I am courteous to the House; please be courteous to the Speaker of the House. It is in order for the Front-Bench spokesman to come back for two or three minutes, and that is often allowed.
Mr. Adam Ingram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in today's Scotsman, where he says that his party has drawn up plans to blow up water pipes. Is there any action that you can take to encourage that party and that hon. Member to desist from the language of terrorism?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Simon Burns: Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), Madam Speaker. As you have a justifiably high reputation for defending the interests of Back Benchers, and given that both Ministers and shadow Ministers are for a majority of the time at the Dispatch Box when they wish to be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"]—I was in the Chamber listening to the statement. Madam Speaker, whether or not it is in the rules, is it fair, when a number of hon. Members want to ask questions that are particularly important to them and their constituents, for shadow Secretaries of State to take up Back Benchers' time by asking two sets of questions on the same statement, whether it be today or at any other time?
Madam Speaker: Unless the House wishes to change what has been our custom, that will continue.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who mentioned me, did not have the courtesy to tell me that he would be doing so. You need not worry about making any such statement as he suggested, because the SNP would not be involved in any such activities as blowing up pipelines, or anything of that kind. All I can assure you is that I may well be going to night classes to learn plumbing.
Madam Speaker: That is interesting. I have a number of jobs at home, and I shall send a handwritten note to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brian Donohoe: The Secretary of State made reference in his statement to the fact that no nominations had been received from any Labour representative for the health boards or NHS trusts. That is wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman seriously misled the House.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he has just said. As I understood it, the hon. Member is making an accusation against the Secretary of State that he seriously misled the House. Have I misunderstood? [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman. Is the hon. Gentleman making an accusation that the Secretary of State seriously misled the House?
Mr. Donohoe: Inadvertently, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Lang: It may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that I was referring to communications that I sent to the leader of each party on the Opposition Benches. It may well be that individual Members have made individual submissions to my Department which I have not seen. I was referring to the party approaches.
Madam Speaker: I am very pleased to have that cleared up. Perhaps we can now make some progress.

BILL PRESENTED
  REFERENDUM (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Dennis Canavan, supported by Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. George Galloway, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe and Mr. Jimmy Hood, presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTRE
  That the draft Chessington Computer Centre Trading Fund Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
  That the draft Asian Development Bank (Fifth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund and Second Regularised Replenishment of the Technical Assistance Special Fund) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION
  That the draft International Finance Corporation (1991 General Capital Increase) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  PNEUMOCONIOSIS (WORKERS' COMPENSATION)
  That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  CHILD SUPPORT
  That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  CHILD BENEFIT
  That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  Question agreed to.

House Purchase (Simplification)
4.44 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of this Bill is to simplify house purchasing. It would introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property and for connected purposes.
During the summer recess, I was fortunate enough to visit Australia with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is an admirable organisation for the exchange of ideas between people in the Commonwealth. There I came across a scheme which takes the horror out of house buying. It is so simple that one wonders why nobody thought of it before. It was brought to my attention by a number of British people who have settled in Australia and bought a house there after previously having had experience of the trauma that people in this country go through when they buy a house. It is as simple as buying a new or second-hand car—or a yacht, if one had that kind of money. It is a kind of one-stop shopping for a house.
Under this arrangement, people who are looking for a house first of all make up their minds how much money they can afford. If they are going to borrow money, they find that out before they go looking. They then set out to find a house, through an agent, or privately, or through a building society. Having found their house, they get it checked out, if they so wish, before there is any commitment on their part or on the part of the vendor. They then go back to the agent, if they are buying through an agent, and complete a very simple form. The form is designed by the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia, is approved by the Government and is legally binding. It is a contract for the sale of land or a house by offer and acceptance.
Once people have decided on the house they want and the money they have, and are happy about the terms and the condition of the house, they make their offer and sign the form. If the vendor agrees, he or she signs the form. There is now a legally binding commitment, and there is no need for any other kind of rigmarole. The form includes the agreed date on which the transaction will take place, the settlement date. There is no need to pay a deposit; there is no need to get a solicitor, a conveyancer or anyone else involved. A contract has been made between two consenting adults, and it is binding. As I have said, this scheme is not only approved by estate agents and building societies in Australia, but endorsed by the Government.
The advantages of this scheme over the system that we have in this country are very many. To begin with, it cuts out the chains in which many people have half agreed to buy a house and then, later on, begin to change their minds and try to raise or lower the price by gazumping, or whatever the oppposite is—it is not gazundering, but it is something like that. That cannot be done, because once people have decided on a house they are committed, so
810
long as the vendor agrees the price. It is not possible to change one's mind at a later date. People have to make up their mind and stick to it.
Having decided on the date on which the contract will be completed, that is also a commitment. The purchase time cannot be stretched out while the buyer or vendor looks round for something else. It is a commitment, and the parties involved must go through with it.
It also cuts out the practice of people making bogus offers for houses. Apparently, some people look at and make offers for a number of houses, hoping that the vendor of one of them will perhaps lower his price. But all the other people to whom they have made offers are then disappointed, and may find that that affects their own house purchase arrangements. This scheme cuts that out, because once people have made an offer, they sign the form. If the vendors accept it, that is it. Buyers cannot go around committing themselves to half a dozen people and then letting them down.
The Bill would remove most of the haggling after an offer has been made. Almost everyone who has sold or is trying to sell a house knows the awful feeling when, having agreed a price through a solicitor or privately, the buyer comes back to say that he has changed his mind, that he cannot raise the money, or that there is something wrong with the drains and he wants a reduction. The commitment has to be made by the buyer; once the form is signed, that is it.
The Bill would take most of the angst out of buying a house. It would make it as simple as buying a second-hand car. Buyers would make their bids in the knowledge that they could not wriggle out of the deal.
The scheme is not dissimilar from that in Scotland, which is excellent. It involves people making bids in a form of auction. Until the bids are opened and the highest bidder is discovered, no one knows who will get the house. I believe that my proposal is a little better than the Scottish scheme.
Most people have horror stories about trying to buy houses; if they have not had a bad experience themselves, they know of friends or relations who have. The scheme will take the horror out of house buying. The scheme is so simple that one wonders why nobody thought of it before. There is no reason why we should not adopt it in this country. The proposed scheme would need the sanction of Government. I wish to introduce the Bill because contracts have to be legally binding on both parties.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. David Evennett.

HOUSE PURCHASE (SIMPLIFICATION)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to introduce new procedures for the conveyancing of freehold residential property; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 March, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Manufacturing Industry and Unemployment
    4.52 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
    That this House notes that, since the present Prime Minister took office manufacturing output has fallen, manufacturing investment has fallen and manufacturing employment has fallen; recalls that, in every year until Her Majesty's Government took office Britain ran a surplus in manufactured trade and that for each of the last 10 years Britain has registered a deficit in manufactured trade; records its concern that, since 1979 Britain has lost 2·75 million jobs in manufacturing, leading to the present unacceptable level of mass unemployment; condemns the policies which have resulted in over nine million citizens experiencing unemployment since the present Prime Minister took office; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce measures to stimulate investment in technology and training to produce a coherent strategy for industry, and to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and has put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
    Mr. Cook: Last week, the Prime Minister seized the attention of the nation with his declaration:
    "I passionately believe that we need an expanding industrial base."
    Many of us would have regarded the need for an expanding industrial base as a self-evident proposition. What made the declaration arrest the attention of the nation was that the industrial base of Britain has been contracting ever since the Prime Minister became a Member of Parliament.
    Since the Prime Minister entered the House in 1979, manufacturing's share of GDP has fallen faster in this country than it has in other nations. It has fallen three times faster than in Germany, and 12 times faster than in Japan. Manufacturing output has been virtually static over the same period, in which the right hon. Gentleman, with his passionate beliefs, supported, and even led, a Conservative Government. Manufacturing in Britain has grown more slowly since 1979 than in five of the six other members of G7, and in 18 of the 21 other members of the OECD.
    Last week, when the interviewer reminded the Prime Minister that we used to be told that all this did not matter, and that, when the last engineer locked the last factory, the service sector would be there to keep us all in employment, the Prime Minister replied:
    "I didn't agree with it. I was a minority view."
    I have to report to the House that I have searched for where that minority view was expressed by the Prime Minister. His view was not just a minority view: it was a persecuted and suppressed view, that was forced to stay underground for fear of being quashed. Nowhere do we find it expressed before last week.
    The word "manufacturing" did not even cross the Prime Minister's lips in the two Budget speeches which he
    812
    made as Chief Secretary. There were no measures for manufacturing, and no mention of manufacturing, in the Budget which he presented as Chancellor. There was no mention of it in the Queen's Speech last year, or in the Prime Minister's speech in that debate. Nor was there any mention of manufacturing as recently as last year, in the Prime Minister's speech to the Tory party conference, although he found time for a novel cadenza on the theme that the road to recovery is lined with motorway service toilets.

    I have not found any expression of a minority view. It is always possible that a Nationalist Member might have, at the back of a filing cabinet, a handwritten note signed "John", telling him or her that the demands for manufacturing industry are reasonable and that he will do all he can to deliver them, but the rest of us who do not do secret deals with Tory Governments do not know about it.
    We know about the views of the President of the Board of Trade. He voiced a minority view in the 1980s. He wrote whole books in which he expressed trenchant, powerful views on the importance of manufacturing, on the need for intervention and on the case for a powerful Department of Trade and Industry. When a journalist put one of those passages to him last autumn, he replied:
    "You've been reading all those books I wrote when I was on the Back Benches. You mustn't believe what a Back Bencher says."
    It is a close-run thing, but I must say to the President that, if I have to choose between believing a Government Back Bencher or a Minister, I give the balance of advantage to the Back Bencher.
    One can tell how far the President's views on manufacturing have declined since those books. One can tell how they have been marginalised since he joined the Government again. One can tell it in the evidence before the House in the amendment tabled in the President's name, which does not list one programme to support industry, one industry which the Government have saved or one project which they have launched in civil research.
    The amendment reads as if it was drafted in the Treasury. It might as well have been, because there is not a single measure in it which has been taken by the DTI. It contains the hallmark of this Treasury of Micawbers. It contains the 57th sighting of recovery over the horizon. I am not clear why the Government now need to promise a recovery for industry. A couple of months ago, the Chancellor produced a report on manufacturing industry in which he told us that recovery had already taken place, and that what had happened to manufacturing industry was the success story of the Government. That prompted the director general of the CBI to write:
    "If the Government really believes that all is for the best in British manufacturing while we run an alarming trade deficit in the depths of recession, we have a problem. What else might they believe? That public spending is under control?"
    The amendment tells us that the Government have set the framework for recovery. Do they ever look at what has happened to manufacturing investment over the time that they have been in office? In not one single year since 1979 has manufacturing investment reached the level it was at in 1979 as a percentage of GNP. If manufacturing investment had stayed at that level throughout the past 13 years, we would have had £34,000 million invested in new machines, in new technology and in modern factories. That is the damage that their policies have done to the industrial base of the country.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim rose—
    Mr. Cook: I do not know whether to believe the hon. Gentleman as a Back Bencher, but I will give way to him.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy in giving way. Bearing in mind the fact that he seems to think that the decline in manufacturing, as he wrongly puts it, started in 1979, is he aware that, between 1974 and 1979, Britain lost no fewer than 735,000 jobs in manufacturing—the worst record in the industrial world with the exception of Spain?
    Mr. Cook: I had criticisms of the last Labour Government, and I voiced them at the time. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not wait until the Prime Minister departed before voicing them. That Labour Government did not have the cushion of £60,000 million of oil revenue, they maintained a surplus in manufacturing throughout their period in office, kept unemployment to below half the level that this Government have ever achieved and had an increase in manufacturing investment greater than anything that this Government, with the advantage of oil, have achieved. When I look back on that record, I realise what the economic strategy of that Labour Government achieved.
    If the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) participates in the debate, I hope that he will refer to the fact that in his constituency unemployment has increased 91 per cent. in the past three years. If he expresses his views on the future of industry and the economy, I hope that he will do it on behalf of his constituents who have been made unemployed by this Government, because those are the people whose concerns we are voicing in the debate.
    I was referring to figures on manufacturing investment. In every year of that Labour Government, there was an increase in net manufacturing investment. We have to adjust investment figures to take into account the rate at which old plant is scrapped. In only three out of the past 13 years have the Government managed to provide more manufacturing investment than the rate at which machinery has been scrapped. In every one of the other 10 years, more machines have been scrapped than new ones installed. That is why our industrial capacity is getting smaller.
    Behind the abstract cash figures, there are real factory closures. In 1979, when the Conservatives took office, there were 908 factories with more than 1,000 employees. There are now only 383 such factories. Last year alone, one in four factories in London shut. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but to those who worked in those factories it was no laughing matter. That is why it is so facile for the Government amendment to say that they have put the framework for growth in place.
    Those factories have closed. We cannot pull the dust sheets off the machinery and kick it back into life. The machines were put under the hammer, and the best of them went to competitor nations. The skilled work force, teams of people who knew how to work together and do their job, has gone. Putting those people back to work will be more difficult than buying machinery off the shelf.
    Mr. Nigel Forman: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, whose analysis is familiar, if a little dated. Does he not realise, for example, that, in advanced countries in the modern world,
    814

    the right way to measure the performance of manufacturing in this or any other OECD country is by output and productivity? There is a structural shift in all manufacturing sectors in all our partner countries, and, as a result of automation, it is away from manufacturing employment, towards services and other employment. If the hon. Gentleman uses that measurement of output, does he acknowledge that, since 1979, which is the start of the period in the motion, manufacturing output has risen by 7 per cent?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—in Britain, it rose by 7 per cent. But in Japan it rose by 70 per cent., and in Germany it rose by 40 per cent. We have had the lowest increase in output in the OECD, and the second lowest in the G7 countries. I gave the hon. Gentleman the figures earlier, and I shall give him another figure to bring him up to date. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the rise in unemployment in the past three years has been 240 per cent. I shall give way to him again if he can tell me in what other OECD or G7 country there has been such an increase in unemployment in the past three years. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging in genuine debate. It is simply the case that unemployment was satisfactorily low in my constituency throughout the 1980s. Alas, it has risen rather sharply, but I am confident that the Government's policies will put us back on track for more jobs and more activity.
    Mr. Cook: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are bright enough to spot that there is something odd and imbalanced about an equation showing that the Government's policies will put them back to work. Of course, the Government's policies had nothing to do with putting them out of work in the first place. There are now more than 4,000 unemployed people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I admit that that is not as many as in my constituency, but such unemployment is entirely novel in his constituency and in the areas which, we were told at the last election, would be the boom areas of Britain. They are now the unemployed areas of Britain.
    On the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we used to have the Leyland tractor factory. When it was built it was the largest machine shop in Britain. It has gone. The machines were stripped, the cranes were scrapped and the sheds were demolished. There is no point in telling the railings that surround the wasteland of grass and concrete there that the fundamentals of the economy are coming right and that production can be resumed. That factory has gone for ever, and the communities that have seen such factories close have a simple, traditional view of the Prime Minister's economic policies. It is that we should try to understand them a little less and try to condemn them a little more. But who are we to condemn?
    We are less unhappy to condemn the Prime Minister's predecessor, and we do so with some credibility, because we condemned her economic policies while she was still there. I will put in a good word for the noble Lady of Kesteven. She does not deserve all the blame that is being heaped upon her. She went two and a half years and a general election ago, and the present Prime Minister has been in office all that time. Since he took over, 750,000 manufacturing jobs have gone, exactly the figure that the

    815
    hon. Member for Amber Valley quoted for the entire period of the last Labour Government, which was twice as long.
    Every six weeks, British manufacturing has lost the equivalent of the entire work force of ICI. Those jobs have been lost in the companies that formed the backbone of our industrial economy. Within the past quarter alone, Ford, British Aerospace, Lucas and Marconi have announced redundancies. Last Friday, Belling, a household name since 1912, went into liquidation. On Thursday, Rolls-Royce is due to announce results, amid speculation that it will also announce 2,000 redundancies.
    Those are the companies on which we depend to provide the exports we need to pay our way in the world. Their results and their difficulties must be seen against our trade figures. From the industrial revolution to 1982, we had a manufacturing surplus in every year. In every year since 1982, we have had a deficit in manufactures. We now have a deficit with western and eastern Europe and with north, central and south America. The only continent with which we have a trade surplus is Africa.
    We cannot run a permanent deficit with the rest of the world. We certainly cannot run it when the oil runs out, and the Government's biggest failure is that they have wasted a whole decade in which they had the cushion of oil that could have enabled Britain to restructure and invest in its future. They could have done that if they had listened to what we urged upon them—action on investment, not just tax breaks for the big companies but grants to the small companies making no profit and unable to claim tax allowance.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that present Labour party policy is that increasing taxation would have a bad effect on the country at a time of recession, whereas this time last year precisely the opposite was being urged? What is the position?
    Mr. Cook: We await with bated breath what will happen next week. I look forward the hon. Gentleman's intervention in the Budget speech. I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman. I can well understand his concern about the recession, because unemployment in his constituency has risen 177 per cent. in the past three years. There are now in his constituency twice as many people unemployed and unable to pay any tax increases that the hon. Gentleman might think of.
    We also urged the Government to end the rip-off of the business expansion scheme, to focus on industry instead of on speculation in property. We urged on the Government action to strengthen the regions, to bring in regional development agencies, to work with local industry and local communities, to build on the strengths of local economies and to fill the local gaps in investment.
    We urged on the Government action to develop skills, to bring in a training levy, so that everyone would have a chance of training even if an employer wanted to duck expenditure on training. We urged on the Government action to balance the priorities between finance and industry, so that we would not have the perverse priorities of the past two years, in which dividends have risen by 20 per cent. while investment has fallen by 13 per cent.
    816
    We also urged action to protect successful industrial companies from being taken over by hostile predators, so that managers need not constantly look over their shoulders at their share price and divert into keeping up dividends the money that should go into investment, research and training.
    That programme was repeatedly published and repeatedly argued. Ministers never listened. Instead, they pursued policies that have compounded the damage of their economic programme. They deregulated the bus industry, and manufacturing orders for heavy buses collapsed. In 1980, 3,000 heavy buses were registered. In 1991, 600 were registered. Try telling the people who used to make those buses in Preston and Workington that the Government support manufacturing industry.
    The Government privatised British Telecom, and Britain moved from a surplus in trade in telecommunications of £250 million to a deficit of exactly as much last year.
    Mr. Rod Richards: What effect would raising taxation have on the manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have proposed to cut tax on manufacturing industry by enhanced capital allowances. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect, the last Labour Government ran capital allowances for industry throughout their period. Capital allowances were abolished by this Government in a Budget that was presented on the basis that the service industries would substitute for what was being cut from capital taxation.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No, I shall return to my speech.
    Not only did the Government cause the collapse in the bus production industry, not only have they turned a surplus into a deficit in telecommunications: they sold British Rail Engineering Ltd. In the past three years, imports of railway rolling stock have risen by 300 per cent.
    The President of the Board of Trade has made his very own contribution to the gallery of policies undermining British industry. His largest initiative since taking office has been to try to close 31 pits without once considering the impact on the mining engineering industry, where another 20,000 jobs would go in manufacturing—in a manufacturing industry that was competitive internationally but could not survive its domestic market going. It has started already. MECO, the mining equipment company, laid off 300 workers last week because it could not survive the loss of orders from the pits.
    The right hon. Gentleman's problem is that he has commitments to live up to, and they do not sound as good now as when he put them in his speeches. There is the demand that he made in 1986 when he roamed the wilderness—or at any rate the High Peak business club—when he called for the Department of Trade and Industry
    "to become the leading British ministry to spearhead industrial regeneration and to be an equal partner with the Treasury."
    Well, the right hon. Gentleman is there now. He is the head of that leading British Ministry. Where is the equal partnership with the Treasury?
    In January, the Treasury cut interest rates. Three hours later, the President was asked by a BBC correspondent to

    817
    comment on it. The head of the leading British Ministry, the equal partner with the Treasury, replied, "What interest rate cut?" The President has had to put up with some ill-natured fun from people saying that nobody had told him. But, for myself, I do not think that it is important that, having taken the decision, nobody thought to tell him afterwards. For me, what is important, what is revealing, is that nobody consulted him about the decision before it was taken; that, on this important matter of economic policy, the Department of Trade and Industry was never consulted.
    There is other evidence that the Government give no priority to industry and no priority to the Department of Trade and Industry. That evidence is in the budget of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Under the heading
    "Measures relating to individual industries and other programmes",
    we find a budget that will fall from £470 million three years ago to £9 million three years from now. That is a cut of 98 per cent. Not much room for intervention before every meal there.
    The Treasury has put the right hon. Gentleman on something of a slimmer's diet. The total budget for his Department three years from now falls through the £1 billion floor. He will then tie for bottom place in the spending table of Cabinet Departments; not in equal partnership with the Treasury, but in equal partnership with the Department of National Heritage. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have a budget exactly three times the entire budget of the Department of Trade and Industry.
    I have no doubt that there are important spending programmes at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; that there are, no doubt, subsidies necessary to rural life welcomed by many Conservative Members present who oppose subsidies to manufacturing industry. But no one has claimed that, when recovery comes, it will be led by agriculture. We have not reached that stage of de-industrialisation, even under this Government. There is something deeply perverse about the priorities of a Government who will cheerfully cough up three times the spending on farmers that they will provide for the total industrial economy of Britain.
    There is a simple test of whether the Government are now ready to change those priorities. There is a simple way of telling whether the Prime Minister means it when he tells us that he passionately believes in expanding manufacturing industry. Will they intervene, as the Governments of Holland and Belgium have intervened, to save Leyland DAF? After all, we have, or at any rate we had, more DAF workers than Holland, or Holland and Belgium put together—skilled workers, people whose skills we need if we hope to become competitive in the future. Half the output from Leyland DAF is exported.
    Mr. Nicholls: No one will buy the trucks.
    Mr. Cook: Half the output is exported. It is bought by people outside Britain, giving Britain £250 million. They are buying the trucks.
    Nor can we afford to lose the suppliers to Leyland DAF —6,000 of them. The print-out as applied to Leyland DAF takes this huge amount of paper to record. There is one in nearly every Tory constituency. There are suppliers to DAF in the constituencies of the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Transport and the chairman of the Tory party. If they thought that Leyland
    818
    DAF was not an issue for them, they had better think again. Yet, despite that intimate link to their own constituencies, what a contrast in industrial strategy.

    In Holland, the Government are taking part in rescue talks, leaning on the banks, calling together all parties, really intervening to find a solution and investing in the company because they have confidence in its future. Here, we have a Government who have left it to the receiver to salvage what he can.
    At Question Time last month, the President told me that his Minister of State had been in touch with his opposite number in the Dutch Government. The President will be aware that I tabled a private notice question asking what form that in-touchness took. He replied that, on 4 February, the Minister of State spoke to the Dutch Minister on the phone. The talks about the rescue package lasted eight weeks before they collapsed. It is five weeks since the receiver was called in.
    The Ministerial contact that the Government can list in a parliamentary answer is one telephone call. Is it arty surprise that more jobs are going in Britain than in Holland? Will it be any surprise if British industry has difficulty succeeding in the single European market, when the industries of every other country get the kind of partnership that Holland has shown and the industries of Britain get none?
    We all pay a cost for the decline of Britain's manufacturing base, but those who pay the highest cost are those who have lost their jobs and the young people who have lost their opportunity to get jobs. In 1979, more than 7 million people were employed in Britain's manufacturing industries. The number today is 4.5 million. For every 10 jobs in manufacturing when the Government came to office, four have gone.
    The final irony is that, while the Government will not intervene to save jobs before a factory closes, they have to intervene when the workers are sacked, by picking up the bill for unemployment. The cost is £9,000 a year for every unemployed person—£27 billion at the present rate of unemployment. Surely it would be better to put that money into the economy, to keep factories open, than to pick up the bill when they close.
    Unemployment is a tragedy wherever it strikes. It is corrosive to men over the age of 55 who find that they may never work again. It is devastating to the lone parent who loses a part-time job that can make the difference between survival and destitution. Most of all, unemployment is a tragedy when it happens to young people, because it sours their hope and saps their energy. Unemployment among those below the age of 25 is double the national average.

    As I was working on my speech on Sunday, I was interrupted by the arrival of six unemployed teenagers from my constituency who had nowhere to sleep that night. They were not dumb, feckless or aggressive. They had gone through an exhaustive list of agencies, and had applied correctly to every agency that they could that day. I have to report that I failed them. I spent an hour telephoning the same agencies, and I received the same answer—that all of them had been full for the past fortnight and had nowhere to put anybody else, because they had so many other teenagers in the same circumstances.
    I was struck by how different were their opportunities from those that I and others of my generation enjoyed at the same age. Teenagers of my generation went to college, got a job, or started an apprenticeship—I cannot

    819
    remember the last time that I met an apprentice. To teenagers of my generation, the idea that six of us would end up without a job and a home would have sounded like pure fantasy.
    There are now 800,000 people under the age of 25 without a job—enough to populate Newcastle, Nottingham and Norwich, and leave enough over to populate half of Northampton. When we express our concern for those young unemployed, we are accused of talking Britain down. We do not raise the case of those young people to talk them down. We raise it because we know their potential, know that they have natural energy, and know their need for realistic goals and ambitions. We understand that it is the talents and energy of those young people on which we must build this nation's future. That is something it is not wise to understand less.
    The nation that does not understand that is a nation without a future. That is why we will tonight condemn a Government who have failed to invest in that future.
    5.23 pm
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'recognises the importance of the manufacturing base to the wealth creation process in this country; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on setting in place the basic framework for economic recovery—low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime—supported by measures in the Autumn Statement; applauds Her Majesty's Government on its success in attracting more inward investment than any of the United Kingdom's Community partners; acknowledges the widely reported signs of recovery in business confidence; recognises the unparalleled opportunities to help individuals to get back to work; and looks forward with confidence to the prospect of a return to sustained growth.'.
    It is not possible to overstate the trivialisation of the critical issues that the House is debating to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) returns time and again. Everybody knows that the trading world—our major customers—has been experiencing a significant and prolonged recession. The political complexion of the Government of our trading partners makes no difference—whether it be America, which has gone through a very difficult period but is now recovering; Germany, which is now heading down; right-wing Governments; or France and Spain, which have considerable economic difficulties. No nation broadly the equivalent of our own has been able to stand apart from that recession process.
    As the House knows full well, with a nation such as ours, which has such a high proportion of its gross domestic product exported, it is utterly naive and totally irresponsible to try to give the impression that somehow this country's economy can stand apart from the impact of that recession across the world.
    It is characteristic of the systematic policy of the hon. Member for Livingston of undermining this country that he seeks to parade our problems as uniquely British and uniquely related to the late 1980s. The hon. Gentleman has become one of industry's greatest salesmen. The problem is that it is the industrial interests of France, Germany, America and Japan that he is selling—and selling at the expense of British industry, British investment, and British jobs.
    820
    In the emotional end to his speech, the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the problems of Leyland DAF. I will apologise to no one for the concern that we share for the problems of Leyland DAF. The hon. Gentleman totally fails to understand that the Dutch and Belgian Governments had to act so quickly because under the rules of receivership in those countries, it is not possible for the receiver to use money that is the product of the business. Instead, the receiver must look for outside funds. In this country, the receiver can use the funds of the business to keep it in existence.
    A British bank provided the money that enabled the receiver to continue the activities of those businesses, whereas the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the position taken by the British banks was to suggest that they had pulled the rug from under Leyland DAF. There he was again, undermining the British banks—just as he undermines British industry.
    The most dispiriting aspect of today's debate is the wording of the Opposition motion. It contains not a word of praise for British companies, and no recognition of a single person out there who is selling, manufacturing, marketing or exporting to help Britain to win. Nothing at all—except the carping, whingeing criticism of the hon. Member for Livingston, whose closest experience of the entrepreneurial society was his role as campaign co-ordinator in 1985, when he tried to sell the Labour party to the British people—and laid the foundations for the second worst defeat in the party's history. The hon. Gentleman's capacity to exploit the electorate's fears in the search of profit for the Labour party is utterly staggering.
    There are no credible policies left for the left. I reject absolutely the gross distortion of the 1980s that the Opposition motion parades before the House, because it is not true. It is not true to say that our manufacturing industry is collapsing. Despite the recession, output remains more than one fifth higher than at the bottom of the last recession in 1981. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The only fair comparison is to take the bottom of a recession with the bottom of a recession, the top of the peak with the top of the peak.
    Investment is more than one third higher, productivity is two thirds higher, and exports are four fifths higher.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1980s, south Humberside suffered massive structural unemployment from the decline in the fishing and steel industries? Will my right hon. Friend share with the House and with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) his visit to my constituency just 10 days ago, when he performed the topping-out ceremony for the new Kimberly-Clark factory, which has £12 million of DTI finance, and at which 700 people will be newly employed with effect from next year, rising to 2,500? Is it not the case that unemployment in my constituency has fallen from about 6,000 in 1987 to 4,500 and that it is now below the national average? Is not that an example of the achievements of the regeneration of British industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is what I call speaking for England. [Interruption.] I am certainly not prepared to share my experience of visiting my hon. Friend's constituency with the hon. Member for Livingston, who would be embarrassed to hear of the success that we saw there.

    821
    Much more important, the motion reveals how little the Labour party understands the achievements of the past decade—how little it understands the realities of world competition, or the degree of change that the 1990s will continue to demand. Let us remember—although it is a sickening prospect—the end of the 1970s. Then, this country had a reputation as the sick man of Europe. We had been losing our share of world trade in manufactured goods for 30 years, and probably longer; we were overtaxed, and we were over-nationalised. We had failed to regenerate our small industrial and commercial companies, we had inadequate training, we were under-educating our children and we were gripped in an inflationary spiral.
    To make matters worse, we had an appalling industrial relations record. Our managers could not manage: they faced strikes in their own factories, in the factories of their suppliers and in the public services. In the starkest terms, British industry was uncompetitive. That was the inheritance that our party came to deal with in 1979.

    Today, all that the hon. Member for Livingston can say, half apologetically, is, "I had my doubts about the record of the last Labour Government." At least I said what my doubts were when I was on the Back Benches; it took the hon. Gentleman a long time to work out what his were.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, at the very end of the 1960s —after a long period of Labour government—Michael Shanks, the guru of the Labour party, published a Penguin book called "The Stagnant Society"? That book bore true testimony to Labour's period of office.
    As my right hon. Friend may have noticed, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) completely ignored the underlying legacy with which British industry was faced: the appalling reforms forced on our school system during that period of Labour Government and the fact that the proportion of 18-year-olds in higher education had fallen under Labour—the only time since the war when it had done so.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out Labour's critical failure to improve our education standards.
    In 1979, the problems that we faced were deep seated and long term. In large measure, they were a deliberate consequence of the Labour party's policies. We always made it clear that the Labour party, its policies, its manifestos and its dogma were a disaster; now, even Labour itself has come to recognise that those policies are a disaster. The party leader himself has realised that change must come, simply because his party's policies have proved to be a disaster. The problem for him is that his party now thinks that he is a disaster as well.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    How can the hon. Member for Livingston possibly have the nerve to come to the House and lecture us on industrial policy, when the whole House knows that the closest thing to an industrial policy in the Labour party is an apology for the past and a promise that it will not do the same all over again?
    822
    Let me set the 1980s in context. I shall begin wall industrial relations. Labour resisted every step of reform as it fought to preserve the privileges of the trade unions which provided its funds. What is the result? The result is that this country has the best industrial relations for 100 years.
    Then there is privatisation. There was never a policy more calculated to destroy the motivation and resilience of an industry than the policy of transferring that industry's ownership to the state. In state hands, industries are subsidised by taxpayers, suffocated by political and bureaucratic control and denied the chance to compete overseas. Their investment programmes are curtailed to meet the public expenditure constraints of the national Government. That was our inheritance—and the greatest single justification for all the criticisms that we have made over the years is the fact that Labour now has not the nerve to say that it will ever introduce nationalisation again.
    So unaware is the hon. Member for Livingston of the damage that nationalisation did to this country that he points to my Department's budget which has been cut. Why has it been cut? Because the losses of the nationalised industries have been turned into the profits of the privatised industries. What are those industries doing? I will tell the House what they are doing.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: In 1979—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary, and polite, for Ministers to give way to Back Benchers?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely up to the Member who has the Floor to decide who to give way to.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am, as a matter of custom, always polite. I will give way to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
    Mrs. Mahon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He will remember Mr. Catton, from Eliot Machine Tools in Halifax, who wrote asking whether he could intervene when Customs and Excise—quite wrongly—fined the firm. It is struggling in the present climate.
    That happened just after the right hon. Gentleman made his speech about intervening before breakfast, dinner, tea and so forth. Will he now tell us why he wrote back to Mr. Catton saying that he could not possibly intervene? The company has now had to be taken over.
    Mr. Heseltine: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, if Customs and Excise pursue outstanding bills, that must be a matter for them. It would be utterly wrong for Ministers to interfere with the course of their legal processes. [Interruption.] This is a novel development. The Labour party clearly believes that it is right for Ministers to intervene in the course of justice. That is a chill warning of what we might expect if it ever returned to power.
    I was speaking of the transformation of the loss-making nationalised industries. In 1979, those industries cost the Exchequer £3 billion, some 1·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. Last year, the privatised industries paid £2 billion in taxes. That is why my Department's budget has changed so dramatically.

    823
    Moreover, those companies—now in the private sector—are out in the world trading place, winning contracts for Britain. In 1982, the United Kingdom produced 14 million tonnes of crude steel and exported 3 million tonnes of finished steel. Last year, we produced 16 million tonnes of crude steel and exported 8 million tonnes of finished steel. We now have a trade surplus of about 3 million tonnes, compared with a deficit in 1982. Not the least reason for that is the fact that British Steel now produces a tonne of steel in under five man hours, compared with over 13 in 1979.
    Many of the privatised industries tell a similar success story. We do not hear about that from Labour.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not going to give way. I am going to tell the House how well the privatised industries are doing. British Gas, in partnership with Agip—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must not half get up and shout across the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time.
    Mr. Heseltine: That is characteristic of Opposition Members. All that I want to do is to parade before the House the success of British companies. All that the Opposition want to do is to make sure that nobody listens.
    Mr. Chisholm: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not going to give way. I am going to explain to the House the success of British companies. I do not mind how much the Opposition like or dislike it—I am going to do it.
    British Gas, in partnership with Agip, is investing over £4 billion in the next 10 years on the exploration and development of a huge new gas field in Kazakhstan. British Telecom is now one of the world's foremost telecommunication companies. Last year, it won a contract worth £350 million to run a telecoms network for the New South Wales Government.
    Mr. Chisholm: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the House for about a year, and I seek your guidance. When I was elected to this place I thought that I was coming to a debating Chamber. Can you please tell me how I can turn this House into a debating Chamber? I have never seen anything like this throughout the past year.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is in order. We are having a fulsome debate.
    Mr. Heseltine: The problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there have to be two sides to a debate, but the Opposition have no case to make.
    Thames Water, as part of a consortium, has won a £448 million Turkish water plant construction contract. Instead of monopolistic Government ownership, in addition to the profits and the contracts, there are now some 9 million individual shareholders—three times the number there were in 1979. The privatisation programme was the second major change that was brought about in the 1980s, to the immense benefit of the national economy.
    824
    My responsibilites include one of the last of the nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the coal review. I have always made it clear to the House that there are no easy solutions to this intractable set of problems.
    At the end of January, the Trade and Industry Select Committee produced its report on British energy policy and the market for coal. I pay tribute to the amount of detailed work that the Committee put into its report. The Government will publish their detailed response shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The Select Committee has recognised that the central issue is the market for coal. It makes no sense for British Coal to continue to produce coal that no one wants to buy.
    The stark facts are these. Over 30 million tonnes of coal are stocked at the generators. Over 10 million tonnes are stocked at the pithead. There is enough coal for the rest of this year without another tonne being mined. Well over £1 billion of coal is stocked in mountains that get bigger with every shift that is worked.
    The Select Committee's central conclusion is that it should be possible to find a market for an additional 16 million tonnes of deep-mined coal in each of the next five years. It suggests that the Government should require the generators to contract for an additional 5 million tonnes on top of that.
    The Select Committee is right to see the size of the market as the central issue. It estimated total electricity demand in England and Wales over the next five years as equivalent to 586 million tonnes of coal. Caminus, the consultants who advised my Department and whose report I have published, puts the figure at only 565 million tonnes. British Coal puts it lower still—at 563 million tonnes. These differences may seem small, but they remove one quarter of the additional market of 80 million tonnes which the Select Committee believes that it has identified.
    No one can predict with accuracy the precise scale of a market five years ahead. The Select Committee's figures are at the very top of the range. The critical question that we face, therefore, is the extent to which private sector companies will contract for coal. Those companies will form their own judgment about the size of the market.
    The fuel mix is equally important. I note that the Select Committee had considered carefully the extent to which the market for coal could be increased by interfering with gas or nuclear. I have noted with interest that the Select Committee has come out against that. This has no doubt been greeted with relief by many hon. Members' constituents whose jobs would be put at risk. I have said it before and I shall say it again: we cannot interfere to protect jobs in one part of the economy without losing jobs and investment elsewhere.
    One of the most attractive of the Select Committee proposals to many hon. Members is to restrict electricity supplied from France via the French interconnector. I have looked into that issue extremely carefully. I myself shared with the Select Committee the concern to examine again the extent to which the scope for additional sales of coal rests upon reducing imports of electricity. I have also taken legal advice on the matter, a summary of which I intend to make public.
    The position is clear. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will remember, measures to restrict imports of electricity across the interconnector would be contrary to article 30 of the treaty of Rome. It would also put the Government at

    825
    considerable financial risk in relation to indemnities given at the time of electricity privatisation and reported to the House.
    The effect of removing Electricité de France's non-leviable status, as the Select Committee recommends, would be highly uncertain and may lead to EDF being allowed access to the same premium prices available to Nuclear Electric and financed through the levy. The regional electricity companies would in turn have to be put under an obligation to purchase electricity from EDF. Far from reducing imports from France, this would reinforce their position, and our consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
    I therefore have to tell the House that the proposal by the Select Committee to reduce the amount of electricity coming across the interconnector from the present 6.5 million tonnes of coal equivalent to zero, or anywhere near that, is not an option, but we are still looking at whether anything might be done. To this end, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will go to Paris tomorrow to follow up the conversations that we have been conducting with the French Government.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, not at the moment.
    I now turn to the suggestion that the additional tonnages that the Select Committee believes that it has identified can be purchased through a subsidy at a total cost of £500 million. This is intended to reflect the difference between British and world prices. It is an interesting approach. The Select Committee suggests that this could be achieved at a cost of no more than £5 per tonne, but I regret that I cannot agree with the Select Committee's assessment of the likely costs. I am continuing to discuss these matters with the generators.
    Finally, I turn to the proposal that we should legislate to require the generators to take coal at a price and in a quantity that they would judge to be against their commercial interests. I have to say, at least to my hon. Friends, that this is not an attractive proposition. I have never hidden my regard for the immense amount of work that the Select Committee undertook, but many intractable problems remain to be resolved. The Government have to weigh all the consequences. I expect to set out the Government's reply to the Select Committee and to publish the White Paper shortly.
    Dr. Michael Clark rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Michael Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Of course, the detail of the Select Committee report will be debated at another time, but my right hon. Friend referred to the legal position on importing electricity from France—we shall consider that matter later—and I therefore invite him to consider the legal position on our using the French grid system, within the Common Market spirit of good will, to export electricity to Italy and Spain. If that does not happen, the French will have the prerogative to export electricity to us while we are denied the opportunity to export to France and Spain, because the French will wish to keep that market, too.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is well informed on such matters. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister for
    826
    Energy will discuss that and a range of other matters with the French Government tomorrow. I also reassure the House that there have already been consultations and discussions with the French on that matter.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To take up the point of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), does the President of the Board of Trade accept that nobody suggests that we should terminate the interconnector with France or reduce its use—certainly the Select Committee does not suggest that? The suggestion is that it should be operated as was intended in the first place, as a two-way exchange of electricity, which provides us with a market that would substitute up to 6 million tonnes of coal equivalent a year. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is being asked simply to negotiate free and fair trade rather than allowing the French to have it all their own way?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to consider the point that he is pursuing in the light of the legal advice about the exact position. The contracts are long standing and subject to the law. The hon. Gentleman will want to consider the matter further.
    I will go back to what I was saying, dealing with the record of the 1980s—
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: Is it about coal?
    Mr. Mackinlay: No, it is about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going backwards.
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way. I must make progress.
    Mr. Derek Enright rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I must now make progress.
    A critical component of a healthy economy is the vibrancy of the small and medium-sized company. Today at last, Britain is generating small and medium-sized businesses. When the Government were elected in 1979, there were 1·75 million of them; today there are 1 million more, which grew and developed in the 1980s. Even during the recession of 1992 about 400,000 business start-ups took place.
    Why did that happen? It happened because we changed the tax regime to enable it to happen. Changes in corporation tax, in inheritance tax and in income tax made it pay to invest, to hold on, to take risks and to start businesses. It left discretionary wealth in the hands of people who were prepared to invest it in the enterprise culture. It is from the small and medium-sized company sector of the economy that jobs come.
    The hon. Member for Livingston made a great deal of the issue of unemployment—but let us consider the facts. Let me remind him that, over the last economic cycle, in 1979–90, the work force in employment grew by 1·5 million, twice as fast as in the rest of the EC. Even in recession, employment now is almost 1·5 million higher than it was 10 years ago. We still have a higher proportion of the adult population in work than almost any other European country.
    Mr. MacKinlay rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: Let me put the heart of the matter to the hon. Member for Livingston. Has he any idea of the dilemma that our companies face? When he visits large companies, does he ever even look to see the changes that are there staring him in the face? He can walk round any company and ask any management; he can talk to the people employed there. There will be only one story, one explanation, one option. Fewer people are employed, in the drive for those companies to survive in an ever more competitive marketplace. Fewer people are employed as investment—the very investment that the hon. Gentleman keeps talking about—replaces people's jobs.
    For example, we are producing 300,000 more vehicles a year than we were 10 years ago—but 100,000 fewer people are employed in the industry producing them.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Although I have been in the House only for a few months, I worked in business for the previous 18 years, 15 of which—during the 1970s and 1980s—I spent selling the products of British manufacturing industry against the competition. I totally support what my right hon. Friend says about the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. Is he aware that only last November the shadow Chancellor said in The Guardian that in Labour's view the public sector would be the engine of growth? How out of date can the Labour party get?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Let me add to it: the other day the shadow Chancellor, looking at the success of the privatised utilities, argued that there should be a windfall tax. The Labour party does not have the money to renationalise businesses, so now it wants to tax them into subjection. It is the old story—when Labour Members see success they want to tax it—before breakfast, before lunch, before tea, and before dinner. Then they get up the next day and start taxing it all over again. That is when Labour Members are really happy, destroying success at every turn, every day, all the time.
    It is our duty to tell companies that they have our support in the battle to survive, even if that means telling the people the truth about the nature of change and the process of moving from job to job. Let us be clear—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
    The Government strategy is clear.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What about the south-east?
    Mr. Heseltine: What about a bit of silence, for a minute?
    We must set the conditions for growth and pursue competitiveness over the whole range of Government policy. That means low inflation, low interest rates, a competitive pound and support for exports, higher education, research and development and for training.
    Now I come to the next great success of the 1980s. The United Kingdom received one third of all inward investment into the EC in 1991. We have 41 per cent. of Japanese inward investment and 36 per cent. of the investment from the United States. It has been estimated that inward investment in 1991–92 created 23,000 jobs and safeguarded 29,000 more. That is success on a massive scale and the Labour party would do well to remember it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston called for an industrial strategy—
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) would recognise that the Secretary of State is not giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is frit."] That may be hon. Members' view, but the Secretary of State is not giving way to the hon. Member for Thurrock.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston called for an industrial strategy. What is the cornerstone of that strategy? It is to impose the social chapter of British industry. Spain, under a socialist Government, has 18·3 per cent. unemployment; companies are leaving France to bring jobs here, away from a socialist Government; German industrialists are shifting manufacturing to central Europe; as a result of the Maastricht treaty, Britain has the opportunity to attract inward investment on a growing scale. We now have the chance to restore the manufacturing base that the Labour party did so much to erode over 40 years—and what is Labour's policy? It is to impose the social chapter.
    Jacques Delors says that Britain can be a paradise for Japanese investment. Good. Today, not tomorrow, please. And thank you.
    The Labour party says that it has changed; it will never change—because change requires courage, guts and vision. Change requires the will to stand up to vested interests and the Labour party is nothing except the representative of—
    Mr. Jimmy Boyce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the President of the Board of Trade in full flow, but there is a point of order.
    Mr. Boyce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it for me?
    Mr. Boyce: Yes, it is. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade could—[Interruption.] Would you be kind enough to ask the President of the Board of Trade to lower his voice a couple of octaves because we can hear his ranting through the microphones on this side of the House at the same time as his ranting from the other side of the House?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither the content nor the volume are the responsibility of the Chair.
    Mr. George Howarth rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member only came into the Chamber a few minutes ago and he has been leaping up and down ever since. He must resume his seat.
    Mr. Heseltine: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not offended you by the scale of my voice. I tend to adjust the volume depending on the penetration of the Opposition that I must make.
    I think that the House will wish me to extend a note of sympathy to the hon. Member for Livingston, because the

    829
    disaster scenario to which he clings becomes less credible every day. Survey after survey shows confidence and recovery. The latest surveys by the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors show that British business knows that the recovery is coming and is under way. The surveys all have the same message—that Britain is moving ahead.
    In the three months to January, retail sales were 1·5 per cent. higher than a year earlier. In February, car registrations were 16 per cent. higher than the year earlier. In the fourth quarter of 1992, manufactured exports were at record levels, excluding oil and erratics, and were up 6·5 per cent. on a year earlier, and manufacturing investment was 5·5 per cent. up on the start of the year.
    The poor old hon. Member for Livingston is stuck where he was a year ago—he is the only person whose performance has not improved during the past 12 months—when he was talking about health service trusts. The Opposition—led by the hon. Member for Livingston—engaged in a scandalous campaign and exploitation of public concern about the national health service. Yet what has been the Government's record under their stewardship of the NHS? More than 1 million more patients are being treated.
    The hon. Member for Livingston is now in the business of undermining British industry, but let me tell him that British industry is already making a commendable job of undermining him. I hope that the House will finish the job tonight and will support the Government.
    6.2 pm
    Mr. Gordon Oakes: Opposition Members and many Conservative Members—certainly those who are interested in manufacturing industry, of whom there are many on both sides of the House—will be most disappointed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
    The first part of his speech and the end of it were nothing but rant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) said. One cannot substitute ranting for reason. The House is tired, and the country even more tired, of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, especially Ministers, blaming everyone but themselves for everything that happens.
    I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this debate is about manufacturing industry, which is rarely discussed in the House. That is a great shame, because I passionately believe that success and prosperity can only come to a nation with a viable manufacturing industry—a nation that makes goods that one can see and touch, goods that people need and want to buy—which is the basis of any sound economy.
    The President of the Board of Trade talked not about manufacturing industry but about the world recession. Yes, we accept that there is a recession. He mentioned the demonology of a Labour Government 14 years ago. The Conservatives have been in power for 14 years, and surely must accept some responsibility. Indeed, I thought that the Prime Minister did so last week. I was truly delighted when he said that industry really matters and that we must consider that it matters. The following day he spoilt it all, because he feared that he would be in the bad books of his former boss if he was seen to criticise her.
    However, I must admit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, that the Prime Minister
    830
    was first Financial Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor of the Exchequer when all those terrible things were happening to the economy—against his wishes, when he was in a minority. If he allowed that to happen, he must have been a powerful Chancellor.
    I am also disappointed because the President's speech was an abuse of the House. He injected a statement into the middle of a speech about manufacturing industry, which is what most hon. Members have come here to talk about. He should have presented that statement to the House tomorrow and allowed hon. Members on both sides, but especially those representing coal-mining constituencies, to question him. They had no idea that he was going to make that statement today, and I remind the President that coal is an extractive industry and has nothing to do with manufacturing, which is what we are here to talk about.
    I am also disappointed because I was delighted when the President of the Board of Trade received his present job. He may have forgotten this, but I have not; he came to Halton when I was acting in my capacity as president of the chamber of commerce, which I still am. At the time, the President was in the wilderness and out of office. He gave a first-rate speech, and talked about manufacturing industry, saying interesting things about it and criticising the Government for not being active enough in manufacturing industry.
    Last April, I thought that he was the man to be President of the Board of Trade, and that at last we would have someone who cared about industry. What has happened throughout those 12 months until today? No interest whatsoever has been shown in manufacturing industry.
    Many hon. Members firmly believe, as I do, that manufacturing industry matters. My father, both my grandfathers, my uncles, my father-in-law and most of my classmates all worked in manufacturing industry. My constituency of Halton comprises two towns—Runcorn and Widnes—which are both industrial and manufacturing towns, and the chemical industry or chemical-associated industries predominate. In the old days, we also had machine tools, foundries and engineering, all of which have disappeared, and the chemical industry can wither on the vine for lack of attention from the Government.
    I see a fellow Cheshire Member, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in his place. I was delighted when he took the initiative last week of founding an advisory committee in the House, on an all-party basis, to advise manufacturing industry, because no one seems to care about it.
    Hon. Members of all parties, including the Liberals and Conservatives, are genuinely worried about what is happening to manufacturing industry. That is why I found the President's speech so disappointing, because he did not describe any initiative, show any concern or look to the future. His speech was just dispair, attack and rant, and contained nothing about what the Government will do to assist manufacturing industry.
    At the last count, unemployment was 14·9 per cent. in my constituency. The President of the Board of Trade mentioned the strikes that we suffered under Labour Governments, but he did not consider how many days are lost to industry because of unemployment. That figure is many tens of times more than the days lost through strikes under any Labour Government, but he did not say a word about that.

    831
    I intend to be brief, but I want specifically to mention two means by which the Government—very often inadvertently, not wilfully—cause unemployment. The first concerns the chemical industry, which the President of the Board of Trade probably knew I would mention.
    In my constituency, ICI manufactures chlorine, which consists of salt and electricity. Since privatisation took place, there has been a 66 per cent. increase in the cost of electricity. It is no coincidence that this year, for the first time since the war, ICI, that great industrial giant, announced a loss. Before electricity was privatised, ICI could buy its supply at a cheap rate because of market forces. There was no subsidy. The principle was that, if a supplier had a commodity that nobody else wanted at a particular time, it could be bought in large quantities at a lower-than-normal rate. ICI was able to secure its entire supply at a competitive rate.
    I am not sure that the present suppliers of electricity, knowing how fearful would be the results of the cessation of chlorine manufacture, would not be willing to take part in a similar arrangement today, but that is forbidden by legislation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) put a question about this matter to the Prime Minister, but he received a very dusty answer. He then used an Adjournment debate to raise the subject, as he too has constituents who work in this industry. In another place, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester raised the matter, as it affects his flock too. Their Lordships had a debate, in which peers from all parties spoke about this subject. The subject is intensely important, because cessation of the production of chlorine would affect 7,000 jobs directly and another 5,000 that are associated with that production.
    A group of hon. Members from all parties—mostly Cheshire Members—requested a meeting with the Secretary of State to talk about this matter. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and three weeks later I received a reply saying that he was too busy to see us, but offering an appointment with the Minister for Energy. But it was not just energy that we wanted to discuss; we wanted to talk about the chemical industry, one of whose basic ingredients is chlorine.
    The loss of this industry would affect more than jobs in my constituency. This is a national problem. Other manufacturers of chemicals, steel manufacturers and other high-energy users would be involved. The President's current difficulties over the coal review might have been solved with the right approach in this area. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has gone. I make this point as the Member for a constituency that would be drastically affected if the event to which I refer were to take place, as is likely unless something is done. ICI will not be able to continue to produce chlorine at a loss. No firm could.
    Mr. Mike Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government could provide a solution to this problem almost immediately? The Government own 40 per cent. of the shares of PowerGen and National Power. As the major shareholder, they could intervene on behalf of the chemical industry in my right hon. Friend's constituency, save jobs in my constituency and support the industry in the north-west.
    Mr. Oakes: Of course they could. They could deal with the regulations that are holding the whole process up. The industry would willingly co-operate, without any move by shareholders, in order to retain the market.
    I should like to refer briefly to the pharmaceutical industry, which has been a money-spinner for this country. It is one of the most successful industries we have, yet the Government have proposed a limited list. I realise that the Secretary of State for Health has to make economies—I do not for one moment dispute that—but I am concerned about the way in which she has acted.
    In 1985, the Government introduced a limited list. What happened to pharmaceuticals then? I am concerned not just with job losses but also with the inventiveness of the industry. In the categories prescribed in the limited list, not a single new drug has been brought forward. Indeed, research in respect of those categories has ceased.
    On the other hand, 20 new drugs in categories not covered by the limited list have emerged. There are thousands of jobs in that field, too. It is a market in which we are leaders. We are going to lose not just the car, lorry and bus industries but also the chemical and pharmaceutical industries—largely as a result of neglect, largely because it seems that no Minister takes account of the employment implications of his decisions.
    Under successive Governments, the climate of opinion about manufacturing has changed. The status of and respect for manufacturing could not be lower. I want to see that status and that respect raised. People ought to be proud to work in an industry that makes things. They ought to be proud of their role in the creation of objects that other people in the world need. Such an attitude used to exist.
    Let the Government take the lead. Last week, the Prime Minister made a statement about his so-called review of the honours list. Why should not our inventors be honoured? It is even more important that we honour the people who put inventions into production. We invent things, but then we let them flow away to other nations to be developed. Why should there not be a specific honour in this field? It would cost nothing. Surely such people are more deserving of honours than sportsmen, actors, explorers and other people who find their names on the list.
    Why do not schools put more emphasis on great British inventions, as happened when I was at school? The media, schools and universities should have their respect for manufacturing industries rekindled.
    I repeat: manufacturing industry is the foundation of our prosperity. We have been asked whether we can expect prosperity to be led by agriculture. Of course not. Nor will it be led by the service industries or tourism. It goes without saying that we want those industries to prosper, but without manufacturing industry the future of this country is doomed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sebastian Coe. [Interruption.]
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am sorry that I was a little slow, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]
    Any debate that takes as its theme the decline, or even the relative decline, of our manufacturing base has to lift the lid off a sad economic history, however ghoulish or

    833
    depressing that might be. The decline of our manufacturing industries has unfortunately been a feature of most elections since the turn of the century and a key and prominent subject for debate in the nine that have taken place since 1964.
    Let there be no confusion. Let us not delude ourselves. This is all familiar stuff. We have been here before. Economic historians will belabour us with myriad excuses and reasons. We know what they are: empire preference, the destruction of British industry after the second world war, the determination to run a reserve currency, sometimes Treasury fixation with the value of currency, to the neglect of manufacturing considerations. We know the arguments about trade union beligerency, and we certainly know the arguments about some of our management shortcomings in terms of the manufacturing base.
    One of the issues to which we should be addressing ourselves is the fact that really only in the last few years have we started the inevitable task of rebuilding, or beginning to build for the very first time, a modern industrial state.
    It is fair to say that the Governments of other European countries and north America have responded differently to the construction of the modern industrial society and that those countries have been more effective than the United Kingdom in meeting educational needs. Some will even claim that there is something specific or peculiar about our response to manufacturing. Perhaps we display an anti-industrial ethos. To appreciate that, one need only consider where the forefathers of our industrial heritage chose to send their children to school—Harrow, Eton and the other great public schools that, for so many years, offered a classics, science-free education. I do not absolve the echelons of higher education from these shortcomings.
    The issue of education is still alive and features prominently in current discussions. Far too often, we encourage youngsters to seek employment in the service sector, the City or at the Bar. They are told that it is more acceptable if one pursues such professions instead of opting for a manufacturing career on the factory floor.
    I was brought up in Sheffield—one of this country's historically most productive cities. It was a jewel in our manufacturing crown, yet throughout the 1970s, when I was getting careers advice from schoolteachers and people who should have known better, I was encouraged, in common with the rest of my classmates, to take up employment in one of the non-productive sectors. It was more acceptable to work for the council than in any capacity on the factory floor. That attitude has been hugely damaging to our manufacturing industry and is responsible for the ethos that has surrounded most of the thinking about manufacturing for far too long.
    As we trudge through the debates on education, amid the battle cries, squabbles and platitudes about the indispensability of a good education and meaningful training, let us not further delude ourselves. We have been here before, too. Even after the establishment of state education in 1870 there was little bias towards technical education. The reforms of 1902 dealt mainly with religious issues and little consideration was paid to our scientific base and training. The teaching provided by the grammar schools was based upon the classics-based education offered by the public schools rather than that offered by the technical high schools of Germany and France.
    834
    I beg the patience of the House while I read a quote from a royal commission report of 1868 on endowed schools:
    "Our evidence appears to show that our industrial classes have not even that basis of sound general education on which alone technical education can rest—unless we remedy that want, we shall gradually but surely find that undeniable superiority in wealth, and perhaps in energy, will not save us from decline."
    That quote could have come from any Select Committee report of the past 15 years.
    I do not absolve the upper echelons of higher education from guilt. In 1945, the Percy Committee recommended that the war-time output of engineers—around 3,000—should be maintained for at least 10 years. The universities could produce only 1,200, with the rest made up from technical colleges. Very few of those engineers were university graduates; the majority came from technical schools. Sir Lawrence Bragg, Cavendish professor at Cambridge, displayed breathtaking arrogance when he said that universities were designed to train the mind while technical schools were designed specifically to train people for jobs. Twenty-five years later, a study of 90 machine tool companies in the west midlands, employing 30,000 people, revealed that only 25 of them were engineering graduates.
    The fact that only half of British youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 participate in full-time education compared with 70 per cent. in Germany, Japan, France or the United States of America also has a bearing on the future of manufacturing. Equally, in 1990 some 40 per cent. of youngsters left school without any graded qualifications or with GCSE passes at no higher than grade D. Those factors place a huge burden on anyone who seeks to plan our manufacturing base for the next few years.
    It is welcome that the core skills of those aged between 16 and 19 have been identified and are now being stressed. They are a strong factor in improving technical education, but we must still remove more of the barriers that exist between standard academic education and so-called "vocational training".
    We have paid a high price not so much for the reckless radicalism of our educational establishments, but because of the institutional sclerosis that has led to comprehensive schools being modelled on grammar schools and polytechnics on universities when in the latter case the reverse should have been the case. What has happened as a result of that practice? By the end of the 1970s, we hardly had a technical school left. We have been left with an academic model that is irrelevant to, or at best frustrating for, a large proportion of our school population.
    Ever since 1840, our inability to deliver the right kind of technical education has been our industrial dead weight—our industrial albatross. From the 1868 royal commission to which I have referred, the 1902 reforms, the Education Act 1944—the Butler Act, the Eccles White Paper on technical education of 1955 through to the core curriculum and the training and enterprise councils of today, the necessary words have been mouthed, but little has been done.
    Are we sure that the messages that have emanated from this place in the past 40 years have been as supportive as they could have been to our manufacturing base? A quick glance down the list of previous Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry does not necessarily make the best reading, nor did they always offer the best message to our

    835
    manufacturing industry. We went from the damaging interventionist meddling years of the 1960s and 1970s through to the equally damaging detachment displayed in the early 1980s
    What of our civil service? What top-class advice has been offered by it? In the past, most civil servants were Euro-reluctants, imbued with the philosophy of nationalised industries. They had no hands-on experience of running an industry. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s they could not see what was obvious to everyone else about our future development within Europe.
    There is nothing inevitable about relative or real-terms decline. We tend to use the word culture when we cannot explain something and I risk using it in this context. We have a culture—an industrial heritage. We are a manufacturing nation and every instinct in me tells me that that is so. By inclination we are not a series of motorways, mapping out non-productive distribution centres only.
    If we are to recover from our manufacturing problems, we need a basic framework for economic recovery and I welcome the fact that the Government have set that in place. We need low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime. Combined with that, however, we must build on the cultural ethos that we in Great Britain make things.
    6.28 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has addressed some of the gut issues that the President of the Board of Trade would have done well to address. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman made his traditional, almost predictable, rant that was totally lacking substance.

    It is interesting that in his peroration, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that everything in the garden was lovely, that the country was enjoying resounding success. He said that any suggestions to the contrary were either untrue, a socialist plot or put about by someone out of touch with reality. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, however, has thoughtfully pointed out that a long-term problem has persisted under different Governments, and that a cultural change is needed if we are to get to grips with it.
    May I first address the issue that the Prime Minister sought to address before he rather quickly backed out of it last week? He began to acknowledge the point that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) also made—that the British economy will not be competitive unless it has a larger manufacturing base. It is as simple as that. The economic blizzard of 1979 to 1981, whatever else it did, even by the pretensions of the Government of the day, made our industry apparently leaner and fitter. Let us acknowledge that it may have done that, but unfortunately it also made it much smaller, and we have not, over the past 12 or 14 years, been able to break out of that problem. We have to address that very positively and constructively.
    We would have liked to think that the President of the Board of Trade had some grasp of the urgency of the problem and of the need to look outside the narrow confines of party political rhetoric, and would start to get to grips with a problem that will require the minds and the application of politicians of all persuasions, including
    836
    people outside this House—in industry, trade unions, the City and every other institution engaged in productive economic activity in this country.
    It is time that the Government got out of the trenches and started to show a little constructive leadership in this matter. In that context, the President of the Board of Trade's speech was deeply depressing and extremely disappointing.
    The Engineering Employers Federation, before Christmas, launched its idea of an industrial strategy. Two facts came out of that which hit me between the eyes, and which sum up, it seems to me, the situation we face and the need to take some positive action. It pointed out that the British economy had an apparently permanent propensity to consume 105 per cent. of its output. I suggest to all hon. Members that that is not a sustainable situation. It is likely to lead to permanent pressure on our exchange rates and to consequential effects on our internal economy.
    Another more interesting point that it made was that an historical analysis of the past 60 years shows that the rate of return on investment in manufacturing industry was about 7·5 per cent., but, in the 1980s alone, the rate of return was about 18 per cent. We have now reaped the consequences of that candy-floss era. We all have to recognise that that is not a sustainable rate of return, that the financial institutions cannot look for it and must not expect it, and that industry has some right to expect a more realistic framework within which to raise money at a rate of return that makes sense, is sustainable, and takes account of the need for long-term strategy and thinking, and for investment to bear fruit.
    Let me entertain the House with two or three fundamental statistics which put the situation over the past two or three years in context. The gross domestic fixed capital formation for manufacturing for 1992 was £10,285,000,000. That was 6·4 per cent. less than the figure for 1979. Even allowing for the fact that the President of the Board of Trade wanted to make comparisons with a different base rate, and even if one takes the best year of the past 14, which is 1985, we have just got back to slightly above that level. That is nothing to be proud of.
    It is also true that, at the beginning of the last decade, we had a surplus in manufactured trade goods of £1 billion. In 1992, we had a £10 billion deficit. That was in the middle of a recession.
    This debate is about unemployment, and I shall come back to that in a minute. It is worth recording that, in 1979, manufacturing industry employed 7·1 million people. Last year, it was down to 4·5 million, a reduction of 2·6 million people, with an unemployed level of 3 million. That is a reduction overall of 37 per cent. If we make comparisons between our manufacturing output and that of our major competitors—
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Member has given some statistics of numbers of people employed in the manufacturing sector and how their number has fallen in this country. Can he identify any other modern industrial western country where the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector has not fallen during the 1980s?
    Mr. Bruce: Not a large manufacturing country. As I said, I was coming back to that, but I drew the allusion nevertheless.
    We have lost jobs, and they have to be replaced. I wholly accept that they cannot all be replaced by

    837
    manufacturing, but manufacturing has to create the growth and the wealth and the recovery to pay for the jobs to be created elsewhere. That is the fundamental point.
    Comparative figures show that manufacturing output has increased in the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1990 by 2·1 per cent., as opposed to the OECD average of 2·9 per cent., so we have not been performing well by comparison with our competitors.
    The President of the Board of Trade made considerable play, reinforced by some interventions from his Back Benchers, with the improvement in productivity. I wholly accept that. There has been an improvement in productivity, but there had to be, because of course we are operating from a much smaller base. For us to reap the full benefits of those improvements in productivity, we need to expand the manufacturing base, so that we can create more wealth to pay our way in the world.
    I spent a couple of hours this morning in the City, visiting Lloyds. It was brought home to me there that many of our City institutions that still maintain substantial expertise and ability to turn around very substantial sums of money, to add value and make profit, nevertheless grew up at a time when we were an imperial power and had a captive market. We can only hold those markets if we maintain a competitive edge and the ability to provide added value and productivity that beats our competitors.
    Our ability to sustain that and to provide full employment in that sector, the Secretary of State for Employment would have to acknowledge, is somewhat under question. The banks are shedding thousands of jobs. Employment fall-out in Lloyds itself is coming down the track. We see, right across the service sector, that it can neither sustain continued expansion in employment nor hold the jobs that have been created in recent years. So the conventional wisdom, which I think the Prime Minister was beginning to address, has to be challenged. The service sector will not be able to provide enough of the employment of the future or to provide the necessary wealth to create jobs.
    It is worth pointing out in this context, taking up the point that I was returning to when the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) intervened, that it is clear that an expansion in manufacturing will not, of itself, create a huge increase in direct employment. I think it will, however, first provide quality employment, because it requires the application of considerable skills for which we have to improve our training, and it will provide the spin-off for the service sector which manufacturing industry itself employs. I argue that the indirect effect will be quite significant.
    In the period when we came out of the last recession of the mid-1980s, during the years 1985 to 1987, companies employing fewer than 20 people accounted for 500,000 new jobs, while companies employing more than 20 people produced only 20,000 new jobs. When we are talking about manufacturing industry, we should be thinking not just about huge industrial complexes but about small manufacturing companies creating added value, applying skills, transferring technology and creating the means of expansion in both employment and wealth.
    It is worth making comparisons with the two countries against which it is most important for us to mark our performance—Germany and Japan. We often make comparisons with America, which I think are completely wrong, because America is a big economy operating in a completely different framework. While it is culturally
    838
    similar, the nature of the American economy is very dissimilar from ours. Germany and Japan are trading nations which have to generate external wealth to sustain their population with the kind of standard of living to which they aspire.
    Contrary to popular belief, Japan is not a big business economy: it is a small business economy. One of its great strengths is the link between huge trading corporations and a massive network of small suppliers. The difference is that big business in Japan is the friend of small business, whereas too often in Britain it sees itself as in competition with small business, or is careless about the latter's interests, or does not pay its bills on time. It fails to co-operate in helping small businesses to advance. We should therefore look at ways of creating more positive relations between the two.
    Similarly, in Germany, there is a relationship between the financial sector, manufacturers and investors which takes account of long-term needs. Hostile takeovers, a feature of British economic life, are almost unknown in Germany. Conservative Members are fond of saying that it is a good discipline for management to know that they can be taken over; but it also encourages short-termisrn. Long-term investment encourages hostile takeovers to raid the cash funds for short-term benefit.
    We must find a way of getting around that, to enable companies to make long-term investments without putting themselves at risk. The City, the Government and industry should all explore this. For instance, the City should provide funds for specific needs at attractive rates for long-term investment. That should not be beyond the wit of the City. Nor should it be beyond the wit of the Treasury and the Chancellor if necessary to underpin such loans with tax incentives, which will accrue to long-term investments and which can accrue only if they remain long-term. They will be penalised if anyone tries to capitalise on them in the short term.
    The antics displayed by the President of the Board of Trade are confusing. He is fond, when it suits him, of talking about intervention and telling us why he cannot, must not or should not intervene when it does not suit him to. There is no logic or consistency or strategy—no shred of forethought at all. The general impression is that the right hon. Gentleman is happy to get through another day without another catastrophe landing on his plate. We are entitled to something better.
    After all, the right hon. Gentleman resigned from the Government because he wanted to intervene over Westland. Before he came to prominence, there were several conspicuous occasions when Tory Governments intervened to the benefit of our long-term manufacturing and industrial base. Had it not been for such interventions, there would be no Rolls-Royce and no Ferranti today. I do not see why we cannot have an honest assessment of the terms and conditions on which Tory Ministers might intervene.
    The President of the Board of Trade, perhaps foreshadowing his White Paper on the pits inquiry, seemed to be preparing the ground for his escape from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. He started by saying that the market was the prime determinant. The Select Committee did not specifically deal with that, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he thinks the nuclear power industry managed to secure 25 per cent. of the electricity generation

    839
    market on free market principles. He well knows that the market has been distorted; there is no point in pretending otherwise.
    Where do we go from here? The part of the President's speech dealing with the French interconnector was interesting, and we shall study it and return to it. I had understood that the interconnector was designed from the beginning to provide the opportunity for a flow of electricity to and from the continent, not just between the United Kingdom and France but to the European Community. All most of us want is the ability to make it a two-way process. If it were, it would release resources that could be provided for by coal. Whatever contractual terms the President of the Board of Trade is locked into, this country is buying subsidised French coal-fired electricity at the expense of our own. The British people find that hard to understand.
    I attended the launch of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, of which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is chairman. I am happy to be associated with it. What we need now is a recognition cutting across party politics that we must have positive, strong and imaginative ideas to build a stronger manufacturing base. We need to leave behind sterile arguments about whether manufacturing creates more jobs than do the service industries, tourism or invisibles. We need all those things if this country is to survive. This debate is timely, in that at the moment our manufacturing sector is too small for Britain's fundamental economic needs. If we can all agree on that, we can start to do something about it.
    If the Secretary of State for Employment is to answer this debate, I urge her to respond to it more constructively than the President of the Board of Trade did. We have the skills; we can make things; we can add value. If we do not do so, we will have no chance of conquering unemployment or of giving our people the standard of living which they have a right to expect and which we are still a long way from achieving.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is nearly 22 years since I first spoke in the House. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that, during that time, I have solidly, continuously and forcefully expressed my concern for manufacturing industry—a concern to identify and deal with its problems and to enable it to realise its potential both as a major employer and as the only sustainable source of non-inflationary economic growth.
    Today I speak with a still greater mandate, because, as several hon. Members have already said, last week saw the launch of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, on which I have the honour to serve as chairman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the trade and industry spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, for speaking from the platform on that occasion on behalf of his party.
    I am also delighted to see in their places the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) and for Stockport (Ms. Coffey), who serve on the advisory panel of the alliance. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) is also a member of the advisory panel. I agree with every word he uttered in support of the chemical industry and
    840
    the pharmaceutical industry. If only Governments had used their influence, not necessarily to interfere with, but to involve themselves in, industry and to guide and help it, perhaps the severe erosion of our manufacturing base over the past 40 to 50 years would not have occurred.
    The launch of the alliance, with messages of support from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party and the Leader of the Opposition, is as unprecedented in its cross-party support as it is timely in its arrival. The alliance, which draws together Members from all political parties, leading figures from the City and key players from the manufacturing and construction industries—employers and employees—has already begun to make its presence felt.
    I do not want to claim undue credit for the actions and statements of others, but I welcome today's debate, even if I have some reservations about the tone of the motion. I welcome even more the commitment to manufacturing that the Prime Minister showed in his highly publicised interview last week. Coincidentally, he gave that interview the day after the alliance was launched and he had received all the papers about the launch.
    Throughout the time I have served in the House, successive Governments of all political hues have failed to appreciate the true importance of our manufacturing industry. Too few hon. Members have real experience of those industries, and too great a concentration of effort and attention has been placed on the service sector to the detriment of our manufacturing base.
    I have some regret about the way in which the debate has gone so far. The two Front-Bench speeches appeared to be entirely party political point scoring, with few positive proposals about how our manufacturing base might be expanded and strengthened. However, after those opening speeches, we had a positive and useful contribution from the right hon. Member for Halton.
    I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). I was surprised—I do not say that in a patronising way—at his thoughtful and considered speech. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State for Employment takes back to all the Ministers concerned—not just at the Departments of Employment and of Trade and Industry but at the Treasury, the Department for Education and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's Department—the pertinent views of my hon. Friend.
    I hope that party political polemics will be put aside for the remainder of the debate and that Conservative and Opposition Members will concentrate on seeking to find common ground which can be exploited to establish and implement new policies that will give constructive benefits to our most important industries. Our economic and employment opportunities could be sustained, but the belief that they could be sustained without a manufacturing base has been exposed, and widely accepted, as the absurdity it always was.
    Unemployment is likely to remain at around the 3 million mark for some time, the balance of payments deficit continues to grow and we are an uncompetitive nation in an increasingly tough and competitive world. As our manufacturing base has contracted, our balance of trade deficit has increased proportionately. The issue must be grasped by Government.
    I do not, however, want to fall into the trap of pointing the finger at the present Government for all the evils of our economy now. That would be as unfair as it would be

    841
    unhelpful. As has been pointed out, we are in a world recession. Successive Governments of both parties have failed to deal effectively with the forces that led to the steady erosion of our manufacturing base.
    Let us hope that this debate begins to see the turning of the tide and that what is said by hon. Members in all parts of the House will be studied carefully by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Employment, who is in her place, and by Foreign Office Ministers. Between them, they have a combined responsibility for identifying the problems that our industries are facing and for bringing forward constructive and positive solutions to help manufacturers to make better goods more efficiently and to sell them abroad to earn the revenue that Britain needs.
    With the Budget looming and the constraint that I should not stray too widely from the subject of the motion, the House will find it helpful if I take the opportunity to put on the record the measures that the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance believes should be considered for incorporation in the Budget statement on which the Chancellor is undoubtedly working.
    The measures that I put to the House are as simple as they are essential. First, we wish to see the introduction of 100 per cent. capital allowances to ensure that the investment decisions of industry are not distorted by the tax regime. Secondly, we wish to see a commitment to reducing still further, and to holding down, interest rates, which have placed intolerable burdens on industry and home owners alike. Thirdly, we wish to see the abolition of stamp duty on the sale of houses. That archaic tax is a dampener on the housing market and should be excised immediately from the list of what I describe as acceptable tax measures.
    Fourthly, we wish to see the creation of a task force to identify and tackle areas that offer considerable potential for import substitution. I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, who is extremely sympathetic to that sort of exercise being undertaken. Fifthly, we want a more favourable tax treatment of the fees that individuals pay to improve their qualifications and skills through part-time education. Sixthly, we want a firm and explicit political commitment to promote British exports through all the means at the disposal of the Government.
    It is no good the Government saying that they are doing a lot in that area when—my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Trade, who is now the Minister for Industry, and who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, knows this well—the rates given in this country by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are nowhere near as competitive as those available in France or Germany. Our exporters are operating at a disadvantage. Those are all measures within the short-term gift of the Government. They are needed and would receive a welcome from industry, the City and from most, if not all, hon. Members.
    In a message at the launch of the alliance, the Prime Minister said:
    "I am sure that the Alliance will argue the case for manufacturing industry with vigour in the years ahead. I look forward to its dialogue with Government in this important cause."
    My comments today represent the first contribution of the alliance to the dialogue for which the Prime Minister called.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I intervene on behalf of the west midlands. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents and I would rest easier if tomorrow he were given the opportunity to implement the proposals he has put to the House by being appointed President of the Board of Trade? We in the west midlands have had a third of our manufacturing base eroded. In my constituency, over 20 per cent. of the working population—good, able-bodied men and women—are available to make a contribution to society. My area was built up on manufacturing. The policies that the hon. Gentleman outlined should be implemented. I hope that the Prime Minister will see the wisdom of giving him the opportunity to implement them—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member knows my views on interventions. His is becoming a speech.
    Mr. Winterton: It may have been long, but from my point of view it was most welcome, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have supported from the Conservative Benches some of the points that he has made at Question Time and on other occasions. When his suggestions deserve merit, as they often do, I shall continue to support them.
    As the hon. Member for Gordon said, it is important for hon. Members in all parts of the House to try to find common ground on which to take forward the cause of manufacturing industry. Having worked for many years in the Birmingham area, in the west midlands, the black country, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Stourbridge—1 could go on naming the places—in the construction industry, I appreciate how important manufacturing industry is to that part of the world. There are the skills—the willing and trained people in that area—to form an important part of the renaissance of manufacturing industry in this country.
    I hope that our proposals will be given careful and sympathetic consideration, because they are constructive and positive, and that they will be taken to all the Ministries concerned.
    I have one other suggestion for consideration. It is that Ministers should look again at the provisions for dealing with the affairs of businesses that run into financial difficulties. Our current provisions seem to propel far too many businesses with short-term problems towards and beyond the brink of liquidation, when a more constructive approach might have averted such a result. We need the administrative equivalent, not of the undertaker, which too often the liquidator is, but of a paramedic task force, which, when a business hits troubled waters, can provide immediate advice and help in finding a way to keep that business trading and so avoid unnecessary liquidations, loss of jobs and knock-on effects on creditors.
    Nobody, except perhaps the liquidator, benefits from the current situation. Many hon. Members have expressed their understandable concern that our system appears to be biased against survival, and would welcome a commitment by the Government to consider introducing arrangements perhaps not dissimilar to those available in the United States, where companies can file for chapter 11 status and be subject to a task force type investigation to keep them on their feet. Too many companies have the rug pulled for the wrong reason, when a little advice and slightly longer-term support would keep them going and maintain the jobs.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British system of receivership allows many businesses to survive and prosper despite having short-term financial problems?
    Mr. Winterton: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend has said, but I must tell the House from my contacts with many sectors of industry that people do not believe that the present system helps the company to survive, particularly if it is a private company, because the proprietors are immediately excluded from any management situation and on-going contact with the company.
    I wish to put it on the record that last week I was joined at the launch of the alliance by the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Francis McWilliams, Mr. John Edmonds, the general secretary of the GMB, one of the largest unions in the country, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who speaks for the Opposition on trade and industry matters, the hon. Member for Gordon, who speaks for the Liberal Democratic party, and many leading figures from British industry.
    We came together with common cause because we believe that the complacency of previous years towards our industries has done real and lasting harm; because we are convinced that urgent remedial action is necessary; and because we believe in making things happen rather than sitting idly by and fiddling while Rome burns.
    Taking up one matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, I should mention that another of the people on the platform at the launch of the alliance was Mr. Bob Worcester, the chairman of MORI polls. He had undertaken a survey for the alliance of 1,000 university students and I wonder whether hon. Members know the favoured career for which they opted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lawyer? Engineer?"] No, not a lawyer and not an engineer. We should not be having these sedentary interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that was not really a rhetorical question. I will give the answer to the House: journalism and broadcasting was the favoured career for people in higher education. I think that that is shocking.
    Let us hope that in this debate the spokesmen for all political parties and all the Back-Bench Members will seek to lay the foundation for a new cultural and political consensus which places the needs, the problems and the potential of these critical manufacturing and construction industries firmly on the parliamentary agenda of our country, and that we begin to act with one heart and one mind in our determination to prevent the further erosion of our manufacturing base.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that between now and 9 pm there will be a limit of 10 minutes on speeches, and that it will be strictly observed.
    7.4 pm
    Mr. William McKelvey: Even in a 10-minute spell, it is worth taking a few seconds to congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the launch of his alliance. I will attempt to join that alliance, as I have several other alliances in which he has played a part.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the speech by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne
    844
    (Mr. Coe) was very able. It was one with which I heartily agreed. My only embarrassment was that I had not made a similar speech some years ago, because I owed it to the engineering industry. He must come from an engineering background; I suspect that perhaps his father was an engineer and spoon-fed him.
    I take note of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield said about trying to get an alliance, particularly from the Back Benches. We should not, in the space of 10 minutes, start referring to the frailties of the present Government.
    I want to speak mainly about my constituency, which is, or at least used to be, a manufacturing constituency. We need look no further than Kilmarnock and Loudoun, which is in Ayrshire, to see the disastrous effects of the Government's economic policies.
    Kilmarnock has had the dubious problem of a heavy dependency on manufacturing industry and more than one third of the district's employed people still work in that industry. I say "dubious" because I believe that we are all agreed that a really healthy economy that produces wealth is one with a solid manufacturing base. It is ironic that we are seeing the vestiges of Kilmarnock's once-healthy manufacturing base being eroded yet again. There is no sign of the economy improving in Scotland and in Kilmarnock in particular. In fact, for whatever reason, we are now seeing the ravages of a new form of economic decline and are losing jobs.
    I say that we have a manufacturing base which is now a problem, because manufacturing is so threatened as to make Kilmarnock a highly insecure place with regard to employment. It is threatened in a number of ways.
    Many of our industries are threatened, first, because of the direct, unfair competition from cheap imports. That is something which the Government must look at very closely. One of the traditional manufacturing industries in Kilmarnock is shoes. We have the Kilmarnock Shoe Company, which used to be Saxones; it used to employ over 800 people, but that has now reduced to something like 226 and will drop to about 187 because the company is having to shed workers. The main cause is the cheap imports coming into the country from China, where poverty wages are paid to adults and children are exploited in the most appalling conditions. That appears to be one of the direct causes of the loss of jobs in the shoe industry and it is something which Government Departments should be examining and stopping.
    There is also the carpet-making industry, in which there are famous names in Kilmarnock. There is BMK, which is now only a shadow of its former self, but nevertheless, having modernised, is able to compete with the carpet manufacturing industry in Europe. But even in this field there are imports, from Belgium in particular. Their wages are comparable with ours and their productivity records are no better than ours, yet somehow the carpets can be brought into this country and sold more cheaply. I suspect that somewhere there are hidden Government subsidies and we either have to do the same for our carpet manufacturers or see that Belgium stops applying subsidies.
    One of our best employers in Kilmarnock, of which I have often spoken in the House, is Johnny Walker, with the biggest and most modern bottling shed in the world. The company employs up to 800 people. I ask Conservative Back Benchers to have a word in the Chancellor's ear, because tax of £5·60 on a bottle of whisky is a disgrace. It is not a case of not increasing the

    845
    tax in the Budget: the tax should be decreased substantially, so that Scotch whisky can compete favourably in European markets with other spirits.
    We have a new trade with people taking wagons to Europe to fill with cheap booze. The axles on the cars cannot take the weight of the spirits that are being brought from the continent because of the low tax on alcohol, and particularly on whisky. We should not accept conditions in which a bottle of whisky in France, or in Italy is £2·50 cheaper than where it is made. I want to see whisky being sold at the same price in Kilmarnock as it is in France, so that all of us may benefit from the spirit of life.
    Because of problems in the service sector, I am increasingly being contacted by small companies threatened by cash flow problems when creditors cannot pay on time or are themselves faced with bankruptcy. The example I quote is the collapse of the biggest building company in Scotland, Lilley plc. It is an extraordinary affair. The four departments of Lilley collapsed on a Friday and reopened under a different name on Monday, with all its debts being left with the smaller companies.
    One company in my constituency which was owed £38,000 by Lilley went under because the banks foreclosed on it. Because Lilley went into receivership, 60 jobs in my constituency were lost. Lilley was able to reopen on the Monday but the 60 jobs were lost because the cash which should have come from Lilley was not there. That should not be possible in a modern society.
    The Government Departments which I contacted, Customs and Excise and PAYE, were most helpful in extending the time for payment. After I had negotiated an additional year for the firm to pay its VAT, the bank suggested that it should push for even more time. I told the firm to go back and ask the bank to honour its agreement and, instead of cutting the overdraft, to give the firm more financial assistance so that the VAT could be paid.
    Banks in Scotland are not playing the game with small businesses. They are foreclosing on them far too soon or are restricting their cash flow, with the result that many small companies are being squeezed out of business. Perhaps Ministers could have a word with bankers who are doing that, particularly in Scotland.
    Farming has faced many difficulties over the years. The hill livestock compensatory allowance was designed to compensate farmers in areas like my constituency. Recent cuts in the allowance have severely weakened the competitive position of farmers in the market for lamb. In conjunction with the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, backed by the Government, which proposes the break-up of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board, both of which operated efficiently, the picture which emerges is of a Government with few ideas and even less ability. I hope that my comments will be noted by the Minister and acted upon.
    7.13 pm
    Mr. John Sykes: I am glad to have been called to take part in the debate because my family firm, established in 1845, supplied coal and then oil to the great woollen mills in the west riding. My grandfather was also called John Sykes. He joined the firm in 1914, taking it on to greater things. None of his friends could understand
    846
    why he always travelled second class on the train from Slaithwaite to Huddersfield, until he told them that it was because there was not a third class.
    We have survived, despite Labour Governments. These days we manufacture in Filey, near my constituency in Scarborough. I recommend the area to any prospective employer, at home or abroad, who may be listening. Let us make no mistake, many will be looking in on the debate. What will they make of the Labour party? Will they come to the conclusion that of all countries, ours is the one to be avoided at all costs? That is the message, for political reasons alone, which the little Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches are peddling.
    That is hardly surprising, coming as it does from a party many of whose members would sooner take from the church poor box than stand up for their country. This is the Labour party which crippled manufacturing industry with inflation rates which would have made even a south American banker reach for his pacemaker. .This is the Labour party which hated manufacturers with such venom that it wanted to make the pips squeak.
    While on the subject of pipsqueaks, I am old enough to remember the last Labour Government. Opposition Members have the gall to complain about manufacturing today. I recall several leading and distinguished members of the Labour party, including even members of the Labour Cabinet, parading on picket lines during the 1970s, in the full glare of the international press, telling the world what they thought of their country and of manufacturing industry.
    I recall that this was the Labour party which brought us the winter of discontent. As long as I draw breath, I shall never forget that winter, having to go before a strike committee in Barnsley in 1979 to beg it on bended knee to allow oil deliveries through to Redfearns National Glass because, without fuel, its kilns would have cooled and cracked and thousands in Barnsley would have been thrown out of work.
    Yet the motion talks of a coherent strategy and measures to reduce unemployment. As long as I draw breath, I shall never forget the tanker driver who came to me in tears because his wife and family had received threats because he had driven through a secondary picket line. [Interruption.] I am in no mood to take lessons from the little Castros on the Opposition Benches, most of whom would not know a business if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. Most of them are teachers or lecturers and most of whom are sponsored by unions.
    Let us take, for example, the Opposition spokesman on manufacturing, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). That city expanded out of recognition during the 1980s as a result of Conservative policies. The hon. Gentleman was busy lecturing on the subject of industrial relations at Leeds university between 1971 and 1983. Is he aware of the tremendous trouble to which my company had to go, because of secondary picketing, to supply Leeds university with heating oil? If he is not, perhaps it is the first recorded case in history of the left hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.
    This is the Labour party which is dying to bring in the 48-hour week. Labour Members know, or should know, that it would cost thousands of jobs. They should know that manufacturers need to work when the work is there, not when some Greek Commissioner says that it is there. This is the Labour party that pines for the social chapter, when its members know that even Jacques Delors says that

    847
    it will make Great Britain a paradise for investment. Even the Fred Flintstones on the Opposition Benches acknowledge that investment equals jobs.
    This is the Labour party that yearns to squeeze jobs out of industry with a minimum wage, a policy which has destroyed whole industries in France. The Labour party strains at the leash to cast away all our trade union reforms and longs for the return of flying pickets. This is the Labour party of closed shops and closed minds. Above all, this is a Labour party not even up to the task of the debate, a party for whom Opposition Supply day debates are the only certainty in its twilight days.
    7.18 pm
    Mr. Eric Insley: If I had been a member of the strike committee before which the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) appeared to ask for a dispensation to run his wagons through to Barnsley, he probably would not have got it after a speech like that.
    I shall concentrate on unemployment in my constituency. The Government's figure for unemployment, based on those who are claiming benefit, exceeds 3 million. If we add trainees and people who do not claim benefit, the true figure is about 4·5 million. That is one in 10 of the work force. That unemployment costs £9,000 per person, or about £27 billion a year—money that should be used by the Government to create jobs and produce the tax revenue that the country needs.
    About 800,000 unemployed people are under the age of 25, and most of those young people have never had a job. They have been shunted from one training scheme to another with no prospect of permanent employment. The Government have told us again that low inflation, low interest rates and other factors are now in place for recovery. Where is the recovery that the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister have promised for so many years? I agree that inflation and interest rates are low, but unemployment is still extremely high.
    Nobody has any confidence in the Government's ability to get people back to work. Unfortunately, my constituency fares worse than the national average. Unemployment there has risen by 1,000 since the President of the Board of Trade opened his mouth in October about colliery closures. In my constituency, 12,500 people are registered as unemployed. That is 12·6 per cent., but the 1991 census gives a more accurate figure and shows that 15,000 or 15 per cent. of people are out of work.
    I visited my jobcentres on Friday and discovered that one office, which deals with 8,000 claimants out of the total of 12,500, has only 90 vacancies at any one time. For the whole of Barnsley, there are 185 vacancies at any one time. That is one job for every 67 people who are out of work, compared with the national ratio of one job for every 29 people. In that office, I looked at the most recent vacancy on computer to discover the wages on offer. The clothing industry is a major employer in my constituency, after the demise of coal, and offers part-time female employment. According to the computer, an experienced garment presser was being offered £105 for a 37-hour week. That amount was not being offered to a kid on the dole, a school leaver or a part-time worker: it was for an experienced garment presser. A wage of £105 a week is a disgrace.
    848
    In January, 111 industrial vacancies were advertised in the press, while for the standard occupational sector 115 vacancies were advertised. Last month people, who had been unemployed for a long time lobbied Parliament. One of my constituents on that lobby has written more than 1,000 letters in an attempt to get a job. He has been writing since April last year, but has had no success because no jobs are available.
    What are the immediate prospects? I am told by my economic development association that things could be looking up. A company called Michigan Clothing has 30 vacancies, Haywood and Padgett has 12 and ITC (UK) Ltd. has five. Hill Meyer Alan Design has won a contract for £150,000-worth of work and may offer 50 to 60 jobs in the near future. However, pit closures will mean that in October we shall lose 6,000 jobs at the two collieries in my area. That should be set against the 50 to 60 jobs that will be offered by the companies that I have mentioned. I am grateful for those jobs and wish that there were more on the way.
    I congratulate my local chamber of commerce, whose members I met here last week, on organising Interprise 1993. Employers from all over Europe have been invited to that conference in Barnsley and the chamber has said that it will introduce producers in my constituency to similar companies in Europe to try to make something of the single market.
    I listened with interest to the statement within the speech of the President of the Board of Trade about British Coal. In it, he again decried every suggestion by the Select Committee on Energy and other informed bodies on a way out of the coal crisis. Because of revenue support grant capping, my local authority has to cut £11 million from its budget. So far, that has meant 350 redundancies, closures of residential homes and the prospect of further redundancies. The economic development unit has to make a 38 per cent. cut, although that unit is doing much to attract the jobs to which I have referred. That massive cut is also due to problems with the revenue support grant.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) spoke about carpet manufacturing in his area. A carpet company in my constituency announced 65 redundancies in January out of a work force of about 300, because there is no demand in the economy for the company's products. One of the companies for which I used to work, Quilter Hall and Company, an engineering company which has been established for over 100 years and which manufactures mining equipment and rolling stock, tried to win a contract in India as part of a consortium with NEI and an Indian company. The contract was to build parts of power stations in India, a country that the Prime Minister recently visited. Quilter Hall tells me that it cannot win the contract because of unfair competition.
    A company called ABB, which is competing with the consortium, was allowed to re-tender after the Quilter Hall consortium beat ABB on not only price but quality and specifications. Quilter Hall offered better specifications and price, but the Indians clearly want ABB to win the contract. Even the second re-tender price is higher than that offered by the Quilter Hall/NEI consortium.
    Quilter Hall has lost £40,000 tendering for that contract. It is struggling for survival, but last year it completely retooled its fitting shop, boiler shop and fabrication shop, and ceased production of mining equipment, for which there is no demand, to build

    849
    locomotives for the channel tunnel. It beat every manufacturer in the country on specifications and is now building those locomotives for the channel tunnel project —if that project ever comes to fruition. What is the President of the Board of Trade doing about that tender?
    Where is the intervention that we hear so much about? Who is helping the Quilter Hall/NEI consortium to win the Indian contract? That consortium can win it fairly and does not want any underhand assistance, but when its tender is the best it should be chosen.
    About 18 months ago, the Barnsley Canister company, a premier manufacturer of tinplate canisters, went bust when a company called CMB Packaging bought its order book and closed the factory. It was asset-stripped simply for the order book. When are we to have the intervention that will create jobs in areas such as mine?
    7.29 pm
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I support the Government's amendment and take cognisance of the greatly improved confidence within industry, as highlighted by the Institute of Directors and the CBI—representing as I do a constituency with a higher proportion of manufacturing jobs than in the country as a whole and having myself worked in manufacturing industry.
    I am quietly confident that there are opportunities for manufacturing industry now which have not been available for the past 10 years. I say that, first, because there is evidence that British manufacturing industry is competitive. Exports are up to record levels compared with last year, running even now at £9 billion per month. There has been an improvement in retail sales, and even an improvement during the past eight weeks in house sales, which show an increase of some 20 per cent. over last year. I am cautiously optimistic that, provided that we have the right kind of Budget, that will improve.
    I believe that British manufacturing industry stands on the threshold of significant improvements in competitiveness while other countries are losing competitiveness, first, because inward investment is dramatic and at its highest ever levels. The Japanese do not put 41 per cent. of their investment in Europe just because they like the look of us. They do it because they believe that Britain can be more competitive than elsewhere in the EC.
    The OECD, in its latest report, talked about the resilence of investment, and of spending on research and development in Britain during the recession. Productivity in manufacturing has continued, almost uniquely in the recession, to increase. In October and November, it increased on average by about 6·3 per cent., which is the best since the best years in the 1980s.
    Possibly most important of all, attitudes among people involved in business, the work force, as it used to be called, and management—thank heavens the distinction is now reducing—have become much more flexible and cooperative. A recent survey by Birmingham business school found that only 15 per cent. of manual male workers in Europe worked more than 45 hours a week, while in Britain it was 38 per cent. Therefore, the idea of a British disease and problems with industrial relations is now well and truly buried.
    Also significant was the fact, discovered by the CBI, that the value added by British workers when a foreign investor came here was no less than 46 per cent. greater than it was for indigenous British companies. That shows
    850
    the flexibility that British workers can show when good management comes in from overseas. Rover has recently been able to show the benefits of changing the role of shop floor workers between sales and manufacturing functions. Former shop floor workers have sold no fewer than 3,000 vehicles in a new range in six weeks—an average of 500 cars a week.
    Lemmerz, the biggest German wheelmaker, has decided to move its wheel-making capacity from just outside Bonn to my constituency because it recognises that British costs, competitiveness and workers can produce the goods better than the Germans. It told me that, as a result of the social costs with which the Germans have burdened themselves, 80 per cent. has to be added to the average wage cost, compared with only 35 per cent. in Britain—hence the large movement in investment from Europe to Britain.
    Those improvements in productivity will translate into more sales and more jobs only in the medium term. Germany lost 3·3 per cent. of its output last year and Japan lost 8·5 per cent., while the United Kingdom lost just under 1 per cent. Similarly, the proportion in manufacturing industry has dropped, too. In Britain during the past 10 years, it dropped from 26 to 20 per cent. of the work force, in Germany from 41 to 28 per cent. and in Japan from 36 to 29 per cent.
    It is estimated that, as manufacturing output has fallen, half of manufacturing workers today are in service jobs. General Motors receives about one fifth of its revenue from the service industry. The Engineering Employers Federation recognises that, between 1982 and 1991, the increase in demand for goods in Britain was about 16 per cent.—that was from the general public, the consumer whom we all serve—while the increase in demand for services was no less than 55 per cent. That is one reason why the number of people employed in services is increasing compared with those in manufacturing.
    Nevertheless, despite the improvements in manufacturing productivity during the past few years, we still face a challenge. That was recognised by the CBI in the document that it sent round only today, in which it talks about the United Kingdom still not being internationally competitive. Whatever measure one takes, we are significantly less competitive than the United States and slightly less competitive than the Germans.
    How are we to respond to that challenge? It will not be by imbibing the inflexibilities that are connected with the social chapter or the minimum wage, or with an alien attitude towards inward investment—all attitudes shared by the Opposition. Nor will it be an obsession that manufacturing efficiency and competitiveness in the long term can be assured by bunging subsidies into individual companies. We did that when, as taxpayers, we wrote off £750 million in DAF. Sadly, that investment did not do it much good in the long term.
    What the Government can do—what I should like to see done—is to make greater use of straight line investment allowances in order to allow industry to write off its capital investment much more quickly than at present. I am not a believer in 100 per cent. capital investment allowances on a permanent basis, because that distorts investment decisions and anyway is an inefficient use of taxpayers' money. However, on a straight line basis, it could be a good thing.
    I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is in charge of reducing regulations. One of the first things he could

    851
    consider is VAT inspectors who somehow consider that they have a role as private amateur detectives. I was in a company yesterday which said that it had had forcibly to remove one VAT inspector from its premises because he was so objectionable.
    I should like a big increase in one-stop shops. I do not see why they should be run by the training and enterprise councils. Most important of all for the carpet industry is more rigorous monitoring of international standards to ensure that we compete on a level playing field. After five years, despite the ruling of the European Court, the Belgian Government have not been repaid £5 million of illegal subsidies by their biggest carpet manufacturer. There is now evidence that the Walloon regional government has slipped its second largest carpet manufacturer—my constituency has a large number of carpet manufacturers—no less than £6 million in illegal subsidies. If Maastricht is to mean anything at all, it should mean better monitoring in order to take action against such nonsense.
    The best way in which the Government could improve the lot of manufacturing industry is by getting out of its way, reducing regulations, reducing taxation and ensuring that inflation is as low as possible, thus allowing industry to become competitive and the British people, with their entrepreneurial spirit, to make their way and thereby retake world markets.
    It is no coincidence at all that, during the past 10 years and irrespective of the recession, our present share of world trade has at last started to increase again. It is the result of those policies during the past 10 years.
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: There has been universal praise for the speech by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but the speech by the Secretary of State was one of the most outrageous cynicism. It was full of devices and diversions, but it contained no policy, no hope and no relevance. It was massive in its cheek and tawdry in its vision.
    The Prime Minister should adopt a national strategy for economic recovery, and the right hon. Gentleman should encourage the core industry of steel and the highly skilled aerospace industry. I want Britain's 3 million unemployed to be placed at the very top of the political agenda. There is no national future without a strong manufacturing base—manufacturing industry is wealth.
    Tens of thousands of jobs are being lost in the aerospace industry. The airbus is a case in point. A factory in my constituency makes the wings for the airbus, but I regret to tell the House that it announced 470 job losses only this week. Apprentices are not to be retained, notwithstanding the wonderful training they were given, and no more apprenticeships are on offer. White collar and blue collar suffer alike. That is a wounding blow, and the whole economy is shocked.
    Last week, I attended a roll-out ceremony in Hamburg of the new A321 airbus. In one of the largest hangars that I know, 3,000 people—some of them my constituents—acclaimed that triumph of aeronautical engineering. However, those of my constituents who work at the local
    852
    factory returned home to Wales to be informed of the job losses. Those jobs are among the finest and most important in world manufacturing.
    The recession apart, President Clinton is threatening the future of the airbus. At the headquarters of the Boeing corporation in Seattle, he told a cheering work force that he meant business against the Europeans. In effect, he played to the Boeing gallery. He should have made a speech along these lines: "Gentlemen of Boeing, the airbus project is not only your most vigorous competitor but technically superior to the aircraft you make. Airbus is knocking lumps out of Boeing."
    The Prime Minister should remind President Clinton that Boeing and McDonnell Douglas have received up to $41 million of indirect subsidies since 1976, first from the Defence Department, then from NASA. The Prime Minister should remind him also that British Aerospace has received only £700 million of launch aid, and has already repaid a large amount of that from sales.
    I want the Prime Minister, with Britain's manufacturing future in mind, to insist that the United States keeps to the letter of the airbus agreement, and tell President Clinton that he should back off making threats about the airbus, which represents the best of futures for Britain's manufacturing industry. It is the privilege of the Prime Minister to fight for and to defend the airbus.
    Also made in my constituency is BAe's world-famous 125 corporate jet, but the work force for that wonderful aircraft are perplexed. The corporate jet headquarters is now registered in Little Rock, Arkansas—the home of the President of the United States. The British work force are proud of their work in making a world-beating aircraft at the Broughton factory, but they are anxious about the 125's long-term future.
    I can do no better than quote the works convener, Mike Nesbitt:
    "Indications are that, in the near future, a large part of the business will transfer to the new 125 Jet headquarters in President Clinton's Arkansas, with resulting loss of British jobs."
    I should like a Minister to comment on that. My constituents are helping Britain to make magnificent goods, and is generating earnings from abroad by the making of them. My constituents would like to have their anxieties dispelled.
    If we allow the country's manufacturing industry to whither away, we shall be in dire national trouble. We will be unable to fund the welfare state. We know that already £100 billion of North sea revenues have been squandered by successive Conservative Administrations since 1979. In the early 1980s, some 20 per cent. of the nation's manufacturing capacity went to the wall. Officially—although this total is disputed—the number unemployed stands at 3 million. In Wales since 1979, 220,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. In Wales, the construction industry also is reeling.
    Britain, Wales and my constituency need a Government who have a national strategy to save what is left of the country's manufacturing industry.
    7.46 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has never been a good forecaster. When he addressed the House on national health reforms in the late 1980s, he forecast mayhem, yet those reforms proved to be a great success—[interruption]

    853
    Opposition Members laugh. They forget that many more patients are treated now than five years ago and that doctors have achieved the targets that the hon. Member for Livingston said could not be achieved.
    In a more light-hearted vein, I am told that the only people to benefit from the hon. Gentleman's racing forecasts in the Glasgow ?Herald are the bookmakers, because he nearly always gets them wrong. He certainly got it wrong this evening. The hon. Gentleman turns out to be an old-fashioned protectionist who believes that the industries of the 1940s and the 1950s will ensure prosperity in the 21st century.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) complained about unemployment in his constituency. That was particularly rum, coming from a member of a party which at the last general election wanted to legislate 2 million people into unemployment by introducing a national minimum wage, and would deter inward investment by imposing the social chapter and frustrating the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
    Labour Members are suffering from collective amnesia. They forget the situation that existed in 1979. Britain's most important manufacturing sector is the automobile industry. In 1979, it was overmanned and over-subsidised, and its industrial relations were so bad that Red Robbo, rather than management, ruled British Leyland. It suffered also from the special car tax. Today, British Leyland's industrial relations have been transformed, special car tax has been abolished, and the British car industry looks forward to being a net exporter again. In February, there was a 16 per cent. increase in new car sales in this country. That is the measure of the transformation, which Labour should support rather than condemn.
    Steel is another vital part of our manufacturing base. In 1979, it was nationalised, overmanned and over-subsidised, and among the lame ducks of the European steel industries. Today, it is in the private sector and is regarded as the most efficient steel industry in western Europe. Labour does not understand industry, the process of economic change, and the fact that a market economy is the main engine of economic and social growth. Indeed, Labour Members do not support or understand the market economy. When talking about the market, they seem to imply that it is like a second-hand car boot sale: they simply do not understand that it represents the only way in which to secure growth. Socialism is not the way in which to secure growth.
    Let us look at what has happened to our country since 1979. Let us examine all the great industrial changes that have taken place since then, generating greater prosperity for our people. All those changes have been opposed by the Labour party. What has Labour done about industrial relations? When Bills have been presented to improve industrial relations, what have Labour Members said? Have they said that such Bills will create more jobs, or encourage inward investment? Of course not: they are in hock to their paymasters, and they do what their paymasters say, not what the country needs. They have voted against those Bills, seeking to frustrate the Government; they are not concerned about industrial relations in this country.
    Hon. Members: Who pays you?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I cannot allow general conversations across the Floor.
    Mr. Marshall: I am told that not enough people pay my party. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) would like to give us some names. Then we can ask the organisations concerned whether they will give us some money: I suspect that we need it.
    One of the greatest developments since 1979 has been the process of privatisation, which took place in the face of Labour opposition. That great concept has now been copied throughout the western world, in the former communist countries and in Australia, where even the Labour party supports it. The only party in the world that opposes it is the British Labour party, which cannot understand the huge surge in prosperity and investment in formerly socialist industries.
    What does Labour want to do to the successful privatised industries to encourage them to become more efficient and successful, and to generate more jobs? It wants to impose a special levy on their profits. Would that do anything for investment in British Steel, British Telecom or Cable and Wireless? Of course it would not. Labour would cut off investment in BT, Cable and Wireless and the water industry, all in the name of socialism—and that is what it calls part of a job-creating package. It is not a job-creating package; it is a job-destroying package.
    The record of the privatised companies is first rate. In 1979 British Airways was losing hundreds of millions of pounds, and could not care less about the consumer. No wonder that today, in the private sector, it is the world's favourite airline. Since becoming part of the private sector, British Telecom has increased investment by over 50 per cent., and has also increased productivity: now it is one of the most efficient telecommunications companies, whereas in 1979 it was not. In 1979, the quality of BT's service was second-rate everywhere; today it is first-rate, because BT is in the private sector, and faces competition that it would never have faced without privatisation.
    Privatisation transformed whole swathes of British industry: every time an industry was privatised, however, it was privatised in the face of opposition from Labour.
    Another great movement over the past 10 years has been investment by Japan and the United States, which has transformed large sectors of our economy. We are now net exporters of television sets, and are becoming net exporters of motor cars, simply because of our success in encouraging new industries to come to Britain. Labour does not understand what encourages such investment. First, we have a low-tax economy; secondly, we are part of the European community. If we had listened to Labour in 1983; we would have walked out of the Community.
    Those companies come to Britain for another reason: they know that the social chapter will not be imposed on them here for as long as we have a Conservative Government. They know that they will enjoy the benefit of the single market without the obligations that are imposed on industries in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. That is why Hoover went from Dijon to Cambuslang, and Digital went from Galway to Ayr. Hon. Members should recognise and welcome that, and condemn a political party that seeks to destroy the United Kingdom's attractiveness to inward investors. Every Japanese and American company that comes here creates jobs, and helps the balance of payments.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the balance of payments. Our balance of payments is £20 billion in the red. What has happened?
    Mr. Marshall: I think that that figure contains an element of exaggeration. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that inward investment has enabled this country to become a net exporter of television sets, and to become a net exporter of motor cars once more. I am proud of the fact that Nissan cars, manufactured in Britain, sell in Tokyo; the hon. Gentleman should be proud of it, too. It represents the rejuvenation of British manufacturing industry that the present Government have brought about.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I want to talk about the north-east. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) cited successful companies such as Nissan; it should be pointed out that Nissan was given tens of millions of pounds to build a factory in the north-east. That was nothing more than a subsidy for a private company—albeit Japanese—to come to the area.
    I do not decry Nissan; it has been a success and is producing cars very cheaply. One of my worries relates to unemployment in the north and in my constituency in particular. The unemployment rate in the north is one of the highest in the United Kingdom and I am concerned about the current trend. I have examined the figures carefully. After the closure of the colliery where I had worked for 27 years, I was unemployed for 12 months, so I have some experience of unemployment. I can tell the House that it is not very nice: it is not pretty, signing on for the dole every week and trying to find work when there is none to be had.
    The increase in unemployment is worrying. In the north-east, there has been an 81 per cent. increase since 1979; since 1990, there has been an increase of 32 per cent. Although the area has experienced some success since 1979, there has been a steady increase in unemployment. With the start of the recession of the 1990s, the position has worsened.
    Since 1990, there has been a 30 per cent. increase in unemployment among the under-25s in the north-east. In the long term, the position is even worse: unemployment has risen by 49 per cent. since 1990. Manufacturing output has fallen by only 38 per cent. since 1979, but there has still been a great increase in unemployment. Why has there been such a large increase in unemployment, when manufacturing has not suffered to such a great extent?
    In my constituency, 33 per cent. of the unemployed population have been unemployed for a year or more. I asked the local employment office whether that was the highest figure that it had ever had. The manager said that since he had been there, there the figure had never been as high. A trend is developing, so I was surprised that the President of the Board of Trade did not even mention unemployment in his speech. He was just one bag of wind, talking about nothing but himself.
    Engineering manufacturing has dropped by 11 per cent. in the north-east. We have heard tonight that the outlook for the miners is not very rosy, especially in the north-east. Many engineering companies in the north-east depend upon the mines, so if the pits in the north-east have to close, unemployment will double.
    856
    We have heard about privatisation in the debate, but I remember what happened under nationalisation before privatisation. I remember that when, under nationalisation, the boards wanted to raise the price of electricity and coal, Governments, including Tory Governments, did not allow them to raise their prices. The Government laid a dead hand on nationalised industries, but as soon as these industries were privatised, the bills doubled, then trebled and then quadrupled. Before we knew where we were, the bills were enormous. That has been proved; the figures are there for all to see. Privatisation is not efficient. All that has happened is that prices have increased. I ask the Minister to look at the price increases that these so-called wonderful privatised industries have introduced.
    Mr. John Marshall: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in industries such as telecommunications, the regulator has imposed a formula that ensures that prices go up by very much less than any increase in the cost of living, and that in 1993 they will go down?
    Mr. Campbell: I will give a little bit there because, of all the privatised industries, British Telecom is the best, but that has not happened to electricity and gas prices. There has been an enormous increase in those bills since privatisation. I challenge the Minister to bring those figures to the Dispatch Box.
    The former Prime Minister referred to rolling back the carpet of socialism, so I look at what rolling back the carpet of socialism has done to this country. I see that manufacturing is disappearing. I also see unemployed people, particularly unemployed young people. One of my sons is out of work and struggling to find some sort of job somewhere in my constituency.
    Last weekend we read in our local Newcastle newspaper, the Sunday Sun, that the Department of Social Security in Long Benton, which deals with unemployment claims, is to have its work put out to contract. An American company that uses child labour in the Philippines, at 38p an hour, is to be asked to do the work. Over 1,000 jobs in the Long Benton DSS office will disappear. They will be done by deaf mutes in the Philippines. Those are the sort of people who are used by American companies to do computer work. It is a disgrace that the Government are allowing that contract to go ahead, with the loss of over 1,000 jobs.
    Unemployment is the greatest evil of our time. It was an evil in the 1930s and it is an evil now. I never like trying to connect unemployment with crime, but when young people have idle hands and nothing to do they create trouble. When we see kids on the street stealing cars and doing all these other things, we have to ask ourselves why they are not working. When I left school—25 of us left school at the same time—half of us went to work at the local colliery, while the other half went to build ships. Now they are going to close the collieries. The Swan Hunter shipyard might also close. Where will these kids find jobs? Of course they are on the streets. Of course they are causing trouble. They have no hope. They have no vision. They have nothing, because the Government have given them nothing. YTS is not the answer for these young kids.
    I ask the Minister to look at providing decent apprenticeship schemes. Nowadays, I never hear of kids who are apprentices. My local authority has had to cut out apprenticeships because it does not have the money for them. Like most other authorities, it has been capped.

    857
    The young are the most important people in this country. Crime is increasing because unemployment is increasing. I believe that the two go together and that they should be dealt with very quickly.
    8.5 pm
    Dr. Liam Fox: One of the constant threads through the debate has been the so-called long-term decline of British manufacturing. That ought to worry any hon. Member. It was a worry at one time. Throughout the 20 years until 1982, the United Kingdom's share of world manufacturing exports fell from 15 to 8 per cent., almost halving our share of manufacturing exports. That was a worry for the Conservative Government who were in power for part of that time. It does not come well from the Opposition to lecture us about manufacturing decline when the greatest part of our decline in manufacturing exports since the second world war came during the period when they were in power for the longest period.
    When we came to power in 1979, we were faced with many problems in the British economy that had become almost intractable, not the least of which was nationalisation. Under nationalisation, our economy was never given a chance to work. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) put his finger on the point when he said that it was a dead hand. That is exactly what nationalisation was. No economic decisions were made under nationalisation. Only political decisions were made. They plagued the economy. It was never allowed to function in the market-oriented way that business needs if it is to survive. There was no market discipline whatsoever under nationalisation. Politicians made decisions that suited their constituencies, not the country's economy.
    When we came to power, we inherited subsidy, protection, import restriction, inefficiency, overmanning, restrictive practices, frequent strikes and, as a legacy of the last Labour Government because of their Industrial Relations Act 1976, the strikers' charter. We had to deal with those problems through our supply-side reforms. We introduced five employment Acts, all of which were opposed by the Labour party and by the trade union movement, whose greatest wish, from 1979 onwards, seemed to be to see Britain's vitals displayed on a bed of lettuce internationally. We decided that the problem had to be tackled head on.
    Last year, 500,000 working days were lost due to industrial disputes. In 1979, when we came to power, 29 million working days were lsot due to industrial disputes. It has fallen to the lot of the Conservative Government to come to the rescue of the British work force against the trade union barons and the wishes of the Labour party.
    There has been another spin-off. There are now better management practices. We have removed the dead hand of Government interference at every level of management practice. Therefore, better management has developed. I believe that we shall see the development of even better management. Further supply-side reform is still required. There needs to be further deregulation. Under the previous Labour Government, there were 27,000 different kinds of regulation, all of which have been abolished.
    The most important factor has been privatisation. Forty-six major businesses have been privatised; two thirds of the state sector has returned to where it belongs, in the private sector. Since then we have seen massive
    858
    increases in productivity. Someone mentioned British Steel earlier—in 1979, because of the ridiculous overmanning that existed in the industry, it took 13·2 man hours to produce a tonne of steel; now it takes 4·8 man hours. Under nationalised British Leyland, we produced six cars per employee in 1979; under privatised Rover, we produce 25 cars per employee.
    There was more. We decided that we needed a low-tax, low-inflation regime if business was to thrive. Our corporation tax is now lower than that in any other European Community or G7 country. Our small company rate has come down from 42 to 25 per cent., and our inflation, which averaged 15·5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, peaking at 26·9 per cent.—[interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may laugh at that, but it is nothing to laugh at; it is rather a matter for shame.
    Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman care to explain the part that the Barber boom Budget played in inflation before we started to get it under control?
    Dr. Fox: Yes, indeed. Any Government who fail to control monetary policy will certainly get a bout of inflation. We are perfectly willing to accept that mistakes were made in 1987–88—but for the Labour party to pretend that for its entire period of office it was stuck with the legacies of a Conservative Government is nonsense, considering that the Labour Government refused to impose any discipline whatever except that imposed by the International Monetary Fund—when they absolutely had to accept it, because the country was broke.
    Between 1982 and 1989 manufacturing output grew by an average of 3·7 per cent. a year, and manufacturing exports by an average of 6 per cent. per year. Manufacturing investment—which the Labour party claims does not exist—grew by 7·5 per cent. per year. All three reached all-time records.
    I do not expect the Labour party to understand that. Labour Members do not understand market economics, and believe that everything is measured by the number of people employed in an industry. They do not believe that health is measured by the number of patients treated; they believe that it is measured by the amount of money spent and the number of people employed. We have given up trying to educate Labour Members. Perhaps we should simply stick to the facts. We do not expect them to understand that, in 1990, profitability was 50 per cent. higher than its previous peak in 1979. They do not understand profits or dividends.
    Since 1981, United Kingdom manufacturing exports have grown by 66 per cent. more than those of any other G7 country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, we are now a net exporter of television sets, with a trade surplus of £440 million last year. Scotland supplies 40 per cent. of the desktop computers used in Europe—and those exports now earn twice as much as whisky exports. Those are all great achievements. It is beyond me why the Labour party always refuses to accept anything good that happens in this country.
    We have hit specific problems with the recession, but the 7·5 per cent. fall in output that has taken place during the recession is only half the fall that occurred during the 1981 recession—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laughs while I am making this

    859
    important point. He probably fails to understand that the current recession is caused by a lack of demand, and not by a structural incapacity to supply. The Opposition's great weakness—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to listen to him—is that, according to their logic, we cannot recover from a 7·5 per cent. fall in output. Yet from a fall in output twice as big in 1981, we recovered to reach record levels of output, exports and investment, as I have already said. I do not see the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras jumping up now to defend the logic of this case.
    Mr. Frank Dobson: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why demand has fallen?
    Dr. Fox: Demand has fallen because there is a fall in consumer confidence, because the money supply in this country was out of kilter, and because there is an international recession. I should have thought that even the economic simpletons on the Opposition Front Bench might have managed to understand that.
    I want to say one or two things about our manufacturing companies. Despite Labour attempts to rewrite history, our success in the 1980s did not extend only to the service sector. Between 1979 and 1990 about 4,300 manufacturing companies were created per year, compared with 1,200 per year between 1963 and 1979, when we came to office. That is a proud record. The number of VAT-registered businesses in manufacturing has increased from 144,000 in 1980 to 171,000 now. That is another record of which I am proud.
    There are problems with our manufacturing base in that it forms a smaller proportion of our GDP than it once did, but the fastest fall took place between 1960 and 1983. If we measure GDP at constant 1985 prices, our proportion of GDP from manufacturing industry has risen from 20·4 to 20·9 per cent.—[Interruption.] Labour Members are jeering, because that is the only intellectual level that they can achieve. They cannot understand that the United Kingdom now has specific advantages.
    We have a stable democracy with a stable Government who have already been in office for a long time—although nothing like as long as they will be in office. We have a free-market Government admired by our competitors, we have English as the natural trading language, we have a competitive tax regime, low interest rates, good industrial relations—the Labour party never managed to give us those—and now we have a competitive exchange rate free from the strictures of the exchange rate mechanism, good international transport links—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.
    8.15 pm
    Ms Estelle Morris: I was disappointed by the opening speech of the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that industry is now looking for a new approach and wants him to signal that he is prepared to listen and to work with it. The fact that he did not do so will be regretted by the people who are in industry trying to make it work.
    I represent an area whose history reads like a history of manufacturing industry in this country. Birmingham and
    860
    the west midlands have been central to our country's development. Our region has been the home for steel and iron, coal and cloth, cars and aeroplanes. It has helped to create the wealth of this nation. Its people have been inventors, designers, entrepreneurs and engineers. But because our prosperity depends on the manufacturing industry, under the Conservative Government it, and our future, are in jeopardy.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Morris: No, I am sorry—because of the time limit I shall not give way.
    The west midlands now has the third worst unemployment record in Britain. It has the largest number of long-term unemployed people. Unemployment among the under-25s has almost doubled over the past three years alone. The west midlands has seen the largest reduction in the number of people in work anywhere in the country.
    When we consider the statistics surrounding manufacturing industry, it is not hard to see why that is. We have experienced the biggest loss of manufacturing jobs anywhere in the country. One fifth of all jobs lost in the nation's manufacturing sector have been lost in the west midlands. The effect on Birmingham and the other cities in the region has been devastating. Fifty people are chasing every job vacancy; £2·6 billion is being spent every year on keeping people out of work. Month after month, the list of household name companies that are making workers redundant grows—Alvis and Tarmac, Lucas and GKN, Cadbury and Rover.
    Which constituency in Birmingham has had the highest increase in unemployment over the past three years? It is not Sparkbrook, Small Heath or Yardley—my constituency—but the leafy, affluent suburb represented by the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). The right hon. Gentleman has seen unemployment in his constituency increase by 127 per cent. over the past three years. That is how widespread unemployment is in the city of Birmingham. That is the depth of the recession in the west midlands.
    The Government cannot escape their share of responsibility, as they seek to do time and time again. Opposition Members and some people outside the House are saying that we have a do-nothing Government—a Government with a hands-off approach, who do not intervene—and I share that view. Although that may be true, what is more worrying is that, when they do intervene, they get it wrong. They intervened to raise interest rates and factories closed; they intervened to reduce local council spending and redundancies increased; and they intervened to increase VAT and consumer demand dropped. I am not sure whether we are better off when the Government intervene or when they do not. Whichever approach they take, they get the formula wrong again and again.
    The most common message that I get from industrialists and workers in my constituency, in Birmingham and in the west midlands is that, because the Government do not understand them, they cannot help them. They say so because they have looked at the evidence. They tell me that a Government who understood industry would not have had a tax regime which deterred

    861
    investment, and that a Government who understood industry would not cut money for training and would regulate bank lending policy.
    What the Government do not realise—and why industrialists feel that they do not understand them—is that if they are going to support manufacturing industry, they must take into account the consequences upon it of their actions. If one cuts spending on education, has no energy policy, and has no programme for re-skilling people, one damages industry.
    As the Engineering Employers Federation said, when launching its "Manifesto for Jobs and Growth" last year:
    "The United Kingdom is an industrial nation with al., anti-industrial culture."
    Nowhere can that be seen better than in Birmingham during the past six months.
    When the President of the Board of Trade announced his pit closure programme last September, he seemed not to have given any thought to its effect on the rest of manufacturing industry. When he gave his reasons for the decision, I never heard him say how much he had taken that into account, but £100 million of British manufacturing money is tied up in the mining industry, and half as much again in exports. If, because of pit closures, the home market for that sector of manufacturing industry falls, their export market could go as well.
    Latch and Bachelor, in my constituency, is not a mining firm and does not dig coal but manufactures the finest winding gear in the world. It is a small family firm, with a history going back 270 years in Birmingham, and it has orders for 30 of our mines and an export order book worth £1 million. Last September, that firm's survival was put at risk because the President of the Board of Trade did not appear to have considered the effects of his coal plan on the rest of manufacturing industry.
    The plan affects not only Latch and Bachelor but firms throughout the west midlands, such as John Butlin, which provides transport, J. J. Gallagher, which does construction work, and Lyndhurst engineering, the millwrights. The future of all those manufacturing companies is tied up with that of British Coal.
    Last September, the President of the Board of Trade turned his back not only on the mining industry and mining communities but on manufacturing industries and their communities. Within six months, having not learned his lesson, he did exactly the same again. He failed to deliver when Leyland DAF needed short-term help to ensure a secure and profitable long-term future. Again, it was as though he was blinkered to the effects of any decline or closure of Leyland DAF on the whole manufacturing sector.
    Leyland DAF is not all that is at risk. There are also the firms that tool their equipment, those that sell them parts and those that manufacture materials. They are all victims of a Government who will not put manufacturing industry at the heart of their industrial policy, and that is what the EEF meant when it talked about an industrial nation that is trying to operate in "an anti-industrial culture".
    Government manufacturing policy lacks a strategy, vision and cohesion. Unless someone in the Government begins to draw the threads together and to put manufacturing industry at the centre of Government considerations, we shall not climb out of the recession and we shall not bring jobs back.
    Yet, even in these difficult times, there is great optimism in the west midlands and in Birmingham, where we have
    862
    great reason for feeling that we can succeed. We have a highly skilled work force and people who are willing to learn skills and new skills. We have women and men with ideas, inventions and initiative, industrialists with ambition and local authorities that wish to support them. That is what the west midlands manufacturing sector has to offer this nation. Quite honestly, it is an offer that the Government cannot afford to turn down.
    However, in accepting what the west midlands has to offer to the regeneration of the economy and industry, the Government have to make a commitment to a partnership. Their role is to end short-termism, to invest in training, to spread knowledge about new technology, to support research, to adopt a tax structure to help investment and —most of all—to give a commitment to listen and to take their share of responsibility.
    8.25 pm
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). She referred to this country's cultural problems over manufacturing industry, but I suspect that she and other Opposition Members would concede that the origins of those problems go far deeper into our history than recent events or Governments.
    The hon. Member for Yardley also spoke of her constituency. It is common ground in the House this evening that jobs in our constituencies, including mine, depend on the success of manufacturing industry.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly, because of my link with the parliamentary all-party group for engineering development, and my attempt, so far as one can specialise in this House, to maintain my interest in it in recent years.
    I hope that two basic themes will emerge from my remarks. First, hon. Members and people outside should not talk down the achievements of our manufacturing industry, which are very great. I was able to discuss that at greater length during a Christmas Adjournment debate on engineering on Monday 14 December, which lasted one and a half hours.
    The second theme is that it is important that we remain ahead of our competitors in technical developments and innovation. If we do not remain ahead if them in research, development and innovation, there will be no future for our manufacturing industry, no matter what other policies the Government put in place. Those remarks have implications for education, training and skills. I think that the Secretary of State for Employment is going to reply to the debate, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pass on the message to the Department that it is good to pay tribute to the efforts that my hon. Friends are making to improve our skills training, to the good of manufacturing industry.
    The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was reticent on the question of productivity, which is crucial to the success of our manufacturing industry. That was not surprising, because, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the league table for productivity growth among major industrial nations—a very poor record.
    Bearing in mind the remarks made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman at the start of the debate, it is important to remind the House of the appalling record of

    863
    Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s. It reduced our ability to compete in world markets. My hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) made very clearly indeed—much more effectively than I have time to do—the point that those were the years of overmanning, of ineffective management, of industrial chaos. But under the present Government, we are making productivity gains that are crucial to the success of our manufacturing industry. Technical innovation and improved productivity must be the right way forward.
    A recent CBI report said that the achievements of our manufacturing industry tend to be played down or ignored. It referred to the attitude of the media. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked about the popularity of the media as a career for young people. I was as horrified as my hon. Friends, and, indeed, Opposition Members, at my hon. Friend's revelation. Ultimately, the media have a responsibility—a responsibility that they are not facing up to—to emphasise the positive with regard to our achievements in engineering and manufacturing and our concern in general. Undoubtedly they have a right to criticise and to probe. They have a right to uncover things that are going wrong, but they also have a responsibility to emphasise our achievements and successes. The CBI was right to draw attention to this matter.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has drawn attention in recent speeches to the current deficit in manufactured goods and to the need to increase our share of trade in capital goods. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are right to continue to emphasise the importance of manufacturing industry, which has been a common theme in this debate. Hardly a day passes without a leading industrialist arguing against any half-hearted commitment to Europe and the single market. Progress with the single market and with the Maastricht treaty is vital to the future of trade and of manufacturing industry.
    I should like to place on record my hope that, under the leadership of the present Government, we can get through the process of ratifying the Maastricht treaty as soon as possible—hopefully, with more assistance from Opposition Members than we have had in recent debates. That is where the responsibility for the current delay lies. Opposition Members who, like me, support the early ratification of the Maastricht treaty ought to adopt a more responsible attitude. But this is not a debate on the Maastricht treaty. We have had enough of those for the time being.
    It is high-tech companies that will lead the way. The link between technical progress and industrial progress has been well supported by all the academic research and literature that has been studied by those of us who have the time to do so. Success in high-level technology comes from the correct deployment of engineering and manufacturing skills.
    I should like to put on record a number of things that I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will do their best to encourage. I hope that they will do all they can to encourage an increase in the amount of research and development going on in our companies. I hope that, in collaboration with their colleagues in the Department of Education, they will do all they can to
    864
    increase the number of support personnel trained at NVQ levels 3 and 4. After all, we have a good record in the production of skilled engineers at the very top level. We do not have such a good record in the production of the technician support that is needed in industry. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that point on board. I have made it before, and I shall no doubt return to it.
    I hope that Ministers will do all they can to move away from short-termism, which has been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is indeed a problem. Those responsible for investing in industry need to look more to the long term.

    Finally, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at the current structure of engineering in this country and do what they can to support those in the profession who are trying to end its rather hierarchical and Victorian organisation. I realise that this is something the profession has to do itself, but if we can encourage the process, that will be to the benefit of manufacturing industry.
    The question of attitude and culture has been referred to. As a nation, we need to accept that our future prosperity and self-respect depend on our attitude to creative and innovative work in industry. Conservative Governments since 1979 have helped industry by sharpening incentives, curbing excessive union power, curbing inflation, which is now down to 1·7 per cent.—the lowest level for 25 years—and facilitating the continuous process of deregulation and the removal of red tape. Of course, all of this is diametrically opposite to the job-destroying panaceas that have been deployed by Opposition Members, not only today but in earlier policy pronouncements.
    Our aim must be to make sure that British industry is at the forefront of technical advance. I, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, shall do all I can to support Ministers in their endeavours to encourage this. We must take every opportunity to make our manufacturing industry a success.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: In a debate on manufacturing, it is important that someone from Coventry should make a contribution. I am aware of the fact that many hon. Members want to take part, and, in effect, I am speaking also for my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).
    Having heard other hon. Members refer to manufacturing interests in their constituencies, I must say that Coventry had the lot. Coventry was at the heart of the manufacturing industry of this country. It is known for cars, but we had machine tools, defence, the aircraft industry. A roll call of the names of the companies that existed in Coventry is an indication of the very basis of British industry as it was—Jaguar, Peugeot, Talbot, Standard-Triumph, Alfred Herbert, Wickman, Webster and Bennett, Rolls Royce, GEC. We had them all.
    I suppose that, with the restructuring that took place, it was inevitable that some of those names would disappear. But some of them disappeared unnecessarily because of the policies that the Conservatives have pursued since they came to power. We have had roller-coaster policies, with no stability, no strategy and no thought for the basic wealth creation of the country.

    865
    The first part of the roller-coaster was the deepest and worst recession that we have seen since the 1930s. In the first couple of years of the Conservative Administration, we lost 20 per cent. of our manufacturing base—20 per cent. that disappeared, never to reappear. That was a hammer blow to places like Coventry, where the 20 per cent. was absolutely disproportionate. The economy and communities were decimated.
    The second part of the roller-coaster was the crazy, unplanned, unthought-out consumer boom of the 1980s, when we were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—what a wonderful Chancellor he was: unassailable and with all the other qualities that were attributed to him—that we had achieved an economic miracle and made the breakthrough. We had a consumer boom based almost entirely on an appalling level of personal debt, which was deliberately encouraged to reach such heights that the second recession was inevitable. What we are experiencing now is the longest, if not the deepest, recession since the war.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that Conservative Members have made much of the interventionist policies of previous Labour Governments and certain Conservative ones. Is it not ironic that the President of the Board of Trade offered nothing to assist industries, especially those in the west midlands and in Coventry in particular? After all, in the early 1970s, it was a Conservative Government who had to intervene on behalf of the aircraft industry in Coventry. Had they not done so, we would have no aircraft industry today.
    Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is ironic that, within the next few days, Rolls-Royce is due to announce a number of redundancies, as yet unquantified, which will have a serious effect not only on that company but on its subcontractors and general employment opportunities in the city?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the continuing recession will add to the unemployment problem in Coventry.
    In this second recession, some 7,200 of my constituents are now unemployed. In the past two years, the number of people who have been thrown out of work has gone up by 57 per cent. I accept that that increase might be lower than that suffered in other areas, but that is simply because we started from such an appallingly high level of unemployment. Parts of my constituency and other parts of Coventry have been in recession for as long as the Government have been in power. We have had not: two and a half years of recession, but 14 years of it, because Coventry is a manufacturing city and it is at the heart of our manufacturing base. For 14 years, however, the Government have not given a damn about manufacturing.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ainsworth: No, I will not, because of the time limit on speeches.
    In many parts of Coventry, the recession has lasted for a full 14 years, and the city has suffered from all the social problems that arise from that and which cost the rest of us
    866
    dear. People tend to ignore the cost of unemployment and see it as a personal tragedy for those who have lost their jobs, but it costs the rest of us a great deal.
    We were recently told that the Prime Minister had undergone a transformation; that he had come to the conclusion that, after all, the manufacturing base was important. He said that he had always held that view—unlike his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who was extremely vocal in his support of manufacturing when he was out of power but who changed his tune when he got back into it.
    The only puzzle is why on earth the Prime Minister never said anything in support of manufacturing while he sat in Cabinet meetings with his predecessor. We know that she was a formidable lady, but it seems that the Prime Minister kept absolutely quiet and said absolutely nothing about his heartfelt views on the importance of the manufacturing industry. Despite its alleged importance, nothing was done until now, when, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister recognised that his views, which were once held by the minority, are now held by the majority. Where on earth was he when all the lasting damage was done to our basic national interest?
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is it not true that, if this Pauline, Damascene conversion of the Prime Minister to the cause of manufacturing is sincere, the Budget could be used to restore capital allowances? That would give impetus to the investment that is needed in the west midlands, in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the city of Coventry.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I agree. That is not the only thing that could be done, but it could offer constructive help to support the manufacturing base.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ainsworth: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman should get one of his hon. Friends to give him some time.
    I remember the "Labour isn't Working" campaign that the Conservative party waged during its 1979 election campaign. How hollow those words now seem. In 14 years, the manufacturing base of this country has shrunk from providing 32 per cent. of our output to providing just 20 per cent. It is widely recognised that our manufacturing base is no longer of a size to support the living standards that we all wish to enjoy. We have become an economic pigmy and a second-world nation.
    The CBI has been quoted in support of the Government, but it has recently stated that our manufacturing base is
    "as yet insufficient to provide the critical mass necessary for a successful manufacturing economy."
    That is what 14 years of Tory rule has brought us. I attended a recent meeting with Mr. Howard Davies of the CBI. Conservative Members may tell us that there are signs of a recovery, but he said that those signs are no stronger than they were last May. He said that any recovery was simply discount-led.

    I believe that we are being told about signs of a recovery deliberately to avoid any effective action being taken in the Budget next week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), has suggested, the Budget could be one for jobs, recovery and investment. If that does not happen, it will be an absolute tragedy. That is what has been promised, and that is what we should be able to expect.

    867
    We should invest in our people. Let us see some sign of such investment from the Government in the Budget next week. Let us judge them on what they do, not on what they say.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Rod Richards: I believe that it was the 16th century Englishman, John Heywood, who said:
    "Who is so deaf or blind as is he
    That wilfully will neither hear nor see?"
    He could so easily have been writing about today's Labour party. His words would be a fitting epigram for a party that came in with the 20th century and will go out with it. It has been in opposition for such a long time that it can no longer distinguish between opposing the Government and opposing the country. That is why the Labour party takes every possible opportunity to spread doom and gloom whenever there is good news about the economy. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, whatever is good news for the country is bad news for the Labour party. The disgraceful vote by the Labour party last night against the Maastricht treaty is the latest addition to a long chapter of treachery against our economy.
    I propose to use the parameters laid down by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as a measure of the manufacturing sector, but I shall refer particularly to the manufacturing industry of Wales. Since 1983, the number of people employed in manufacturing in Wales has increased by some 3·3 per cent., and among ladies employment has increased by 12 per cent. Even if one uses the unfavourable year of 1986 as the base for such a comparison, the total number of people working in the manufacturing sector in Wales has gone up by 5 per cent. Since 1983, output in Wales has gone up by almost 32 per cent., and manufacturing investment has gone up by almost 150 per cent.
    It is interesting to consider the contribution that the Welsh manufacturing sector has made to the gross domestic product. In 1983, that contribution stood at 22·2 per cent., but by 1991 it had risen to 25·5 per cent. —an increase of 14·5 per cent. Since 1980, more than 800 manufacturing plants have opened in Wales, with the creation of 50,000 jobs.
    Mr. Peter Hain: How many have closed?
    Mr. Richards: That is exactly what I mean—the Labour party always looks at the negative side, never the positive.
    Recent evidence of growth in Wales is provided by the third-quarter index of production and construction for 1992, which showed that output had gone up by 1.4 per cent. on the previous quarter. A CBI survey on January 26 this year showed that business optimism had increased significantly. The chairman of the Welsh CBI, Sir Peter Phillips, said:
    "These results are encouraging and indicate that Welsh manufacturing firms began 1993 with improved expectations and greater optimism."
    Many countries abroad invest in Wales, Japan in particular. The Japanese say that Wales is the most popular location in the United Kingdom for their consumer electronics manufacturers. That is no small wonder when one considers that companies such as Hitachi, Kyushu, Matsushita, Orion, Sharp and Sony and
    868
    many others are among them. In a survey of Japanese companies that invest in Wales, one explanation given by all of them for investing in Wales is "the co-operative attitude of Government", to quote them.
    Economic commentators also agree about the optimistic state of manufacturing in Wales. The chief economist of the National Westminster Bank said recently of the Welsh economy:
    "The economy has become much more diversified than it was 10 years ago. An increasingly competitive and enterprising manufacturing sector is replacing more traditional industries, while the prominent financial and business services sector has become a major source of employment".
    The Labour party frequently attempts to cast a slur on the jobs that come to Wales. I draw their attention to a study conducted by the Cardiff business school, called "Japanese Investment in Wales: Economic and Social Consequences", which highlighted the research and development work being undertaken. Researchers found that, of the 23 manufacturing companies surveyed, nine had undertaken design work with one consumer electronics manufacturer intending to transfer major development work from Japan within the next couple of years.
    When the Labour party talks about Wales, it is talking about south Wales. I was fascinated the other day to learn that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in announcing an economic strategy for the whole of Wales, announced what amounted to no more than an itinerary for his hon. Friend to tour the Valleys. There was no mention of the manufacturing area in north Wales which I represent. I point out to the Labour party that, in the county of Clwyd, where my constituency is, since 1983 there have been 2,500 projects, amounting to an investment of £1 billion, creating 13,500 new jobs and protecting 2,700 other jobs.
    I say to the President of the Board of Trade that it is crucial for the future economy of Clwyd, notwithstanding all the good news and good investment that has taken place in the past 14 years, that the Hamilton gas development in Liverpool bay takes place. It is important, not only to north Wales, but also to Merseyside. Some £1.5 billion of investment and several thousand jobs are at stake.
    I urge my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give the go-ahead to the Connah's Quay power station, notwithstanding that he has the difficult choice to make between gas and coal. For my part of north Wales, it is vital that the Connah's Quay power station gets the go-ahead, and that the Hamilton gas project is also allowed to proceed.
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have to confess that after a decade spent working in television and a lifetime spent working in the Labour party, I am a great lover of melodrama, bad theatre and genuine ham acting. That was why I loved the speech given by the President of the Board of Trade today. It was a wonderful rant. He is becoming the Government's all-purpose rant boy. There is no problem so bad that it cannot be concealed by trundling out the President to give us a rant here in the Chamber.
    As for the other piece of bad theatre, I am really enthusiastic about watching the deathbed repentance scene that is being enacted by the entire Government after

    869
    14 years of clobbering, weakening, undermining and destroying manufacturing industry in this country. They now discover in extremis and in Downing street—they are probably the same place these days—that manufacturing is vital to the economy and that we need policies to rebuild the manufacturing heart of this economy.
    I am delighted that the repentance has come, but my worry is that it has probably come to late. Does the Prime Minister really mean it? He is moving from policy to policy like a drunk from lamp post to lamp post and one does not know whether he is just attaching himself to this lamp post and hiccupping slowly for a short while before moving off to another lamp post in that haphazard process that constitutes Government policy these days. Does he really mean it?
    It seems to me that the hope is that a kind of devaluation a la 1972 and 1973—a half ton of Ted, a little dollop of Bexley Sidcup devaluation—will alleviate the pain. Coming out of the exchange rate mechanism and letting the pound go down and getting the benefits of the growth as he did is the hope, but I am afraid that it will not work, because the problems of manufacturing are too deep-seated and the damage inflicted on manufacturing is too great for a little respray job, and the alleviation of the pain that has come with the pound going down, to work this time.
    We have a very deep-seated problem. The essence of it is that in this country, manufacturing output at the end of last year compared to 1970 is up by only 14 per cent. That is a record that has been equalled by no other country. Most manufacturing nations have increased their output by more than half and some have doubled in that period. Ours is up by 14 per cent., demand is up and that demand has been filled by imports. This is the key weakness of manufacturing and because output in this country has hardly gone up, demand is met by imports. Imports of finished manufactures are up by 754 per cent. in value since 1970 whereas exports of finished manufactures by value are up by 153 per cent.
    Therein lies the disaster, and the process of imports getting a deeper hold on our market than in any other competing economy. Manufacturing imports filled 37 per cent. of demand, on the last figures published by this Government. That was in 1989. They have stopped publishing the figures, so far as I can see, but it must now be about 42 per cent., double the proportion taken by manufactured imports in Germany, Italy and France. Therein lies the weakness of our manufacturing, which is losing its place. Therein lies the gaping balance of payments deficit that now obsesses the House. The value of imports of manufactures in 1992 exceeded exports by 12 per cent. We are just not paying our way in the world.
    Unless we produce, we cannot consume—and we cannot produce enough. That is the problem. Therein lies the loss of 3·5 million jobs in manufacturing. Usually, Conservative Members just attack Labour, but their only intelligent argument today has been that all manufacturing countries' manufacturing work forces are shrinking. That is certainly true, but nowhere has the shrinkage been as great as in this country. Those countries are producing much more with fewer workers. We are producing slightly more with a lot fewer workers—3·5 million fewer.
    The difficulty that the Government face is that they have stumbled into devaluation—they were forced into a competitive devaluation without understanding it. It is certainly true that an overvalued exchange rate has
    870
    constituted most of the cause of the problem. The fight against inflation led to higher exhange rates to keep imports cheap. Then there was the impact of North sea oil and the influence of finance, which wants a high and stable exchange rate, unlike the manufacturing sector. Then there was the fact of our deflated economy for much of the period. All these factors have meant high exchange rates.
    The costs of production as opposed to the costs of imported manufactured goods have, because of the exchange rate, risen by 39 per cent. since 1970. No supermarket that increased its prices by 39 per cent. compared with those of the competition would survive. How can a manufacturing nation that has done exactly that survive?
    The only way to get out of this is to reverse what has been happening. If overvaluation has caused the contraction of industry, it will be restored only by a competitive currency, and that will revive industry. Unfortunately, the devaluation to achieve this has to be bigger than the loss of competitiveness caused by overvaluation. Once we have lost markets it is much more difficult to win them back. We need a large devaluation to get a competitive exchange rate and the only definition of a competitive exchange rate is one with which a nation can balance its trade in conditions of full employment and high and sustainable growth. All other definitions are fallacious and a burden on industry.
    We have gone only part of the way to that necessary devaluation: 16 per cent. as opposed to the 39 per cent. increase in prices. We must go further, because the only way to restore the damage is to replace imports in the British market. It is difficult to increase exports because it is difficult to set up the distribution networks, the more so in the depressed conditions of the export markets, but if we can replace imports—roll back the tide of imports—by a deliberate policy of import substitution, using the price mechanism to make imports dearer and domestic production more competitive, we can then reverse the disaster.
    I offer the Prime Minister a slogan: if it is not hurting the importers, it is not working. That is the keynote of the strategy of regeneration. The problem is far greater than the Government have conceded it to be. The easy, quick devaluation that we have had hitherto goes only part of the way to solving it. There is a great deal more to do. I could give a long prescription—training, investment, industrial strategy and working with manufacturing industry to expand and widen the industrial base. I hope that that is what the Government will begin to do, after all these years of doing the opposite. I hope that this is not just another lamp post.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am pleased to be able to contribute, albeit briefly, to the debate, because manufacturing industry is extremely important in my constituency. Blackpool tends to be thought of only as a centre of the tourist industry. Those who know it only from occasional visits to party conferences may not realise how significant its manufacturing industry is. It is a large employer in the area, and we have a number of extremely successful companies, not only in local terms but in world terms. For instance, we have one of the leading British manufacturers of toys, having to compete with low wage

    871
    costs elsewhere in the world—especially in China—which is continuing to expand its product range and enjoying a great deal of success.
    We also have one of the most successful manufacturing companies in the production of street furniture, which it sells to municipal authorities throughout the United Kingdom and the world. Just outside my constituency, where it employs a large number of my constituents, we have part of ICI and, significantly, part of British Aerospace which, in recent months, has successfully attracted orders for the Tornado from Saudi Arabia and for the European fighter aircraft, now known as EFA 2000. The thousands of my constituents who work in manufacturing industry, especially those who work for British Aerospace, know that they have the Government and the Prime Minister to thank for securing their jobs.
    I spent six years working in business, commerce and industry before coming to the House, and others with similar experience find it unacceptable that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should laugh himself silly whenever my hon. Friends praise the strength of British manufacturing industry. People working at the sharp end of manufacturing do not take kindly to the hon. Gentleman's jibes.
    It is a tough manufacturing world out there, and one reason why the unreconstructed clause 4 socialists whom the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras epitomises are badly derided by those who lead manufacturing industry is that they know that few Opposition Members have ever spent a day doing anything productive in British industry. The vast majority of them have no experience of manufacturing of any sort, which is why they still regard profit as a dirty word.
    Opposition Members still talk about imposing windfall taxes and establishing more bureaucracy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave as his recipe for manufacturing industry the establishment of more bureaucracy, more bodies, more quangos and more levies. Such a regime would not be appreciated by those who run manufacturing industry or those who work in it on the shop floor, whom Labour Members claim to represent. They do not represent the interests of British manufacturing industry in any form, and that is becoming increasingly clear from Opposition speeches on the subject.
    I could hardly believe my ears when the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said that he believed in the dead hand of nationalised industry. Nor could I believe it when I heard the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) talk about what had gone wrong with manufacturing industry in his area. I lived and worked in Coventry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The cause of the decline and collapse of manufacturing there, and throughout the west midlands, was the appalling union militancy.
    Anyone representing a west midlands constituency who glosses over the history of Red Robbo and all the militant unionism that caused the downfall of manufacturing is trying to rewrite history, as Labour Members often try to do. My hon. Friends and I will not let them get away with that. We have no intention of allowing them to hoodwink the British people.
    Those who have worked in manufacturing industry in the last 15 to 20 years remember only too well the days of
    872
    what became known as the British disease, when Britain was the sick man of Europe. They were the days of the last Labour Government, in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras served—[Interruption.]—rather, I should have said that he was a prospective candidate at that time. I remember it because I campaigned against him in the 1979 general election with my hon. Friend who now represents Salisbury.
    I recall vividly the ways in which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tried to defend the appalling record of trade union militancy. He now seeks to rewrite history, but I assure him that those who run manufacturing industry will not take kindly to his lighthearted approach to the whole issue. I am concerned to ensure that, when we discuss manufacturing, we take the advice of those at the sharp end and, for example, listen to the CBI, which said in October 1991:
    "Recent years have seen a transformation in Britain's manufacturing base. The recent strength of exports confirms the widespread anecdotal evidence that companies based in Britain are able to compete successfully in some of the toughest technology-intensive markets in the world."
    That is the view of those running manufacturing industry. Opposition Members would do well to take their advice rather than continue to posture and try to rewrite history.
    There is hardly a Member on the Opposition Benches with business management experience. I remind them, when they talk about the loss of apprenticeships, that the Labour party wrecked Britain's apprenticeship system when they were in power in the 1960s and 1970s. They and their trade union paymasters disapproved strongly of apprenticeships. They still do not appreciate that it is essential in business to make profits and to reinvest them.
    Manufacturing investment has increased in each of the last three quarters in this country, and it is vital that that record continue. It will continue, because the Conservative party believes in investment, it believes in profit to ensure that that reinvestment comes about, and it believes, and will continue to believe, in supporting manufacturing industry and companies such as the successful manufacturing companies in the constituency which I am proud to represent.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: In view of the speech by the President of the Board of Trade, the first thing that I must do is get some facts on the record.
    The first fact is that, for almost 14 years, Britain has had a Tory Government. For 14 years, the Tories have been putting their economic theories into practice. It is they who are responsible for the state of British industry and it is they who have inflicted mass unemployment on the people of Britain. After 14 years in power, there is no one left to blame but themselves. After nearly 14 years of uninterrupted rule, those self-same Tories have clocked up a deplorable economic record.
    Despite the benefits of North sea oil and gas, for the last 10 years of Tory rule Britain has had a trade deficit. For the last seven years the trade deficit has never fallen below £10 billion a year, and it has averaged nearly £16 billion. Fourteen years of Tory free-market economics has devastated some sections of British manufacturing industry. This is shown most clearly in what has happened to Britain's trade.
    Under the last Labour Government, Britain had a trade surplus in motor vehicles. Last year, despite all the

    873
    preposterous claims by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, Britain had a £3·2 billion deficit in motor vehicles alone. In electrical machinery, the Tories turned an inherited surplus into a deficit of £1·4 billion. In furniture, a surplus has been changed into a deficit of £433 million. In telecommunications and sound equipment, the surplus the Tories inherited has become a deficit of £697 million. Our trade in textiles has moved from break-even to a deficit of £1·5 billion.
    When we look at the Tories' unemployment record, their performance is still worse. There are more than 4 million people really out of work in Britain. Even the Government's figures now show more than 3 million out of work. The Tories fought the general election of 1979 using a poster that purported to show a dole queue and carried the words "Labour isn't Working". That year, unemployment totalled 1,074,000. Since the 1979 general election, unemployment has never fallen back to the level that the Tories inherited—even for a single day. Now, for the fifth out of 14 years of Tory rule, unemployment is again over 3 million. That means that, in one year in every three, the Tories have thrown 3 million of their fellow citizens on the dole.
    But this 3 million total is much worse than before, because this time the Tories have pushed unemployment past the 3 million mark despite the effects of more than 30 successive fiddles, all of which have reduced the official unemployment total. If the Department of Employment statisticians were a football team, they would be banned for bringing their profession into disrepute.
    Even using these disreputable figures, the situation is grimmer than ever before. More than 1 million people have been out of work for a year or more. More than 1 million young people are out of work. This time, unemployment is not limited mainly to Scotland, Wales and the north of England; it is everywhere and it is hitting everybody.
    In London, unemployment is worse than it has ever been in London's history. Half a million Londoners are out of work; 58 Londoners chase every job vacancy. Women's unemployment is far worse in London than in the rest of Britain. Overall, the rate of unemployment in London is now second only to the rate in the northern region. The west midlands is in third place in this league table of misery, waste and disrepair; and even in the previously prosperous south-east, unemployment is now around the national average.
    Mr. Mackinlay: One feature of the debate is that, until my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned the south-east, 10 million who live outside Greater London but within the south-east had not been mentioned. Was not the south-east the cockpit of the last election, as it probably will be of the next? Do not many people in the south-east feel betrayed and deceived by the Conservatives, who said that, if people voted Conservative on Thursday, the recovery would continue on Friday? Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands in the south-east who are unemployed or whose businesses have gone bust want to know which Friday the Prime Minister was referring to?
    Mr. Dobson: This is indeed the case. As my hon. Friend, knows, I was recently in Basildon, where one in five men are out of work. I think that fewer of them will vote Tory in future.
    874
    For years, the Tories and their friends in the City and on the City pages of the newspapers told the people that making things was old hat, and that manufacturing was a job for the third world. The future, they said, was with the service industries. Large manufacturers were seen as creatures of the past; it was said that the self-employed would lead Britain to prosperity.
    To be fair, the Tories practised what they preached, and the banks helped them. Manufacturing industry was run down, and it is still being run down. The trouble is that the service industries are going down with it. If we look at who makes up the jobless now, we find that there are more than 900,000 white collar workers, a third higher than last time the official total topped 3 million. Nor have the self-employed been spared the harsh winds of the free market. Last summer, 275,000 people who were formerly self-employed were on the dole, and the Government have yet to publish the most recent figures.
    Much of the blame for all that rests with the Tory attitude to manufacturing. In 1979, there were 7,261,000 people employed in manufacturing in Britain, making things for others to buy and use at home and abroad. These were not old smokestack industries such as the Secretary of State referred to in his speech to the Tories at Harrogate, but industries making motor vehicles, electrical plant, furniture, textiles, and telecommunications and sound equipment. But by last December, that total of 7·2 million had plunged to just 4·3 million, and it is still falling fast. By now, manufacturing jobs lost under the Government may exceed 3 million.
    Suddenly, the Prime Minsiter has noticed. He said that he did not agree with the neglect of manufacturing industry and that he used to be in a minority, poor lamb, but now he is in a better position to expound his views. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out, there is no evidence that the Prime Minister ever said anything about it before, still less that he did anything. His must have been the industrial strategy that dared not speak its name.
    Whatever the Prime Minister may say now, and whatever views he may expound, his record is worse than that of Mrs. Thatcher. While Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, manufacturing jobs were lost at a rate of 186,000 a year. That was not a record to be sneezed at, but it pales beside the record of the present incumbent. The rot seems to have set in when he became Chancellor. In the last quarter under Nigel Lawson, manufacturing jobs went up. During the period that the Prime Minister has lived in Downing Street, first at No. 11 and now at No. 10, manufacturing jobs have fallen every quarter—at a rate of 252,000 a year since he became Chancellor—and at a rate of 312,000 a year since he became Prime Minister.
    Never mind what the Government are saying now about manufacturing industry in the 1980s; let us remember what they said at the time. Nigel Lawson, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, told the House that he was at a loss to understand the selective importance attached by Labour to the manufacturing sector. Later, in Washington, he warned that the world should not
    "be seduced by the wonders of high-tech into overlooking the fact that many of the jobs of the future will be in labour intensive service industries which are not so much low-tech as no-tech".
    To be fair to the Government, no one could claim that they fell victim to the high-tech seduction. Far from it; they have let the country become a total pushover for

    875
    everybody else's high-tech exports. The Government encouraged banks to invest in service industries and not to give priority to manufacturing, not that the bankers needed much encouragement. When it comes to short-sighted stupidity, it is a toss-up 'whether the British banks or the British Government take first place.
    The banks invested tens of billions of pounds in property speculation. The Government encouraged them to invest in Canary Wharf, by giving its Canadian owners £370 million of taxpayers' money. It still went bust, and the banks lost a fortune. The banks then went round their small and medium-sized business customers calling in loans, ending overdraft facilities and refusing money needed for expansion. That was not because small and medium-sized businesses were getting things wrong but because the banks had got things wrong and needed to recoup the money that they had lost in property speculation. That sums up what has been wrong with Britain under the Tories. Incompetent financial institutions have been on the make, leaving no funds for companies making useful products.
    Manufactured goods can be sold abroad, but there was no chance of selling abroad many of the products of the service industries that the Tories promoted in the 1980s. There is no recorded case in history of anyone exporting a speculative office block. Even now, after all the Tory rundown, when manufacturing has fallen to less than a quarter of our national production, it still contributes no less than two thirds of our overseas earnings and all that the fashionable service industries can do is make up the remaining third.
    The neglect of manufacturing shows that, when we stop making things, it does not just mean that Britain cannot export; it means that we have to import goods for our own use. If there is a boom in the high street and in the shopping centres, much of what is bought will be imported goods that we once made for ourselves. It is a fact of life that, when people stop working, they stop producing. The goods that our people stopped producing, our country started importing.
    Of course, British-made goods have to be sold abroad, and the Government have made that more difficult by fouling up the arrangements for export credit guarantees, leaving our exporters at a disadvantage, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said. The Government have resorted to much-publicised overseas visits which have more to do with photo opportunities for Tory Ministers than with sales opportunities for British firms. The Prime Minister seems to have taken on that mantle from his predecessor. The theory was that trade follows the flag. The trouble is that their trade follows our flag.
    The Prime Minister went on a much-publicised visit to China and that was really good for exports—Chinese exports. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, Chinese exports to Britain have doubled. It is easy for a country that uses child labour to compete. There is a rumour that the Chinese embassy has asked for one of the Prime Minister's new honours nomination forms, because the Chinese want to nominate our Prime Minister for services to their exports.
    The Prime Minister also visited Hong Kong, and from that visit it was easy to judge his commitment to British
    876
    exporters. He was supposed to meet our trade representative in Hong Kong, the man who is responsible for trying to export our goods to Hong Kong. The Prime Minister cancelled that appointment, because he had a more pressing one. He wanted to meet the crooked Hong Kong man, Li Ka Shing, to touch him for money for the Tory party. As usual, that Tory Minister put the vested interests of the Tory party before the interests of this country. That is the attitude that has helped to get our economy into its present dreadful state.
    The attitude of successive Secretaries of State for Employment has not helped. What a useless lot they have been; but the most recent ones take the prize. They have devoted themselves to fiddling the figures and then perverting the English language to present the figures in a favourable light. Over the past three years, unemployment has risen inexorably, but we would never guess that from the monthly press releases issued by the Secretary of State.
    The one for June 1991 was headed:
    "Michael Howard welcomes slow down in unemployment increase".
    The total was then 2·2 million. In August 1991, he declared:
    "this is further evidence that the worst of the recession is over".
    He said that on the ground that
    "In each of the last 3 months the increase has been well below that of each of the previous 3 months".
    That meant that the total had risen to 2·3 million.
    In September 1991 the Secretary of State said:
    "Today's figures confirm that the recession is coming to an end".
    The total had hit 2·4 million. After similar statements in intervening months, in December 1991 the then Secretary of State for Employment proclaimed:
    "The rate at which unemployment is increasing remains on a firmly downward trend".
    This Nostradamus of the press release claimed to detect
    "many encouraging signs that the recession is coming to an end".
    That meant that the total had hit 2·5 million.
    January saw the promulgation of a job seekers charter. Whatever happened to that? In February, every jobless person was promised an individual back-to-work plan. That would have consumed a lot of paper, because the total then stood at 2·6 million.
    After the general election, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was succeeded by the present Secretary of State. She, to be fair, brought to the job a reputation for decency and common sense. But, sad to relate, she succumbed to the temptations of that monthly press release.
    Perhaps it is not the fault of Ministers after all. Perhaps they have a rogue word processor which thrives on bent statistics, weasel words and daft predictions. In future, when they produce the monthly unemployment figures, they should not just run the spell-check on the word processor, they should lash it up to a polygraph lie detector because that is the only way that we shall ever have the truth.
    In April, the right hon. Lady detected "glimmers of hope" in the figure that then stood at 2·65 million. By June she was reduced to welcoming
    "a slow down in the rate of increase."
    The total then stood at 2·7 million.
    In July, "Gypsy Rose Gillian" looked into her crystal ball to discern
    "encouraging signs in today's unemployment figures."

    877
    In August she talked of "signs of improvement". By October, with the figure at 2·76 million, she got round to expressing deep concern
    "about the personal hardship of unemployed people and their families."
    Then came a bit of newspeak in the same press release of which George Orwell would have been proud. She said that the task of her Department was
    "to provide unemployed people with the skills and job experience necessary to keep them in touch with the changing labour market."
    By November, that changing labour market had left 2·9 million people on the dole. Since then it has kept changing, always for the worse, and the total now exceeds 3 million. Apart from issuing misleading press releases, the Secretary of State has done nothing.
    The Government are keen on league tables—league tables for schools, hospitals and now for the police forces. League tables, the Tories say, present useful information in a form that is easy to understand and from which it is easy to judge performance. Well, here goes.
    Britain is top of the European Community league table for unemployment. Britain has more people out of work than any other EC country. Britain is the only country in the Community with more than 3 million people out of work. Britain has the fastest rising unemployment in Europe. Under the Tories, Britain is top of the table and, unless things change dramatically, it is likely to stay that way.
    Britain simply cannot afford that level of unemployment. The Secretary of State has admitted that it costs the taxpayer £9,000 to keep somebody out of work for a year. Our level of unemployment is costing taxpayers £27 billion each year, equal to a tax of £1,225 for every family in the land.
    But that is not the end of the story. When people are not working, they are not producing. At the present official level of unemployment, Britain is losing 3 million working days' production every day, 15 million days a week and 780 million working days a year.
    We cannot afford to lose production on that scale. It means that our economy is not firing on all cylinders. It means that we are losing more than £50 billion-worth of goods and services, equal to a tax of £2,275 for every family in the land. Having 3 million people out of work is costing every family in the land a total of £3,500 in lost tax and lost production. It is the economics of the madhouse. Its other name is the free market.
    The Government have done nothing to end the catastrophic rise in the jobless total. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister keep bleating that all the conditions are in place for an economic revival. That is not true. Even if it were, I pass on to them a warning from my medically learned and hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who pointed out to me that, when someone is in a coma, all the conditions necessary for them to come round are in place —but it does not automatically follow that they will come round.
    The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are fond of stating that they have in place the largest ever range of help for the unemployed. That may also be in place, but it certainly is not working. The number of training places available has contracted as the number of jobless have grown. Since 1990, two fifths of employment training places have disappeared. Even the chances of someone
    878
    who has been on an ET course getting a job are one in five —exactly the same as someone who has not undergone that training; that is despite the phenomenal expense of employment training. The average cost per trainee, according to a parliamentary answer, is £6,014. At that rate—and I checked this—an individual could undergo a postgraduate course in nuclear physics or be a full-time student at a postgraduate medical research institute.
    Youth training places have been cut by one fifth since January 1990, and only half of all YT leavers were in a job six months later. Although YT is compulsory for out-of-work 16 and 17-year-olds, it has proved so unattractive that 111,000 of them are not in training, education or work.
    For the past six months, the Secretary of State has recognised that the existing scheme is a shambles and has promised new schemes. She has announced them every month for the last six months—[Interruption.]
    Hon. Members: New figures—another press release.
    Mr. Dobson: Whether from the word processor or the calculator, they have just arrived—and no doubt they have been seasonally adjusted.
    The Secretary of State announced those changes every month—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dobson: You must recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that masters of mime can amuse all sorts of people.
    The Secretary of State has announced new measures every month for the past six months, but they have still not been introduced. Since the right hon. Lady took over, 3·5 million people have tasted unemployment. If Florence Nightingale was the lady with the lamp, the Secretary of State has become the lady with the P45. For all her fine words, she has done nothing to get more people back to work or into top-quality training.
    The Prime Minister decided that the Secretary of State for Employment was making such a poor fist of it that Lord Wakeham was wheeled in to sort things out. I have to warn the Secretary of State that if he makes as good a job of that as he did of electricity privatisation, the right hon. Lady should watch it—she may well inherit a shambles as big as the pit closure programme that the President of the Board of Trade inherited from the same Lord Wakeham.
    The Government say that they will announce in the Budget new measures to help the unemployed. Given their track record, it is a good bet that any new Tory measures will have less to do with the unemployed than with fiddling the unemployment figures.
    There are overwhelming economic reasons for making the forthcoming Budget a Budget for jobs. The Government must put full employment, which the Prime Minister says he supports, at the top of the economic agenda—not just in Britain, but across the whole European Community.
    If people are not convinced by the economic arguments of the need for full employment, they should be convinced by the political imperatives. Right across Europe, millions are out of work. Far too many of them are young people. They want jobs. If the respective political parties of the left, centre and centre-right in Europe do not give them jobs, those people will look elsewhere.

    879
    Unemployment has always been the principal recruiting sergeant of the violent, racist, anti-semitic parties of the far right. With political instability and the rise of neo-fascism in Italy, with the resurgence of neo-Nazism in Germany, with the neo-falangists reappearing in Spain, with Le Pen in France and with far-right racist groups flexing their muscles here in Britain, it is time for a bold commitment to full employment. That cannot be achieved quickly, and it cannot be achieved in one country; but, with democracy itself at stake, full employment must be the aim, and it must be achieved.
    This Tory Government have not the understanding, the energy or the vision to bring about the necessary changes. The plain fact is that the Government have no idea how to get our country out of the mess in which they have landed it. They have not got an economic strategy; they have not got an industrial strategy; they have not got an employment strategy. In fact, they have not got a clue.
    9.35 pm
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This has been a good debate, featuring some remarkable contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Sadly and inevitably, it has been characterised by the now customary running down of British industry and British achievement by Opposition Front Benchers: as always, they have revelled in the existence of any difficulties, while hating to point to any successes. They never tire of talking Britain down. At some points, their stance has provided an interesting contrast with the speeches of some of their own Back Benchers.
    Both the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) spoke of the need for a change of culture, a greater awareness of the importance of manufacturing, and the part that education could play in all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne drew attention to the importance of the new framework provided by the national curriculum. Let me add to the points that he made, while encouraging the right hon. Member for Halton.
    As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, general national vocational qualifications are now available to more than 9,000 young people, and that availability will gradually be spread across the cohort. The Guardian—in the surprised tones so characteristic of that newspaper—has said:
    "The Government seems to have a success on its hands with GNVQs."
    As my hon. Friend will know, GNVQs are equivelant to two A-levels, and are certainly doing their bit to change the culture in our schools.
    Following our teacher placement schemes, one third of the 75,000 teachers who have been placed in industry for short periods have been placed in manufacturing, working closely with the Confederation of British Industry and its national manufacturing council. Our work with education business partnerships and Compact now covers 700 schools, 10,000 employers and 140,000 young people—and, of course, the very existence of training and enterprise councils spreads the message about the importance of manufacturing right across our society.
    The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) asked about apprenticeships. Let me tell him that 400 apprenticeships are in existence very close to him, at
    880
    County Durham TEC: he may well wish to visit the TEC, and see a good example of successful youth training in action.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was realistic enough to point out that, given the development of new technology, an expansion in the manufacturing base would not necessarily result in a huge increase in the number of jobs, but should increase the skills of the work force. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that 76 per cent. of our work force now have qualifications. Two million more people have relevant vocational qualifications than five years ago, and 2·5 million more have A-levels or qualifications above that level. I hope, due to his interest in these matters, that the hon. Gentleman is giving every possible support to Investors in People.
    I was most interested to hear at first hand from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of the work of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance and of the goodwill message that he had received from the Prime Minister. I am sure that he will not expect me to comment on his Budget representations, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have taken careful note of them. He will also have taken careful note of the customary representation by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), because of his very well placed concern for the excellent product that is made in his constituency and the duties applied thereon.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) will have heard the points made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about the developments in his review of the pit closure programme, including the point that the White Paper is to be published shortly. The hon. Gentleman will know that enhanced area status has already been announced for Barnsley and Doncaster. I was glad to hear that he welcomed the arrival of new jobs in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows that last week I was in his constituency and that I visited the very dynamic training and enterprise council for Barnsley and Doncaster. It is doing excellent work. It has already done a great deal of work in preparation for possible pit closures, should they take place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) rightly pointed out that any successful economy needs a range of employment. It needs manufacturing industries; it needs service industries. My hon. Friend will know that, in common with other countries, the service sector grew during the 1980s. That growth very much mirrors what has happened elsewhere. In the United States, the service sector has risen from 63 per cent. to 69 per cent., and in Germany from 54 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent.
    I was most interested to hear the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) speak so warmly in defence of free trade. He clearly has not spoken recently to his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but no doubt they will sort that out between them at some future stage. That is merely one example of what is writ large on the Opposition Front Bench in terms of different messages from different spokesmen, a point to which I shall turn shortly. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the stance on this side is entirely uniform. We always support free trade, whether we are working in GATT, in the Social Affairs Council or elsewhere. A little more

    881
    support from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends when we try to achieve level playing fields when working in the Social Affairs Council would be very welcome.
    Over the weekend, the Prime Minister asked when the Leader of the Opposition last said a good word about Britain. We on this side are entitled to ask the same question tonight. When did the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Holborn and St. Pancras last say a good word about Britain? The hon. Member for Livingston was not present throughout the debate. Had he been, he would have heard a number of fair-minded comments from his hon. Friends. It seems strange to me that there is little interchange of view or of rhetoric among Opposition Members.
    We certainly did not hear the hon. Members for Livingston and for Holborn and St. Pancras tonight say a good word about Britain. During the debate they have not said one word about the outstanding productivity achievements of British workers, nor one word about the record export sales achieved by British industry in overseas markets, or about the high level of investment in manufacturing industry by British business. There was not one word of recognition or encouragement for the men and women in manufacturing industry achieving successes day by day in the most difficult of world economic conditions.
    The Front-Bench spokesmen do not wish to acknowledge success—
    Mr. Chisholm: The Minister referred to productivity and exports. The reason why productivity may not have been mentioned is that it is easy to improve productivity by throwing thousands of people on to the dole. Productivity has increased, but output has not, purely because of unemployment. Surely the significant export figure is the deficit in manufactured trade. What was the deficit in manufactured goods in 1979, and what was it last year in the depths of a recession? It was £9·9 billion.
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to muse on the contribution to productivity made by the Labour Government, with their overmanning and the endless succession of days lost through strikes.
    Opposition Members do not want to acknowledge success; they want to wallow in imaginary failure. They want to ignore the facts, but the facts are what they will get. First, I shall give them the facts on investment. The United Kingdom has an unrivalled record in attracting investment from overseas. In the year to March 1992 alone, foreign companies launched more than 330 new investment projects in Britain, which created more than 22,000 jobs and safeguarded 30,000 more.
    Of course, every time a redundancy is announced, Opposition Members want to raise the matter in the House —but do we ever hear a word from them about the 50,000 jobs created in a year by foreign companies investing in Britain? Never. But we do hear some words from them about foreign investment. Those words are "alien, perverse and undemocratic". Those are the TUC's words. Again and again, I have challenged Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to disown those words, and I am happy to do so again now.
    Ms. Diane Abbott rose—
    Mrs. Shephard: Ah, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is going to do it for them.
    Ms. Abbott: Like her hon. Friends, the Minister has spoken about the amount of inward investment. Does she not accept that one of the main attractions for Japanese and other investors is the fact that British wages are only 44 per cent. of west German wages? What long-term future is there for British industry as a low-wage assembly point for Japanese industry?
    Mrs. Shephard: I wonder how the hon. Lady would describe the events surrounding the moving of jobs from Dijon to Cambuslang, where wages were similar. On-costs for German employers are indeed 61 per cent. higher than they are here, so it is small wonder that we attract inward investment.
    I note that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are not willing to disown the words of the TUC—"alien, perverse, and undemocratic". I suppose that they cannot afford to offend their union paymasters. Until they do that—
    Mr. Robin Cook: The right hon. Lady has shifted her ground. Three minutes ago, she accused Opposition Members of using those words, but now she attributes them to the TUC. Will she now produce the official TUC document from which she is quoting? Will she tell us from which official document those words were taken? Will she admit that she is quoting one member of the TUC, who is not, and never has been, a member of the Labour party, and who is not eligible to join?
    Mrs. Shephard: I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but the whole Labour party has been trying to shift its ground on all those areas of policy. I can indeed answer the hon. Gentleman. I expect that he was present when the words were spoken at the TUC conference in 1991. I am not sure which union sponsors him, but I have no doubt that he was present when the words were spoken.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady has made a serious allegation. Will she please name a single member of the Labour party who has used those words, or withdraw her allegation?
    Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said—the only words we hear about such investment are "alien, perverse and undemocratic". Let him disown the TUC's words. I note that he has not done so.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady has failed to answer the question. Will she name the member of the Labour party to whom she attributes those words, or withdraw the allegations that she has made in the House?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have asked the hon. Gentleman to disown the words, and he is not willing to do so.
    Mr. Cook: There is no difficulty about that—those words have never been used by any member of the Labour party and they are not words with which I would associate myself. I do not understand what the right hon. Lady finds so entertaining about the matter. She has grotesquely misled the House. Will she withdraw her earlier assertion, or name the member of the Labour party to whom she attributes those words?
    Mrs. Shephard: I made it perfectly clear that those words were spoken by a TUC member. I asked Opposition Members to disown them, and the hon. Gentleman has done so.
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Lady will now do the House the credit of admitting that she has attempted a smear, which has no substance, and in which she has been caught out.
    Mrs. Shephard: My goodness, an accusation of a smear from the hon. Gentleman is a compliment indeed.
    Let us consider for a moment that so-called "alien, perverse and undemocratic" foreign investment. In 1991, one third of all inward investment in the European Community came to Britain. More than 35 per cent. of total United States investment in Europe is located in the United Kingdom, and total investment from Japan is more than 40 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) asked why firms come to this country. It is not because of the weather or because of the Opposition. Firms do not have to come here. They are free to locate anywhere, yet they choose to come here because unit costs are low and under control, because this country's strike record is lower than it has ever been in our history, and because we have an attractive tax structure, with the lowest corporation tax in the developed world. Above all, they come because—apparently unlike the Labour party—they believe in Britain.
    We welcome inward investors because they create jobs in Britain: 15 per cent. of all jobs in manufacturing industry are in foreign-owned firms. The jobs are welcome to the people who work for those firms, but the benefits of inward investment are not confined to people directly employed in American, Japanese or European businesses which have come here. In the past three years, inward investors have brought more than 50 per cent. of their equipment in the United Kingdom. All that means more business and more jobs for Britain.
    Those jobs have gone to all parts of Britain. Scotland, Wales and the north-east of England have done especially well, and more than half the jobs created by inward investors between 1987 and 1990 went to those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) described very well the effect of such inward investment.
    Mr. John Gunnell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall not give way for the moment, as I wish to make progress.
    In every country, the share of gross domestic product taken by manufacturing is falling. That is the case in Germany, the United States of America, France and Italy, as well as in Britain, and it reflects changes in methods of production and the organisation of business.
    But this should not be allowed to conceal the underlying performance of business. British manufacturing industry has had a decade of success in the 1980s. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Opposition Members and their trade union paymasters directed our affairs, British industry was at the bottom of the international league table for productivity. What a contrast with the 1980s, when manufacturing output rose by 22 per cent., and productivity by almost 60 per cent. Last year alone, despite
    884
    adverse world trading conditions, productivity reached record levels. It is now rising at 6 per cent. a year. This is good news for industry, good news for those who work in industry and good news for Britain.
    Manufacturing Exports grew by over 50 per cent. in the 1980s. They now stand at their highest level ever. Car exports have more than doubled since 1986. We are a net exporter of chemical goods, and we are a net exporter of pharmaceutical goods, with exports growing by 18 per cent. in 1992. These successes are the result of policies aimed at encouraging enterprise, providing incentives, sweeping away unnecessary regulations and reducing burdens on business.
    That is why foreign investment is coming to this country. But there are also other reasons: interest rates are the lowest in Europe; inflation at 1·7 per cent. is the lowest since 1967; unit wage costs are growing more slowly than in Japan and more slowly than in Germany; and labour costs in manufacturing are 61 per cent. of those in Germany. These are the necessary conditions for economic growth at any time and in any country. If the Opposition have not understood that, they will never understand anything.
    But, of course, unemployment is difficult for anyone who faces it, and we have got to have effective help to offer to unemployed people. That is why we are creating 1·5 million opportunities for unemployed people—a wider range than has ever been provided before. But we never hear a word of praise for the Employment Service. Nearly 50,000 dedicated staff, with a budget of over £1 billion, work, day in, day out, to help people to find new jobs. Last year, they placed over 1·5 million people in jobs—6,000 each and every working day. Do we ever hear a word of praise for the training and enterprise councils—82 local groups of business people, working to provide the training that individuals and industry need?
    Instead of recognising those achievements, Opposition Members prefer to preach a message of despair to unemployed people. Most people leave unemployment very quickly—over half within three months, and two thirds within six months. That is the message we should be getting across to people who have lost their jobs—a clear message that there are jobs out there, that training and enterprise councils and jobcentres are there to help people to get back to work.
    It would be wonderful if, just for once, the Opposition helped to get that message across. Instead, they add to the despair of people who have lost their jobs by encouraging them to believe they will never work again. The extraordinary exaggerations and assertions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were over the top, even for him. That is, of course, typical of the crocodile tears from the Opposition Benches. Instead of giving hope to people who have lost their jobs, they spread despair.
    Fortunately, no one takes any notice of them. They are all preaching different messages. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to put a tax on jobs; the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) claims to be concerned for the small business man; but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has never really repudiated his pre-election tax plans, and still has not abolished the trade union block vote.
    But they all have one thing in common: the policies on which they do agree would destroy jobs. They denigrate business. They are hostile to employers. The hon. Member

    885
    for Holborn and St. Pancras has now added to his description of employers as "scum" his description of bankers as short-sighted, stupid and on the make. Opposition Members tell foreign business men—people coming here to invest their wealth in factories—that they are alien. What impact does that have on business confidence? What impact does it have in the board rooms of companies in America, Japan and Hong Kong?
    The Opposition would introduce a national minimum wage. How many jobs would that destroy? They would sign up to the social charter. How many jobs would that destroy? They would put a training levy on employers. How many jobs would that destroy? Their latest idea is to subsidise jobs by taxing the utilities. What a message. Every time one made a success of one's own enterprise, one would be taxed.
    Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:-
    The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 302.

    Division No. 176]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clelland, David

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Alton, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Austin-Walker, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Cox, Tom

    Barron, Kevin

    Cryer, Bob

    Battle, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Stuart

    Darling, Alistair

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Davidson, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

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

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, John

    Blair, Tony

    Dewar, Donald

    Blunkett, David

    Dixon, Don

    Boateng, Paul

    Dobson, Frank

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Boyes, Roland

    Dowd, Jim

    Bradley, Keith

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eastham, Ken

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

    Enright, Derek

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Etherington, Bill

    Burden, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Byers, Stephen

    Fatchett, Derek

    Caborn, Richard

    Faulds, Andrew

    Callaghan, Jim

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foulkes, George

    Cann, Jamie

    Fraser, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Galbraith, Sam

    Clapham, Michael

    Galloway, George

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Garrett, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    George, Bruce

    886

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Alun

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Graham, Thomas

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morley, Elliot

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morris. Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gunnell, John

    Mudie, George

    Hain, Peter

    Mullin, Chris

    Hall, Mike

    Murphy, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Hara, Edward

    Heppell, John

    Olner, William

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hinchliffe, David

    Parry, Robert

    Hoey, Kate

    Pendry, Tom

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Home Robertson, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hood, Jimmy

    Pope, Greg

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Prescott, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Purchase, Ken

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Radice, Giles

    Hutton, John

    Randall, Stuart

    Ingram, Adam

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Janner, Greville

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ruddock, Joan

    Keen, Alan

    Salmond, Alex

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Short, Clare

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Simpson, Alan

    Leighton, Ron

    Skinner, Dennis

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lewis, Terry

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

    Litherland, Robert

    Snape, Peter

    Livingstone, Ken

    Soley, Clive

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Loyden, Eddie

    Spellar, John

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    McAllion, John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Stevenson, George

    McCartney, Ian

    Stott, Roger

    Macdonald, Calum

    Straw, Jack

    McFall, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McKelvey, William

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McLeish, Henry

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Tipping, Paddy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Trimble, David

    McWilliam, John

    Turner, Dennis

    Madden, Max

    Tyler, Paul

    Mahon, Alice

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Marek, Dr John

    Wallace, James

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Walley, Joan

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Watson, Mike

    Martlew, Eric

    Welsh, Andrew

    Maxton, John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Meacher, Michael

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Meale, Alan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    887

    Wilson, Brian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Winnick, David

    Wise, Audrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

    Wright, Dr Tony

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Devlin, Tim

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Ancram, Michael

    Duncan, Alan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ashby, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Eggar, Tim

    Atkins, Robert

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evennett, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Faber, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forman, Nigel

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Booth, Hartley

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Freeman, Roger

    Bowden, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Bowis, John

    Fry, Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bright, Graham

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Garnier, Edward

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gill, Christopher

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Burns, Simon

    Gorst, John

    Burt, Alistair

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butterfill, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hague, William

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Cash, William

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Harris, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David.

    Hayes, Jerry

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hendry, Charles

    Cormack, Patrick

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cran, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Horam, John

    Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

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

    888

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Redwood, John

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sackville, Tom

    Key, Robert

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

    Shersby, Michael

    Knox, David

    Sims, Roger

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Legg, Barry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lidington, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stewart, Allan

    Maclean, David

    Streeter, Gary

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Madel, David

    Sykes, John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thomason, Roy

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Milligan, Stephen

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

    Mills, Iain

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tredinnick, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Trend, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Moss, Malcolm

    Walden, George

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Ward, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Watts, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wells, Bowen

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Whitney, Ray

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Page, Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Paice, James

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wilkinson, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Willetts, David

    Pawsey, James

    Wilshire, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Pickles, Eric

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    889

    Yeo, Tim

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 259.

    Division No. 177]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Alexander, Richard

    Day, Stephen

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Amess, David

    Devlin, Tim

    Ancram, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dover, Den

    Ashby, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Atkins, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Elletson, Harold

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evennett, David

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Faber, David

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fabricant, Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Booth, Hartley

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Boswell, Tim

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Forth, Eric

    Bowis, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Freeman, Roger

    Bright, Graham

    French, Douglas

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gale, Roger

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gallie, Phil

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Burns, Simon

    Garnier, Edward

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Butcher, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butterfill, John

    Gorst, John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Cash, William

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hague, William

    Churchill, Mr

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hannam, Sir John

    Colvin, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Congdon, David

    Harris, David

    Conway, Derek

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cormack, Patrick

    Heald, Oliver

    Couchman, James

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Cran, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

    Hendry, Charles

    890

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Horam, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

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

    Redwood, John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jack, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jessel, Toby

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Sackville, Tom

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Key, Robert

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Knox, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Legg, Barry

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spring, Richard

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lightbown, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stern, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Luff, Peter

    Streeter, Gary

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Sumberg, David

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sykes, John

    Maclean, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Madel, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Malone, Gerald

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Marlow, Tony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mawhinney, Or Brian

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

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tracey, Richard

    Merchant, Piers

    Trend, Michael

    Milligan, Stephen

    Trotter, Neville

    Mills, Iain

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Walden, George

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Waller, Gary

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Ward, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Waterson, Nigel

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Watts, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Whittingdale, John

    Norris, Steve

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wilkinson, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Page, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wolfson, Mark

    891

    Wood, Timothy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Yeo, Tim

    Mr. Nicholas Baker and

    Young, Sir George(Action)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dowd, Jim

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Eastham, Ken

    Allen, Graham

    Enright, Derek

    Alton, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Faulds, Andrew

    Ashton, Joe

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Flynn, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Barron, Kevin

    Foulkes, George

    Battle, John

    Fraser, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fyfe, Maria

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Galbraith, Sam

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Galloway, George

    Bell, Stuart

    Gapes, Mike

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Garrett, John

    Benton, Joe

    George, Bruce

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gerrard, Neil

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Betts, Clive

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Blair, Tony

    Godsiff, Roger

    Blunkett, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boateng, Paul

    Gordon, Mildred

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Graham, Thomas

    Boyes, Roland

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bradley, Keith

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gunnell, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hain, Peter

    Byers, Stephen

    Hall, Mike

    Caborn, Richard

    Hardy, Peter

    Callaghan, Jim

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Henderson, Doug

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Heppell, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hoey, Kate

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clapham, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clelland, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cohen, Harry

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hutton, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ingram, Adam

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld. H)

    Cox, Tom

    Janner, Greville

    Cryer, Bob

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jowell, Tessa

    Darling, Alistair

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara S.

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Denham, John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dixon, Don

    Leighton, Ron

    Dobson, Frank

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Lewis, Terry

    892

    Litherland, Robert

    Randall, Stuart

    Livingstone, Ken

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Redmond, Martin

    Loyden, Eddie

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    McAllion, John

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rogers, Allan

    McCartney, Ian

    Rooker, Jeff

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooney, Terry

    McFall, John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McKelvey, William

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    McLeish, Henry

    Salmond, Alex

    McMaster, Gordon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheerman, Barry

    McWilliam, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Madden, Max

    Short, Clare

    Mahon, Alice

    Simpson, Alan

    Marek, Dr John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Snape, Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Maxton, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Meacher, Michael

    Spellar, John

    Meale, Alan

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Michael, Alun

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Stevenson, George

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Stott, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Straw, Jack

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Morley, Elliot

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Trimble, David

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Tyler, Paul

    Mudie, George

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Mullin, Chris

    Wallace, James

    Murphy, Paul

    Walley, Joan

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wareing, Robert N

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Watson, Mike

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Welsh, Andrew

    O'Hara, Edward

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Olner, William

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    Parry, Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Winnick, David

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wise, Audrey

    Pope, Greg

    Worthington, Tony

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Prescott, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Purchase, Ken

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Radice, Giles

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House recognises the importance of the manufacturing base to the wealth creation process in this country; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on setting in place the basic framework for economic recovery—low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and a low tax regime—supported by measures in the Autumn Statement; applauds Her Majesty's Government on its success in attracting more inward investment than any of the United Kingdom's Community partners; acknowledges the widely reported signs of recovery in business confidence; recognises the unparalleled opportunities to help individuals to get back to work; and looks forward with confidence to the prospect of a return to sustained growth.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your

    893
    attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and I were completing a conversation in the No Lobby and, as we were about to come out, the tellers had disappeared. While I would not want to question the vote, may I ask you to put it on the record that we were present and wished to vote?
    Madam Speaker: Hon. Members should be much more responsible than to spend their time gossiping in the Lobbies.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Madam Speaker: May, by leave of the House, put together motions Nos. 2 to 20? [HON. MEMBERS: "Object."] In that case, let us take it stage by stage.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      RATING AND VALUATION
      That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 13.

      Division No. 178]

      [10.26 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Devlin, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alton, David

      Dover, Den

      Amess, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Ancram, Michael

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dunn, Bob

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Elletson, Harold

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Freeman, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      French, Douglas

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hague, William

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Hendry, Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Congdon, David

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      894

      Jessel, Toby

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shersby, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Knapman, Roger

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Knox, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Steen, Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Stephen, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lightbown, David

      Sumberg, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Sykes, John

      Lord, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Thomason, Roy

      MacKay, Andrew

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Thurnham, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Trend, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Marlow, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Walden, George

      Merchant, Piers

      Wallace, James

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Waller, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ward, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wells, Bowen

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Willetts, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wilshire, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      >Pickles, Eric

      Wolfson, Mark

      Redwood, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Richards, Rod

      Yeo, Tim

      Riddick, Graham

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Cann, Jamie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cohen, Harry

      Simpson, Alan

      Davidson, Ian

      Wise, Audrey

      Flynn, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Mahon, Alice

      Mr. Dennis Skinner.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
      The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 15.

      Division No. 179]

      [10.37 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Alton, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Ancram, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      895

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hague, William

      Brazier, Julian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bright, Graham

      Heald, Oliver

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hendry, Charles

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Burt, Alistair

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

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Cash, William

      Jessel, Toby

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Congdon, David

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      Kilfedder, Sir James

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Knapman, Roger

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Day, Stephen

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Legg, Barry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Dover, Den

      Lidington, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lord, Michael

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacKay, Andrew

      Elletson, Harold

      Maclean, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Faber, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Fabricant, Michael

      Marlow, Tony

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Merchant, Piers

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Freeman, Roger

      Nelson, Anthony

      French, Douglas

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Nicholls, Patrick

      896

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Trend, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Riddick, Graham

      Walden, George

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sackville, Tom

      Wells, Bowen

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shersby, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Willetts, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Stephen, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Sykes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and

      Thomason, Roy

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Salmond, Alex

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cann, Jamie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Wise, Audrey

      Davidson, Ian

      Flynn, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mr. Bob Cryer and

      Mahon, Alice

      Mr. Terry Lewis.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): We now come to motion No. 4.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: Not moved, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that the remaining motions, up to and including No. 21, are not moved?
      Mr. MacKay: Not moved, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Public Lending Right
10.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move,
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1933, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
As the House will know, the public lending right has always been broadly supported by hon. Members of all parties. It was introduced—following many years of campaigning by authors for some financial reward in recognition of the use made of their books by public libraries—by the Public Lending Right Act 1979, which had all-party support. The Act conferred on authors a new right of payment in respect of the loan of their books to the public, in accordance with a scheme to be designed.
The actual scheme, which was approved by Parliament in 1981, provides for authors who have registered their books under the Act to receive payments in proportion to the number of times their books are lent from public libraries. The payments to authors and the costs of administration are both met from the single PLR central fund, which currently stands at £4.75 million, having last been increased in 1991 from £3·5 million.
Under the Public Lending Right Act 1979, an increase in the fund requires an order in the form of a statutory instrument to be laid before the House of Commons and approved by resolution of the House before the start of the financial year in which it is to take place. The order before the House authorises an increase in the fund of more than 5 per cent., from £4.75 million in this financial year to £5 million from the financial year 1993–94.
The proposed increase recognises the costs of a new computer and seeks to maintain the real level of the rate per loan paid to authors. The rate per loan is calculated each year by the registrar. The aggregate sum available to authors is divided by an estimated national aggregate of loans. Both this aggregate and the estimated total loans for each book are derived by extrapolating the figures from a rotating sample of 30 libraries in the United Kingdom. The order in respect of this year's rate per loan was laid before Parliament in December, and increased the rate from 1.81p to 1·86p.
This sum may seem small, and most payments to authors are indeed modest. But it was never intended that PLR payments to authors should provide a main source of income. Nevertheless, 18,000 authors will receive a payment this year. Ninety-seven authors will qualify for the maximum payment of £6,000. However, the larger part of the fund continues to go to less well known and up-and-coming authors. We know from the number of letters sent to the registrar at this time of year when the payments are made that these payments are widely welcomed by authors.
The scheme is complex to administer, but it is efficiently managed by the registrar, Dr. Parker, and his valiant staff at Stockton-on-Tees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage visited the PLR at Stockton-on-Tees on 11 February. I know how impressed he was by the dedication and professionalism of the staff and by the remarkable achievements.
Actual payments to authors this year account for 83 per cent. of the total PLR expenditure. As I mentioned earlier, some new expenditure on information technology is now
898
needed. The operation is totally dependent on cornputerisation, and the new system will replace the original computer, installed in 1982. It will bring the benefits of additional storage capacity for issues data which are being received from a growing number of sample libraries. It will improve the registrar's ability to establish direct computer links with local authority systems, giving access for their staff to the PLR computer database through an office network providing faster and more sophisticated on-line search facilities.
This year's recent payment of just under £4 million to authors marks the 10th anniversary of the scheme's first payment. Over the 10-year period, the payments amount to almost £30 million. These payments are not an end in their own right. They are designed to ensure that authors receive recompense for the free provision of their books to the public by libraries. That free public library provision is crucial in fostering a literate, informed public, and with this my Department's overall aim of making more widely accessible the rich and varied cultural heritage of this nation can be achieved. Public libraries lend well over half a billion books a year—10 for every man, woman arid child in the United Kingdom.
The public lending right is a well established part of that crucial system, and I commend the order to the House.
10.53 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As the Minister made clear, the public lending right principle is supported in all parts of the House. The notion that an author should be rewarded for the frequency with which his or her books are borrowed is sensible. We welcome this modest increase in expenditure from £4.75 million to £5 million. We also welcome the improvements in efficiency that have occurred since the new computer system was installed. We trust that it will reduce the proportion of expenditure that is spent on administration and increase the amounts that go to authors. All hon. Members will, I believe, support that aim.
This small but positive increase in the public lending right cannot be allowed to obscure the negative consequences of the Government's policies towards public libraries over the past 14 years. The Minister would not expect me to pass over that issue in such a debate. The House has little opportunity to discuss libraries and it is only right and proper that the Minister should be made aware of the strength of public feeling on the issue.
I shall quote from The Guardian on 3 March—
Sir Roger Moate: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, in a moment.
The quotation is from Councillor John Lock, of Newham council in London. He describes the dilemma in which many councils now find themselves:
"Councils with appalling financial problems can only balance their budgets by making cuts. Under the new system of local government finance, there is no other option.
The severity of the impact comes about where budgets are reduced year after year. In some cases, the damage now exposed is the result of eight years of cutting.
Nobody defends library cuts. Nobody, for that matter, defends cuts in the arts, museums, sports, music services, theatre, youth services…the list goes on, to the extent that no area is exempt from attempts to find "savings". It is far from just libraries.

899
But cuts happen because local councils are trying to operate an impossible system which demands accountability to voters on one hand and Government on the other. And it is the central state which wins hands down.
Even Conservative-controlled boroughs have begun to experience the effects of Whitehall's grip on their budgets. This is presumably why John Major has begun to make cooing noises about a more peaceful relationship with local councils. However, soft soap won't save a single library book until government undoes the system of local government finance it has painstakingly constructed.
Local people want their councils to be the protectors and nurterers of cultural services they have been for a century or more, with a far better record than central government. But we now work under a regime which enforces an emphasis on vicious pruning. Any gardener could tell Mr. Major the only thing his methods are going to produce is a cultural desert. What we need is re-investment and the ability to respond to the demands of our voters."
[Interruption.] If the hon. Member who is speaking from a sedentary position had been here from the beginning of the debate, he would have heard who wrote the letter. It was a local councillor who has to make the decisions that all our councillors have to make when they try to find out how to make the best deal they can for the people whom they represent, in the face of the cuts imposed on them by the Government.
Sir Roger Moate: The debate is about public lending right, not library budgets, so I am not sure why the hon. Lady is holding forth about libraries. Is she perhaps assuming that the public lending right moneys in some way detract from the sum available for libraries? When the legislation was introduced, we were given categorical assurances from spokesmen on both sides of the House that public lending right funding would in no way take funds away from the library system.
Mrs. Clwyd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot see the correlation between the two subjects. If he looked at the draft statutory instrument he would see that the heading was "Libraries". If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the link, I am sorry but I cannot explain it more positively than that.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Clwyd: No, I should like to develop what I have to say for a moment, but I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Snape: But not now.
Mrs. Clwyd: We face a systematic rundown of a vital public service—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am afraid that that subject is way off beam. The debate is about the order.
Mrs. Clwyd: I listen to what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would point out again that the order is headed, "Libraries".
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The order is entitled "Public Lending Right", which is not the same thing as libraries.
Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course I hear what you say.
900
The situation in public libraries is now so grave that the public lending right may well be seriously affected. Many local authorities are unable to offer the comprehensive and efficient library service that they are obliged to offer, under the public library—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry but that is definitely out of order. The hon. Lady must relate her remarks to the specific contents of the order.
Mrs. Clwyd: The public lending right is obviously related to the books in libraries. To cater properly for the needs of communities, the books lent by them need to be available six days a week, both in the mornings and evenings. The decline in the number of libraries that open for 60 hours each week has been dramatic.

In 1974–75, 229 libraries were open for 60 hours a week.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I have already explained to the hon. Lady that the line that she is taking is out of order. I must ask her to discontinue that aspect of her speech.
Mrs. Clwyd: I find it difficult to understand your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall attempt to proceed with my argument. Clearly, the public lending right is closely related to the number of books lent from libraries, so I cannot see how I can talk about that right without referring to libraries.
During the past 13 years, book funds have failed to keep pace with inflation, while the number of titles has risen substantially. That has also occurred at a time when libraries are increasingly expected to stock non-print materials, such as cassettes, compact discs, videos and computer data bases.
Between 1980–81 and 1990–91, the real purchasing power of public library book funds declined by 16.5 per cent., compared to the bookseller's average price index. Obviously, that has considerable impact on the public lending right.
Opposition Members are also very concerned about the implications of compulsory competitive tendering for the public lending right and for libraries.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this is intolerable. The hon. Lady must relate her speech to the order that we are considering, and as I understand it that relates to the sum of money paid out from a central fund —it has nothing to do with local authorities. The hon. Lady must have regard to whether she thinks that the extra sum that is being made available is adequate. That would be in order, but a general discussion of library provision is not.
Mrs. Clwyd: May I respectfully point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not all libraries are run by local authorities.
Soon after being appointed, the Secretary of State asserted:
"Public libraries should be open, as far as possible"—
I assume that he also meant other libraries that are not run by local authorities—
"where and when the community wants them."
Does not the Minister agree that these sentiments, laudible though they may be, are fanciful and will remain so while the Government fail to provide libraries and local authorities with proper funding? As in so many other areas of policy—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Does not the hon. Lady understand the purport of what I have said to her? This is out of order, and I cannot allow it to continue.
Mrs. Clwyd: In that case, I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that any further cuts in such services will be made in the face of united opposition from the Opposition and from millions of people up and down the country.
11.6 pm
Mr. Paul Channon: It is a very long time since I spoke about the public lending right. Indeed, I believe that my last speech on the subject was made in 1982, since when there have been very few debates about it. I was the Minister who introduced the order that finally led to the public lending right's coming into force. I do not claim much credit for that, as the work had all been done by my predecessors. Nevertheless, the purpose was a useful one. We had no opposition, although I occasionally suspected that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) was less keen on the proposal than were some others. However, I may be totally unjustified in saying so. My hon. Friend will be able, in due course, to explain his position.
The public lending right was bipartisan and, despite the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the principle remains bipartisan—tripartisan, in view of the magnificent attendance of Liberals. A high proportion of them are present and I congratulate them. This development represents a great step forward. However, the legislation, which was introduced by a Labour Government, was not the greatest piece of drafting known to man. Indeed, it was rushed through Parliament almost in the last 24 hours before the 1979 general election.
Mr. Snape: There were a few things on our minds.
Mr. Channon: Indeed, there were one or two things on the minds of people in the Labour and Conservative parties as the legislation was going through.
However, the Conservative Government of the day managed to use what was a very defective Act to get the vehicle on the road. I am delighted that it has stood the test of time and that its few critics have at least remained silent. Whether they are still critics I am not sure. The system has worked and authors have benefited.

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. I want, first, to take up a point that my hon. Friend made in his introduction. My recollection is that the first samples were taken from about 16 libraries. We have heard that the number is now 30. That is very good. The greater the number of public libraries sampled, the more likely it is that we shall get a representative list. In this regard, is there rotation? There used to be, to the extent of one quarter annually, in order that the sample might be brought up to date. We should be able to assume that in Newcastle or Bromley, or wherever, the sample is wide enough to ensure that authors get a fair deal.
My next question—here I am glad that some of my hon. Friends are not present—concerns European residents in the United Kingdom. Do such people who are authors receive the benefits of public lending rights? If so, are there now reciprocal rights for British residents in the rest of the Communities? That is a matter on which we worked very hard. I believe that, very shortly after I left the Department, the system came into force between the
902
United Kingdom and what was then West Germany. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say a word or two about that matter. I hope that I am not asking too many technical questions. If necessary, my hon. Friend can write to me. Do British authors who live elsewhere in the European Communities receive the same benefits as those who live in the United Kingdom?
I read with some surprise something about the aims of the registrar. I think that it is in my right hon. Friend's excellent booklet describing the annual report of the Department of National Heritage, which itself deserves to qualify for public lending right. One of the aims of these extra funds is to harmonise public lending right schemes throughout the European Communities. I cannot see why that should be done. Surely this falls squarely within the definition of subsidiarity, which the House debated at some length last night and will no doubt debate at even greater length on Thursday. If there is to be such harmonisation, perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us about the proposal, why we need harmonisation and what sort it will be. It may be a good thing, but I have my doubts.

Another question that was debated at the time of the introduction of the public lending right related to children's books, because many authors of those books felt that the qualifying number of pages was so high that their books would not always be eligible for PLR. Has that problem been resolved? Are the editors of reference books eligible for PLR? It would be interesting to know the answer. I read somewhere that the Department or the registrar aimed to do more about such books. Do illustrators and editors in general qualify for PLR? The scheme has now been running for about 11 years, and those questions should be reconsidered, if they have not been recently, to ensure that fairness is achieved.
I understand that a new computer has been installed and that, to some extent, it has reduced the proportion of money going to the authors. May we assume that that is a temporary arrangement and that the high proportion of money that had gone to authors will, once again, be paid to them? As part of the authors charter, perhaps my hon. Friend can try to get that proportion up to 90 per cent. of the total sum. It has reached the high 80s, but it has never struck 90 per cent. In the next few years, one of the aims of the scheme might be to ensure that the proportion paid to authors increases still more.
I welcome the increase in PLR. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on increasing it. I hope that that will benefit many authors. It would be interesting to learn from the Under-Secretary—I do not think that it is private information—which authors get the main benefits from the system. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), with his usual omniscience and his new contacts with the Treasury, will be able to tell us who they are. I shall listen to him with interest.
I congratulate the Government on increasing the PLR in a difficult public expenditure climate. I hope that the scheme will continue to do the good work that it has done for more than a decade.
11.12 pm
Mr. Iain Sproat: I am sorry that I feel compelled to enter a gently discordant note into the debate.
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): Gentle.
Mr. Sproat: Yes, I assure my right hon. Friend that it is very gentle.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is in the Chamber and he will remember the ferocious debates that we had in the House back in the 1970s when, if I recall correctly, the Public Lending Right Bill was almost the only Government Bill that was defeated by Opposition Back Benchers. Perhaps my hon. Friend can clarify my memory on that.
I object to the principle of the PLR not because I wish to do hard-working authors out of money—I would be eligible for PLR, but I have declined to register on principle.
Mr. Snape: How many books has the hon. Gentleman sold?
Mr. Sproat: One of my books has been selling for 10 years, with 10,000 copies sold a year.
Mr. Snape: Has the hon. Gentleman written and sold a book on how to pick a winnable constituency?
Mr. Sproat: I am glad to say that, after much trying, I did manage to do so.
Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell me how many civil servants, including part-time ones, are involved in the scheme? I know that he said that 16 full-time civil servants were involved, but are any others? My hon. Friend proposes to give £5 million to the scheme, and a high percentage of that goes on administration. Does that sum include expenditure on advisory committees, expenses for members of those committees, of working groups and so on?
In the seventh year, to February 1990, the administrative costs involved in giving moneys to authors stood at 14 per cent. It is a pretty high percentage, and if a charity spent 14 per cent. of what it earned on its own administration, we should say that it was a little bit too much. The following year, 1991, it was 17 per cent. of the money disbursed, and last year it was 26 per cent. It seems to me that, if one sets up a quango and it spends 26 per cent. of the money disbursed on its own administration, that is a pretty high percentage.
I should make it clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I do not object to this right from any reasons of philistinism. I spend a great deal of money on books, have a fairly substantial library of my own and use my local public library, but I do not think that this is the best way to encourage authors. If one has £5 million to give, I am amazed that Opposition Members cannot think of a better way to spend it. If one decides to give away £5 million to encourage the arts, I do not think that it is a very sensible way to give it to people like my noble Friend Lord Archer, who is a very rich man already, and who gets £6,000 a year out of the pockets of taxpayers who are very much poorer than he is.
This quango managed to spend 26 per cent. of its money on itself and its equipment, and on giving money to people like Lord Archer, Barbara Cartland or Dick Francis, a wonderful author. I am very happy that he has made a lot of money, but he gets plenty of money out of the royalties that he gets on sales.
Not only that, but it seems to me that, when public lending right was originally set up, hon. Members did not
904
fully understand some of the economics of the publishing company. When a sale is made to a library, the author gets a royalty on that already. There are many books that would not be published at all were it not for the economics of selling to libraries. So authors already get something out of public libraries.
This quango is spending 26 per cent. of money out of the pockets of the taxpayers on itself and its equipment, and it not only gives it to the Jeffrey Archers of this world, but 70 per cent. of authors get less than £100. I ask the House: if we want to encourage literature, is the best way to set up a quango with 16 full-time civil servants, and no doubt part-time civil servants, and all the rest of it, to give 70 per cent. of authors sums of less than £100? That does not seem to me a sensible way to spend the taxpayers' money.
Although I should very much like to see literature encouraged in this country, in a way the House has been taken in. We like to support the arts and literature, but saying that should not mean that we support any scheme that comes along; supporting rich authors who do not need it, while poor authors are getting less than £100 a year. It does not seem to me to be worth it.
Although this debate is not an occasion for a radical root-and-branch examination of public lending right, it seems to me to be based on a fallacious principle. I hope that Ministers will undertake to look again at the scheme and see whether £5 million of public lending right is the best way to encourage more writers in this country.
11.18 pm
Sir Roger Moate: The situation is even worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) has just suggested. Of 16,800 authors who received payment, 9,260 received less than £49. That puts a slightly different complexion on the rather glossy presentation we received from my hon. Friend the Minister or from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I am so glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich reminded the House of the battles that were fought over the establishment of the so-called principle of the public lending right. I warmly welcome tonight's debate, the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the scheme, which gives us an opportunity to look again at this public lending right and at the expenditure of public money on a scheme that is based on a fallacy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich was right. I, too, have no objection to the Government or to other patrons dispensing funds to help needy authors; if that is the best use to which the £5 million can be put, so be it. I do object, however, to money being distributed under this scheme to those who do not need it and to giving tiny sums to the many who do need it. I also object to the continued existence of this quango after 10 years—at a time when we are supposed to be trying to eliminate such things. It seems to have become "a good thing", as if that were engraved on tablets of stone. It is not a good thing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) thought that the system had been set up with little opposition. It is worth recalling, then, that throughout the 1970s there were many attempts to put it on the statute book. In 1976 there was the first serious attempt, by the then Labour Government, to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, Michael English, a former Labour Member, and I defeated the Bill—

905
probably the only recorded occasion when Back Benchers have defeated Government legislation. Alas, just before the 1979 election, the measure returned to the House and, with co-operation between Government and Opposition Front Benchers, it became law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and I were assailed by many authors, who wrote to us in not very literary language, I am afraid to say. I was also attacked —verbally, not physically—by Ministers, who asked me why I had let the Bill go through, even though 1 had done everything I could to stop it. There was a widespread feeling that the Bill was not as good an idea as had been supposed.
The whole principle behind this expenditure of public money is wrong. The Minister has said that authors should be recompensed for the loan of their books from libraries. He also mentioned that there are 500 million such lendings a year. The point is, of course, that authors have benefited from the sale of their books to the public libraries. Without their purchasing them, many of these books would never have been published in the first place. At the time in question, the public library system disagreed with the argument that public lending was doing down the authors. The reverse is the truth: it is that system which has sustained authorship and helped and encouraged it
I would not mind these funds being disbursed to authors in some other way, but they have no right to the money on the grounds that the public libraries deprive them of their rightful entitlements. There are many other examples of people creating things, selling them and then not getting paid for them again every time others look at or use them. Artists sell their paintings to galleries; they do not get paid every time someone looks at them thereafter.
The European directive—the idea is apparently spreading across the continent; perhaps its inhabitants deserve it—refers to a rental and lending right. Thai is an interesting idea. Manufacturers make a product; profit is then made from it; the product is then rented out time and again. The creator of the product does not get paid every time it is used subsequently by someone else.
This false premise has a romantic history, going back to A. P. Herbert. People latched on to it, but that does not mean that it was right. Many of us strongly objected to the forceful arguments that poor authors were being deprived of their rights by the library system.
In addition, an extraordinary quango structure was to be created—a public lending right institution, which would take samples from all over the country and distribute very small sums of money to thousands of authors. For all those reasons, we found the concept seriously flawed and fought it hard. Three of us argued for about 26 hours in Committee, while nobody else said a word.
Nobody will speak at length tonight—we do not have the time—but I still believe we have a wrong principle and that it is the wrong way to distribute money, as a form of patronage, to help authorship. I regret that the fund has grown to £5 million. I shall not oppose the instrument tonight. I simply place on record my continuing dislike of the way in which the public purse is being used to support such a public lending right scheme.
11.25 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I shall be brief, because we are anxious to get home to our cocoa and bedside reading, our library books.
906
I must at the outset declare an interest. I am a recipient of public lending right and I have come to the House tonight to say thank you to hon. Members who were here in 1979, when the legislation was passed. I particularly salute my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for the leadership that he showed then and has shown since. I say thank you also to the registrar and his team in Stockton-on-Tees. Mr. John Sumsion, the original registrar, did a wonderful job. He is the only man I know who led a quango in a successful way, the head of a lean, mean team which delivered the goods.
I say thank you to the Government for sustaining support for what is an excellent scheme. Most of all, I say thank you—[Interruption.] I anticipate the question that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants to ask. The list of my books is long and, as the Library is still open, he can go and check for himself.
Mr. Snape: While the hon. Gentleman is listing the people he wishes to thank, he may care to head the list with the name of Mr. Michael Foot, who assured the Labour Whips Office in 1979 that the measure that he was about to introduce would be enormously popular. Alas, not only did it not win us the election, but I learn to my sorrow that it put money into the hon. Gentleman's pocket.
Mr. Brandreth: We authors should salute fellow authors, including Mr. Michael Foot, an author arid historian of note—and still wearing the same donkey jacket, as befits a distinguished author.
If the reading of books is the mark of a civilised society, we can draw comfort from the latest issue of "Cultural Trends," which suggests that book reading is on the increase and that more books are being borrowed from libraries. Indeed, whereas in 1977, 54 per cent. of the population gave the reading of books as one of their favourite pastimes, the figure is now 62 per cent. Consumer spending on books doubled in the last six years, and people are borrowing more books, by the million. Thanks to the public lending right and the registrar, 563 million loans took place in 1992, the 10th year of the scheme.
Given the doom and gloom that is paraded about our society—about the moral and cultural decline and the vacuum in which we live—it is interesting to note the sort of books that people borrow—[Interruption.]—from libraries registered in public lending right. The work of the registrar shows us the authors and books that are borrowed.
Mr. Channon: Who came top of the poll?
Mr. Brandreth: At the top are many favourites, including Virginia Andrews, Agatha Christie, Catherine Cookson, Len Deighton, Dick Francis, Jack Higgins, Victoria Holt, Stephen King, Ed McBain, Ruth Rendell, Wilbur Smith and Danielle Steel, all with loans of over 1 million. Sadly, my noble Friend Lord Archer is not among those with overt million. He is in the over 500,000 list—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East scoffs. Whenever we in this country come across a successful person, we scoff. We love to take successful people and instead of, as people do in other countries, putting them on a pedestal and saying "Well done," we chip away at the statue. We mock the successful people who bring millions, if not billions, of pounds to this

907
country. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, they are coming to life now, because they are at home when it comes to mocking success.
What is interesting is that the work of the registrar reveals to us not only what contemporary writers are receiving public lending rights, but what classic books are being read by people nowadays.
Sir Roger Moate: Far from attacking successful authors, we are rewarding them with £6,000 each. Is not that munificence? Do they also say thank you to the public for this largesse?
Mr. Brandreth: Indeed we do, although I am not one of the 97 out of 16,000 authors who receive the public lending right. The principle is that we should reward authorship.
The classic authors, those who are most borrowed—up to half a million borrowings a year—are Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Tolkein, Anthony Trollope—
Mr. Snape: Order. They cannot benefit from public lending right.
Mr. Brandreth: This is work produced by the public lending rights office in Stockton-on-Tees and taken from the annual report, and it is part of the funding that goes to the administration which produces this useful information. I did not think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was in the Chair.
In the second division, over 100,000, the list ranges from Charlotte Bronte to George Orwell—a socialist, but none the less he is here. This is an open opportunity scheme. Even William Shakespeare is being borrowed.
Mr. Robert Spink: May I remind my hon. Friend that his cocoa is getting cold?
Mr. Brandreth: My hon. Friend is quite right, and my children may well be up.
All that I want to say is that the English literary heritage is the glory of our civilisation. It is quite right that we should recognise the contribution that authors make to our cultural and literary life. We are right to reward the living ones with public lending rights. They play a very important part in our civilised life. Let us acknowledge with gratitude something wholly good that is emanating from the House tonight.
11.31 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: May I briefly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) in his contention that this money should not be paid? I very much welcome tonight's order, not least because it will keep 16 of my constituents in work for another several years. I believe that, if an author sells a book to a public library which is then lent out, he is forgoing sales and therefore revenue which he would get from sales all over the country. In the light of that, it seems only right that some payment should be made and some record kept of which books are the most borrowed from our libraries.
I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) for their congratulations to my constituents. We have an excellent leader in
908
Dr. Parker, the present registrar for public lending right, as we had under his illustrious predecessor, John Sumsion, whom I knew very well.
I am pleased to see that, on the 10th anniversary, which unfortunately I was unable to attend, but which the Secretary of State did attend, in my constituency, the top-selling author, and thus the top-rewarded author, was a north-eastern one—Catherine Cookson—who I believe has led the polls for several years in the past.
The 16 people in Stockton-on-Tees work extremely hard. They have recently had a wonderful new computer, which should bring down their administration costs quite sharply, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat). Therefore, he need not have too many worries about the percentage currently being taken in administration costs. It is a hard-working, efficient team, which has been given plaudits by people who know of the work that it does. I wish it every success in the future.
11.33 pm
Mr. Key: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) rounded off this important debate. I know what interest he takes in the work of his constituents, who perform a service to all of us who love books, whether we write them, read them, borrow them or buy them. I am grateful to him for his interest and support, as I know his constituents are.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is always a very hard act to follow. We are all grateful to him for enlivening the debate and giving that right sense of joy which should come from anyone who loves books. Books are about so much more than what is inside them. I recall a former Archbishop of Canterbury who insisted that, before he read a book, he always smelled it to check that it would be all right, so it takes all sorts.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who opened the debate, addressed serious issues. I will seek to demonstrate that, far from the public lending right being gravely affected, as she argued, it is flourishing and will continue to expand. The profession of librarian is an honourable one. It is also a modern and up-to-date profession which is responding to the changing demands and expectations of those who use libraries.
It is not the case that a library could be regarded as successful, irrespective of what it does, if only it were open six days a week, morning and afternoon, for 60 hours. I have no power to intervene in the day-to-day management of the public library service. Library authorities are best placed to decide on service provision, including opening hours and library closures, taking into account local needs and resources.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to ensure that library authorities in England meet their duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service. He has no powers to interfere in the day-to-day management of the service. The hon. Lady was tempting us to stray down the path of a local government finance debate which I would have been glad to hold, considering the happy time I had in the Department of the Environment, but it would not be appropriate. I must not forget that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester's cocoa is getting steadily colder.
At this time of year, we would expect competing bids in local authorities. The example most widely quoted has

909
been Manchester. I am delighted to hear that the libraries and theatres department has been required to make savings which mean that there will be no library closures, and that the department's savings will be less than those for some other departments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is to be congratulated on steering the legislation through some years ago, and on being the first Minister, I think, responsible for the implementation of the principle. When he was responsible, I know that he went to Stockton to ensure that the system was up and running.
My right hon. Friend asked important questions which I shall seek to answer concisely. Of the 30 library authorities—not libraries, incidentally; there will be libraries within the authorities—in the PLR sample, four this year supplied loans data from several branches. That enabled us to increase the sample size from last year's figure of 10.6 million to 16.1 million books. From the 16.1 million loans sampled, our computer estimates individual book issues to equal the total loans from United Kingdom public libraries. To recognise the fact that sampling strength varies between regions, the calculation is done in two stages; first, the computer takes the loans recorded in each region to arrive at a regional estimate, and then adds the regional totals to arrive at the national estimate.
My right hon. Friend asked whether community residents could receive money. The answer is yes. He asked about children's books; there is no qualifying minimum number of pages any more. Among the illustrious titles mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester, who will now be thinking about heating up his cocoa, we find not only Agatha Christie and Ruth Rendell but Enid Blyton, who continues to be in the category of estimated loans of more than 1 million.
On reference books, a sub-committee of the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee is concluding its deliberations. I reassure my right hon. Friend that illustrators qualify, as do editors. Therefore, there has been progress since he was responsible for these matters.
The installation of the computer has led to a reduction in the funding that is available for distribution. The 90 per cent. target is not fanciful. The registrar is keen to establish a figure of 11 per cent. on which he can work for administrative expenses.
The European Commission has submitted a draft directive on rental and lending rights. That was submitted in January 1991 and advocates recognition in each member state of the right of authors to remuneration for the public lending of their books. At present the United Kingdom has a reciprocal public lending arrangement only with Germany. However, there was much opposition to the lending right provisions of the draft directive. As a result, a compromise has been agreed by the member states, allowing countries to continue to give priority to the cultural objectives of their national schemes and to exclude certain types of library institution from PLR calculations. Therefore, the principle of subsidiarity applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) objected to the principle of PLR. I assure him that 16 civil servants means 16: there are no part-time officials. There is one committee, the excellent Public Lending Right
910
Advisory Committee, which has nine members who work extremely hard on behalf of us all. There is a £1 minimum limit and a £6,000 upper limit, and money for those who qualify above that figure is redistributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) still finds that a fallacious principle. I shall clearly not convince him otherwise, and I am ever mindful of the cocoa of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.
It is important to recompense authors in this way. The sale of one book to a public library ensures that many readers will take advantage of that authorship. I appreciate that those readers might have purchased copies of the book if the library service had not provided it. There are other examples of regular payments for the product of a person's mind. For example, there are many patent payments. The principle of copyright is designed to assist in that area.
The scheme depends on computers, and the computer has been the cause of a considerable increase in this year's administrative expenses. An advisory group includes representatives from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and the Cabinet Office internal audit. A contract was awarded to BIS Information Systems to replace the computer. That was worth £580,000 and accounts for a great deal of the amount to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred. Staged payments for the contract are being made on the successful completion of each phase. The design was completed in March 1992 and testing began in May last year. The old and new systems have been running in parallel. One of the benefits of the new system will be additional storage capacity.

Public libraries added 11 million books to their stock in 1990–91. Many public libraries have increased book expenditure in real terms over the past decade, and for the first time in a decade, borrowing last year was up. Book issues are increasing, especially in the shire counties—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I looked at the monitor before I took the Chair and I noticed that my predecessor brought the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to order. The Minister is straying down the same road and I urge him to return to the subject under debate.
Mr. Key: I am a lost sheep in this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for bringing me back to order. I sought to give the hon. Member for Cynon Valley the courtesy of a reply, but perhaps I should speak to her elsewhere to reassure her and allay her fears.
The expectations of the public in this respect have risen and, through our recognition of the public lending right, we have seen that libraries are not just repositories of our uniquely rich heritage but resource centres for our communities, important to the quality of our lives. It is a modest mark of our gratitude to those with gifts and skills of writing that we make this increase to the public lending right and I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

PETITIONS

  Excavation (Thurrock)
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased to present to the House a petition by County Councillor Reg Lee, Margie Roberts and other residents of Aveley in my constituency of Thurrock, and other men and women from Essex, who are concerned for the protection and promotion of the environment and who consider that, without the intervention of this place, permission shall be granted to the company Greenways to excavate and fill Aveley No. 3 pit which is situated on the Romford road in Essex with a consequential blight on properties, hazards from increased lorry movement and pollution of the soil and atmosphere—work which they would have to endure for a further 17 years.
  Wherefore, your petitioners—
  who exceed 3,500—
  pray that your honourable House shall seek to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to exercise his power to determine this planning application following an independent public inquiry where the views and objections of the petitioners can be heard and examined by an independent Inspector appointed for this purpose, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Rail Privatisation
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Railway Development Society, signed by no fewer than 18,753 members of the public, against the privatisation of British Rail. The petitioners believe that, far from solving British Rail's problems, privatisation will add to them, and that the railway industry needs investment, not dismemberment.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House: Will abandon the ill-conceived British Rail privatisation proposals and embark urgently upon a properly funded investment programme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table

Castle Fraser, Grampian
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
11.47 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This debate, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to the House, was triggered by the decision of the Castle Fraser estate in my constituency in January to serve eviction notices on 16 tenants to secure vacant possession for the break-up and sale of the estate.
Before the letters went out to the tenants, they were called together and told that they would be receiving this notice because it had proved impossible to sell the estate as a going concern as they had been told should have been possible.
At the time, they were not told of their rights that, for example, a sheriff court order would be required before they were evicted; nor were they given any idea that there could be flexibility in the notice that they had been given. In some cases, all they were told was they had to be out of their homes and would lose their jobs at four weeks' notice.
As can be imagined, that caused a furore in the area. In Gordon district in the past two years, the number of tenants who have gone on to the housing list because tied accommodation was no longer available was 21 and 39 respectively, so 16 coming in one go from one estate was a high proportion of the total that might be expected in any one year.
I contacted the factor of the estate to try to persuade him to be more flexible, and he told me that he recognised that he would have to go through the sheriff court and that he had not instigated that procedure. Nevertheless, he had not told the tenants that, and they thought that the letters were legal notices that they were bound to obey.
It also turned out that the claim that there had been no bids that could have kept the estate together or continued the employment and tenancy of the tenants was not true; there were bids for substantial parts of the estate which would have maintained some of the employment and some of the tenancies. That outcome is still possible.
On the good side, no sheriff court action has been taken. I understand that negotiations are still in hand to complete the sale, and it is possible that some tenants may be retained. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that was not made apparent at the time notice was given, because a great deal of heartache and anxiety could have been avoided. When I met the tenants a couple of days after they received that notification, they were shaken, shocked and in many ways disillusioned with their treatment.
One sad aspect is that Castle Fraser was in many ways a model, well run estate. The tenants were well treated and the houses well maintained. In that context, the termination of the tenants' employment and the summary notice that they were required to leave was a bigger shock than otherwise might have been the case.
The case highlights a number of important issues. It shows that the present law relating to tied tenancies in Scotland is unsatisfactory. I make it clear that I do not oppose the principle of tied housing, for I recognise its essential role in rural areas. Tied housing could be the subject of a debate, but I do not want to embark upon one at this stage.

913
People who work on the land need to live close to their jobs, and tied housing is one means of bringing that about. The question is not whether we should get rid of tied housing—I do not think we should, and I do not want to promote or to support legislation to that effect. What matters is managing the transition in a humane and sensible way that gives the tenant fair treatment and does not impose an untoward burden on already hard-pressed local authorities.
The trustees of the Castle Fraser estate took advantage of the law as it stands and the local authority's good will to deposit a problem on the public sector, to maximise the sale value on the break-up of the estate. They should not have been allowed to do that. I am not suggesting that the trustees did anything wrong or illegal, but that we should look to the law as it stands.
I do not believe that the trustees would have taken that action if they had not taken the view that they could dump the problem on the local authority to resolve. Any local authority would find 16 tenants suddenly deposited on its homeless list a problem. My local authority of Gordon has more problems than most in that respect.
There should be a requirement in law for the landowner to observe a court process to recover his property—not just the sheriff court requirement, but a specific claim to demonstrate a good reason for requiring vacant possession. A good reason would be that he needed the house for land management or agricultural purposes; that he needed it for himself or his family, which would be a reasonable entitlement; or that the tenant had caused problems, broken an agreement, or presented a nuisance.

The action should not become effective until the tenant had been adequately rehoused. That would remove the deep anxiety caused to tenants seeing an eviction date looming and not knowing where they were to live. Such changes would not undermine the owner's fundamental right to recover his property, but would prevent an owner from exploiting the situation simply to secure vacant possession to maximise his return or profit from the property's sale. It would remove from tenants the worry of being turfed out into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and provide them with the knowledge that they would not be moved until they had been adequately rehoused.
When notice is served, there should also be a requirement to notify the tenant—in writing if possible—of his or her rights. It is astonishing that tenants can be given notice, as they were at Castle Fraser, without any indication that they had the right to await a court order. Tenants should be able to seek advice, perhaps from the local authority officer responsible for the homeless. The local authority and I gave the Castle Fraser tenants the information they required, but two or three days after they were given notice. I regret that the estate's factor gave them no such indication until pressed to do so. I do not believe that any tenant should be faced with that kind of shock, and I do not believe that local authorities should be left to cope with the situation without assistance.
Gordon district is the fastest growing community in Britain—apart from Milton Keynes, which has the benefit of a development corporation to deal with its housing problems. The council has an excellent record of housing management: a very high proportion of houses—approaching 30 per cent., I believe—have been sold. Despite that, or perhaps partly because of it, we have seen increasing homelessness and a lengthening waiting list.
914
According to the most recent figures, 2,029 people were on the waiting list on 4 March. Between 1 April last year and 28 February this year, 435 homelessness applications were received; by the end of January, 290 had been accepted as priorities. It is estimated that, between the middle of this year and the middle of 1998, 2,433 new houses will be required in Gordon to meet the projected increase in the population.
At present, the council estimates that 1,183 houses are likely to be built, of which precisely three will be local authority houses. Currently, no local authority houses are being built anywhere in Gordon district. I must say that. I find that astonishing. Because of keen demand, the price of houses in Gordon is generally high. The real shortfall in the community is of affordable houses to rent and low-price starts: whenever such houses become available, they are snapped up, leaving a waiting list that is still rising.
Let me say in parenthesis to certain people in Gordon district that tearing up the local plan and allowing people planning permission to build in every field in the area does not meet the need of affordable houses to rent.
The council has shown itself to be flexible. It has taken up every initiative presented by the Government and the Housing Corporation, and has given a lead in exploring every possibility of co-operation, joint ownership and different forms of tenure. There is no ideological conflict between Gordon district and the Government; there is simply a plea for resources.
People become very angry about those who are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They are not concerned only about the hardship; the accommodation is often good, although it does not constitute a satisfactory home from which children can set off to school and to which they can return. Gordon district estimates that it will cost it a quarter of a million pounds in the current financial year, and it has already spent £120,000. That is not a sensible use of public money, but the council has been forced into it.
A strategic agreement has just been signed with Scottish Homes, which I understand is likely to bring in more than £20 million and will provide between 400 and 500 homes over the next three to five years. Of course I welcome that; but that number of houses will not contain, let alone reduce, the waiting list. Welcome though they are, the houses are not in proportion to the problem we face in the north-east of Scotland.
I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is in the Chamber. Let me point out that the problem is not confined to Gordon district. I have been in touch with Aberdeen city council, which tells me that the figures peaked in 1987, with 2,000 people on the homeless list; the most recent figure is 1,606. Only 57 council houses are being built throughout the city, against a waiting list of 4,400 and a transfer list of 6,200. The Minister must realise that the problem is very large, and getting larger every year. At present, we are not doing nearly enough to deal with it.
The population expansion in Gordon and in the north-east of Scotland has been consistent for almost 20 years. It is not just a matter of oil and gas people moving into the area. It has changed the profile of the population. It has ensured that we have a younger mix, with a growing number of households in relation to total population. That is increasing the pressure on the housing authorities arid established businesses outside the oil and gas sector.

915
We are making a great contribution to national resources and national wealth, and I think that we are entitled to be given assistance to deal with our problems. We do not operate on a low-rent basis. Houses are well maintained and well funded, but we cannot provide something with nothing. That is, fundamentally, what I believe the Government have got to take on board.
The Government should now accept that the particular circumstances of the Castle Fraser debacle bring home the need for a radical rethink of housing policy in the north-east of Scotland, especially in rural areas. I believe that the Government should give serious consideration to changing the law, to giving more security to tenants in tied accommodation and to providing proper resources to meet the needs, so as to enable the local authorities to deal with real homelessness problems and the hidden homelessness of people on waiting lists who are unable to buy.
The local authorities are perfectly willing to co-operate with the Government on a variety of different terms of tenure and different ways of solving the problems. There are no ideological problems, but to date I have to say that, despite their expressions of good will, the reality is that the Government have not acknowledged the scale of the problem that arises out of our economic success in the north-east of Scotland. As a consequence, we see genuine, individual hardship for people who are unable to get adequate housing.
We also see a constraint upon the economic development that is so beneficial not just to our own community but to the economy of Scotland and the economy of the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to take on board the fact that the housing problems of the north-east of Scotland need a fundamental reappraisal.
12.1 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who has done a service to his constituents by raising this subject.
I have no objection whatever to Gordon district council going to Scottish Homes regarding the allocation of £20 million to further the strategic agreement that it has entered into with the district council, if it feels that an adjustment is urgently needed to deal with these problems. It therefore follows that it may be possible for the district council to follow up with the Scottish Landowners Federation the £3.3 million that has been allocated for bringing empty houses, some of them in Grampian, back into use.
I shall of course take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the needs of a growing population, not only in his constituency but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is here tonight. These matters will be taken into account before the final allocations are made.
May I express my sympathy for those men and women who face the possibility of losing their homes when they are made redundant? Although the Scottish Office has no powers to intervene, I have asked officials to contact Gordon district council to establish the facts and see how it can assist. Also, with the agreement of Countess Iveagh,
916
my officials have spoken to the Castle Fraser factor and solicitor, who has supplied further information on the current position. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I set out briefly what we understand to be the situation.
The Castle Fraser estate is owned by a trust, which for family reasons decided in 1991 to sell the estate. The argument runs as follows. The late Major Smiley had set standards for the estate which required staffing levels substantially above those required for an estate on commercial lines. It was therefore recognised that any new owner might not keep the present staff complement. This would apply whether or not the estate was sold as a whole, or in a number of lots. In fact, the estate was advertised for sale either as a whole, or in eight lots. As the seller concluded that no satisfactory offer was received for the whole estate, it is now being sold in eight lots. Many of these will be sold to farmers, who will require the tied houses for themselves and their families.
There are 13 families and 16 employees affected by the sale—not 16 families as suggested in press reports. I have been informed by the estate that the Iveagh family has been concerned about the future of these employees and that they are receiving substantial redundancy payments. The redundancy notices have included a formal notice that the tenants' right to occupy these houses ceased with their employment. However, the estate has not taken any action to evict the tenants. It has also negotiated with the new owners to obtain agreement to be flexible about the timing of action to take possession of tied houses, to give the tenants additional time to find alternative accommodation.
I understand that there has been some progress. The estate itself has provided accommodation for two families, and Gordon district has rehoused a single man. I believe that four more families have found alternative accommodation. I hope that more families will be able to find other homes and jobs, in some cases through reemployment by the new owners. Here again, the Scotish Office has no direct powers to intervene, but I hope that both old and new owners will be sensitive to the employment needs of those affected, and I trust that special consideration will be given to the possibility of re-employing those workers. I also understand that the estate has given guarantees of accommodation to six recently retired employees.
As for the current legal position, the hon. Member is aware that tied tenancies are part of contracts of employment. As such, they fall outside the scope of the law of landlord and tenant. All employees will have been made aware of the conditions attached to the tied tenancies when they accepted employment, but I appreciate that the changes of ownership are both sudden and difficult for all concerned.
I must emphasise that tied tenants cannot be evicted without a court order. For Castle Fraser tied tenants who are agricultural workers, under section 24 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, the sheriff can suspend a court order for possession in certain circumstances—for example, in response to representations if the actions of the owner are considered to be unreasonable or would cause hardship to the individuals concerned. I consider that there is a strong moral obligation, which should be accepted by the estate owners in such cases, to allow a satisfactory time for the estate employees to relocate themselves and their families. It is a sign of responsible land ownership that, when such

917
sales take place, there is a sensible period of transition to enable the former estate employees and their families to adjust to the new conditions.
The hon. Member will be aware that English legislation is not identical to that in Scotland. He has referred in the past to the legislation in England on security of tenure in so far as it affects tied tenants who are agricultural workers. Unfortunately, such legislation would not help estate employees, who do not qualify as agricultural workers. Introducing such legislation in Scotland would be complex, and could have implications for other aspects of Scots law, including agricultural law. However, I have decided to ask the Scottish Law Commission to examine the question of tied tenancies and to give me its views in due course. I trust that that will reassure the hon. Member that I am treating his remarks with great concern.
I have seen a copy of the letter to the hon. Member from the Scottish Landowners Federation. I note that discussions involving the Rural Forum and others are under way about the problems caused by tied tenancies. I understand that those are continuing, and it would be premature for me to comment on the proposals at this stage. I would naturally support any action which, while recognising the benefits of tied tenancies, gave proper emphasis to the interests of tenants. But I would make two points.
First, although the SLF claims that the real problem is a lack of alternative housing, as I have already said, we are taking vigorous action to improve the supply of rural housing. Secondly, I note the SLF's concern about the ineffective working of the English Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee, which decides whether repossession of a tied house is justified on grounds of agricultural necessity. That justifies my caution about the introduction of such an approach in Scotland.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Briefly, as I have a lot of ground to cover.
Mr. Bruce: May I explain that the Scottish Landowners Federation says that the reason why the advisory committee is not working is the shortage of suitable accommodation in the relevant areas—so the two aspects are linked.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are working hard to ensure that there is more accommodation, and Scottish Homes' rural housing strategy is geared to achieving that end, by housing associations providing affordable homes for rent, and grants for rent and ownership—GRO— funding, to provide low-cost home ownership or housing for rent.
Rural home ownership grants are also available to individuals in remote areas to enable them to build their own homes. The target for 1992–93 is to provide 1,000 new or improved units in rural areas. More than 80 per cent. of that target has already been achieved, and 100 per cent. is forecast by 31 March. That will be a remarkable achievement. But even more importantly, Scottish Homes plans to provide 1,600 homes for rent or sale in rural areas in 1993–94, an increase of 60 per cent. over this year's target. That includes 100 grants for local people to build their own homes.
Considerable resources are of course needed to support such ambitious plans. We have increased Scottish Homes'
918
overall programme to £327 million for 1993–94, an increase of 9 per cent. on the original plans for this year. Rural areas are set to benefit to an even greater extent from the additional resources. The programme for 1992–93 includes around £47 million for expenditure in rural areas. The programme for 1993–94 will include more than £55 million for expenditure in rural areas—an increase of almost 22 per cent., which is a substantial step forward.
As well as providing large numbers of affordable homes, Scottish Homes is also promoting innovative responses to the special needs of rural areas. The 10 rural demonstration areas, set up as part of its rural housing strategy, cover a wide range of areas and initiatives.
Scottish Homes is also working with other key agencies in rural areas, in particular with local authorities. Scottish Homes has now signed strategic investment agreements with more than 30 local authorities, many of which cover rural areas. I was very pleased to hear that Scottish Homes and Gordon district council recently signed the agreement which allows for a five-year investment of around £20 million. This will provide around 450 new or improved units of mixed house type, as the hon. Member mentioned.
One project of note which may assist in that connection is the £1.7 million housing development for first-time buyers at Pitmedden, through a partnership between Scottish Homes, Stewart Milne Construction and Gordon district council. The 42 homes will primarily be targeted at Gordon district council's tenants and people on the council's waiting list, with particular attention to those on low incomes. The first houses are scheduled for completion this summer, which might be a relevant timetable in the context of this debate. Such schemes have a double benefit; they provide not only homes for those on low incomes, which is important for the economic prosperity of the area, but also free district council accommodation, which in turn helps it to tackle homelessness.
While on the subject of local authorities, 1 should also note that rural authorities receive a greater share of the housing revenue account resources available, compared with the scale of their housing stock. In 1993–94, rural authorities with just over 23 per cent. of the council housing stock will receive 25.2 per cent.—more than £97 million out of the provisional HRA allocations. Rural authorities with just 29 per cent. of the Scottish population will receive 34.4 per cent., nearly £37 million of the national non-HRA allocations available for assistance to the private housing sector for 1993–94. Rural local authorities also have a relative advantage in the distribution of housing support grant.
I might add that, through Scottish Homes, we have worked for example with the Scottish Landowners Federation in Grampian, Tayside and Fife to help bring empty properties in rural areas back into use. Scottish Homes is also working with the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Defence on similar initiatives.
Those initiatives are some of the many carried out using an additional allocation of £3.3 million, which I earmarked specifically just before the election, in this financial year, to bring empty properties back into use. They also include projects to bring empty upper-floor town centre property back into use. In total, those projects will bring into, or retain for, use almost 200 properties. That is a matter that the district council might like to follow up with the Scottish Landowners Federation, in case there might be relevant possibilities in that area.

919
On the question of homelessness, tied tenants have exactly the same rights to local authority help under the homelessness legislation as anyone else. The kind of help that housing authority had a duty to provide would depend on individual circumstances, but, at a minimum, would include advice and assistance in finding alternative accommodation. This need not be in a council house. For example, an authority may have nomination rights to housing association tenancies. Indeed, there are a number in Lang Stane, and Castlehill. I do not know whether there are any vacant houses, but nomination rights do exist. As I have said, the district council is free to discuss these matters in depth with Scottish Homes.
Alternatively, the accommodation could be permanent, although, if this is not immediately available, the authority should ensure that temporary accommodation is available over the interim period. I understand that the local housing authority—Gordon district council—is keeping itself informed of developments on the Castle Fraser estate. It is to be commended for doing so.
I announced recently that Gordon district would receive an extra allocation of £240,000 in 1992–93 for tackling homelessness. This will enable the authority to reduce the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Gordon district has also been given a substantial
920
provisional allocation of more than £7.025 million for 1993–94, which can be used to aid the homeless if this is a local priority. It is possible that some of those affected by the changes will benefit from this increasing scale of investment in rural areas by Scottish Homes.
If the shortfall in supply can be overcome, the necessity for employees to accept tied housing at the start of an employment contract can be reduced over time. There may, however, continue to be a supply problem in some remote areas, where estate management requires the worker or workers to be close at hand. In those special cases, where there has been a satisfactory working relationship over many years, it is extremely important that the good will of estate workers and their families be actively conserved by the owners of the estates themselves. That is very much in their own interests if the viability of these estates is to be maintained in practice.
Again I thank the hon. Member for Gordon for rendering a service to his constituents. I hope that I have been able to indicate some of the possible ways forward. If the problem is not solved, the hon. Gentleman may come and have a discussion with me, and we shall see what can be done at that stage. In any case, I hope that these matters will be resolved before long.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Procedure
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration has been given to the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the operation of the courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No consideration has been given to the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the operation of the courts.

  The operation of the criminal courts comes within the remit of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which was established in 1991 to examine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The royal commission's report is expected in June.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the amount of legal aid paid in each year since 1982, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expenditure on legal aid in each year since 1982 at 1992–93 cash prices, was as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  374

  1983–84

  394

  1984–85

  433

  1985–86

  479

  1986–87

  527

  1987–88

  597

  1988–89

  609

  1989–90

  679

  1990–91

  760

  1991–92

  945

  Latest forecasts indicate net expenditure for the current financial year will amount to £1,122 million.

  Child Residence Orders
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many shared residence orders have been granted since the Children Act 1989 was implemented; and how many sole residence orders have been granted to(a) mothers and (b) fathers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Plutonium Nitrate
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the scope of the interim measures following the MV Braer incident to include the shipment of plutonium nitrate in United Kingdom coastal waters.

  Mr. Norris
  The extension of these measures to this transport is not necessary. Plutonium nitrate solution is transported in packages designed to withstand the effects of severe maritime accidents.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he makes of the risk to the environment from the result of a shipping/transport accident involving plutonium and breach of container;

  (2) what measures have been taken to protect the environment in the event of a transport accident involving plutonium;

  (3) what assessments have been made of the arrangements for preventing a casualty such as the Braer, or mitigating the effects of such a casualty, with a ship carrying plutonium nitrate.

  Mr. Norris
  A safety assessment of the combined road and sea transport operation for plutonium nitrate was carried out in 1978 by the nuclear installations inspectorate. The report of this assessment was placed in the House of Commons Library on 5 March 1980. It concluded that the probability of an accident severe enough to breach the container was no more than one in a million per year and the chances of an individual death from such a cause was no more than one in 100 million per year. A further assessment in 1984 confirmed these findings.

  With oil tankers, the protection of the cargo lies in the ship, whereas with movements of radioactive material the protection lies in the strength of the packages which have been subject to extensive tests.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys have been conducted as to the readiness of coastal protection services to cope with a shipping accident involving plutonium.

  Mr. Norris
  National, local and industrial contingency plans exist to deal with accidents involving the transportation of radioactive materials at sea. These plans are reviewed and exercised.

  Crew Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list what type of training is available for ship owners who apply to the European Community crew training scheme; if it conforms to the International Maritime Organisation's criteria; how much funding is currently available; how ship owners can apply for these funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The European Commissioner for Transport has put forward proposals for improving maritime safety and these include minimum standards of training for crews employed in ships registered within the Community and a suggestion that Community funds might be used to assist nautical training institutions and
  469
  EC shipowners who provide on-board training but these are still in a tentative form. These will be discussed in future meetings of the Council of Ministers.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect of the west London experiment with speed cameras in terms of savings in casualties and casualty costs.

  Mr. Norris
  Use of the cameras began on 15 October 1992; initial monitoring by the Transport Research Laboratory indicates that mean speeds have been reduced by more than 10 per cent. and that casualties also show a very encouraging downward trend. Monitoring will continue and it should be possible to give more information when statistically significant data are available.

  Road Improvements, Westminster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 143, if he will list the location, cost and duration of the local road improvement schemes funded by his Department in the City of Westminster since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  Between the years 1979 and 1986, road improvement schemes in the city of Westminster were the responsibility of the Greater London council or Westminster city council. The information on schemes during this period is not readily available and can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Since 1986 local roads have been the sole responsibility of Westminster city council. The following amounts of expenditure have been accepted for transport supplementary grant for the relevant financial years:—

  £ million

  1986–87

  1·016

  1987–88

  0·766

  1988–89

  1·070

  1989–90

  1·800

  1990–91

  1·384

  1991–92

  2·742

  1992–93

  5·852

  One major scheme, costing more than £1 million in total, is included in these figures. This is the A404 Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove widening scheme being carried out jointly by Westminster council and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The following amounts of expenditure have been accepted for this scheme in Westminster for the relevant financial years:—

  £ million

  1986–87

  0·700

  1987–88

  0·434

  1988–89

  0·650

  1989–90

  1·300

  1990–91

  0·922

  1991–92

  0·855

  1992–93

  1·015

  The start of this scheme has been delayed. Grant has been paid in anticipation of an earlier start date. The likely duration of the scheme is six years.
  470
  Other expenditure accepted for TSG support was for various minor works, under £1 million in total cost. These are paid as a block grant and are not scheme specific. Details of such schemes are not readily available.

  Ferries (Sewage)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 67, if he will require all ferries operating out of United Kingdom ports to comply with United Kingdom regulations on the installation and operation of ships' sewage systems.

  Mr. Norris
  Agreement at the International Maritime Organisation will enable provision to be made for international requirements for sewage systems on passenger vessels. The United Kingdom will introduce the appropriate merchant shipping legislation to give these requirements full effect.

  M1-M62 Link Road
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the likely increase in traffic flow between junctions 38 and 39 of the M1 motorway resulting from the construction of an M1/M62 link road; and what estimate has been made of the cost of widening the M1 to four lanes between these junctions.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Construction of a new M1/M62 link road would affect traffic flows on the M1 and M62 motorways, the extent depending upon the route chosen. These effects are being taken into account as part of the assessment following public consultation last year.

  The route options for this link road could affect traffic on the M1, between junctions 38 and 39, from between an increase of about 8,000 to a decrease of about 31,000 vehicles per day, using a theoretical opening year of 2000. Widening to dual-four lanes for the whole length between these junctions, which traffic would in any case justify if the link road was not built, would cost about £30 million.

  Networker Trains (Kent)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, column 816, what is the current position with regard to the ordering of the proposed Networker express trains for the long-distance Kent coast service.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I have asked British Rail to tell us by Easter what rolling stock it proposes to lease using the £150 million leasing facility announced at the time of the autumn statement. Stock for Kent coast services is one of the options.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of investment his Department has planned for signalling and telecommunications equipment on the west coast main line railway link from London to Glasgow for the six years from 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for British Rail to determine its investment priorities within available resources. I understand that it intends to commence work soon on
  471
  renewing infrastructure on the west coast main line. The precise timing, and cost, will be decided in the spring, when British Rail has completed its next corporate plan.

  Channel Tunnel (East Coast Link)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to the establishment of a direct through route from the east coast main line to the channel tunnel link railway; and if the north London line St. Pancras terminal is being considered as an option.

  Mr. Freeman
  Direct through services along the east coast main line to Paris and Brussels should begin al the end of 1995. These services are not dependent on the proposed new railway line between the channel tunnel and London, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Helicopters, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking over the proposal from Thames Heliport plc for a mobile helicopter pad on the Thames.

  Establishment

  Successful contractor

  Reason for excluding in-house bid

  Management of The Wolds prison

  Group 4 Remand Services Ltd.

  Contracting out provided opportunity to gain experience of such contracts, and provided comparator for catering services in establishments managed by Prison Service

  Management of Blakenhurst prison

  UK Detention Services Ltd.

  Catering services at following prison establishments

  Downview

  Pall Mall Services Ltd.

  Contracting out provided opportunity to gain experience in operation of such prisons and contracts, and provided a comparator for establishments managed by Prison Service

  Belmarsh

  Pall Mall Services Ltd.

  Bullingdon

  ARA Catering Services Ltd.

  Holme House

  Sutcliffe Catering Ltd.

  Woodhill

  ARA Catering Services Ltd.

  Highdown

  Sutcliffe Catering Services Ltd.

  Lancaster Farms

  Sutcliffe Catering Services Ltd.

  Court Service, East Midlands and Humberside

  Group 4 Court Services Ltd.

  Aim was to relieve police and prison staff of these duties by providing an unitary integrated service

  Police-Population Ratio
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of police to population in England and Wales; and what is the comparable data he has for France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 2 February to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), at column 128. Comparable information for the European countries mentioned is not available.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 so that
  472
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The Department has urged the promoters of the scheme to consult as widely and as thoroughly as possible with interested parties. The promoters have said they will inform the Department about the outcome of their consultations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his Department since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance, the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since November 1991, the following new services have been contracted out without market testing an in-house bid:

  the courts may again take fully into account the whole criminal record of a convicted person when sentencing that person.

  Mr. Jack
  The sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 were implemented on 1 October 1992. We are closely monitoring their effects, including the effects of section 29. In due course, we shall consider whether any amendments to the Act are necessary in the light of practical experience of its operation.

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for rape there were in England in 1992; and how many resulted in sentences of(a) under 12 months, (b) one to five years, (c) over five to 10 years and (d) over 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  1992 data will not be available until autumn 1993. Information for 1991 is given in the table.
  473

  Number of males convicted of the offence of rape and sentenced to immediate custody by sentence length 1991 England

  Length of sentence

  Offence description

  Convictions

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Under one year

  One year and up to but less than five years

  Five year

  One year up to including 10 years

  Over 10 years

  Life

  Rape

  Rape

  434

  403

  7

  100

  74

  189

  22

  11

  Attempted rape

  58

  53

  2

  34

  6

  8

  2

  1

  Other1

  5

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  497

  458

  9

  136

  80

  197

  24

  12

  1 Includes man having unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who is a defective (Sexual Offences Act 1956 S 7 as amended by Mental Health Act 1959 S 127); male member of staff of hospital or mental nursing home having unlawful sexual intercourse with female patient (Mental Health Act 1959 S 128(1)(a)); and man having unlawful sexual intercourse with mentally disordered female patient who is subject to his care (Mental Health Act 1959 S 128(1)(b)).

  Unlawful Killing
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which 10 London boroughs or local authority districts have the highest rates of unlawful killings in England and Wales expressed in terms of killings per 100,000 population.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to minimise the chances that those convicted for sexual offences against children will re-offend.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides for sex offenders to be given custodial sentences where their conduct shows that such a sentence is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Sex offenders can also be given longer sentences than is justified by the seriousness of the offence and extended supervision, if this is necessary for the protection of the public. Programmes to tackle the offending behaviour of those convicted of sexual offences against children are run by both the prison and probation services and are being expanded. The Government are also reviewing, and plan to extend, the arrangements for prison establishments to notify local authorities of the release of prisoners who have been convicted of offences against children.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted for sexual offences against children in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992; and what percentage of those convicted had previously committed similar offences.

  Mr. Jack
  To derive information on the number of offenders who had previously committed similar offences would involve disproportionate cost. Information on the number of persons convicted of sexual offences against children in England and Wales for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. Figures for 1992 will not be available until the autumn. It is only possible from the information held centrally to identify sex offenders where the victim is known to be aged under 16 years.
  474

  Number of persons convicted of child sex offences 1989–91 England and Wales

  Offence

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  183

  189

  168

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  26

  18

  26

  Indecent assault on a male aged under 16 years

  406

  421

  351

  Indecent assault on a female aged under 16 years

  1,657

  1,537

  1,469

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13 years

  96

  110

  105

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 years

  262

  304

  223

  Incest with a girl under 13 years

  100

  84

  68

  Inciting girl under 16 years to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  5

  3

  3

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years

  3

  5

  —

  Person responsible for girl aged under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc

  1

  2

  2

  Abduction of unmarried girl aged under 16 years

  13

  8

  8

  Gross indecency with children

  219

  276

  219

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances corporal punishment will be available in the new juvenile offenders institutions.

  Mr. Jack
  We do not believe that corporal punishment is an acceptable way of dealing with offenders. It was abolished under the 1948 Criminal Justice Act and the Government have no plans to reintroduce it. Corporal punishment, therefore, has no place in our planning for the new secure training centres.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 625, what plans there are to increase the amounts committed to schemes aimed at diverting young people from crimes, including car crime; and if he will make a further statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The main Government programmes in the Greater Manchester area described in the reply I gave to the right hon. Member on 10 February, at column 625, will

  475
  each receive funding in 1993–94. It is planned to increase total funding for the probation supervision grants scheme —PSGS—from £6·8 million this year to 10·4 million, £12 million and £13 million respectively over the next three financial years, but there are no plans to provide additional resources for the other additional resources for the other programmes. The PSGS helps voluntary organisations in partnership with probation services to provide support to defendants, those on community sentence and those released from prison with the aim of reducing reoffending.

  Immigration
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entry clearance applications were received in respect of India and Pakistan for each year since 1986(a) for second wives where the first wife is resident in the United Kingdom, (b) first wife where the second wife is resident in the United Kingdom, (c) second wives where the first wife is resident in the country of origin, (d) the first wife where the second wife is resident in the country of origin and (e) both wives together.

  Initial Receptions into Prison Service Establishments in London by Type of Custody: January, March and June 1992

  Establishment

  Number of Persons Received

  January

  March

  June

  1–4

  5–11

  12–18

  19–25

  26–31

  1–7

  8–14

  15–21

  22–28

  29–31

  1–6

  7–13

  14–20

  21–27

  28–30

  Belmarsh

  Remand1

  32

  63

  60

  45

  37

  59

  49

  52

  35

  16

  62

  47

  49

  43

  19

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  2

  16

  12

  9

  5

  6

  7

  2

  2

  1

  10

  7

  6

  6

  2

  Others

  11

  28

  34

  23

  34

  36

  20

  38

  27

  8

  27

  52

  32

  28

  13

  Brixton

  Remand1

  16

  32

  29

  46

  38

  37

  27

  31

  27

  13

  46

  38

  35

  47

  23

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Others

  32

  88

  80

  74

  84

  124

  114

  88

  110

  48

  79

  90

  90

  60

  31

  Pentonville

  Remand1

  19

  47

  66

  65

  76

  75

  51

  64

  66

  20

  55

  58

  46

  50

  20

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  1

  6

  7

  15

  19

  5

  7

  7

  14

  4

  12

  11

  8

  13

  3

  Others

  7

  36

  25

  22

  36

  36

  29

  29

  35

  9

  40

  42

  35

  34

  12

  Wandsworth

  Remand1

  3

  1

  4

  4

  1

  1

  5

  1

  3

  1

  7

  6

  10

  5

  2

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  —

  3

  —

  4

  4

  1

  4

  5

  2

  3

  3

  5

  7

  5

  —

  Others

  3

  5

  6

  9

  6

  8

  6

  12

  4

  2

  11

  15

  7

  25

  7

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Remand1

  46

  94

  113

  128

  110

  119

  88

  98

  85

  41

  50

  104

  49

  80

  58

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  10

  16

  36

  18

  18

  7

  13

  17

  16

  1

  3

  8

  7

  11

  1

  Others

  28

  49

  49

  44

  52

  51

  43

  35

  39

  12

  21

  19

  29

  21

  9

  Holloway

  Remand1

  14

  35

  38

  39

  35

  33

  34

  46

  33

  11

  40

  30

  34

  24

  13

  Sentenced Fine Defaulters

  1

  13

  9

  11

  8

  10

  5

  7

  7

  2

  5

  6

  9

  3

  4

  Others

  9

  15

  28

  25

  29

  28

  20

  21

  18

  5

  19

  16

  18

  21

  10

  1 Includes untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those constituencies which do not have a police station within their boundaries.
  476
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available.

  Sentencing
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals to establish a sentencing council to establish a framework for sentencing policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have no plans to establish a sentencing council.

  London Prisons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sentenced prisoners, (b) remand prisoners and (c) fine defaulters were received into each London prison each week in January 1992, March 1992, June 1992, September 1992, January 1993 and March 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table. Data for September 1992 to March 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Show Jumping
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements his Department makes to issue licences for show jumping events; if such licences stipulate the height and type of jump or any other obstacles; and what inspection or enforcement his Department carries out of show jumping events;

  (2) what arrangements are made for his Department's officials to inspect the condition of show jumping horses or the suitability of the type and height of jumps at major show jumping events; what guidance his Department gives to official bodies representing show jumping on the welfare implications of show jumping courses to horses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. However, I understand that anyone wishing to run an event under the rules of the British Show Jumping Association must apply to the association for authority to do so, and must run the event according to those rules. The welfare of show jumping horses, like that of all domestic and captive animals, is

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Results

  Sentence

  1986

  5

  4 convictions

  1 × 1 year's imprisonment

  1 × 2 months' imprisonment

  1 acquittal

  1 × £400 fine and costs

  1 × conditional discharge for 12 months

  1987

  0

  1988

  1

  1 conviction

  £100 fine

  1989

  1

  1 conviction

  9 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 yea:

  1990

  1

  Bound over

  1991

  4

  3 convictions

  1 × 8 months' imprisonment (6 suspended and 2 to be served)

  1 defendant died after committal

  1 × bound over in £100

  1 × conditional discharge for 2 years

  1992

  1

  discontinued

  1993

  2

  1 conviction

  6 months' imprisonment

  1 acquittal

SCOTLAND

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students that have attended each of the separate higher educational institutes in Scotland have stayed in(a) their own home, (b) the parental home, (c) institutional accommodation and (d) private sector accommodation in each year since 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 February 1993]: This information is not held centrally.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations were made to him on the dog registration scheme by the Scottish working group on dogs; and if he will make a statement.
  478
  covered by the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases of incitement to racial hatred have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions each year since the Race Relations Act 1976 came into force; how many of these cases resulted in a prosecution; how many of these prosecutions were successful; and, of the successful prosecutions, how many resulted in a custodial sentence.

  The Attorney-General
  No records are kept of the numbers of cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions categorised by reference to specific criminal offences.

  Details of prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred since 1986, each of which may involve more than one defendant, are kept and are as follows:

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 March 1993]: The remit of the Scottish working group on dogs did not include dog registration. No recommendations were therefore made.

  Juvenile Crime
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to deal with the increase in juvenile crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: Under the Lord Advocate's direction of 1987 most juvenile offenders up to age 16 are referred to the reporter to the children's panel to consider compulsory measures of care. In 1990 24,700 referrals were made to reporters. Children's panels have available to them the full range of disposals from home supervision and foster care to residential care and secure accommodation to enable them to deal effectively with juvenile offending.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his Department since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since November 1991, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has added the collection of premiums for the diplomatic service worldwide all-risks insurance scheme to the contract with Bowring, Marsh, McLennan, the company which operates the scheme. There was no in-house bid. Renegotiation of the contract led to a saving of £10,000 and one post.

  The Overseas Development Administration has not contracted out any function without organising an in-house bid since November 1991.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our EC partners believe that the Bosnian peace process, under the auspices of the international conference for the former Yugoslavia, represents the best chance for a settlement and an end to prolonged conflict and suffering. Negotiations are at a crucial stage. We are also devoting considerable resources to the provision of humanitarian relief to those caught up in the war.

  Mr. J. G. Glass
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the sworn affidavit made on 24 May 1990 by Her Majesty's consul in Baghdad relating to the death of Mr. J. G. Glass was sent to the coroner's court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Baghdad sent the then consul's sworn affidavit to the appropriate coroner's office who passed it to the head coroner before the inquest on 28 August 1990.

  So far as we are aware, the Iraqi authorities have charged no one with any crime in connection with the death of Mr. Glass.

  Prerogative Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1987 the Government have bound the United Kingdom under international law by virtue of Ministers' prerogative powers; and on which of these occasions prior approval was sought from Parliament.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ministers do not have prerogative powers. All treaties entered into by the United Kingdom are concluded by Her Majesty's Government exercising the royal prerogative on behalf of the Crown. Ratification of treaties only exceptionally requires prior parliamentary 480
  approval, but all treaties which are subject to ratification are brought to Parliament's attention by being laid before both Houses for a minimum of 21 days. If primary or secondary legislation is required in order to ensure compliance with obligations arising under a treaty, the Government will not ratify a treaty until such legislation has been implemented. The information sought regarding which treaties required prior approval or legislation is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Zaire
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government made to the Government of Zaire concerning human rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are gravely concerned about the widespread abuses of human rights in Zaire, caused notably by the lack of control of the security forces. We intend to support a resolution at the current session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights deploring the continued serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Zaire.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tools for Self Reliance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Tools for Self Reliance campaign; and what action he is taking to assist the replenishment and supply of tools to developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received a number of representations as a result of the Tools for Self Reliance campaign. The supply of appropriate technology, including hand tools, forms part of many of our aid projects, both those we support directly and those managed by non-governmental organisations. These include rural development projects, promotion of small enterprises and agricultural rehabilitation following natural or manmade disasters.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government about their continued detention of black South African political prisoners in contravention of the Pretoria minute, signed in 1990, and the Further Idemnity Bill, gazetted in 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made it clear to the South African Government, and to all other concerned parties that the question of political prisoners and any other remaining disagreements should be resolved as soon as possible and should not be allowed to adversely affect progress on constitutional negotiations.

HEALTH

  Oral Contraceptives
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 5 February, to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo),Official

  481
  Report, columns 376–77, and 11 February, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), Official Report, columns 757–59, which brands of oral contraceptives are currently available on prescription; and if she will list (a) the hormone dosages and (b) the cost of a month's supply for Eugynon 50, Minilyn, Minovlar, Minovlar ED, Norimin and Ovulen 50.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The brands of oral contraceptives available on prescription are as follows:

  Combined Oral Contraceptives

  Binovum

  Brevinor

  Cilest

  Conova 30

  Eugynon 30

  Femodene

  Femodene ED

  Loestrin 20

  Loestrin 30

  Logynon

  Logynon ED

  Marvelon

  Mercilon

  Microgynon 30

  Minulet

  Neocon 1·35

  Norimin

  Norinyl-1

  Ortho-Novin 1/50

  Ovran

  Ovran 30

  Ovranette

  Ovysmen

  Synphase

  Tiadene

  Tri-minulet

  Triordiol

  Trinovum

  Trinovum ED

  Emergency Contraception

  Schering PC4

  Progesterone-only Contraceptives

  Femulen

  Micronor

  Microval

  482

  Neogest

  Norgeston

  Noriday

  Eugynon 50, Minilyn, Minovlar, Minovlar ED and Ovulen 50 have been discontinued. The hormone dosages and price of Norimin are as follows:

  Active constituents

  Price (one month's supply)

  Norethisterone 1mg. Ethinyloestadiol 35 micrograms

  65p

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the side effects of cheaper varieties of the oral contraceptive pill; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Before any medicinal product may be marketed in the United Kingdom it is subject to stringent testing for safety, quality, and efficacy to enable a product licence to be granted by the licensing authority. Thereafter the safety of all licensed medicinal products is carefully monitored. Neither the licensing authority nor its advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines has the remit to take into consideration the cost of a medicine.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has establishing the cost-effectiveness of those general practitioner services for which practitioners receive an item of service payment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Within the general practitioner remuneration system, item of service fees are paid in a wide variety of circumstances, some to promote specific health policies—for example, for certain immunizations—and others to reflect variations in workload—for example, for providing treatment in the case of an accident involving a patient not on the practice list. There is no single way of measuring cost effectiveness in all such cases.

  NHS Employees (Freedom of Speech)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the final guidelines on freedom of speech for NHS employees will be published.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect the final guidance to be issued shortly.

  Elderly People, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate for the number of adults aged over 65, over 75 and over 85 years in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne(a) in 1982 and (b) in each year since 1986.

  Population estimates for Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Thousands

  Year

  1982

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  19911

  Persons aged 65 and over

  46·4

  46·5

  47·0

  46·8

  46·8

  46·4

  46·0

  Persons aged 75 and over

  18·3

  20·0

  20·6

  20·8

  21·1

  21·1

  20·4

  Persons aged 85 and over

  3·4

  4·0

  4·3

  4·5

  4·8

  4·9

  4·7

  1 More reliable estimate based upon early 1991 Census results; not fully comparable with earlier estimates· Source: Population Estimates Unit, OPCS.

  Consultants
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients saw a consultant(a) on their first visit and (b) generally in out-patients in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Medical Practices Committee
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost of the Medical Practices Committee for each of the last five years.

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

  Year

  Budget (£)

  1988–89

  294,000

  1989–90

  —

  1990–91

  340,000

  1991–92

  408,000

  1992–93

  358,000

  Note: The budget for 1989–90 cannot be identified separately.

  Specialist Training
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Chief Medical Officer's working group to re-evaluate the United Kingdom approach to specialist training will report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The working group was established to review arrangements for specialist training in the United Kingdom, in the light of the EC medical directives. The group's work is now nearing completion and its report will be published shortly.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give(a) the number of in-patients treated., (b) the number of out-patients treated, (c) the number of day
  484
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. The figures for 1991 are not fully comparable with those for earlier years. The provisional 1991 estimates have been based upon early 1991 census results, and are considerably more reliable than the current estimates for earlier years. The final estimates for 1991 will be issued in June 1993, after which the estimates for 1982–1990 will be revised to provide a consistent time series using data for both the 1981 and the 1991 censuses.

  cases treated and (d) the number of emergency cases treated by health authority and trust in England and Wales in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for health authorities on in-patients and day cases for 1989–90 and 1990–91 is published in "Ordinary Admissions, Day Cases Admissions and Regular Day and Night Admissions, England, Financial Year 1990–91". Information about out-patients and accident and emergency attenders is included in "Out-Patients and Ward Attenders, England, Financial Year 1989–90", "Out-Patients and Ward Attenders, England and Regions, Financial Year 1990–91" and "Out-Patients and Ward Attenders, Districts, Financial Year 1990–91". These documents are available in the Library. Information for 1991–92 will be published shortly in these series of publications and copies will be placed in the Library. The 1991–92 editions will include information for the first wave of national health service trusts, established on 1 April 1991.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service premises in England at 31 December 1992 failed to hold a valid fire certificate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. Health authorities and national health service trusts are required to apply to their local fire authority for fire certificates for those premises which require them under fire precautions legislation, and to agree with the fire authority a programme for rectifying any deficiencies.

  Service Arrangements
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the basis of the service arrangements between provider and purchaser authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The national health service management executive has recently issued two pieces of guidance on contracting to purchasers and providers—EL(92)79,
  485
  "Review of contracting-guidance for the 1993–94 contracting cycle" and EL(93)10—"Managing activity and change through contracting." Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether purchaser health authorities can limit the hospitals to which general practitioners can send patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Extra Referrals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list of health authorities in England which on 31 January had placed limitations on extra-contractual referrals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally. However, it has always been recognised that purchasers may need to manage the timing of the commitment of funds for some extra-contractual referrals, in the same way as they do for contracted services.

  NHS Chairmen and Directors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of the chairmen of each national health service trust and health authority in England, showing their professional qualifications and employment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  For details on chairmen of national health service trusts, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2 February 1993, to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), at column 153.

  A list of all chairmen of health authorities in England is shown in the table.

  Information on the professional qualifications and employment of NHS trust and health authority chairmen is not held centrally.

  NHS Chairmen and Directors

    East Anglian Region
    DHAs Chairmen

    Cambridge—Mr. R. A. King

    East Suffolk—Mr. N. A. Ridley

    Great Yarmouth and Waveney—Mr. R. Duncan

    Huntingdon—Mr. I. Langworthy

    North West Anglia—Mr. J. W. F. Durance

    Norwich—Mr. M. G. Falcon

    West Suffolk—Mr. M. D. Corke

    FHSA Chairmen

    Cambridgeshire—Mrs. M. Scott

    Norfolk—Mrs. J. L. Hopwood

    Suffolk—Mrs. J. Spicer

    Oxford Region DHA Chairmen
    DHA Chairman

    Aylesbury Vale—Mrs. G. M. Miscampbell

    East Berkshire—Mr. R. W. F. Eassie

    Kettering—Mr. R. E. Button

    Milton Keynes—Mr. T. Benyon

    Northampton—Mr. S. G. Schanschicff

    Oxfordshire—Dr P. Iredale

    West Berkshire—Mr. R. E. Lucas

    Wycombe—Mr. M. Baxter

    FHSA Chairmen

    Berkshire—Mr. G. H. Odds

    Buckinghamshire—Mr. P. D. M. Gell

    Northamptonshire—Mrs. S. Barnes

    Oxfordshire—Mrs D. Levy

    Trent Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Barnsley—Mrs. A. J. Cook

    Doncaster—Mr. J. G. S. Smith

    Leicestershire—Mr. N. F. Townsend

    North Derbyshire—Mr. R. B. Robinson

    North Lincolnshire—Mrs. K. L. Hall

    North Nottinghamshire—Mr. A. Tolhurst

    Nottingham—Mr. D. H. White

    Rotherham—Mr. A. G. Baker

    Sheffield—Mr. J. Neill

    Southern Derbyshire—Mr. G. Rudd

    South Lincolnshire—Dr. J. D. Brackenridge

    FHSA Chairmen

    Barnsley—Vacancy

    Derbyshire—Mr. M. S. Boissier

    Doncaster—Mr. K. Jones

    Leicestershire—Dr. G. F. Edmondson-Jones

    Lincolnshire—Mr. P. W. R. Pumfrey

    Nottinghamshire—Mr. M. Dessau

    Rotherham—Mr. P. Andrew

    Sheffield—Mrs. L. Gladwin

    West Midland Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Coventry—Mr. A. R. Guy

    Dudley—Mrs. M. G. Fenton

    East Birmingham—Mr. N. R. Thompson

    Herefordshire—Mr. J. E. Bulmer

    Mid-Staffs—Mr. B. Liss

    North Birmingham—Dr. M. D. Skillicorn

    North Staffs—Mr. M. J. Procter

    North East Warwickshire—Mr. G. N. Jackson

    North Worcestershire—Mr. M. Cooper

    Sandwell—Mr. C. V. Wilkinson

    Shropshire—Cllr. D. G. Lloyd

    Solihull—Mr. R. W. Fordham

    South Birmingham—Mr. F. C. Graves

    South East Staffs—Cllr. M. Stanhope

    South Warwickshire—Mrs F. J. Burman

    Walsall—Mr. M. R. Wolverson

    West Birmingham—Mr. G. A. D. Goghlan

    Wolverhampton—Mr. R. M Carver

    Worcester—Mr. A. J. Prescott

    FHSA Chairmen

    Birmingham—Mrs. C. M. Vaughan-Griffiths

    Coventry—Mr. B. Stoten

    Dudley—Mr. A. J. Waldron

    Herefordshire and Worcestershire—Mrs. E. F. Metcalfe

    Sandwell—Mr A. M. T. Sealey

    Shropshire—Mr. Z. J. Nilski

    Solihull—Mrs. A. Woolley

    Staffordshire—Mr. P. E. Jones

    Walsall—Mr. J. A. Howell

    Warwickshire—Mr. R. R. G. Gardner

    Wolverhampton—Ms T. A. Evans

    Mersey Region
    DHAs Chairmen

    Chester—Mr. J. Ross

    Crewe—Vacancy

    Halton—Vacancy

    Liverpool—Mr. D. H. Tod

    Macclesfield-Mr. S. H. Cussons

    Southport and Formby—Mr. F. R. Ludlow

    South Sefton—Vacancy

    St. Helens and Knowsley—Mr. G. Murray

    Warrington—Mr. D. Hannah

    Wirral—Mr. R. S. Gordon

    FHSA Chairmen

    Cheshire—Vacancy

    Liverpool—Mrs. R. Hawley

    St. Helens and Knowsley—Mr. J. E. Dray

    Sefton—Mr. C. D. D. Darley

    Wirral—Mrs. M. Pearce

    Northern Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Darlington—Mr. I. Cordial

    East Cumbria—Mr. I. C. Carr

    Gateshead—Mr. J. W. Dowdeswell

    Hartlepool—Cllr. B. Hanson

    Newcastle—Mr. A. Crute

    North Tees—Mr. D. J. Otter

    North Tyneside—Cllr. S. M. Murray

    Northumberland—Mr. J. R. Baker

    North Durham—Prof. J. I. Clarke

    South Cumbria—Mrs. A. S. Graham

    South Tees—Mr. P. A. Marsden

    South Tyneside—Mr. W. M. Darling

    South West Durham—Mrs. E. R. Wallis

    Sunderland—Mr. G. Bedell

    West Cumbria—Vacancy

    FHSA Chairmen

    Cleveland—Mr. T. J. O'Connor

    Cumbria—Mr. J. R. Wills

    Durham—Mr. I. G. Bonas

    Gateshead—Mrs. B. Balls

    Newcastle—Mr. C. P. Douglas

    North Tyneside—Mrs. K. Johnston

    Northumberland—Dr. C. J. Robinson

    South Tyneside—Mr. A. G. Brown

    Sunderland—Mr. J. D. S. Brown

    North Western Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley—Mr. W. I. Woolley

    Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde—Mr. R. T. Parkinson

    Bolton—Mr. T. Taylor

    Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale—Mr. W. Ashworth

    Bury—Mr. E. S. Schofield

    Central Manchester—Prof. J. R. Moore

    Chorley and South Ribble—Vacancy

    Lancaster—Prof. A. Smith

    North Manchester—Mr. D. G. Wilson

    Oldham—Mr. J. Downs

    Preston—Mr. J. Hood

    Rochdale—Cllr. P. N. E. Hawton

    Salford—Dr. F. B. Beswick

    South Manchester—Mr. J. P. B. Hadfield

    Stockport—Mr. F. Russell

    Tameside and Glossop—Cllr. J. B. Leck

    Trafford—Mrs. S. D. Alexander

    West Lancashire—Dr. K. V. Rowsell

    Wigan—Mr. G. N. Hague

    FHSA Chairmen

    Bolton—Mrs. L. Pickford

    Bury—Mr. B. Wood

    Lancashire—Mr. C. E. Jeanes

    Manchester—Prof. Joan Higgins

    Oldham—Mr. M. R. Farrar

    Rochdale—Mr. L. M. Price

    Salford—Mr. E. Parker

    Stockport—Mr. S. D. McGeorge

    Tameside—Mrs. A. E. Corrie

    Trafford—Mr. D. Higginbottom

    Wigan—Mr. J. McDonald

    Yorkshire Region
    DHA Chairmen

    North Yorkshire—Mrs. S. Wrigley

    Bradford—Ms Z. Manzoor

    Calderdale—Vacancy

    Dewsbury—Mr. I. F. Pattison

    East Yorkshire—Prof. G. A. Smith

    Grimsby—Mr. R. Blair

    Huddersfield—Mr. P. E. Wood

    Hull—Vacancy

    Leeds—Mrs. P. V. Smith

    Pontefract—Vacancy

    Scunthorpe—Vacancy

    Wakefield—Mr. B. Hayward

    FHSA Chairmen

    Bradford—Mr. J. A. Fergusson

    Calderdale—Mr. B. Calverley

    Humberside—Mrs. V. Pettifer

    Kirklees—Mr. P. Sarathy

    Leeds—Mrs. D. Scott

    North Yorkshire—Mr. J. Whitworth

    Wakefield—Mr. D. A. Travis

    North East Thames Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Barking, Havering and Brentwood—Mr. B. A. Littlewood

    Basildon and Thurrock—Mr. G. F. Gould

    Bloomsbury and Islington—Mr. R. Everington

    City and Hackney—Mrs. F. Heidensohn

    Enfield—Mr. D. G. Kleeman

    Hampstead—Mrs. A. M. Killick

    Haringey—Mr. L. A. Bains

    Mid Essex—Mr. J. D. Hilton

    Newham—Mrs R. A. Walters

    North East Essex—Mr. A. Sexton

    Redbridge—Miss D. F. Patman

    Southend—Mr. D. R. Micklem

    Tower Hamlets—Mr. R. M. Brew

    Waltham Forest—Mr. L. Knox

    West Essex—Mrs. J. C. Martin

    FHSA Chairmen

    Barking and Havering—Lady Caroline S. Rhys-Williams

    Camden and Islington—Mrs. A. Burgess

    City and East London—Mr. N. Warner

    Enfield and Haringey—Mr. B. Blackler

    Essex—Major General R. P. W. Wall

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest—Mr. C. Heginbotham

    North West Thames Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Barnet—Dr. T. J. Carter

    Ealing—Baroness Eccles of Moulton

    North and East Hertfordshire—Mr. A. E. Preston

    Harrow—Mrs. C. Quest

    Hillingdon—Mr. D. A. Evans

    Hounslow and Spelthorne—Professor Dorothy Wedderburn

    North Bedfordshire—Ms J. Swift

    North West Herts—Mr. D. Bucknall

    Parkside—Mrs. J. Hughes

    Riverside—Mr. S. Matthews

    South Bedfordshire—Mr. A. P. Hendry

    South West Hertfordshire—Mr. J. Gratton

    FHSA Chairmen

    Barnet—Mrs. D. Miller

    Bedfordshire—Dr. A. J. Wood

    Brent and Harrow—Ms S. Child

    Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow—Mrs. J. D. Stern

    Hertfordshire—Lady Staughton

    Hillingdon—Mr. D. Bucks

    Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster—Mr. R. Davies

    South East Thames Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Bexley—Mr. B. H. Hord

    Brighton—Mr. J. Spiers

    Bromley—Mr. J. A. Cumming

    Camberwell—Sir Derek Boorman

    Canterbury and Thanet—Mr. H. J. Bragg

    Dartford and Gravesham—Mr. C. C. Thornton

    Eastbourne—Mr. J. Wellesley

    Greenwich—vacancy

    Hastings—Mrs. D. M. Ross

    Lewisham and North Southwark—Mr. I. Mills

    Maidstone—Mrs. A. M. S. Nelson

    Medway—Mr. J. A. Spence

    South East Kent—Mr. J. A. Lawton

    Tunbridge Wells—Mr. P. H. Edgley

    West Lambeth—Sir Robert Reid

    FHSA Chairmen

    Bromley—Ms C. McLoughlin

    East Sussex—Mrs. J. Darlington

    489

    Greenwich and Bexley—Mrs. J. Rodin

    Kent—Mr. M. Rowley

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham—Mrs. C. Motley

    South West Thames Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Chichester—Mr. J. G. Grindle

    Croydon—Mrs. A. Fresko

    East Surrey—Mr. J. P. Poole

    Kingston and Esher—Mr. R. Galley

    Merton and Sutton—Mr. H. A. Cowd

    Mid Downs—Mr. M. H. Long

    Mid Surrey—Prof. A. Holmes

    North West Surrey—Mrs. M. J. Reid

    Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton—Cllr. C. J. Flind

    South West Surrey—Sir Nicholas Hunt

    Wandsworth—Dr. E. C. Vincent

    West Surrey and North East Hants—Prof. J. A. Kennerley

    Worthing—Mr. P. G. Lawson

    FHSA Chairmen

    Croydon—Mr. R. E. Lane

    Kingston and Richmond—Mr. D. J. G. Banks

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth—Mr. J. G. Speirs

    Surrey—Mr. M. M. McNaughton

    West Sussex—Mrs. A. Swain

    South Western Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Bristol and District—Mr. M. J. Crowson

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly—Mr. J. H. Askham

    Exeter—Mr. M. French

    Gloucestershire—Miss J. Trotter

    North Devon—Mrs. R. A. Day

    Plymouth—Sir V Seccombe

    Somerset—Mr. T. A. Ward

    Torbay—Mr. P. G. Wilde (acting)

    FHSA Chairmen

    Avon—Mrs. M. E. Perriam

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly—Mr. M. G. Varcoe

    Devon—Revd. Mrs. M. Gent

    Gloucestershire—Mr. C. Weaver

    Somerset—Mr. D. F. Strachan

    Wessex Region
    DHA Chairmen

    Basingstoke and North Hampshire—Mrs. A. D. Sealey

    Bath—Mr. E. S. Jenkins

    Dorset—Maj. Gen. R. C. Keightley

    Isle of Wight—Mr. A. Medley

    Portsmouth and South East Hants—Dr. A. J. Taylor

    Salisbury—Maj. Gen. R. Crossley

    Southampton and South West Hants—Prof. J. B. L. Howell

    Swindon—Mr. D. Hulme

    Winchester—Mr. N. Jonas

    FHSA Chairmen

    Dorset—Mrs. K. W. Mulliner

    Hampshire—Mr. D. Paterson

    Isle of Wight—Dr. D. E. Ferguson-Hudson

    Wiltshire—Mrs. J. Perons

    RHA Chairmen

    Peter Carr, Northern RHA

    Sir Bryan Askew, Yorkshire RHA

    Sir Michael Carlisle, Trent RHA

    Sir Colin Walker, East Anglian RHA

    Sir William Doughty, North West Thames RHA

    Sir William Staveley, North East Thames RHA

    Peter Barker, South East Thames RHA

    Professor Marian Hicks OBE, South West Thames RHA

    Sir Robin Buchanan, Wessex RHA

    Dr. Stuart Burgess CBE, Oxford RHA

    Ms Rennie Fritchie, South Western RHA

    Sir Donald Wilson DL, West Midlands RHA

    Professor A. M. Breckenridge, Mersey RHA

    Sir Bruce Martin QC, North Western RHA

  Political Donations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to require all national health service tenderers to declare political contributions and health authorities to record such declarations in their minutes.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Rehabilitation Facilities
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to extend day and residential rehabilitation facilities staffed by skilled personnel including physiotherapists and occupational therapists for the care of elderly patients discharged into the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  A wide range of rehabilitation facilities exists within the national health service and local social services authorities. Decisions about rehabilitation services are for the professional judgment of those concerned with the individual case.

  European Population Conference
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will make up the United Kingdom's delegation to the European population conference to be held in Geneva in March.

  Mr. Sackville
  The delegation will be led by the director of statistics from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and also have officials from the Home Office and Overseas Development Administration, and an academic expert who is a member of the British Society for Population Studies.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the country statement for the United Kingdom for the European population conference will be made available for hon. Members before the conference.

  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of the United Kingdom country statement are now available in the Library.

  Stillbirth
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the impact of the new definition of stillbirth will be on statistics of perinatal mortality.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government were pleased to be able to support Rosie Barnes's private Member's Bill which resulted in the extension of the definition of stillbirth to include losses at 24 to 27 weeks' gestation. The loss of a baby in these circumstances is a tragedy for the family involved and it is clearly right that there should be proper and formal recognition. Extending the definition from 28 weeks to 24 weeks has made that possible.

  In terms of published statistics on stillbirth it is estimated that the inclusion of these losses will mean, at present rates, approximately 800 more registered stillbirths in England and Wales annually.

  It is important not only that the effect of the new definition should be reflected in the routine statistics but that trends can continue to be the subject of monitoring and analysis in spite of the change. For this reason, future Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publications

  491
  over the next few years will contain data on trends with and without stillbirths in the 24 to 27-week period as from 1 October 1992, the operative date of the new definition.

  That latest published figure for the rate of perinatal mortality—stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life —in England and Wales in 1991 was eight per 1,000 live and stillbirths. This is the lowest ever recorded. Published data will continue to include both single-year figures on the old and new basis and averages over the most recent three-year period for which we have comparative data. Single-year figures, especially for regional and other sub-national analyses, can be volatile now that the rates are so low. Therefore, the combined three-year average provides a more reliable indication of underlying trends at these levels as well as nationally.

  The national health service continues to give a high priority to the further reduction of stillbirths, including full participation in the nationwide confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy.

  NHS Trusts (Fund-raising)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of private fund-raising companies by NHS trusts; what guidelines he has issued on good practice and on the allocation of money so raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No assessment has been made arid no guidelines have been issued. These matters are well within the competence of individual trust boards.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing the number of hospital beds available by specialty in each region in each year since 1979–80 and currently.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 February at column 676.

  School Medical Services
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local health authorities which have ceased to carry out annual dental check-ups on school children.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The current guidance to local health authorities suggests that they should arrange for the screening of teeth of children in state-funded schools at least three times in each child's school life. The Department has no information which suggests that health authorities are not doing so.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school nurses were employed in the state education sector in 1992, 1985 and 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest information available, which reflects the 20 per cent. increase in general practitioners since 1979 and their increased involvement in child health care, is shown in the table.
  492

  NHS school nurses1 in post at 30 September each year, England

  Whole-time equivalents2

  31979

  3,810

  1985

  3,110

  1991

  3,050

  1 Figures include school health visitors. Statistics on the number of nurses in particular areas of work are prone to errors in employing authorities' coding procedures. The above figures should therefore be treated with caution.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  3 Figures for 1979 have been adjusted for the reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week).

  Children in Hospital
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to centralise information on child patients in hospitals as a step towards ensuring that no child will be treated on an adult ward.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the guide, "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital"—HMSO 1991—we cited the evidence to show that children are best treated in children's departments and recommended that health authorities and other purchasers should specify this requirement in their contracts for hospital services for children. We expect district health authorities to monitor compliance with their contracts and, in connection with implementation of the recent Audit Commission report "Children First: A Study of Hospital Services", both regional health authorities and the Department will also undertake selective monitoring. We consider that implementation of our policy can be achieved by these means without the introduction of routine arrangements for the central collection of records on where children are accommodated in hospital. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Salford and Manchester Authorities
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations have been received in favour of the proposed consortia of Salford and Manchester health authorities; and how many against the proposal.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the three months since the proposed consortium was announced, seven letters have been received, all of which were opposed to plans to form a consortium.

  Children's Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special guidelines are issued to local authorities which have care and responsibility for children with physical or mental disabilities in order to ensure protection from abuse and early detection of abuse.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no special child protection guidelines of this kind. "Working Together under the Children Act 1989", the Government's guidance on inter-agency co-operation in the protection of children from abuse, applies to all children including children with physical or mental disabilities. "Working Together" emphasises that children with disabilities have the same rights as other children, and that every effort should be made to provide appropriate assistance during an
  493
  investigative interview so that they can express themselves fully and understand what is happening and what decisions have to be made.

  NHS Transport, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the costs of the transport contract to carry national health service staff from Leeds station to the NHS executive offices at Quarry Hill, Leeds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Nil. The cost of the transport contract to carry Department of Health staff is £636 per week.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Valuation Office agency carried out a valuation of all property assets in all trusts prior to NHS trust status being granted.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Valuation Office agency carried out a valuation of all property assets—land and buildings—transferred to trusts in the first and second waves, as at 1 April 1991 and 1 April 1992 respectively. Similar arrangements are in place for the third wave trusts to be established as at 1 April 1993.

  Prior to trust status being granted, the results from the periodic capital valuations of all property within the national health service estate would have been available locally to the trusts and health authorities concerned. The periodic valuations were carried out, as at 31 December 1989 and 1 April 1992, by the Valuation Office agency, which also provided indices to update the valuations in the intervening years.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 303, if, in valuing the assets of a hospital, other than land and buildings, before acquiring NHS trust status, her Department required a common method for each hospital for determining the value of the assets; and what arrangements were made for an external audit to take place before the assets were vested in the NHS trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department issues instructions which establish how all categories of assets that transfer to a trust should be valued. These instructions are based on existing departmental guidance and standard accounting practice. The valuation of all assets transferring is subjected to external audit.

  Accident and Emergency Ambulance Response Times—London Ambulance Service (LAS)

  1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Number of calls responded to within 8 minutes

  5,369

  3,752

  3,139

  4,470

  4,629

  3,746

  Percentage of calls responded to within 8 minutes

  14

  10

  9

  12

  12

  9

  Number of calls responded to within 14 minutes

  25,011

  20,959

  18,869

  23,535

  24,369

  21,576

  Percentage of calls responded to within 14 minutes

  64

  55

  53

  63

  61

  53

  Number of calls responded to within 20 minutes

  34,712

  32,011

  29,512

  32,943

  34,779

  32,981

  Percentage of calls responded to within 20 minutes

  88

  83

  82

  88

  86

  81

  Number of calls responded to within 25 minutes

  37,324

  35,468

  32,885

  35,354

  37,685

  36,686

  Percentage of calls responded to within 25 minutes

  95

  92

  92

  95

  94

  90

  (Information supplied by the LAS)

  NHS Management
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to monitor the performance of national health service administrators/management; and what use is being made of outside management consultants to set performance indicators for this group.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Performance measures for individual managers of any discipline can only be set by the national health service trust board or authority through the normal management process. A national individual performance review scheme has existed since 1986 for general and senior managers throughout the NHS. Arrangements for performance review of other staff is a matter for individual employing authorities. Under the health service reforms, NHS trusts have the freedom to develop their own performance review systems and a number have done so using design advice from external management consultants.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to allowing children's hospices to become eligible for hospice funding in the coming financial year; and whether she will seek to include children's hospices in the list of eligible organisations in future guidance on hospice funding to be issued to regional health authorities.

  Mr. Yeo
  The central funds allocated for voluntary hospices to health authorities will be delegated from 1994–95 in order that they may contract for services for both adults and children with life-threatening illness. Meanwhile the recently issued guidance—executive letter EL(93)14—copies of which are available in the Library, on central funding in 1993–94 does not include any age restriction on the use to which the funds may be put.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each month from January to June 1992(a) the number of actual emergency calls responded to by the London ambulance service and (b) the number and percentage responded to within (i) 14, (ii) 20, (iii) 25, (iv) 30, (v) 40, and (vi) 50 or more minutes together with respective totals; and if she will publish consolidated totals in respect of the national Orcon standards for each month.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.
  495
  A breakdown of call response times above 25 minutes could be obtained only at disproportionate cost to the London ambulance service.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation exists to regulate independent companies which are providing continuing care for the elderly; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Statutory control of homes providing long-term care for anyone who needs it is provided under the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and its associated regulations.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November 1992, to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls),Official Report, column 809, if the extra funding to local authorities as part of the arrangements for replacing the independent living fund will be ring-fenced for purposes currently covered by the independent living fund.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The extra funding is included in the special transitional grant which is itself ring-fenced solely for use on community care.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November 1992 to the hon. Member from Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls),Official Report, column 809, if the extra funding to local authorities as part of the arrangements to replace the independent living fund will be used for cash grants for those in need of help to remain in their own homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. Local authorities have no powers to make cash payments.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the objectives are of her organ donor campaign; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There arc many patients whose lives could be saved or enhanced by an organ transplant. The Government aim to encourage more people to consider organ donation. We have, therefore, commissioned a television campaign to provoke discussion on donation in the hope that more people will carry the donor card, and more importantly, let their families know of their wishes.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 11 May 1992,Official Report, column 31, what is her estimate for what proportion of prescriptions, for which a prescription charge is paid, the cost of the item to the NHS will be less than the prescription charge under the prescription charge levels for 1993–94 announced on 16 March.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The flat-rate prescription charge is an amount which successive Governments have thought it reasonable for those who can afford to do so to contribute towards the cost of national health service pharmaceutical 496
  services. It is not, and never has been, directly related either to the particular item prescribed or to the actual cost to the NHS of dispensing it. About 80 per cent. of prescribed items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors are free of charge. For 1993–94 it is estimated that some 35 per cent. of chargeable items will cost the NHS less than the new charge of £4·25 announced on Tuesday 2 March.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish an explanation of note (1) to section A of his departmental press notice P/93/51 of 4 February on plutonium production and stockpile figures, on why exact figures for the plutonium content of fuel discharged and dispatched cannot be given.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not practicable to make direct measurements of the plutonium content of fuel rods at the power station. Accordingly, the figures in question are estimates, calculated using reactor physics computer codes, based on the characteristics of the fresh fuel and the output of the reactor since the fuel was loaded. The error margin specified reflects the accuracy of this estimating process.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to propose legislation under which shareholders would be able to seek compensation from the recognised supervisory bodies for recommending passive auditing standards.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to examine the sale of the agenda papers by the Auditing Practices Board.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The powers that might be available would depend upon the nature of the complaint.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice and measures he has taken to ensure that the terms of the proposed fuel cycle contract between Nuclear Electric and British Nuclear Fuels plc will not operate against the public interest.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both BNFL and Nuclear Electric are wholly owned by the Government. Nonetheless, it is the Government's policy that each company should act in a commercial manner, since this best serves the taxpayer's interest as shareholder. This need to act commercially will be reflected in the terms of any contract negotiated between the two companies.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen and Kleinwort Benson with the total cost of the contracts for each contractor for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.
  497
  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Consultancy Contracts awarded

  Arthur Andersen

  period

  3 March 1992 to 4 March 1993

  None

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  None

  Kleinwort Benson

  period

  3 March 1992 to 4 March 1993

  11

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  None

  1 (Post Office:Financial Advisers)

  The value of the single contract awarded is commercially confidential.

  The figures do not include contracts issued by executive agencies that have delegated authority to engage consultants.

  ALTENER Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to increase the number and widen the range of industrial pilot schemes under the EC ALTENER programme.

  Mr. Eggar
  I chaired the Council of Energy Ministers on 30 November 1992 which discussed a proposal for a decision concerning the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community—ALTENER programme. The UK presidency secured politcal agreement to this programme which will support a series of actions to promote the greater exploitation of renewable energy resources within the Community. The ALTENER programme is a "software" programme and makes no financial provision for the creation of industrial plant.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those services or functions that have been contracted out from his Department since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Mr. Eggar
  Detailed information on the conduct and award of individual contracts is not held centrally by my Department and collection of this information would incur disproportionate costs.

  European Regional Assistance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the involvement of(a) employers' organisations, (b) trade unions and (c) local authorities in the implementation of European regional assistance programmes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have no such plans at present. Any such arrangements will be subject to revised Council regulations which I expect to be adopted in the summer.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the state of the coal industry.
  498
  Mr. Eggar
  We intend to set out the conclusions of the Government's coal review in a White Paper to be published shortly.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will obtain a copy of the document of which he has been given notice by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West for his departmental library.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes.

  Gas-fired Power Generation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce a decision for granting Electricity Act 1989 consent for the proposed PowerGen Connah's Quay gas-fired power station; what consultations he has had on a time-delayed consent; what assessment he has made of the impact of such a consent on the proposed Hamilton Brothers gas-processing plant at Point of Ayr and the development of the gas fields off the north Wales coast and in Liverpool bay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend is reviewing the use of his consent powers under section 36 of the Electricty Act 1989 as part of the coal review and has made it clear that he proposes to defer decisions on outstanding applications for new power stations until after that review is completed. The Government are proposing to publish their White Paper shortly.

  My right hon. Friend recognises the importance which local representatives and equipment suppliers attach to all the proposed Liverpool bay developments. I can assure the hon. Member that all relevant factors are being carefully considered.

  Petroleum Engineering Directorate
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the Ernst and Young report into the relocation of the petroleum engineering directorate to Aberdeen.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have today published in full the report by Ernst and Young on the arguments for and against relocating the professional geologists and engineers of the DTI's oil and gas division—formerly the petroleum engineering directorate—to Aberdeen. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  While the report showed there was no clear case for moving all the DTI's petroleum engineering directorate —PED—to Aberdeen, it did raise some wider issues. Ernst and Young's comprehensive analysis led the Government to examine the case for improving the service the DTI offers those companies who choose to locate in Aberdeen. We can improve the service to those companies by providing multi-disciplinary teams in Aberdeen. I am pleased to announce that during the coming year the DTI will open an office in Aberdeen to provide key DTI services to that part of the oil and gas industry based there.

  Initially, the office will consist of 60 people and provide services which until now have only been available from DTI headquarters. In particular the new office will take the nationwide lead in the issue of field development consents

  499
  and in considering abandonment programmes. It will also process development applications—annex Bs—from companies based in Aberdeen.

  The office will be expanded to 80 staff over the next two years if, as expected, additional companies move essential functions to Aberdeen. All this will create a climate which should help the successful development of the oil -supply and service companies located there.

  The setting up of the new office is an acknowledgement of the importance of Aberdeen as an established centre for both the United Kingdom and international oil and gas industry and of Aberdeen's potential for future growth.

  Industrial Innovation
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on responsibility for encouraging industrial innovation and technology transfer.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In the context of the policies emerging from the forthcoming White Paper on science and technology, the Government will review the scope for transferring responsibility for a range of schemes for encouraging industrial innovation and technology transfer in Scotland and Wales from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Scottish and Welsh Offices respectively. The object of the review will be to bring about transfer of responsibility wherever practicable.

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which consultees agreed to the indicative conditions to be imposed on operators in blocks 104/16, 104/17, 104/18, 104/19, 104/21, 103/1, 103/2 and 103/3.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: All our consultees, such as other Government Departments and interested bodies, were given an opportunity to comment on the draft conditions to be attached to individual blocks. Consultees' comments have now been incorporated into relevant draft conditions.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the shortest distance in nautical miles between the northern extremity of blocks 104/16, 104/17 and W4/18 and(a) Burry inlet (grid ref. SS500970) and (b) Penclawdd.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The shortest distance between the northern extremity of blocks 104/16, 104/17, and 104/18 and grid ref. SS500970 is approximately 12 nautical miles. The shortest distance between the northern extremity of blocks 104/16, 104/17 and 104/18 and Penclawdd is approximately 13 nautical miles.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the shortest distance in nautical miles between the southern extremity of block 103/1 and 103/2 and(a) the Smalls and (b) Grassholm Island.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The shortest distance between the southern extremity of blocks 103/1 and 103/2 and the smalls is approximately eight nautical miles. The shortest distance between the southern extremity of blocks 103/1 and 103/2 and Grassholm Island is approximately 10 nautical miles.
  500
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department asked the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for its advice on blocks 103/1, 103/2, 103/3, 106/25, 106/29, 107/21, 104/16, 104/17, 104/18, 104/19, 104/21, 106/24, 106/27, 106/28, 103/19, 103/20, 103/24, 103/25, 103/39 and 103/30; and by what date it required a response.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Comments on the first three of these blocks were requested from the JNCC on 14 April 1992. No date was set for the JNCC to respond by, as a meeting was arranged to discuss its concerns. It responded on 1 June 1992. The remainder of the blocks were notified to JNCC on 5 and 18 May 1992. The JNCC responded on 20 June 1992. At all times we kept the JNCC fully informed of our timetable for announcements.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the shortest distance in nautical miles between the northern extremity of blocks 104/16, 104/17, 104/18 and 104/19 and(a) the nearest point to each block on the Welsh coastline and (b) the north coast of Lundy Island.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The shortest distance between the northern extremities of blocks 104/16, 104/17, 104/18 and 104/19 and the nearest points on the Welsh coast are approximately six, eight, six and two nautical miles respectively. The shortest distance between the southern extremity of blocks 104/16, 104/17, 104/18 and 104/19 and the north coast of Lundy Island is approximately six nautical miles.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the shortest distance in nautical miles between(a) the southern extremity and (b) the eastern extremity of block 104/21 and Lundy Island.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The shortest distance between the south-eastern extremity of block 104/21 and the coast of Lundy Island is aproximately six nautical miles.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the current members of his advisory panel on deregulation, together with the organisations from which they are seconded.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The current members of the advisory panel on deregulation are:

  Sir Nigel Mobbs—Slough Estates plc

  Martin Robeson—J. Sainsbury plc

  Richard Ellis—TSB Bank Ltd.

  John HoareߞJ. B. Hoare and Co.

  Alan Hudson—Business consultant

  Stephen Moss—Grosvenor Securities Ltd.

  Dan Wright—Fleming Thermodynamics Ltd.

  Tim Brookes—In Shops plc

  Lewis Goodman—Norwest Consultants

  Members are appointed in an individual capacity and not as representatives of organisations.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of his advisory panel on deregulation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: The advisory panel on deregulation provides valuable advice to

  501
  Ministers, both in my Department and in others, and to the deregulation unit which reports to me, on Government requirements and regulations which may be burdensome to businesses both large and small. The panel is able to offer a business perspective on the management and prioritisation of work on deregulation. Members of the panel provide business views on deregulation issues, whether these arise from the implementation of domestic policies or from EC requirements or from the enforcement of regulations by local authorities and others.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Dogs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many dogs, other than guide dogs, are authorised to be present during the working day in the Palace and its associated buildings.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps are being taken to require keepers of dogs authorised to be present in the Palace and its outbuildings, other than guide dogs, to ensure that mess is not left on pavements, roads or grass around the Palace.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee is not responsible for the control of dogs on pavements, roads or grass around the Palace of Westminster.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chairman of the Works Committee what arrangements are made for the recycling of waste paper from offices of hon. Members and staff of the House.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Waste paper is collected free of charge and recycled off site by a contractor. Collections of waste paper are made daily Monday to Saturday.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the south Derbyshire VAT office(a) the number of new registrations, (b) the number of cancelled registrations and (c) the total number registered at year end, for the last three years for which data are available.

  Sir John Cope
  The local VAT office that covers South Derbyshire also covers Derby and parts of Leicestershire and Staffordshire. The number of VAT registrations in the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  New Registrations

  Cancelled Registrations

  Total Registered

  1990

  2,370

  1,652

  18,022

  1991

  1,869

  2,475

  17,542

  1992

  1,805

  2,168

  17,190

  Textile Industry
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to reduce the paperwork experienced by the textile industry resulting from the EC Intrastat classification.

  Mr. Lamont
  The completion of the single market has led to the removal of most border formalities on trade with the European Community. This has considerably reduced the burdens on businesses.

  Under the new Intrastat system, three-quarters of United Kingdom businesses will have to provide only two statistics on their total trade on a quarterly basis. Larger traders will also benefit from the replacement of the previous documentation with a simpler statistical return which will have to be only provided monthly. The previous system required separate paperwork for each and every shipment of goods in the form of the single administrative document. This means that 10 million export forms will be eliminated each year, with net annual savings to United Kingdom exporters estimated to be £135 million.

  The United Kingdom is required to use the EC combined nomenclature classification under Council regulation 3330/91. These classification codes are similar to those previously reported on the single administrative document except that they comprise only eight instead of nine digits.

  The Prime Minister has recently announced a scrutiny review of European legislation to help ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on business when transposing Community legislation into national law. Furthermore, the Government will continue to press for policies which will further liberalise the European Community market, including breaking down any bureaucratic barriers.

  Global Investment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters relating to global investment in the environment and progress made in meeting the financial commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development were discussed at the meeting hosted by him of G7 Finance Ministers on 27 February.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The meeting focused primarily on the economic situation in G7 countries. However, the commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development are being actively pursued in a number of fora.

  Corporation Tax Fraud
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the numbers and grades of staff employed to investigate and pursue corporate tax fraud; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Approximately 400 Inland Revenue staff units are engaged in the investigation of possible or actual corporate tax fraud. This work is carried out by all grades of inspector of taxes up to and including the rank of principal inspector.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax has been recovered in cases of corporate tax fraud in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; how many cases were involved each year, and if he will make a statement.
  503
  Mr. Dorrell
  It is impossible to distinguish fraud cases, but the approximate amounts of tax recovered in cases of possible or actual fraudulent or negligent conduct by companies, and the numbers of cases, in the years 1989–90, 1991–92 were as follows:

  Cases

  Tax £ million

  1989–90

  3,248

  122

  1990–91

  3,410

  128

  1991–92

  3,913

  162

  Public Bodies (Members' Remuneration)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the amounts, and the basis in each case, of remuneration from public funds of(a) local government councillors, (b) school chairmen and governors, (c) chairmen and directors of health authorities and trusts, (d) members of police authorities, (e) chairmen and members of British Rail and British Coal, (f) members of social security and employment boards, (g) magistrates and (h) the Health Advisory Service.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information in the form requested is not available except at disproportionate costs. Details of the remuneration paid to members of public boards and nationalised industries is in "Public Bodies 1992" published by HMSO, which is available from the Library. Local government councillors are expected to receive allowances and expenses determined under the Local Government (Members' Allowance) Regulations of around £52 million in 1992–93. School chairmen and governors receive no remuneration, but travel and subsistence allowances may be paid at the discretion of local education authorities. Lay magistrates are entitled to travel and subsistence expenses plus a financial loss allowance, while stipendiary magistrates receive an annual salary of £52,500. The cost of magistrates' salaries and allowances, including national insurance contributions, is expected to be £4.5 million in 1992–93.

  LAUTRO
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to improve the effectiveness of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation in securing compensation for customers of insurance companies who have been sold insurance policies by salesmen who have stolen the premiums.

  Mr. Nelson
  The effectiveness of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation is primarily a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Viggers
  To aks the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the conduct of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation in securing compensation for customers of the Royal Life insurance company affected by the activities of the company's former employee, Mr. Kissane.

  Mr. Nelson
  I regulary receive representations on a wide range of matters relevant to the Financial Services Act. Vie conduct of individual cases is a matter for the regulatory bodies.

  Travellers Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often Customs and Excise posts are supplied with copies of the travellers charter; which posts currently hold stocks of the charter available for travellers; and what is the level of such stocks held by each post.

  Sir John Cope
  The travellers charter was launched in January 1992. It is in two versions: poster notices, which are displayed in Customs examination areas for travellers at ports and airports, and leaflets. Twelve thousand copies of the poster and 160,000 copies of the leaflet were printed.

  The leaflet can be obtained from Customs at ports and airports, from the 21 regional collections and from Customs headquarters.

  Customs offices reorder copies of the leaflet when stocks fall low. It is not possible to assess easily what is the level of stocks held by each post, but centrally 46,000 leaflets remain stock.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officials will begin wearing name badges as detailed in the travellers charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The travellers charter was launched in January 1992 and Customs staff have worn name badges with effect from around that date. Exceptions are made where the particular nature of the officer's duty might render the wearing of a name badge unsafe.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the firms of consultants used by Customs and Excise as part of the market testing programme since November 1991 together with the total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise have used a number of consultants to assist in preparing the market testing programme, to support in-house bids, to advise market test managers and prepare specifications. The cost of this consultancy since November 1991 has been £245,000. The following consultants have been used.

  Barony Consulting

  BIS

  Capita

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Ernst and Young

  Erskine Consultancy

  PA Consultancy

  PE Consultancy

  Pool Associates

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the market tests that have taken place in Customs and Excise 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.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise have completed four market tests since November 1991. The tests covered typing services in the Leeds and east midland areas, Southend headquarters and the Department's stores branch. In all cases, the in-house bid was successful.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those services or functions that have been
  505
  contracted out from the Customs and Excise since November 1991 without market testing an in-house bid against external competition, with, in each instance, the successful contractor and the reasons for the decision to exclude an in-house bid.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise have completed four market tests since November 1991. An in-house bid was put forward in each case, and all four contracts have been awarded in-house.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in the Customs and Excise are assigned to the market testing programme; how much the programme has cost Customs and Excise since November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise have a team of six staff dedicated to market testing and have also used a number of outside consultants. The total expenditure on completed and ongoing market tests on these staff costs and consultancy fees since November 1991 has been £360,000. Headquarters staff and staff in areas which are being market tested are also engaged in this work, in addition to their normal duties.

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations have been received about the size of print and colours of the new series of £5, £10 and £20 bank notes; what replies have been sent; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  The design and issue of Bank of England banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank. I am advised that about 800 letters have been received, commenting on various aspects of the design of the new series "E" notes. Replies have explained the Bank's objectives in designing and printing banknotes, which are to achieve an appropriate blend of security features, distinguishing characteristics and cost effectiveness.

  The Bank announced on 15 February that, in response to public comment, changes are being made to the denomination numerals on the £5, £10 and £20 notes. The revised £5 note was issued on 1 March and the revised £10 and £20 notes are expected to be issued later this year.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total revenue from stamp duty upon the purchase of houses in each of the last 24 months for which figures are available; and what was the average stamp duty liability per transaction in each of those months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information relates to all transactions of land and property, other than shares, liable to stamp duty and is given in the table. The figures include new leases. Part of the duty on such leases depends on the length of the lease and is not affected by changes in the stamp duty threshold. New leases therefore accounted for a much higher proportion of all transactions liable to stamp duty over the period 20 December 1991 to 19 August 1992 when the threshold was temporarily raised to £250,000. This affects the figures on average stamp duty per transaction.
  506

  Stamp duty on land and property

  1991

  Receipts

  Average duty per transaction

  £million

  £

  January

  90·5

  810

  February

  61·1

  770

  March

  70·3

  870

  April

  79·5

  810

  May

  69·2

  710

  June

  96·7

  1,010

  July

  92·0

  810

  August

  102·9

  1,040

  September

  74·3

  740

  October

  87·6

  840

  November

  69·6

  770

  December

  68·2

  800

  Year

  961·9

  830

  1992

  Receipts

  Average duty per transaction

  £million

  £

  January

  48·4

  1,010

  February

  20·2

  1,190

  March

  19·2

  1,140

  April

  24·0

  1,510

  May

  18·5

  1,310

  June

  17·0

  1,140

  July

  18·9

  1,150

  August

  19·2

  1·070

  September

  28·1

  940

  October

  51·8

  950

  November

  45·3

  770

  December

  58·3

  880

  Year

  368·7

  1,000

  1993

  Average duty Receipts per transaction

  £million

  £

  January

  51·2

  850

  Notes:

  1. Monthly figures for the financial year 1992–93 are provisional.

  2. On average, receipts and the count of transactions in a given month relate to transactions occurring in the previous month because of time lags.

  Capital Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the information he has concerning the impact upon capital investment by manufacturing industry of the changes in capital allowances which were announced in his autumn statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The aim of the enhanced capital allowances is to encourage businesses to bring forward investment in equipment and buildings. They formed part of a package intended to restore business confidence, which has been widely welcomed by industry. Whilst it is too early to see the effects on investment, recent surveys suggest that the package has contributed to the improvement in business confidence.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement detailing the current arrangements which operate in terms of tax rebates when individuals contribute towards training costs to enable them to improve their skills and qualifications; and if he will make it his policy to introduce measures to allow such costs in the future to be fully allowable for tax assessment purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Individuals training towards national vocational qualifications or Scottish vocational qualifications at levels one to four are entitled to tax relief on the cost of their training. Tax relief is also available for costs incurred by employees on full-time, job-related training courses lasting at least four weeks during which the employer gives paid time off. Self-employed people will generally be able to claim a deduction as a business expense for costs on refreshing business skills or knowledge. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion for wider tax reliefs for training.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to discuss ways in which his policies can more effectively encourage individuals to improve their qualifications or skills.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets regularly the director general of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a variety of matters. He also meets representatives from the Engineering Employers Federation from time to time, but has no plans to do so in the immediate future, nor to meet representatives from the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance.

  Profit-related Schemes
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish(a) the list of firms participating in registered profit-related schemes and (b) the number of employees in each firm.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: As information provided to the Inland Revenue about particular employers' profit-related pay schemes is confidential, I regret I cannot publish the details requested.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the number of people who would have an income tax liability in 1993–94 whose sole income was invalidity benefit if invalidity benefit were liable to tax in 1993–94; and what would be their average annual payment;

  (2) how many recipients of invalidity benefit would be liable to tax if the benefit was taxed in 1993–94; and what would be their average annual tax payment;

  (3) how much would be raised in 1993–94 by taxing invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 March 1993]: Approximate estaimates are that the yield, at 1993–94
  508
  levels, from making invalidity benefit taxable would be about £450 million, assuming statutory indexation of income tax allowances and bands.

  The estimated number of recipients who would have an income tax liability and the average increase in tax is shown in the table:

  Number of taxpayers with invalidity benefit liable to tax

  Average increase in tax with invalidity benefit liable to tax

  All recipients of invalidity benefit

  1750,000

  £600

  Invalidity benefit recipients with no other income

  80,000

  £150

  1 Of which some 250,000 already have an income tax liability.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Theatre-in-Education
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received regarding the funding of Theatre-in-Education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received three letters on this subject, one of which involved Greenwich Young People's Theatre in the hon. Member's constituency. I understand that, in 1993–94, the London arts board will be spending more money on Theatre for Young People, which includes Theatre-in-Education, than the £236,000 it spent this year.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to view the Theatre-in-Education work of the Greenwich young people's theatre.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am considering the recent invitation I have received from the chairman of the Greenwich Young People's Theatre to see its work.

  Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibility for the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils are currently constituted as sub-committees of the Arts Council of Great Britain, though, in practice, both have enjoyed a degree of autonomy. In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and in the context of the Government's commitment to re-examine the role of the Arts Council of Great Britain, we have concluded that the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils should be separately constituted. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, ministerial responsibility for them will be transferred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. In future, the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils will become directly accountable to them.

  I believe that this change will enable the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils to respond more effectively to the needs of the arts in Scotland and Wales. Arrangements will

  509
  be made to ensure that the national arts councils take a collective view on matters of common interest, such as touring.

  To ensure an orderly transfer of functions I propose that the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils should become autonomous with effect from 1 April 1994.

WALES

  Pupils (Faith Allegiance)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown by local education authority of the faith allegiance of pupils in maintained schools; and what percentage of pupils are not educated in the maintained sector.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Comprehensive information on the faith allegiance of pupils in maintained schools is not available centrally. The percentage of pupils who are not educated in the maintained school sector as at January 1992 is shown in the following table.

  Percent

  Clwyd

  3·4

  Dyfed

  1·6

  Gwent

  2·5

  Gwynedd

  3·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·8

  Powys

  3·3

  South Glamorgan

  4·8

  West Glamorgan

  1·3

  Wales

  2·5

  Farming Forms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that all forms made available to the farming community in Wales are processed through the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Forms for all agricultural schemes within my area of responsibility are issued by my Department or, occasionally, in the interests of economy and speed, jointly with other Agriculture Departments. The validation of completed forms is carried out by the Welsh Office. Some statistical surveys conducted by the Welsh Office may be processed by an agency in the interests of efficiency or in order to protect the confidentiality of farmers' data.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that all forms used in connection with applications for agricultural subsidy and grant aid are published bilingually in the Welsh language as well as through the medium of English; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is my policy to make all such forms available in Welsh as well as English whenever it is reasonably practicable to do so.

  School Music
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what initiatives he will take to enable schools to offer specialist instrumental or vocal music training;
  510
  (2) if he will make a statement concerning the impact of the new educational funding methods on school music;

  (3) what is his policy concerning school music;

  (4) what is his policy concerning music making by (a) school orchestras and (b) school choirs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We attach great value to the music support services, both for their intrinsic worth and because of their potential to contribute to the delivery of music within the national curriculum and we are anxious to see them continue.

  Under the present local management of schools arrangements, local education authorities may hold back and deploy substantial resources centrally in respect of schools which they maintain. We firmly believe that local authorities should delegate more money to schools. To this end, we have required them to delegate a minimum of 85 per cent. of their potential schools budget to schools by April 1993. This will ensure that schools control more of their budgets.

  We have not, however, prescribed which services should be delegated and which should be retained centrally. These are primarily matters for individual authorities to consider in consultation with schools within their areas.

  There is nothing under the LMS arrangements to prevent LEAs from continuing to provide services such as peripatetic music teaching, where the funding related to these services has been delegated to schools. It is open to LEAs to develop service agreements with their schools, which will regulate the relationship between service providers and schools. Thus once budgets are delegated, schools would be invited to buy back the services they received previously funded directly by their LEA. It will, however, be for the schools themselves to decide whether or not the service is required and whether it is of good quality and provides value for money. Whether they wish to participate in an arrangement will, therefore, determine if that service is to be provided by the LEA.

  All maintained schools are obliged to meet the national curriculum requirements in terms of music teaching. It is for schools themselves to determine whether they wish to offer, over and above the requirements of the national curriculum, specialist instrumental or vocal music training and whether to run school orchestras and choirs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to obtain more specialist teachers capable of developing specific playing and singing skills in high schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am not aware of any difficulty in meeting the demand for qualified music teachers for secondary schools. All newly qualified teachers should have the skills required to deliver the national curriculum for music, which includes instrumental work and singing.

  I am already providing substantial grant aid, £12 million in 1993–94, through the grants for education support and training programme, for LEA programmes aimed at assisting existing teachers to introduce the national curriculum subjects, including music. This should ensure that existing specialist teachers are capable of developing playing and singing skills.

  Responsibility for the employment and deployment of individual specialist teachers rests with LEAs and schools which are well placed to decide upon and react to local needs.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about pupil-teacher ratios in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The figures are as follows:

  January 1990

  January 1991

  January 1992

  Primary

  22·3

  22·3

  22·3

  Secondary

  15·3

  15·4

  15·6

  All schools

  18·1

  18·2

  18·2

  I am satisfied that pupil to teacher ratios have remained generally stable over recent years.

  Schools Fundraising
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the amount of money raised by parents for schools in the last two years for which he has information.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information about school fundraising activities is not held centrally.

  Special Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered inspectors in the Office for Standards in Education operating in Wales have recent knowledge and experience of special education provision.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Matters in respect of the operation of the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales (OHMCI) are for the chief inspector. However, I understand that the ongoing courses for training potential inspectors have included several persons with recent knowledge and experience of special education.

  Key Stage 3 English
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many pupils of key stage 3 age were involved in the pilot tests conducted by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate for key stage 3 English on which the proposed tests for 1993 are based;

  (2) how many pupils of key stage 3 age plus one year were involved in the pilot tests conducted by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate for key stage 3 English on which the proposed test for 1993 are based.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate conducted pilot trialling of test material for this summer's end of key stage 3 teats for English with some 3,000 pupils, all in year 10, in November 1992 and again in 1993.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individuals and organisations involved in education have indicated their support for the way in which key stage 3 English is being introduced.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Many individuals and organisations involved in education support the national curriculum requirements for key stage 3 English which have been progressively introduced in schools since 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the outturn of additional gross capital expenditure of Welsh local authorities in the period from 12 November 1992 to 31 March 1993, arising from the sanction of a temporary relaxation of the rules on the use of capital receipts for debt redemption.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on outturn expenditure for 1992–93 will not be available for some months.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about future developments in the provision of nursery education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Nursery education is provided by local education authorities at their discretion.

  Health Service Waiting Times Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary .of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities in relation to the completion of the waiting times initiative contract funding; what provision he has made for carrying over unspent funding for uncompleted contracts; what information he has received on completion of all contracts by the end of the financial year; what assessment he has made of compensatory reduction or postponement in other treatments to complete waiting times initiative performance targets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The implementation of waiting times initiatives is dealt with at official level between the Welsh Office and purchasers of health care.

  All waiting times initiative funding for 1992–93 has been allocated to the relevant health authorities and GP fund holders.

  Purchasers are aware of the need to complete initiative work by the end of the financial year. A full evaluation of this year's initiative will be undertaken at the end of the financial year.

  There is no reason to believe there has been any reduction, or postponement, of treatment as a result of the waiting times initiative.

  Education Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on indications of cuts in education services by local education authorities following Government announcements affecting local government finances for 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from Members of Parliament, members of the public and various bodies. The great majority have been from members of the public about South Glamorgan county council's proposals for budget reductions in its music and community education services.

  Farm Business Survey
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what method he uses to extrapolate farm incomes in less-favoured areas in Wales as a whole from the samples in the farm business survey.
  513
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 1 March 19931: The sample contains proportionately more farms with large gross margins than does Wales as a whole. This is done to reflect the importance of these farms in total farm output. To ensure accurate estimates of LFA incomes, the sample estimates for each farm type are weighted by the number of holdings in each category.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members who have been appointed since June 1987 to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments; and what are the emoluments, remuneration and salaries of the individuals concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the former hon. Members of the House who have been appointed to bodies to which Government Ministers make appointments together with the salaries, emoluments or honoraria paid to the former hon. Members concerned, since April 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  10 Downing Street (Catering)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister when catering for No. 10 Downing street was put out to contract; if this took place by public tender; how many tenders were received; and how long the contract will run.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no single contract for catering for 10 Downing street. Catering for official functions in 10 Downing street is usually arranged by the Government hospitality fund using outside contractors.

  Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy to arrange ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions and the 1981 inhumane weapons convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

  The Prime Minister
  We expect to reach decisions soon on ratification of both the additional protocols and the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

EDUCATION

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about pupil-teacher ratios in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) all schools for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on pupil-teacher ratios in maintained schools in England in 1990, 1991 and 1992 is shown in the table. The latest pupil-teacher ratios are all significantly lower than those recorded in 1979. Further information on this topic can be found in "Statistical Bulletin 1/93", copies of which are in the Library.

  Pupil-teacher ratios—England Position as at January each year

  "Within Schools"1

  Primary

  Secondary

  "Overall"2

  1992

  22·21

  15·83

  17·44

  1991

  22·21

  15·55

  17·22

  1990

  21·98

  15·26

  16·94

  1 Includes only qualified teachers within schools.

  2 Includes all teachers employed by LEAs and self-governing state schools (GM).

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the pupil-teacher ratio in each education authority in England in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the pupil-teacher ratios in each local education authority in England in January 1992 was published in "Statistical Bulletin 1/93", copies of which are in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 129, if he will list the local education authorities in which no grant-maintained schools have yet been approved, together with the party in control in each case.

  Mr. Forth
  The details requested are as follows:

  LEA

  Political Control

  Barking

  Labour

  Barnsley

  Labour

  Bury

  No overall control

  Camden

  Labour

  City

  Independent

  Cleveland

  Labour

  Cornwall

  No overall control

  Coventry

  Labour

  Doncaster

  Labour

  Durham

  Labour

  East Sussex

  Conservative

  Enfield

  Conservative

  Gateshead

  Labour

  Greenwich

  Labour

  Hackney

  Labour

  Haringey

  Labour

  Harrow

  No overall control

  Isles of Scilly

  Independent

  Isle of Wight

  Liberal Democrat

  Islington

  Labour

  Knowsley

  Labour

  515

  LEA

  Political Control

  Leeds

  Labour

  Manchester

  Labour

  Merton

  Labour

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Labour

  North Tyneside

  Labour

  Northumberland

  Labour

  North Yorkshire

  No overall control

  Oldham

  Labour

  Redbridge

  Conservative

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Liberal Democrat

  Rotherham

  Labour

  St. Helens

  Labour

  Salford

  Labour

  Sefton

  No overall control

  South Tyneside

  Labour

  Stockport

  No overall control

  Suffolk

  Conservative

  Sunderland

  Labour

  Wakefield

  Labour

  Westminster

  Conservative

  West Sussex

  Conservative

  Wigan

  Labour

  Wirral

  No overall control

  Family Perspective and Life Cycle
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) in which publication, speech or statement his Department has described how it takes account of the family perspective and the life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department;

  (2) if he will make a statement on how his Department takes account of the family perspective and the family life cycle in the targets, activities and statistics of his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  Families play a crucial part in their children's education and full account is taken of the implications for the family in the development of educational policies. Since 1980 the Government have been intent on widening parental choice and entrenching parental influence and control in maintained schools. Schools are now more accountable to parents than ever before. The parents charter and the White Paper "Choice and Diversity" (Cm 2021) make clear the ways in which the educational service should respond to parents' aspirations for their children's education.

  Musical Instruments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy that the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument free of charge should be incorporated in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  The statutory order for music in the national curriculum already requires that pupils in maintained schools between the ages of five and 14 should perform music and, as they progress, develop the skills needed to make use of a range of increasingly sophisticated instruments. Schools are not permitted to make a charge to parents for instrumental musical tuition within school hours where such tuition is provided to meet the requirements of the national curriculum.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list details of funds expended per pupil in each local education authority in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not yet available for 1991–92. The table gives the unit cost for nursery, primary and secondary pupils by local education authority for 1990–91, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available.

  Notes to tables

  1. Figures are derived from local education authorities' returns of their net institutional expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department for Education.

  2. Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. Figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  1990–91 Unit cost per pupil

  Local Education Authority

  Unit cost per pupil 1990–91

  City

  1,950

  Camden

  2,000

  Greenwich

  n/a

  Hackney

  2,165

  Hammersmith

  2,225

  Islington

  1,995

  Kensington

  2,340

  Lambeth

  2,020

  Lewisham

  1,985

  Southwark

  2,015

  Tower Hamlets

  2,140

  Wandsworth

  2,085

  Westminster

  2,715

  Barking

  1,745

  Barnet

  1,725

  Bexley

  1,575

  Brent

  1,760

  Bromley

  1,710

  Croydon

  1,630

  Ealing

  1,950

  Enfield

  1,650

  Haringey

  2,085

  Harrow

  1,685

  Havering

  1,605

  Hillingdon

  1,785

  Hounslow

  1,695

  Kingston/Thames

  1,740

  Merton

  1,855

  Newham

  1,750

  Redbridge

  1,625

  Richmond/Thames

  1,665

  Sutton

  1,640

  Waltham Forest

  1,940

  Birmingham

  1,550

  Coventry

  1,625

  Dudley

  1,530

  Sandwell

  1,670

  Solihull

  1,495

  Walsall

  1,755

  Wolverhampton

  1,600

  Knowsley

  1,640

  Liverpool

  1,645

  St. Helens

  1,485

  Sefton

  1,495

  Wirral

  1,605

  Bolton

  1,490

  Bury

  1,395

  Manchester

  1,555

  Oldham

  1,585

  517

  Local Education Authority

  Unit cost per pupil 1990–91

  Rochdale

  1,545

  Salford

  1,560

  Stockport

  1,555

  Tameside

  1,545

  Trafford

  1,480

  Wigan

  1,530

  Barnsley

  1,425

  Doncaster

  1,445

  Rotherham

  1,550

  Sheffield

  1,625

  Bradford

  1,560

  Calderdale

  1,645

  Kirklees

  1,510

  Leeds

  1,620

  Wakefield

  1,560

  Gateshead

  1,620

  Newcastle/Tyne

  1,665

  North Tyneside

  1,620

  South Tyneside

  1,570

  Sunderland

  1,480

  Isles of Scilly

  2,815

  Avon

  1,495

  Bedfordshire

  1,590

  Berkshire

  1,530

  Buckinghamshire

  1,530

  Cambridgeshire

  1,475

  Cheshire

  1,470

  Cleveland

  1,535

  Cornwall

  1,445

  Cumbria

  1,595

  Derbyshire

  1,630

  Devon

  1,520

  Dorset

  1,500

  Durham

  1,530

  East Sussex

  1,500

  Essex

  1,480

  Gloucestershire

  1,470

  Hampshire

  1,460

  Herefordshire

  1,520

  Hertfordshire

  1,665

  Humberside

  1,510

  Isle of Wight

  1,505

  Kent

  1,385

  Lancashire

  1,510

  Leicestershire

  1,620

  Lincolnshire

  1,420

  Norfolk

  1,520

  North Yorkshire

  1,545

  Northants

  1,435

  Northumberland

  1,585

  Nottinghamshire

  1,700

  Oxfordshire

  1,740

  Shropshire

  1,635

  Somerset

  1,485

  Staffordshire

  1,525

  Suffolk

  1,550

  Surrey

  1,550

  Warwickshire

  1,455

  West Sussex

  1,505

  Wiltshire

  1,505

  Further Education Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the expenditure per head of population on further education for each local education authority in England in 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on expenditure in 1991–92 by LEA's is not yet available. LEA expenditure on FE colleges includes expenditure on both further education 518
  and on some local authority provided higher education. It is not possible to disaggregate the FE spending from the HE spending at LEA level.

  Class sizes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the target class size by age group recommended by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The internal organisation of schools is a matter for head teachers and governors.

  English Tests
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which body funds the publication of materials relating to KS3 SATS (English); and how much, in total, it will cost to publish all materials relating to KS3 SATS (English) and to implement these tests.

  Mr. Forth
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council funds the publication of material relating to the key stage 3 tests.

  The total cost of producing and distributing the papers and support material for the key stage 3 tests in English this June is estimated at £1.5 million.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many individuals and organisations involved in education have indicated their support for the way in which key stage 3 English is being introduced.

  Mr. Forth
  There is very wide support for the national curriculum, including the assessment arrangements that are an essential part of it. There is evidence that its implementation is already improving standards in the teaching of English, but that there is room for still further improvement. That is why my right hon. Friend commissioned a review of the English order.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many pupils of key stage 3 age plus one year were involved in the pilot tests conducted by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate for key stage 3 age English on which the proposed test for 1993 are based.

  (2) how many pupils of key stage 3 were involved in the pilot tests conducted by the University of Cambridge. Local Examinations Syndicate for key stage 3 English on which the proposed test for 1993 are based.

  Mr. Forth
  The University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate conducted pilot tests with some 3,000 pupils, all in year 10, in November 1992 and again in January this year.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a table showing the destination of school leavers by region for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table gives estimated details of the intended destinations of school leavers by region in England since 1980. These figures are published each year in the Department's annual publication "Statistics of Education School Examinations GCSE and GCE."
  519

  Intended destinations of school leavers from 1980 to 1991 (England)

  Thousands

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  Degree Courses

  3·48

  3·47

  3·70

  3·71

  3·41

  3·28

  3·27

  3·32

  3·16

  3·69

  4·05

  4·29

  Teacher Training

  0·13

  0·20

  0·18

  0·11

  0·25

  0·29

  0·13

  0·16

  0·34

  0·23

  0·36

  0·36

  Other FT education

  4·48

  6·57

  7·44

  6·32

  6·81

  7·28

  6·91

  7·69

  6·86

  7·60

  7·82

  8·60

  Employment (Inc Other)

  44·13

  40·80

  40·32

  41·89

  40·50

  39·20

  37·89

  37·10

  33·77

  29·84

  27·44

  25·01

  Total

  52·23

  51·03

  51·64

  52·03

  50·97

  50·06

  48·19

  48·27

  44·13

  41·36

  39·67

  38·26

  Yorks and Humberside

  Degree Courses

  6·13

  5·77

  6·11

  6·05

  5·75

  5·67

  5·50

  5·62

  5·37

  6·08

  6·43

  6·91

  Teacher Training

  0·30

  0·38

  0·55

  0·43

  0·36

  0·39

  0·36

  0·21

  0·39

  0·38

  0·42

  0·43

  Other FT education

  9·22

  11·61

  13·10

  13·34

  12·75

  12·70

  13·09

  12·70

  12·92

  14·15

  13·81

  15·93

  Employment (Inc Other)

  65·85

  60·73

  60·62

  62·81

  62·49

  61·37

  60·92

  60·99

  53·39

  47·75

  40·33

  33·84

  Total

  81·51

  78·50

  80·38

  82·63

  81·35

  80·12

  79·87

  79·51

  72·07

  68·37

  61·00

  57·11

  North West

  Degree Courses

  8·66

  9·61

  9·27

  8·92

  8·27

  7·85

  8·02

  8·31

  8·73

  8·96

  10·15

  10·72

  Teacher Training

  0·38

  0·30

  0·47

  0·41

  0·50

  0·41

  0·38

  0·32

  0·42

  0·36

  0·41

  0·43

  Other FT education

  15·31

  18·71

  19·87

  20·20

  21·39

  21·47

  21·32

  22·33

  19·63

  20·13

  19·48

  22·27

  Employmment (Inc Other)

  86·00

  80·00

  79·67

  80·19

  77·89

  75·46

  74·65

  73·01

  63·99

  56·97

  51·15

  42·85

  Total

  110·35

  108·62

  109·29

  109·72

  108·05

  105·20

  104·37

  103·97

  92·77

  86·41

  81·19

  76·26

  East Midlands

  Degree Courses

  4·27

  4·90

  4·70

  4·17

  3·97

  4·43

  4·06

  4·41

  4·87

  4·46

  5·68

  5·39

  Teacher Training

  0·23

  0·35

  0·25

  0·23

  0·34

  0·26

  0·19

  0·18

  0·20

  0·38

  0·36

  0·39

  Other FT education

  9·56

  11·15

  12·60

  12·29

  12·06

  12·14

  12·42

  12·60

  12·13

  10·96

  11·73

  14·54

  Employment (Inc Other)

  48·00

  44·70

  44·32

  47·23

  46·80

  47·40

  44·38

  44·38

  39·62

  35·66

  31·73

  24·44

  Total

  62·05

  61·10

  61·87

  63·92

  63·17

  64·23

  61·05

  61·57

  56·82

  51·46

  49·48

  44·77

  West Midlands

  Degree Courses

  5·76

  6·02

  6·39

  5·81

  6·20

  5·93

  6·01

  5·98

  6·80

  7·03

  7·65

  8·59

  Teacher Training

  0·23

  0·43

  0·45

  0·33

  0·27

  0·33

  0·37

  0·22

  0·40

  0·48

  0·39

  0·59

  Other FT education

  13·18

  17·00

  19·08

  19·19

  18·68

  18·07

  18·09

  18·18

  17·48

  17·42

  16·75

  20·38

  Employment (Inc Other)

  67·24

  61·99

  62·47

  65·21

  64·88

  62·83

  61·95

  61·54

  54·60

  51·44

  44·90

  38·51

  Total

  86·41

  85·44

  88·38

  90·54

  90·03

  87·16

  86·41

  85·92

  79·29

  76·37

  69·69

  68·07

  East Anglia

  Degree Courses

  1·95

  1·83

  2·01

  1·92

  1·70

  1·76

  1·83

  1·72

  1·95

  2·30

  2·36

  2·30

  Teacher Training

  0·06

  0·11

  0·14

  0·06

  0·11

  0·04

  0·07

  0·11

  0·09

  0·12

  0·16

  0·17

  Other FT education

  4·44

  6·00

  5·97

  5·73

  6·63

  6·50

  6·12

  6·28

  6·94

  6·09

  5·47

  6·57

  Employment (Inc Other)

  21·44

  20·41

  20·93

  21·25

  20·92

  21·12

  21·13

  20·82

  19·53

  18·69

  16·64

  12·76

  Total

  27·89

  28·35

  29·06

  28·96

  29·36

  29·42

  29·14

  28·94

  28·51

  27·19

  24·64

  21·80

  Greater London

  Degree Courses

  7·10

  6·81

  6·80

  6·85

  6·05

  6·57

  6·64

  5·74

  6·19

  6·21

  7·72

  9·04

  Teacher Training

  0·22

  0·32

  0·24

  0·30

  0·40

  0·25

  0·23

  0·09

  0·21

  0·15

  0·26

  0·31

  Other FT education

  12·56

  15·41

  17·85

  18·03

  19·01

  18·99

  19·69

  19·79

  18·75

  17·78

  17·28

  19·72

  Employment (Inc Other)

  79·27

  71·94

  72·10

  72·66

  68·55

  64·98

  60·28

  57·76

  50·52

  44·08

  41·16

  34·04

  Total

  99·15

  94·48

  97·00

  97·85

  94·02

  90·79

  86·84

  83·38

  75·68

  68·21

  66·43

  63·11

  Other South East

  Degree Courses

  13·81

  15·08

  15·75

  15·18

  15·61

  14·36

  13·38

  13·46

  14·54

  15·29

  18·92

  20·44

  Teacher Training

  0·69

  0·74

  0·88

  0·62

  0·74

  0·74

  0·50

  0·49

  0·58

  0·51

  0·72

  0·71

  Other FT education

  27·16

  32·91

  34·23

  36·65

  36·82

  36·08

  35·67

  36·19

  33·28

  35·40

  32·38

  39·98

  Employment One Other)

  121·53

  110·49

  112·94

  117·04

  113·35

  109·40

  106·35

  106·81

  94·60

  86·76

  76·94

  59·49

  Total

  163·18

  159·24

  163·80

  169·49

  166·52

  160·57

  155·91

  156·94

  142·99

  137·97

  128·96

  120·62

  South West

  Degree Courses

  5·37

  5·47

  5·53

  5·11

  5·04

  4·89

  5·11

  4·96

  5·02

  5·77

  6·71

  6·78

  Teacher Training

  0·31

  0·36

  0·21

  0·36

  0·40

  0·26

  0·22

  0·13

  0·27

  0·29

  0·34

  0·30

  520 521

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Other FT education

  13·34

  16·46

  17·77

  16·81

  17·16

  17·75

  17·91

  17·89

  17·35

  15·97

  17·69

  19·34

  Employment (Inc Other)

  48·93

  44·92

  46·21

  48·12

  46·74

  45·77

  43·17

  44·51

  41·06

  38·35

  32·32

  25·45

  Total

  67·96

  67·20

  69·72

  70·40

  69·34

  68·67

  66·42

  67·49

  63·70

  60·38

  57·06

  51·88

  Total England

  Degree Courses

  56·53

  58·97

  60·25

  57·70

  56·02

  54·73

  53·81

  53·53

  56·63

  59·80

  69·67

  74·46

  Teacher Training

  2·57

  3·18

  3·37

  2·86

  3·37

  2·97

  2·45

  1·90

  2·91

  2·90

  3·42

  3·69

  Other FT education

  109·24

  135·82

  147·92

  148·56

  151·31

  150·98

  151·22

  153·65

  145·34

  145·50

  142·41

  167·33

  Employment (Inc Other)

  582·38

  535·98

  539·60

  556·40

  542·12

  527·53

  510·72

  506·91

  451·09

  409·52

  362·61

  296·39

  Total

  750·73

  733·96

  751·13

  765·52

  752·82

  736·21

  718·41

  715·99

  655·96

  617·71

  578·11

  541·87

  Financial Cuts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in respect of cuts in education services by local education authorities following Government announcements affecting local government finances for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of recent representations about local education authority spending plans.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list each of the non-departmental Government bodies and other bodies to which he makes appointments, with the names of all appointees and dates on which they were appointed; what is the selection procedure for appointments in each case; and whether any Minister in his Department interviews those being considered before appointment.

  Mr. Boswell
  The details requested are as follows. The selection of candidates for appointment to the Department's public bodies follows procedures recommended by the Cabinet Office in the "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures" published in September 1992. Ministers conduct interviews with candidates in those cases where they consider it to be appropriate.

  Public Bodies

    Business and Technology Education Council
    Members and Date of initial appointment

    Mr. P. Rogers (Chairman)— 1 January 1993

    Mrs. G. Armitage—1 January 1993

    Mr. B. Barker—1 January 1993

    Mr. D. Betts—1 January 1993

    Dr. J. Capey—1 January 1993

    Mr. R. Davies—1 January 1993

    Mrs. P. Haikin—1 January 1993

    Mr. G. Hawkes—1 January 1993

    Dr. P. Hunter—1 January 1993

    Mr. M. Lickiss—1 January 1993

    Mr. M. Neal—1 January 1993

    Mr. K. Ratcliffe—1 January 1993

    Mr. J. Spence—1 January 1993

    Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges
    Mr. J. Carter (Chairman)—4 April 1987

    Mr. D. Avery—I September 1992

    Mr. R. Bailess—1 September 1992

    Mr. M. Brackenbury—24 August 1987

    Mrs. P. Collings—24 August 1987

    Mrs. S. Greenfield—1 September 1992

    Mr. D. Hatfield—11 November 1987

    Mr. N. Holmes—24 August 1987

    Mrs. A. Longley—1 January 1990

    Rev. D. Peacock—1 January 1989

    522

    Dr. R. Rix—1 September 1992

    Mrs. J. Shackleton—1 January 1990

    Mr. B. Tanner—1 February 1983

    Dr. P. Troughton—8 August 1985

    Centre for Information on Language Teaching
    Prof. M. Harris (Chairman) —25 September 1990

    Mr. J. Beadle—7 September 1992

    Mrs. M. Bedford—14 May 1990

    Mr. J. Haycraft—2 October 1991

    Mr. D. Jones—2 October 1991

    Ms J. Little—7 September 1992

    Mr. A. Marsden—14 May 1990

    Ms M. Ryan—7 September 1992

    Ms V. Stone—2 October 1991

    Prof. G. Thomas—7 September 1992

    Mr. J. Wight—14 May 1990

    Council for National Academic Awards
    Sir R. Rickett (Chairman)—6 April 1991

    Prof. E. Abel—6 September 1991

    Dr. J. Axford—6 September 1991

    Mr. A. Barnes—6 September 1991

    Mr. G. Brinsdon—6 September 1991

    Prof. R. Brown—6 September 1991

    Ms S. Browne—6 September 1991

    Mr. K. Childerhouse—6 September 1991

    Prof. D. Davies—6 September 1991

    Mr. J. Davies—6 September 1991

    Mr. J. Earls—6 September 1991

    Dr. N. Elmore—6 September 1991

    Mr. W. Eltis—6 September 1991

    Dr. G. Fairtlough—6 September 1991

    Prof. I. Fells—6 September 1991

    Mr. M. Frazer—6 February 1986

    Sir K. Green—6 September 1991

    Sir G. Hills —6 September 1991

    Mr. G. Kirk—6 September 1991

    Prof. P. Lines—6 September 1991

    Baroness MacFarlane—6 September 1991

    Mr. A. Morris—6 September 1991

    Mr. W. Nicol—6 September 1991

    Lord Pearson—6 September 1991

    Mr. G. Ross—6 September 1991

    Miss J. Trotter—6 September 1991

    Prof. D. Watson—6 September 1991

    Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education
    Prof. Sir W. Taylor (Chairman)—1 January 1990

    Prof. R. Alexander—1 January 1993

    Mr. J. Burn—1 Janaury 1993

    Mr. D. Cloake—1 January 1992

    Mr. P. Deshpande—22 January 1990

    Sir V. Duggan—16 February 1993

    Prof. K. Durrands—1 January 1991

    Dr. R. Evans—16 February 1993

    Mrs. G. Firth—1 January 1992

    Dr. M. Frazer—1 January 1993

    Ms C. Hayman—1 January 1992

    Mr. D. Keith—16 February 1993

    Mr. A. Lenney—1 January 1992

    Mr. D. Mortimer—1 January 1992

    Prof. A. O'Hear—1 January 1993

    Mr. A. Pellegrini—16 February 1993

    Mr. A. Pelling—1 January 1990

    523

    Mrs. M. Pritchard—1 January 1991

    Mr. R. Reeve—16 February 1993

    Mr. R. Scarth—16 February 1993

    Mrs. V. Stead—30 April 1990

    Mr. M. Tims—1 January 1992

    Mr. M. Turner—16 February 1993

    Rev. Dr. K. Wilson—16 February 1993

    Education Assets Board
    Sir T. McDonald (Chairman)—1 August 1992

    Mr. H. Hoare (Chief Executive)—1 August 1992

    Mr. B. Arthur—1 August 1992

    Mr. K. Bridge—1 August 1992

    Ms K. Buckley—1 August 1992

    Mr. H. Couch—1 August 1992

    Mr. J. Edwards—1 August 1992

    Mr. P. Lewis—1 August 1992

    Mr. G. Locke—1 August 1992

    Mr. A. Solomons—1 February 1992

    Fulbright Commission
    Dr. C. Booth—1 January 1992

    Lord Butterworth—1 June 1988

    Prof. M. Edwards—1 January 1989

    Miss E. Hodkinson—1 June 1992

    Sir G. Leigh—1 January 1991

    Prof. C. Peckham—1 January 1987

    Further Education Funding Council for England
    Mr. R. Gunn (Chairman)——17 July 1992

    Dr. W. Stubbs (Chief Executive)—17 July 1992

    Mr. N. Bennett—17 July 1992

    Mr. A. Cann—17 July 1992

    Dr. J. Capey—17 July 1992

    Mr. A. Close—17 July 1992

    Mrs. M. Davey—17 July 1992

    Mrs. P. Haikin—17 July 1992

    Mrs. M. Hobrough—17 July 1992

    Mr. C. Jonas 17 July 1992

    Cllr. L. Lawrence—17 July 1992

    Mr. M. Lickiss—17 July 1992

    Mr. M. Rowarth——17 July 1992

    Dr. A. Wright—17 July 1992

    Further Education Staff College
    Sir R. Harding (Chairman)—15 November 1991

    Mr. J. Baker—24 February 1988

    Mr. P. Darley—1 December 1990

    Mr. M. Farmer—15 November 1990

    Prof. W. Forster—15 November 1990

    Mr. A. Fowler—15 November 1988

    Dr. P. Gallagher—15 November 1989

    Dr. J. Gorrie—15 November 1988

    Cllr. H. Hobhouse—17 October 1989

    Cllr. G. Jenkins—15 November 1991

    Cllr. G. Lane—15 November 1989

    Cllr. P. Perkins—15 November 1991

    Ms C. Sherriff—15 November 1991

    Cllr. S. Spence—15 November 1990

    Mr. A. Taylor—15 November 1991

    Mr. J. Turnbull—14 June 1990

    Cllr. P. White—15 November 1988

    Further Education Unit Board of Management
    Mr. A. Ainsworth (Chairman)—1 May 1990

    Mr. M. Cross—1 January 1992

    Mr. K. Franklin—1 January 1992

    Ms A. Limb—1 January 1992

    Mr. E. Morgan—1 January 1992

    Mr. M. Rowarth—1 January 1992

    Mr. C. Rowland—1 March 1992

    Ms J. Scribbins—1 March 1992

    Mr. D. Short—1 January 1992

    Mr. T. Melia—1 October 1992

    Ms L. Purser—1 October 1992

    Mr. N. Thomas—1 October 1992

    Higher Education Funding Council for England
    Sir Ron Dearing (Chairman)—6 May 1992

    Prof. G. Davies (Chief Executive)—6 May 1992

    Prof. C. Campbell—6 May 1992

    Mr. M. Fallon—14 December 1992

    Prof. B. Follett—6 May 1992

    524

    Mr. R. Gunn—6 May 1992

    Prof. K. Khaw—6 May 1992

    Sir I. Pearce—6 May 1992

    Sir D. Phillips—6 May 1992

    Prof. Sir J. Shaw—6 May 1992

    Sir R. Scholey—6 May 1992

    Dr. R. Telfer—6 May 1992

    Miss J. Trotter—6 May 1992

    Prof. D. Watson—6 May 1992

    Inner London Staff Commission
    Mr. G. Warren (Chairman)—7 November 1988

    Mr. A. Capelin—14 December 1988

    Mr. T. Hingston—14 December 1988

    National Council for Educational Technology
    Mr. J. Richards (Chairman)—1 September 1992

    Dr. I. Birnbaum—1 April 1991

    Dr. W. Bridge—1 April 1991

    Dr. M. Garnett—1 April 1991

    Prof. R. Gee—1 April 1991

    Mr. B. Gibbens—1 April 1991

    Mrs. J. Irvine—1 April 1991

    Dr. D. Laurillard—28 September 1992

    Mr. G. Law—1 April 1991

    Mr. 0. Lynch—1 April 1991

    Ms U. Malik—28 September 1992

    Mr. S. McNair—1 April 1991

    Ms S. Menon—28 September 1992

    Mr. K. Satchwell—28 September 1992

    Mr. R. Scarth—28 September 1992

    Mrs. B. Vanderstock—1 April 1991

    Mr. J. Young—28 September 1992

    National Curriculum Council
    Mr. D. Pascall (Chairman)—19 August 1992

    Mr. J. Burn—15 August 1992

    Mrs. P. Cooper—15 August 1991

    Mr. B. Hutchinson—15 August 1991

    Mrs. A. Locke—15 August 1990

    Mrs. B. Lofthouse—15 August 1991

    Mr. G. Mackenzie—15 August 1991

    Dr. J. Marks——15 August 1992

    Mr. J. McIntosh—15 August 1990

    Prof. D. Regan—15 August 1991

    Prof. A. Smithers—15 August 1992

    Dr. R. Vaughan—16 February 1992

    Mr. A. Wates—15 August 1991

    Mrs. J. Wisker—15 August 1992

    National Youth Agency Management Committee
    Mrs. J. Wisker (Chairman)—1 April 1991

    Mr. N. Cross—1 April 1991

    Ms A. Efunshile—1 September 1991

    Mrs. S. Joiner—1 April 1991

    Ms A. Murray—1 April 1991

    Mr. T. Shields—1 April 1991

    Mr. L. Spencer—1 April 1991

    Polytechnics and Colleges funding council
    Sir Ron Dearing (Chairman)—1 November 1991

    Dr. William Stubbs (Chief Executive)—1 April 1989

    Prof. S. Birley—1 April 1989

    Mr. A. Brickwood—1 April 1989

    Ms C. Frank1—1 April 1989

    Mr. E. Hall—1 April 1989

    Prof. F. Holliday—1 April 1989

    Dr. P. Knight—1 April 1989

    Dr. G. Leonard—1 April 1989

    Mr. M. Richardson—1 April 1989

    Mr. M. Salmon—1 April 1989

    Dr. R. Smith—1 April 1989

    Mr. R. Wendt—1 April 1989

    Schools examination and assessment council
    Lord Griffiths (Chairman)—16 August 1991

    Mr. R. Atkinson—15 August 1990

    Mr. J. Barnes—15 August 1991

    Mrs. J. Cohen—26 April 1990

    Dr. P. Evans—18 September 1991

    Mr. A. George—16 August 1991

    Mrs. J. Kowalski—15 August 1991

    525

    Dr. J. Marenbon—15 August 1992

    Dr. J. Marks—15 August 1990

    Mr. S. Nepaulsingh—15 August 1992

    Miss G. Peele—24 April 1991

    Mr. A. Pellegrini—15 August 1992

    Lord Skidelsky—15 August 1992

    Ms K. Tattersall—15 August 1992

    Mr. P. Wood—15 August 1992

    Teaching as a career unit
    Mr. P. Merridale (Chairman)—1 April 1987

    Mr. J. Dodds (Director)—1 October 1986

    Mr. J. Hendy—1 April 1990

    Dr. B. Kingston—1 April 1990

    Cllr. P. Mullany—1 April 1990

    Mr. I Slocombe——1 April 1987

    Ms C. Whatford—1 April 1990

    Mr. G. Williams—1 April 1987

    University commissioners
    Sir J. May (Chairman)—1 June 1989

    Lord Butterworth—29 July 1988

    Mr. A. Gregory—29 July 1988

    Sir J. Munn—29 July 1988

    Prof. Sir D. Williams—29 July 1988

    Universities Funding Council
    Sir Ron Dearing (Chairman)—1 November 1991

    Prof. G. Davies (Chief Executive)—1 April 1991

    Prof. J. Barron—1 November 1988

    Prof. M. Bond—1 April 1991

    Mrs. R. Chapman—1 November 1988

    Prof. B. Follett—1 November 1988

    Sir K. Green—1 November 1988

    Prof. M. Hicks—1 November 1988

    Prof. H. Newby—1 April 1991

    Sir I. Pearce—4 February 1991

    Sir C. Reece—1 November 1988

    Prof. N. Rinsler—1 July 1991

    Prof. J. Shaw—1 April 1991

    Prof. H. Wood—1 November 1988

    University of Exeter: Court of Governors
    Mr. D. Vallis—1 August 1989

    Mr. E. Cordell—1 August 1989

    Loughborough University of Technology: Council
    Prof. D. Wedderburn—1 August 1990

    University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology: Court of Governors
    Mr. B. Heron—1 January 1989

    Mr. T. Parr—1 January 1989

    Mr. H. Farley—1 June 1990

    Mr. B. Goodall—1 January 1993

    University of London: Governing bodies
    Heythrop College

    Sr. D. Bell—1 January 1989

    Imperial College

    Mr. N. Cossons—1 May 1989

    Mr. A. Fraser—1 February 1990

    Dr. A. Knight—1 February 1992

    Mr. R. Margetts—1 February 1992

    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: Court of Governors
    Dr. R. Maxwell—1 January 1993
    Royal Holloway and Bedford New College: Council
    Mrs. C. Handley—1 July 1990
    St David's College Lampeter: Council
    Dr. W. Skewis—1 May 1988

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about future developments in the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the second of my replies to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) on 19 February at col.416.

  Schools (Fundraising)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the amount of money raised by parents for schools in the last two years where figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the amount of money raised by parents for schools is not collected centrally.

  Education Inspectors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many registered inspectors operating in the Office for Standards in Education have recent knowledge and experience of special education provision.

  Mr. Forth
  The registration of inspectors for the purpose of carrying out inspections under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 is a matter for Ofsted.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland, the chief inspector, to write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Absent Parents
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child support maintenance will be payable by an absent parent with one child aged under 11 years, the child living with a parent who has not got a partner and is receiving £10 child benefit, if(a) the absent parent has a net income of £300 per week before paying superannuation contributions of £50 net, or (b) the absent parent is a member of a non-contributory pension scheme provided by his employer and receives a wage of £250 net per week, assuming housing costs are identical in both cases.

  Mr. Burt
  In order to provide the calculation it has been assumed, in each case, that the parent with care is in receipt of income support, and the absent parent lives alone and has housing costs of £40 per week. The amount of child support maintenance payable will be £79.55 for(a) and £73.30 for (b).

  The figures given are estimates for a specific set of circumstances and would be different if the level of earnings, superannuation contributions or the absent parent's housing costs were different.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the additional contribution required by the Child Support Agency for each £1 of additional income of an absent parent above the protected income level.

  Mr. Burt
  The assessed amount of maintenance an absent parent pays will increase by 90p for each £1 of
  527
  additional income received while he is subject to the protected income provisions. Otherwise a deduction rate of 50p in the pound applies to assessable income until the maintenance requirement is met. A lower deduction rate of 25p in the pound applies to the balance of any assessable income remaining after the maintenance requirement is met.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the Social Security Advisory Committee which produced "Options for Equality in State Pension Age: A Case for Equalising at 65", were pensioners or retired people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Four.

  National Insurance Contributions (Avoidance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to take punitive action against companies which make bonus payments to staff in cocoa beans, gold bullion or other commodities to avoid national insurance contributions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The question of avoidance is kept under careful review. Regulations were introduced in 1991, to extend national insurance liability to shares, unit trusts and other financial instruments. Further action to tighten the law may be taken at any time as and when it is necessary to do so.

  From April 1993 employers may be liable to pay interest on any national insurance class 1 contributions which are not paid by the due date.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give an estimate of the trend in pensioners' real income since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between 1979 and 1989 the total net average income of pensioner units1 increased, in real terms, by 30 per cent. before housing costs are taken into account and by 37 per cent. after housing costs. Both single pensioners and pensioner couples enjoyed increases in their real net incomes of 29 per cent. before housing costs and 33 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively after housing costs are taken into account.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1989.

  Note:

  1Pensioner units are defined as single people over state pension age and couples in which the husband is over state pension age.

  Benefits Agency (Staff Transport)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the costs of the transport contract to carry his Department's staff from Leeds station to the Benefits Agency's head office at Quarry hill, Leeds.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost to the Benefits Agency is £424 a week.

  Disability Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision he proposes in the period up to 31 March for those requiring assistance equivalent to that provided by the independent living fund up until 31 December 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of domiciliary care for all disabled people is a matter for local authorities and for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health. However, as previously announced and subject to parliamentary approval, two new funds will come into existence on 1 April. The independent living (extension) fund will manage the existing ILF case load of some 21,000 disabled people and the independent living (1993) fund will, in co-operation with local authorities, provide extra cash help for some of the most severly disabled people.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision he is making for those of pensionable age who require assistance equivalent to that provided by the independent living fund up to 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of domiciliary care for all disabled people, including those of pensionable age, is a matter for local authorities and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what organisations representing the disabled will be invited to become trustees of the trust for the new independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Mr. John Shepherd, an ex-financial director of Remploy, and Mr. Robin Wendt, secretary of the Association of County Councils, have been appointed as the first two trustees.

  I am still considering further candidates for appointment as trustees of the independent living fund successor bodies. A full announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for an ex-gratia payment towards telephone expenses arising from delays in the Benefits Agency dealing with disability allowance claims have been made; how many ex-gratia payments have been paid; what is the maximum and minimum ex-gratia payment paid; and how claimants are advised of the facility to claim an ex-gratia payment.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 8 March 1993.
  Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions raised about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking how many claims for an ex-gratia payment towards telephone expenses arising from delays in the Benefits Agency dealing with disability allowance claims have been made; how many ex-gratia payments have been made; what is the maximum and minimum ex-gratia payment paid; and how claimants are advised of the facility to claim an ex-gratia payment.

  529
  Up to 3 March 1993, 79 claims have been received for ex-gratia payments towards telephone expenses arising from delays in the Benefit Agency dealing with Disability Living Allowance claims. Forty-one such payments have been made and four requests have been refused. There arc 34 claims presently being considered. The maximum ex-gratia payment made has been £116.24 and the minimum £4.33.
  Customers are not individually advised about the facility to claim ex-gratia payments, but there is advice within the Benefits Agency Customer Charter which advises what to do "If things go wrong". If the customer feels this to be applicable, contact with the Customer Service Manager is advised. The Benefits Agency Customer Charter was distributed to Welfare Organisations, other organisations representing customer interests, and to staff of the Benefits Agency. It is readily available from Disability Benefits Centres and District Offices.
  The DLAU has issued written instructions to its staff, detailing the procedures to be followed when a claim for an ex-gratia payment is received. These instructions were recently updated and circulated to staff. A reminder is to be issued to staff about the update in the near future.
  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.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all those constituencies which do not have a jobcentre within their boundary.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. John Battle, dated 9 March 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 about constituencies which do not have a Jobcentre within their boundary. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately the information you requested is not readily available, as the areas served by Jobcentres do not correspond with Parliamentary Constituencies. Therefore it will take some time to compile the details. However, I will reply fully to your question as soon as I receive the information.
  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.

  Skills and Qualifications
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement giving the details of those policies which have been introduced by her Department in each of the last five years in order positively to encourage individuals to improve their skills and qualifications.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have taken a number of significant steps in the last five years to encourage individuals to improve their skills and qualifications.

  These steps include: introduction of youth training and youth credits; introduction of employment training and employment action which merge into training for work from 1 April 1993; continued rapid development of the
  530
  system of national vocational qualifications and other measures to secure parity of esteem with academic qualifications; and introduction of training and enterprise councils.

  Further details for each year can be found in the relevant departmental report.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry or the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to discuss ways in which her policies can more effectively encourage individuals to improve their qualifications or skills.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I will continue to hold frequent meetings with industry representatives to discuss policies relating to skills and qualifications, and the way individuals might make best use of them.

  Industrial Relations Code
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she plans to introduce a new code of good industrial relations practice in place of the one that was withdrawn in June 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no such plans.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to encourage small and medium-sized employers to take on trainees by allowing them to offset the employment costs of those trainees against the employers' national insurance account; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government keep their policies to stimulate employers to train under constant review. They already make a substantial contribution to the training costs of employers of all sizes through youth training and employment training.

  Employers can also generally deduct the cost of training employees when calculating business profits for income and corporation tax purposes.

  Training (Wales)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about the responsibility for training in Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government will take further steps towards greater policy and financial devolution to Wales in the field of training. In particular, the determination of future public expenditure provision for training programmes in Wales will, from next year, become a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The establishment of a network of training and enterprise councils in Wales has put a sharper focus on the economic demands of local areas, and this has ensured that training programmes are better tailored to local needs. In view of this, and in view of the creation of an integrated training, education and enterprise department in the Welsh Office, the Government believe that there is now greater scope for the separate determination of training policy for Wales. Accordingly, responsibility for

  531
  determining training policy in Wales will be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales as from 1 April 1994, within the framework of the overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies developed by myself, in consultation with colleagues and collectively agreed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultants
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts for consultancies were awarded by his Department over(a) the last 12 months and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department awarded 224 consultancy contracts in the financial year 1992–93—to the end of February—and 274 consultancy contracts in 1991–92.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) Coopers and Lybrand management consultants, (b) Touche Ross management consultants, (c) Price Waterhouse management consultants, (d) Ernst and Young management consultants, (e) Chrichton Roberts Ltd, (f) KPMG management consultants and (g) Leopold Joseph management consultants, with the total cost of the contracts with each contractor, for (i) the past 12 months and (ii) 1991–92.

  Mr. Howard
  Coopers and Lybrand management consultants were awarded five contracts by my Department in 1991–92 and five to date in 1992–93. These were:

  1991–92

  Information Systems Division Study

  Information Systems Division: Information Management Strategy Review

  Business Analysis Studies of the Government Car Service and Internal Delivery Service

  Property Holdings: Review of Special Services Group Security Furniture, Procedures and Systems

  Works Bill Paying System and Invoicing

  The total cost of these contracts was £1,593,000

  1992–93

  Review of Local Authority Recycling Plans

  Information Systems Division Study Implementation

  Implementation of Recommendations from Studies of the Government Car Service and Internal Delivery Service Property Services Businesses: Finance Support, Contract Costing and New Payments Arrangements

  Landfill Costs and Prices: Correcting Possible Market Distortions

  The total cost of these contracts was £1,035,362.

  Touche-Ross Management Consultants were awarded five contracts by my Department in 1991–92 and two to date in 1992–93. These were:

  1991–92

  Framework for a system of Recycling Credits

  Information Systems Division: Information Management Consultancy

  Planning Inspectorate: Accountancy Consultancy

  The Links between MINIS, Line Management Systems and Job-Descriptions.

  Environment Policy Analysis

  The total cost of these contracts was £121,940

  1992–93

  Registry Services: Advice to the Department of the Environment In-House Bid Team

  HMIP Financial Management Review

  The total cost of these contracts was £80,500

  532
  Price Waterhouse Management Consultants were awarded four contracts by my Department in 1991–92 and two to date in 1992–93. These were:

  1991–92

  Resource Implications of Sections 149–151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Dog-Control)

  The Hulme Study

  Empirical Study into Costs of Local Authority Housing Management

  Training Package on Accounting Software

  The total cost of these contracts was £191,249

  1992–93

  Review of Rural Development Commission Business Advisory Services

  Recruitment of Head of DOE Accounting Services

  The total cost of these contracts was £40,500

  Ernst and Young Management Consultants were awarded four contracts by my Department in 1991–92 and three to date in 1992–93. These were:

  1991–92

  Planning Frameworks Call-Off Contract

  1991 Population Census

  Local Authority Statistics: Initial Options Study

  Housing Revenue Account: Subsidy Payment System

  The total cost of these contracts was £180,402

  1992–93

  New Computer System Operational Requirement

  Property Services Businesses Special Services Group Business Analysis

  Review of PSA Projects: Completion of Balance Sheets

  The total cost of these contracts was £133,549

  KPMG Management Consultants were awarded eight contracts by my Department in 1991–92 and four to date in 1992–93. These were:

  1991–92

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust: Finance Advice

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust: Structure and Organisation

  Advice in relation to EC small combustion plants Directive

  Cost Assessment of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Royal Parks Division: Management System

  Property Holdings: Accounting for Portfolio Management

  Property Holdings Contract Costing System

  Consultancy Assistance in relation to Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  The cost of these contracts was £1,993,888

  1992–93

  Relocation of DOE HQ Staff in London

  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency Independent Business Advisor

  DOE Re-Location: Consultancy on Advanced Office Support System

  Proposal for the Wirral Business Enterprise Centre

  The cost of these contracts was £255,300

  No contract has been awarded to Leopold Joseph Management Consultants or to Crichton Roberts Ltd. since 1 April 1991. All contract costs are exclusive of VAT.

  United States (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed and what decisions taken during his recent visit to Washington and California to meet the new American Administration and others.

  Mr. Howard
  I visited Washington from 28 February to 2 March. I met Vice-President Gore, Interior Secretary Babbitt, EPA Administrator Bowner and several other members of the Administration and members of Congress. We discussed international environmental matters, including the attitude of the new administration to the
  533
  biodiversity convention, the climate change convention, UNEP, the Sustainable Development Commission and the global environment facility. We also discussed the administration's position on other environmental issues including energy taxes and endangered species. The exchanges were constructive and useful to both sides, but it was not the purpose of the meetings to take decisions.

  I have not yet visited California. When I do go, one of my main objectives will be to study the Californian initiatives in seeking reductions in pollution through economic instruments, and in particular tradeable permits.

  Disabled People (Council Tax)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is issued to local authorities on the criteria to be used in allowing a reduction in council tax bills for disabled people who require additional space in their property and on the medical evidence required.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Guidance was included in paragraphs 34–42 of Council Tax Practice Note 2, and in a letter issued by my Department on 8 February 1993. I have placed copies of both documents in the Library of the House.

  Government Offices
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of Government office accommodation in the SW1 postal district of London is now vacant.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 7·77 per cent. of the common user office estate in the SW1 postal district is now vacant. Of this, 5·46 per cent. is undergoing or about to undergo refurbishment. The remainder is awaiting allocation, including 0·83 per cent. of below ground level storage, or is scheduled for disposal.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many answers have been submitted by his Department in response to written parliamentary questions asked by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) in the current Session of Parliament; what was the estimated cost to his Department; and what estimate has been made of the amount of paper and card used in preparing the answers.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has answered 259 questions from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) so far this session. I have no estimates of the cost to my Department of answering these questions as we do not routinely keep such records. However, I understand that the present guidelines suggest an advisory cost limit of £450 per question. My Department also does not keep records of how much paper and card are used in answering questions from hon. Members.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to carry out his consultation exercise regarding mandatory home improvement grants; and if he will make a statement.
  534
  Mr. Baldry
  The consultation paper on the future of the house renovation grant system, announced recently by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 13 January, at column 707, will be issued in the spring.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, column 308, (1) what has been the total allocation, for each local authority, by region, to home improvement agencies in England in 1991–92 and 1992–93;

  (2) what was the total value of the bids for funding of home improvement agencies in England, in each local authority in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested has been provided in table form and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much rate or revenue support grant per head of population has been given in total to each of the London boroughs since 1980.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The amount of rate or revenue support grant in total for each London borough for the period 1980–81 to 1993–94 inclusive divided by the average resident population over that period is as follows:

  Average rate or revenue support grant per head for London boroughs since 1980–81

  Local authority

  Grant per head (£)

  Camden

  3,209

  Greenwich

  3,936

  Hackney

  7,083

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,431

  Islington

  5,424

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4,258

  Lambeth

  5,888

  Lewisham

  4,783

  Southwark

  5,162

  Tower Hamlets

  7,160

  Wandsworth

  4,627

  Westminster

  4,404

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,454

  Barnet

  2,627

  Bexley

  3,394

  Brent

  5,080

  Bromley

  2,638

  Croydon

  3,096

  Ealing

  4,144

  Enfield

  3,392

  Haringey

  5,847

  Harrow

  3,190

  Havering

  2,934

  Hillingdon

  2,017

  Hounslow

  2,777

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,651

  Merton

  3,226

  Newham

  6,735

  Redbridge

  3,455

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2,008

  Sutton

  2,838

  Waltham Forest

  5,242

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the standard spending assessments for each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester for 1993–94;
  535
  (2) what is the level of revenue support grant per inhabitant for each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Local authority

  Standard spending assessment

  Revenue Support Grant

  £ million

  £ per head

  £ per head

  Bolton

  185·6

  706

  367

  Bury

  104·7

  584

  237

  Manchester

  408·4

  951

  622

  Oldham

  165·2

  752

  417

  Rochdale

  151·5

  738

  403

  Salford

  169·0

  745

  407

  Stockport

  172·5

  594

  234

  Tameside

  144·8

  658

  322

  Trafford

  142·1

  654

  293

  Wigan

  189·5

  610

  275

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year from 1974 to date the standard spending assessment, or predecessor assessment, for Worcester city council and Wychavon district council, and the average standard spending assessment of the English district councils.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is as follows:

  LA expenditure1

  Worcester City Council £000

  Wychavon District Council £000

  All English Shire Districts Average £000

  1981–82

  3,133

  3,714

  4,191

  1982–83

  3,843

  4,083

  4,726

  1983–84

  3,948

  4,270

  4,790

  1984–85

  4,041

  4,535

  4,897

  1985–86

  4,163

  4,654

  5,007

  1986–87

  4,562

  4,338

  4,924

  1987–88

  5,004

  4,102

  5,717

  1988–89

  5,048

  4,264

  6,191

  1989–90

  6.946

  5,745

  6,579

  1990–91

  7,717

  6,013

  7,736

  1991–92

  8.664

  6,545

  9,516

  1992–93

  9,155

  7,310

  10,172

  1 Defined as Total Expenditure for years 1982–83 to 1989–90 and Net Revenue Expenditure for years 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  LA expenditure per head1

  Worcester City Council £

  Wychavon District Council £

  All English Shire Districts £

  1981–82

  41·3

  38·9

  43·2

  1982–83

  50·6

  42·8

  48·7

  1983–84

  51·9

  44·5

  49·2

  1984–85

  53·0

  46·7

  50·0

  1985–86

  54·6

  47·4

  50·9

  1986–87

  58·6

  44·4

  49·7

  1987–88

  62·7

  41·4

  57·4

  1988–89

  62·2

  42·2

  61·8

  1989–90

  84·6

  56·7

  65·4

  1990–91

  95·0

  59·5

  77·2

  1991–92

  105·5

  64·6

  94·5

  1992–93

  110·8

  71·8

  100·7

  1 Defined as Total Expenditure per head for years 1981–82 to 1989–90 and Net Revenue Expenditure per head for 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  536
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total of Government grants given to each district council in the north-west for the last years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Radiation Leak, Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the terms of reference for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's inquiry into the recent radioactive leak at BNFL's Sellafield plant; (2) if he will publish, in respect of the recent radioactive leak at Sellafield(a) when the incident began, (b) when the plant workers were informed, (c) when the emergency services were notified, (d) when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the nuclear installations inspectorate were informed, (e) when his Department was notified, (f) when the accident was announced to the public and (g) how and when the leak stopped; (3) what assessment he has made of BNFL's report that no danger to the public arose during the recent radioactive leak at the Sellafield plant; (4) what measures he intends to take following the recent discharge to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. will not exceed its future radioactive waste discharge authorisations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he was informed by BNFL of the radioactive leak that occurred at Sellafield on 13 February; how many mega becquerels were released; and what substances were involved; (2) if he will make a statement on the leak of radiation from the Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield that occurred on 13 February.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department was informed of the leak of radioactive iodine-129 from the B6 chimney at Sellafield on 13 February; and what estimate he has of the risks posed thereby to(a) the British Nuclear Fuels work force and (b) the local population.

  Mr. David Maclean
  [holding answer 2 March 1993]: BNFL informed HMIP of increased discharges of alpha activity from the B204 stack at 16.00 hours on 12 February and of increased discharges of iodine 129 from the B6 cell vent line at 16.00 hours on 24 February.

  Investigations into both these incidents at the Sellafield site are currently being undertaken jointly by the nuclear installations inspectorate, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries arid Food to establish the cause and whether a breach of any operating license or discharge authorisation has occurred.

  Between 10 and 12 February releases of alpha activity from B204 were calculated to be approximately 350 megabecquerels (MBq). These discharges have now fallen to 5 MBq per day. The current annual discharge limit for alpha activity from the schedule 1 stacks (including B204) is 4,300 MBq.

  In the week ending 13 February 1993 BNFL discharged 3,000 MBq of Iodine 129 via the B6 stack. Discharges for the following week had fallen to 2,500 MBq and by week ending 27 February to 1,000 MBq. The current annual discharge limit for Iodine 129 from the schedule 2 stacks (including the B6 stack) is 41,000 MBq.
  537
  Assessments of the radiological impact of these incidents will be reported to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. HMIP expects to submit its report into the B204 incident by the end of March.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing for the Western health and social services board the number of employees defined as(a) Roman Catholic, (b) Protestant and (c) others, who were educated in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) the Irish Republic, (iii) Great Britain (iv) elsewhere.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the total number of employees of the Western health and social services board, including home helps, defined as(a) Roman Catholic, (b) Protestant and (c) others, together with available information as to whether they were educated within or outside Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Not known

  Outside NI

  Total

  Admin and clerical

  395

  541

  6

  87

  1,029

  Maintenance

  93

  55

  3

  7

  158

  Ancillary and General

  448

  609

  9

  103

  1,169

  Nursing

  776

  1,747

  19

  457

  2,999

  Social Services

  137

  292

  2

  73

  504

  Professional and Technical

  189

  208

  1

  50

  448

  Medical and Dental

  79

  82

  10

  125

  296

  Ambulance

  53

  43

  1

  8

  105

  Home Helps

  647

  938

  47

  127

  1,759

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 247, when the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland began the practice of defining their employees as EC or non-EC nationals; which other quangos in Northern Ireland follow the same definitions; from what date each began the practice; how the employees of each such organisation were defined before the present practice began; and why the system was changed.

  Mr. Mates
  The health and social services boards in Northern Ireland began the practice of defining their employees as EC or non-EC in 1989 in response to fair employment legislation. The process of determining the nationality of employees prior to this was by a process of self-definition. The system was changed to prevent assumptions being made on the community background of employees on the basis of their nationality.

  No other quangos in Northern Ireland follow the same definitions.

  Training
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry, or the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to
  538

  Community Background

  Number

  Educated inside Northern Ireland

  Educated outside Northern Ireland

  Protestant

  2,817

  2,817

  —

  Roman Catholic

  4,515

  4,515

  —

  Others1

  1,135

  0

  1,037

  Total

  8,467

  7,332

  1,037

  1 Includes 98 staff in respect of whom the community background and place of education cannot be determined.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing for the Western health and social services board the number of(a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestant and (c) others in each grade or category used by the board.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on the number of employees in the Western health and social services board who are(a) Roman Catholic, (b) Protestant and (c) others in each grade or category used by the board could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, an analysis of total Western health and social services board employees by negotiating groups and religion is as follows.

  discuss ways in which his policies can more effectively encourage individuals in Northern Ireland to improve their qualifications and skills.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 8 March 1993:
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation, the Confederation of British Industry or the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance to discuss ways in which his policies can more effectively encourage individuals in Northern Ireland to improve their qualifications and skills. As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to reply on his behalf.
  The Secretary of State has no specific plans to meet the representatives of the groups you mention, although he spoke at a dinner organised by the Engineering Employers Federation on 8 February of this year.
  However the Training and Employment Agency will continue to have dialogue with these and other employer representative bodies as part of its ongoing process to ensure that training programmes and policies more effectively encourage industries in Northern Ireland to improve their qualifications and skills and are relevant to the needs of the industry.
  539
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement giving the details of those policies which have been introduced by his Department in each of the last five years in order positively to encourage individuals in Northern Ireland to improve their skills and qualifications.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Nicholas Winterton, dated 8 March 1993:
  You have asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement giving details of those policies which have been introduced by his Department in each of the last five years, in order positively to encourage individuals in Northern Ireland to improve their skills and qualifications.
  As Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland) (T&EA) the Secretary of State has asked me to reply.
  During each of the last five years, training policy has consistently been to equip individuals with the skills and competences required to help them secure employment and to provide employers with a skilled workforce.
  During this period there have been a number of changes to the way in which training and employment programmes have been organised and delivered.
  The most significant change has been the establishment of the Training and Employment Agency brought together in a single statutory body with responsibility for both employment and training services. The Agency came into existence in April 1990. It is an executive agency within the Department of Economic Development and it is advised by a Board comprised mainly of employers. The Agency administers both employment services and training services which it uses to encourage people to acquire relevant skills and qualifications.
  As far as training is concerned, the Agency's activities are directed around two main areas of activity. First, it aims to encourage the training and development of people who are already employed especially in companies of significant potential for growth in the tradeable sector. Secondly, it works with the Department of Education to raise the levels of skills and qualifications amongst the unemployed and entrants to the labour market, with particular emphasis being given to the 16–19 age group.
  Policies under both these two main areas of activity are implemented in close conjunction with Northern Ireland business, through the Agency's advisory board, through a number of bodies which represent the training needs and standards of particular sectors of industry, and through individual company contact. Targets have been set for the attainment of qualifications which embrace the CBI's "world class standards".
  During the five year period a number of new initatives have been undertaken. In 1988, the Job Training Programme was introduced to provide training for the long term unemployed. In 1989 arrangements were introduced to the Action for Community Employment Scheme (this is a short term job creation scheme) whereby persons employed under that programme spend a minimum of 20 per cent. of their time on training. In 1990, new arrangements were introduced for funding the Youth Training Programme, to enhance the quality of the programme, and to emphasise in particular the attainment of qualifications. In 1992, the Agency's Manpower Training Scheme, under which assistance concerning training is given to businesses in the tradeable sector was reshaped to make it more relevant to modern business needs, in the form of the Company Development Programme.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the administrative cost of housing benefit was in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what he expects the cost to be for 1992–93.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the rates collection agency of administering housing benefit was £6,004,792 in 1990–91, £6,092,335 in 1991–92 and is estimated at £6,396,890 for 1992–93.

  Minority Rights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider the entrenchment of individual and minority rights through a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and supervision by the new CSCE high commissioner for minorities, with effective rights of intercession conferred upon the Republic's Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: The Government are firmly committed to the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland and substantial protection is already in place. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights exists to advise the Government on the adequacy and effectiveness of human rights provisions in Northern Ireland. Human rights is among those issues which may be raised by the Republic's Government in the intergovernmental conference. The question of possible further measures to enhance the protection of human rights was considered by the Northern Ireland political parties during last year's political talks. I hope that it will soon be possible to hold further talks to continue to consider what part the protection of human rights might play in any comprehensive settlement.

  Potato Processing
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of all grants from public bodies or Government departments, including the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Industrial Development Board and the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, to companies involved in potato processing, for the past five years; and, for each company, if he will give details of the number of jobs promoted by public funding.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 March 1993]: During the past five years financial assistance totalling £4,075,089 has been offered by public bodies and Government to Northern Ireland companies involved in potato processing. A total of 281 jobs were promoted as a result of this assistance.

DEFENCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to relocate his Ministry's civilian posts in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Decisions which we have already announced will result in the transfer of around 1,000
  541
  civilian posts from Yorkshire. Other proposals would result in the further relocation of posts. However, there will continue to be a substantial Ministry of Defence presence in Yorkshire.

  Trident
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government expect to reach a decision on how many strategic nuclear warheads will be deployed on Trident.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government have made clear that our Trident submarines will enter service from the mid-1990s carrying no more than 128 warheads. The exact number to be deployed will be decided in the light of circumstances at the time.

  NATO
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet other NATO Defence Ministers to discuss NATO defence policy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The next plenary meeting of my alliance colleagues is the defence planning committee and nuclear planning group in Brussels on 25 and 26 May, when I expect our discussions to cover a range of current alliance business.

  Tactical Air-to-surface Missile
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of TASM.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We continue to study a range of possible options for our long-term sub-strategic nuclear capability; as I recently assured the House, I will make an announcement on the outcome at the appropriate time. The WE177 free-fall bomb is expected to remain in service well into the first decade of the next century.

  United Nations
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held to improve the effectiveness of forces fighting under the United Nations flag.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We aim to ensure that our forces maintain their customary high level of effectiveness in all their activities. Where appropriate, units and personnel serving with the United Nations receive additional training and briefing specific to the mission concerned.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the RAF to participate in the proposed airdrop of humanitarian aid into Bosnia.
  542
  Mr. Rifkind
  We have no plans to take part in airdrops of aid into Bosnia. The United Kingdom's military contribution to the humanitarian relief effort will continue to be made by participating in the airlift to Sarajevo and supporting land convoys.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he expects the strength of the Royal Navy will be in 1994.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The strength of the Royal Navy will vary throughout 1994, as new ships enter service and others are paid off. A snapshot of the strength of the fleet on 1 April 1994 will be published, as usual, in the 1994 statement on the defence estimates.

  Gordon Highlanders (Merger)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further consideration there has been of the proposed merger between the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the statement to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 February,Official Report, columns 319–21.

  RAF Chivenor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Chivenor.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department's annual process of recosting of the defence programme looks at all aspects and activities to ensure that resources are used to best effect to secure Britain's defence needs. Some adjustments to individual capabilities will be required to match the defence programme to resources. As the support programme is not exempt from this, I cannot give any firm guarantees about RAF Chivenor's future.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the effect on the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent of a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada test site.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no implications for the Trident warhead programme, for which the tests have been completed. It remains our view that the minimum programme of testing is the best means of ensuring the continuing safety and credibility of our deterrent.

  Aircraft Purchases
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the chairman of British Aerospace and other United Kingdom military aircraft manufacturers to discuss the cost of aircraft purchased from them by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State makes regular visits to many defence manufacturers to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held within NATO or within the WEU on the distinction between peacekeeping and peacemaking as part of their respective roles in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO and WEU participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia are kept under constant review. The diplomatic efforts devoted to peacemaking are being undertaken by the United Nations itself and by the international conference on the former Yugoslavia.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the volume of aid delivered to date by British troops in Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Up to Sunday 7 March, 310 UNHCR convoys have been escorted by the British battalion group delivering 23,108 metric tonnes of humanitarian aid.

  Compulsory Service
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce a period of compulsory uniformed service within the United Nations peacekeeping forces for all United Kingdom citizens between the age of 18 and 25 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress on market testing in the armed services.

  Mr. Aitken
  The market testing programme in my Department has been substantially expanded following the publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality" in November 1991. The three services have been set challenging targets and progress is monitored by a sneering group which I chair. A summary of our programme to September 1993 appeared in "The Citizen's Charter—First Report: 1992" (CM 2101. November 1992).

  Procurement
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of procurement from British arms and equipment manufacturers in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer my hon. Friend to table 1.10 of "Defence Statistics", 1992 edition, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Figures for 1991–92 are not yet available; they will appear in the 1993 edition.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the effect of the use of Chelec units in his Department at Bath on energy saving for his Department;544
  what sum is being saved to the Exchequer by the use of he Chelec unit; and what proposals he has to adopt this unit in other of his Department's establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  A Chelec heating control energy saver unit has been installed on a trial basis in one of our buildings in Bath. Evaluation of the device over the course of a complete heating season is still in progress. Wider use of this or similar devices will depend on the outcome of such evaluation exercises and on their being suitable for the type of heating installation involved. It is too early to say what savings might accrue or whether this unit will be adopted in other establishments or buildings.

  D-Day
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-Day in 1994.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department will be responsible for organising the Government's participation in the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings. At present, our plans are at a very early stage but will include high-level representation and the participation of all three services. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men have had redundancy notices cancelled following his oral statement of 3 February,Official Report, column 319; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The statement on 3 February was taken into account before phase 2 Army redundancy notices were issued on 25 February. No redundancy notices have been cancelled, but anyone may submit an appeal against selection by 31 March 1993.

  Army Personnel Centre
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the statement of requirements relative to the proposal to site the integrated Army personnel centre outside London.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to appendix 1 to annex A of the consultative document, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 13 January.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, (Mr. Walker) on 4 March,Official Report, column 229, if the Roberts study team involved in the assessment of sites for the integrated Army personnel centre has visited the building in Stockport referred to in his answer.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, but other Ministry of Defence officials have done so.

  Surface-to-Air Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the progress of the medium surface-to-air missile programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Work on the evaluation of MSAM tenders was completed last September and we are now assessing the options in the context of our overall defence requirements. No decision has yet been made.

  Vulcan Bomber
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on 26 October 1992,Official Report, column 507, if he has an updated estimate for the running costs of the Vulcan bomber in 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  The full operating cost for the Vulcan during financial year 1992–93 will amount to approximately £260,000.

  Upholder Submarines
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with(a) the Canadian Government or (b) any other party about the sale or transfer of one or all of the four Upholder class submarines; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what disposal price he has placed on submarines in the Upholder class;

  (3) what is his best estimate of the production cost of each of the four submarines of the Upholder class;

  (4) what is his best estimate of the total cost of the design, development and production of the Upholder class of submarines;

  (5) on what date each submarine in the Upholder class entered service or will enter service.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 15 February 1993,Official Report, columns 71–72.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many diesel-electric-powered conventional submarines are currently in service with the Royal Navy; and whether decisions have been taken about the future of each of them.

  Mr. Aitken
  Three submarines of the Oberon class, which on current plans is to be replaced _by the Upholder class, remain in service, along with one Upholder boat. The position on the remaining Upholder class boats remains as set out in the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), on 15 February,Official Report, columns 71–72.

  Submarines
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving naval officers are currently qualified to command submarines; and how many of these originally qualified as commanders of diesel-electric submarines.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are currently 135 serving naval officers who are qualified to command submarines. On successfully completing the submarine command course, officers are qualified to serve on both nuclear and diesel-electric submarines.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOODS

  Processed Potato Products
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of imports of processed potato products during the past five years.
  546
  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows:

  Thousand tonnes raw equivalent

  1987

  393

  1988

  488

  1989

  543

  1990

  520

  1991

  556

  Source:

  Her Majesty's Customs.

  Pâté de Foie Gras
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 73, if he can now supply the figures for imports of pâté de foie gras for 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 November 1992, c. 610]: Provisional data from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise shows 28,704 kg. of fresh and chilled fatty livers of geese and ducks were imported in 1992. All imports were from France. Statistics on pâté de foie gras are collected separately under the heading of prepared or preserved duck or goose livers. Imports of prepared or preserved duck or goose livers for 1992 were 88,991 kg. from France, 22,307 kg. from Belgium and Luxembourg, and 30,427 kg. from Germany.

  Live Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what facilities his Department has at the port of Poole for veterinary checks; and if every live animal export consignment is given those checks;

  (2) if health certificates covering live animal consignments give the total travelling time from market to destination; and what checks his Department makes to ensure that total travelling time under EC directives for animals in transit is not breached from market to European destination.

  Mr. Soames
  As I explained in my reply of 9 February at c.553–54, Community law does not permit systematic checks on livestock at the Community's internal frontiers. However at the port of Poole, state veterinary service staff are available to carry out checks on a random basis to ensure that animals are healthy and being transported in conditions that protect their welfare.

  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 requires that a certificate detailing the origin and ownership accompany each consignment of animals. The certificate must also include details of their place of departure, place of destination and the date and time of departure of the consignment. For journeys exceeding 24 hours a journey plan is required showing the arrangements made for the animals to be rested, fed and watered, and, if necessary, unloaded and given accommodation appropriate to their species and the arrangement for feeding and watering in the event that the planned journey is changed or disrupted.

  For journeys to other member states, local veterinary inspectors are required to certify the health of animals and their fitness to travel. These inspections may take place at a market where the market is being used as an assembly centre. Otherwise the inspections would take place either at the place of origin or where the journey commences.

  Cod
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much cod has been landed by Russian vessels in United Kingdom ports since January.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available figures show that 376 tonnes of cod were landed in United Kingdom ports from CIS vessels between 1 January and 10 February 1993.

  Organic Food
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the main foods imported from Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands that are organically produced.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available since import statistics do not distinguish between the production methods of foodstuffs.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the value in pound sterling of the organic food imported from Denmark and Germany in the last available 12-month period.

  Mr. Curry
  These figures are not available since import statistics do not distinguish between the production methods for foodstuffs.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the grants or subsidies available to(a) Danish and (b) Dutch farmers and growers for the inspection, marketing and promotion of organically produced food.

  Mr. Curry
  I am seeking information and will write to my hon. Friend.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the acreage subsidy paid in Germany to organic farmers and growers.

  Mr. Curry
  I am seeking confirmation of the current arrangements and will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mackerel
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all fishing vessels that have been boarded or called into port as a result of fishing activities in the south-west mackerel box; and if he will give details of any action taken in each case since January.

  Mr. Curry
  A total of 86 fishing vessels were inspected in the south-west mackerel box between 1 February and 4 March. Eight minor infringements were identified and warning letters have been issued to those concerned. Two further infringements are being pursued. It is not our practice to release details of the individual vessels involved.

  Lambs (Mortality)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average percentage mortality figure for upland lambs during the lambing season.

  Mr. Curry
  The average mortality rate for upland lambs—exluding losses at birth—is estimated at 15 per 548
  cent. Actual rates will however vary significantly depending upon a number of factors, including climate, age and nutritional status of the ewe, lamb birth weight and husbandry.

  Strategic Food Stockpile
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the strategic food stockpile.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since world war II, the Government have maintained a strategic food stockpile to help feed the civil population during a period of recovery should there be a major military attack. In July 1991 I announced a phased reduction over five years to achieve a smaller, more flexible stockpile consisting principally of ready-to-eat foods rather than raw commodities. This orderly run-down is now well under way as is the disposal of remaining emergency feeding equipment announced at the same time.

  Latest assessments of food supplies suggest that there are more than sufficient stocks to meet expected needs in the aftermath of any conceivable attack on the United Kingdom. In the light of recently developed systems for locating on farm, and wholesale and retail stocks I have concluded that a strategic food stockpile is no longer justified. I am therefore putting in hand the necessary arrangements to secure liquidation of the stockpile by March 1996.

  We shall continue to maintain plans for the recovery of the food and agriculture industries in the aftermath of war and to plan for the distribution of available foodstuffs in times of crisis. Future plans will be reassessed in the light of evolving civil defence planning assumptions.

  Livestock Farmers, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the incomes of livestock farmers in the severely disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Curry
  Statistics of incomes of hill farmers in Northern Ireland are collected in the farm business survey which has been carried out for over 50 years. The methodology is well established and the results are published each year in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  Net farm income is a measure of income available to the farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and return on tenant type capital. Net farm income recorded by the survey of livestock farms in the severely disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland was £4,000 in 1990–91 and £4,400 in 1991–92. Forecasts made for the autumn review and agreed with the farming unions indicate that this will increase to £6,800 in 1992–93.

  In addition to incomes from farming many farmers will have income from other sources.

  Cash income, which is the difference between receipts and expenditure, may give a better measure of the actual net income available to farmers in any year. This will generally be higher than net farm income as it does not include as costs such items as depreciation, notional payments for unpaid labour and, in the case of owner-occupied land, a notional rental value. Cash income for livestock farms in the SDA in Northern Ireland is

  549
  estimated as £10,400 in 1990–91, £9,700 in 1991–92 and is forecast to rise to £12,300 in 1992–93. These statistics of farm income are available in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Registration
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on changes to the rules about the registration and recording of cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Legislation comes into force today which requires owners or keepers of cattle to register that fact with their local animal health office. They will also have to record the deaths of any cattle in their herd books kept on the farm.

  These changes are necessary to implement the EC directive (92/102) on the identification and registration of animals which was adopted on 27 November 1992. This will involve important changes affecting most of the livestock industry. Its objective is to set up a harmonised animal identification system to enable animals to be traced back to their farm of origin, for disease control purposes and for policing payments made under the common agricultural policy. My officials are discussing with industry organisations how these new requirements will be implemented so as to minimise the burden on the industry as a whole, including those who have charge of animals for only a short period, such as auctioneers and dealers.

  The first changes affect only cattle. The directive requires that a national register of all holdings on which any cattle are kept must be established specifying the address of the holding, the name of keeper, and the holding number. As well as farms, this will cover all
  550
  premises where the animals are kept, including slaughter-houses and markets, dealers, zoos and showgrounds. Animal health offices already have a record of known cattle herds, and will be contacting known herd owners to verify registration details. However, other owners or keepers of cattle will need to contact their local animal health office to supply them with their details.

  Keepers will also be required to record in their herd books the deaths of any cattle, in addition to the information which they have to record under existing rules. To comply with these requirements an amendment to the Bovine Animals (Identification, Marking and Breeding Records) Order 1990 has been made and will come into effect today.

  The directive requires ear tags for cattle to be coded to identify the country of birth. It has now been agreed that the code to be used for the United Kingdom should be the letters 'UK'.

  The use of ear tags to identify all cattle, and this new format for tags, will become mandatory before the end of the year. Further announcements will be made later about the detailed arrangements. In the meantime farmers are advised to limit the purchase of ear tags, especially bulk purchases, to the quantities necessary to fulfil the existing rules until the new requirements have been announced. There will however be no requirement to re-tag animals which are already tagged when the rules change, so existing stocks of tags may continue to be used for the time being.

  The directive also covers sheep, goats and pigs. The rules for these species are less detailed and do not come into force for some time. Further announcements will be made as implementation measures are developed.

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

Council Tax: Appeals
Lord Eatwell Lord Eatwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken to expedite appeals against council tax banding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government have made available an extra £36.2 million in 1993–94 to enable the Valuation Office Agency to deal with council tax appeals. The agency is setting in place systems to ensure that as many appeals as possible are dealt with at an early stage. The Government have also increased the staffing of valuation tribunals and provided them with new computer systems.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and somewhat reassured. Will he confirm that in the case of successful appeals interest will be paid on sums returned?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of his remark about expediting appeals, is my noble friend aware that in Hampshire the authorities decline to consider appeals until April or even to make available appeal forms? Is that consistent with the Government's view that these matters should be dealt with speedily?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point that out. However, the local authority is correct in that no discussion will take place on banding until after 1st April.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the Minster any information as to how many appeals are for upgrading and how many for downgrading of bands?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is certainly the case that in some parts of the country people are complaining that they are in too low a band rather than too high a band.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one disturbing aspect is that when one inquires as to what the procedure is likely to be, the authorities do not seem to know what drill they will adopt? They do not know where one should be advised to go.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear that from my noble friend because the procedure is clear. In the first instance my noble friend should go to the listing officer and explain his problem. We
914
expect most cases to be dealt with at that stage. Cases which are not dealt with after six months will be referred to the valuation tribunal.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister say whether interest will be charged on sums underpaid?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a matter for the local authority.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord confident that valuation officers have sufficient staff to deal with inquiries? Is he aware (and if he is not I shall tell him) that I wrote to my valuation officer nine weeks ago trying to obtain information in order to decide whether I should appeal and I have still not received a reply? Indeed, it seems impossible to talk to the valuation officer at all.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, valuation tribunals currently employ about 250 staff. The Government's plans allow that total to rise to up to 400. It is our belief that we have provided enough money to ensure that valuation tribunals are fully financed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government have made plans to deal with up to 950,000 appeals, equivalent to 5 per cent. of domestic properties? And given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, no appeal is possible until 1st April 1993, does that not mean that there will be considerable delay in the collection of council tax by local authorities? What provision are the Government making to compensate for that delay? How much do they believe local authorities will lose, and will the Government pay interest to the local authorities to make up for it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is true that some appeals may take a long time. However, it should be remembered that we are dealing with appeals between different bands and in some cases there will not be a great deal of difference in monetary terms between the bands. All those who wish to appeal should pay the original assessment at the outset.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have received many complaints in my former constituency to the effect that valuations are being made without any examination or survey of the property concerned? How can that be justified?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I venture to suggest that that is another question. However, if it would be helpful I can tell the noble Lord that the valuation process was undertaken most professionally and effectively and I believe that it will lead to a minimum number of appeals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Is the noble Lord aware that it is not another question? My noble friend Lord Cledwyn raised a perfectly good point. That factor will affect appeals. Is it not the case that one of the assumptions which the revenue asked the estate agents who were undertaking the valuations to make was that the property was in a reasonable state of repair? How can the estate agent make such an assessment if he does

915
not make a survey of the property? That is the point which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn made. Under those circumstances it is perfectly valid that the owner of the property should lodge an appeal.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that the valuation process is taking place along broad bands. Therefore the general state of repair of individual properties will not necessarily count. But, of course, it will be up to individual property owners to appeal if they believe that their banding is wrong.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the Minister states that the valuation was done professionally. I have a totally derelict, unimproved and uninhabitable farmhouse. Will he explain why that was placed in the top band?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with a valuation exercise which covers the whole country, it may well be that one or two mistakes will be made. It is for that reason that we have instituted the effective appeals procedure.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House how credible are his estimates of appeals? I know that thousands of people in London cannot find out which band their properties are in or what the council tax will be. We are only a few days away from the date when the council tax has to be paid. How does he know how many of those people will appeal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have made an estimate of up to a million appeals. That is just a planning estimate. Of course we have no means of knowing exactly how many appeals there will be, but we believe that the figure is about right.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister has made clear that the Government have ordained that payments must be made before an appeal can be made. Given that a successful appeal would indicate that the Government had been in error, is it not reasonable that interest should be paid on the forced loan which the Government have extracted from the public?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be reasonable, but bureaucratically it would be difficult to implement. The amounts of money involved would be small.

Urban Housing: Redevelopment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to promote the redevelopment of substandard urban housing, by compulsory purchase if necessary, in preference to the development of countryside areas.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, government policies already promote the redevelopment of inner city housing and thereby reduce the need to build in rural areas. Planning guidance emphasises the importance
916
of reusing urban land for housing development, and mechanisms such as green belts discourage unnecessary encroachment on the countryside. Through housing and inner city programmes, large sums are spent annually to refurbish or redevelop inner city housing to regenerate the areas concerned and reduce pressure for greenfield development. A key task for the new Urban Regeneration Agency will be to tackle derelict urban land and buildings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging reply. However, is he aware that most urban areas, especially the larger ones, even today have many derelict and substandard houses, and considerable amounts of waste land? Will he give an undertaking that such areas will be developed before any open country is encroached upon?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is precisely one of the reasons behind the setting up of the Urban Regeneration Agency. It is to bring together under one organisation the various government bodies which already consider those issues so that they can be co-ordinated in an effective fashion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, much of the urban substandard housing was built before it was compulsory to build an internal bathroom and toilet in a property. Nevertheless, the buildings are substantial. If the Government were to liaise with a number of our housing and building contractors to modernise such houses, that could make a large contribution towards resolving the housing problem.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Government take seriously the refurbishment of local authority housing and housing association funding. That has been a general thrust of our housing policies for some years.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in order to protect the further encroachment of our countryside and to encourage people back into the urban areas, it is a good idea to look at some of the vast numbers of blocks of offices which exist at present and which are never likely to be occupied? Will the Urban Regeneration Agency be able to use some of its resources to carry out desirable conversions into residential units?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Urban Regeneration Agency will be able to undertake many tasks. No doubt it will wish to take into account the noble Lord's point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has stated that the Government take seriously the refurbishment of older houses. In that case, will he tell the House why the Government's contribution to renovation grants will be cut next year from 75 per cent. to 60 per cent., thus ensuring that demolition rather than renovation will take place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole point of our programmes for cities is that we are increasing spending. Next year we are contributing about £4

917
billion towards urban regeneration. The noble Baroness can pick certain programmes where funding has shrunk, but those funds are made up elsewhere.

Grant Maintained Schools: Financial Management
3.48 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether sound financial management is a necessary precondition for allowing a school to opt out of local authority management.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, when considering applications for grant maintained status, my right honourable friend takes into account all relevant factors including the school's ability to manage its financial affairs as a grant maintained school.
Baroness David: My Lords, in that case, will the Minister tell me whether the Tory-controlled Surrey County Council will carry the debt of £198,000 which four schools had run up before they became grant maintained in April 1992?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is entirely the responsibility of Surrey County Council to ensure that its schools do not overspend. In fact, schools are not allowed to plan for a deficit and Surrey County Council should not condone it.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Government were a school, they would not begin to meet the conditions for opting out?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that this House has much more confidence in governors of schools and would not dare to be patronising about them.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many grant maintained schools manage their financial affairs considerably better than when they were managed under local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is increasing evidence that that is the case.
Lord Parry: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether it is now mandatory for teachers to study management studies as part of their course or whether it is intended that they should?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not mandatory but it is in any case good that teachers should learn the elements of management when training, whether they are managing the classroom, the children or the resources which they have to manage when they are in teaching. It is also good as preparation for posts of responsibility, whether as heads of departments or heads of schools.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that many of us have great confidence in the
918
abilities of teachers but feel that they lack the support they should have in order to discharge their responsibilities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, they do. Many of our teachers are natural managers but more could be done in their initial training to make sure that they are properly equipped, not just for teaching children but for managing the process of teaching children.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, sound financial management requires experience, and quite often training. Can my noble friend assure me that all head teachers are offered such training?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that training funds are given directly by government for training not only of head teachers but also heads of department and teachers in order to help them manage their financial affairs.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, what makes the noble Baroness think that she can manage the schools better than the local authorities who have been doing it successfully for 91 years?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that we can manage them better than the schools themselves. I believe that it is the schools themselves—their governors, the heads and the staff—in whom we should vest the responsibility for management, not in politicians and, indeed, not in local politicians.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is a loophole whereby a school that opts out of local authority control at the end of the financial year in April can build up large debts to the local education authority which cannot be recovered? If that happens, what would the Secretary of State do to put the situation right?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the local authority is doing its job, it should not wait until the end of a financial year to be aware that a school is overspending its budget. Most local education authorities have provisions in place to see that they monitor the spending of their schools month by month. They are responsible for them and the schools are accountable for the proper management of their funds. To condone deficit planning is simply wrong and therefore the responsibility and obligation would be for the LEA and not for the Government.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell me what is the responsibility of the governors in a school under local management? When that school becomes grant maintained, presumably the governors will have total responsibility for any debts they run up.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the responsibility of governors, whether in LEA maintained schools or grant maintained schools, is to manage within the budget. Governors in an LEA maintained school are accountable to the local education authority for the proper management of its budget. Governors in a

919
grant maintained school, until the funding agency comes along, are responsible to my department for the proper management of their budget.

Maastricht Treaty
2.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what legal advice was Baroness Chalker of Wallasey able to state on 17th February 1993 (HL Deb, cols. 1205–6) that "Maastricht itself introduces no constitutional innovation."
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as the context of my remark quoted by the noble Lord shows, I was referring to the principle of primacy of Community law over United Kingdom law. Parliament accepted that innovative constitutional principle when it approved the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community in 1972. That was not changed at Maastricht.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Maastricht Treaty itself contains many constitutional innovations, even within the context with which the noble Baroness dealt, and notably in Article 104c, where the Commission, composed of people without any conspicuous qualifications and who are completely independent, is given the right under the treaty to monitor the economic performance of the country and to report on where the country has fallen down and made gross errors? Does not the Minister consider that to be a constitutional innovation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, given the number of bodies outside these Houses of Parliament throughout the country and the Community which spend much time monitoring what other people do, reporting upon it and giving spurious recognition to it, I do not believe that this is a constitutional innovation. It is certainly not, remembering what the primacy of Community law is all about. I remind the noble Lord that the primacy accepted in 1972 was subsequently endorsed by the 1975 referendum.
Lord Acton: My Lords, in accordance with the Question, did the Minister take legal advice for the Statement? If she did, is she aware that there are precedents for the Government disclosing the law officers' opinions in accordance with the book by Professor Edwards: The Law Officers of the Crown? Given the importance of the matter, will she publish that legal opinion?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, like all Ministers, so far as possible I take the appropriate advice, including legal advice, before coming to the House. It is neither normal nor desirable that Ministers, or other Members for that matter, should be faced constantly with questions about the source and nature of their advice. On rare occasions, as in the Statement I made to the House on 15th February,
920
with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate sitting beside me, I was repeating the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend. Reference was then made to legal advice, but that is wholly exceptional procedure, taken for the reasons that I explained at the time and it is not the norm.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the expression "constitutional innovation" is not a term of art and is therefore not a suitable subject on which to obtain the opinion of law officers? Is that not rather obvious?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as ever, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Baroness help the House and perhaps the country? Will she tell us what are the intentions of the Government following their humiliation last night?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is not a question for me or for this House. What happened last night was that a vote was taken for delay. The passing of Amendment No. 28 succeeds in that purpose, but it does not weaken the Government's determination to ratify the treaty, nor our ability to do so. The amendment passed last night is not a matter of major significance.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness has on at least two occasions assured the House that Article 8 of the Maastricht Treaty imposes no specific obligations upon British subjects in their capacity as citizens of the new European union. That, of course, we accept. However, is she aware that a number of eminent lawyers are of the opinion that Article 8 nevertheless imposes a general duty upon us to act as good citizens of the new union and to behave loyally towards it, even on the inevitable occasions when its broad interests conflict with our own narrower interests? If so, that would certainly amount to a constitutional innovation. Is the noble Baroness in a position to state categorically that that interpretation is incorrect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the reference to "duty" is not a reference to specific duties. Neither the Maastricht Treaty nor any previous Community treaties impose specific duties on individuals. I believe that that is an unnecessary and empty reference. Looking carefully again today at Articles 8 to 8e, what is being done there is to give Community nationals the right to add to their national duties by voting and standing in local elections and European parliamentary elections or entitling them to diplomatic and consular protection by representatives of other Community governments. Citizens of the union will have the right to petition the European Parliament. None of those things are constitutional innovations; they are, I should have thought, an extension of individual citizens' rights.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, while accepting and warmly endorsing what my noble friend had to say about the Maastricht Bill, does she agree that the constitutional innovation that worries many

921
people is the consistent undermining of local democracy? Can we have as soon as possible an assurance from the Government that they will not seek to overturn the vote that was taken, possibly for the wrong reasons, in the other place yesterday?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that it would be wrong to interpret any of the changes brought about by the Maastricht Treaty as undermining local democracy or any other democracy. The important point is that the Maastricht Treaty makes clearer than ever before what should be done and what may be done, if member states agree, by the Community. It also makes sure that there is an opportunity for greater investigation of what goes on. That is why there is a package of non-legislative powers for the European Parliament. I do not believe that extending the right to vote to citizens of Europe in another European country where they are living and registered will in any way undermine the local government of that area.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, following on the last question, does the noble Baroness agree on reflection that although last night's vote may have resulted in delay, it was not a vote for delay but a vote for democracy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand why parties who say they are in favour of the passing of the Bill to ratify the Maastricht Treaty with all possible speed are seeking to make such delay. The delay that will be accorded by that vote is one which will rest with their consciences and be made known to the country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend, not for the first time: is it not rash for this House to try to interpret the motives and actions of another place before the legislation reaches this House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. But perhaps I should have said earlier that the Government have no fundamental objection to elected local government representatives sitting on the committee, which was the effect of the amendment last night. What is to be done about it is yet to be decided.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when the Government get themselves into a position which is dependent upon Opposition parties to get legislation through it would behove them, on a matter which has nothing to do with the essence of the treaty but would, as the noble Lord, Lord Rippon said, somewhat extend local democracy, to show a little sense of striving for consensus and not consistently to display the stiff-necked arrogance which is the characteristic of weak men?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I said some moments ago, there is no fundamental objection to elected local government representatives sitting on the committee. It was, however, felt better that there should be a mix of elected representatives and others
922
—for instance, from the development agencies—which would be more practical. The amendment passed last night, if it remains in the Bill, will not allow others from, for instance, development agencies to sit on that particular committee. It is not quite the simple and rather strident suggestion just made by the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there is no next question. Somebody shouted out "Next Question". I merely point out that there is no next Question.
Is the noble Baroness aware that some of us are puzzled that she does not think that there is any constitutional innovation in the Maastricht Treaty? Are there not certainly two such innovations? Is it not a fact that under Article 8 Her Majesty will become a citizen of the European Union? That is certainly an innovation, since no monarch since Henry VIII has been a citizen of any organisation who has been the Sovereign of this great nation. Secondly, is it not a constitutional innovation that a state, and in particular this state, can be fined by an outside body for not doing what that outside body thinks that it should do?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's question was a little intricate. I remind him of what I said when we had the debate in this House on 17th February. It was to the effect that the fact that the Sovereign may have duties under Article 8 does not alter the Sovereign's position. I said it in rather better words then, but from memory that was exactly the interpretation which had been provided to me. I shall look again at what the noble Lord said because I would not wish to mislead him or other noble Lords in this House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, pursuing the original Question on the Order Paper, if the Treaty of Maastricht imposes no innovation at all and is not innovative, why does it impose unspecified duties in Article 8? If the noble Baroness is unable to specify what the duties are, or they are not spelt out in the treaty, why put the word "duties" in the article at all? Is she aware that under Article F of the treaty paragraph 3 states:
"The union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
Does she agree that, if its policies are to put into operation unspecified duties, it needs very little imagination to think of the monstrosities that will emanate from the committee?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that we went through this matter very carefully on 17th February. I shall certainly look very carefully at what the noble Lord said, as I always do with his questions. I do not believe either that it extends the Community competence, nor do I believe that the unsubstantiated, non-specific duties to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, frequently refers are the ogre that he paints them to be. I will go through what he said again, write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Scottish Office White Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Housing and Urban Development Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the British Railways Bill and the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order will be taken.
Penalty for Murder Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I understand that a noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Penalty for Murder]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, it seemed to me that this matter was too important to be allowed to go through on the nod, as he proposed. Therefore, I ventured to give him notice that I thought it should be debated at this stage. The penalty for murder is a unique one. Some of us believe that that is right. Certainly, many of us believe that in present circumstances it would be dangerously unwise to modify it and to inform the public—particularly those who are concerned to commit the crime of murder —that it is no longer to be regarded as a uniquely serious offence.
I do not know, because he has not told us, what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has in mind in proposing the Bill at this stage. I suggest that he could hardly have chosen a worse time. Murder is far too frequent in one form or another in this country, including murder by terrorists, and consideration must be given to the position of the police. The Committee will be aware that the police are obviously more exposed to personal danger and to the risk of being killed on duty than any other section of society. The police are not only conscious of that but also extremely disturbed at the idea of any modification of the law in the way proposed or, indeed, at all.
I am aware—and if I do not say it no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, will—that nowadays it is rare for the full life sentence imposed on a murderer to be served. Some of us have grounds for criticism of the developing practice of the Home Office, acting on somewhat irresponsible advice, to
924
release people convicted of serious crimes of murder after 20 years. However, even when that happens, the sentence still stands. If the individual gives cause for concern or becomes a danger to others, he can be recalled to goal. If he is no longer sentenced to life and sentenced only to a specific number of years in prison, then after those years have expired he cannot be recalled.
Therefore, the question of the unique penalty for murder is a serious one. I believe that your Lordships' House would be subject to criticism from outside if we allowed the measure to go through, as was apparently proposed, simply on the nod. Whatever view the Committee may take—I am conscious that there are differing views in your Lordships' Chamber—it is a matter which must be and should be thoroughly debated. It is quite wrong to attempt to get it through in this way, with the Committee stage suspended.
I venture to remind the Committee of the difficult law and order situation which exists today; of the fact that many criminals are now armed and are prepared to shoot policemen or others who resist. To modify the sentence which can be imposed for murder at this moment would seem to be extraordinarily unwise. I suggest that if the Committee were to accept such a proposal it would expose the House to a certain amount of criticism. In any event, I ask your Lordships to consider that if the penalty is to he modified, the matter should be fully debated and conflicting views taken. A decision can then be made in the light of that. I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that I would try to say something on the matter, and it may be that other Members of your Lordships' Committee will also feel so inclined.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the support of the Government's position on the Bill offered today by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I know that your Lordships wish to proceed to the next business shortly. We shall have a chance to debate the Bill at Third Reading next week.
All I wish to say, as I made clear at Second Reading, is that to abolish the mandatory life sentence for this grave offence would, in the Government's view, send the wrong message to the public regarding our determination to deal with violent crime. I believe that it would risk undermining the faith of the public in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will confirm at what hour next week it is proposed to take the Third Reading. Is it proposed that it should be taken late at night, as was done with the Second Reading?
Viscount Astor: That is a matter for the usual channels, but I shall convey the comments of my noble friend to those concerned.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that this Chamber has not debated and considered abolition of the mandatory life sentence. To my recollection it was debated at length in 1987 during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill. Those debates occasioned the

925
setting up of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, of which I had the privilege to be a member. We reported and the matter was debated in this Chamber at length.
It is wrong to suggest that the matter has not been debated. To my knowledge it has been debated regularly at around six-monthly intervals and on several occasions Members of this House have expressed the strong view that the mandatory sentence should go. However, we are not talking about the abolition of the life sentence; it is only the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. It is the abolition of the necessity to impose a life sentence for a mercy killing —the sort of offence where, in the view of the majority of the judiciary of England, such a sentence is clearly wrong.
Firm views to that effect were expressed on the subject both by the present Lord Chief Justice and by his predecessor. Those views have been expressed in this Chamber. It is extraordinary to suggest that the matter has not been before the House. It has been regularly before the House, and views have been expressed. It is entirely proper that the Bill should go through merely endorsing what Members of this Chamber have said on several previous occasions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to support every word spoken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I was a member of the committee. I am astonished by what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. As a matter of record I wish to be associated with everything said by the noble and learned Lord.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: We are always delighted to hear the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am especially pleased that he raised this matter today to give us the opportunity of addressing this important issue. I am grateful to him. However, I do not agree with him for the reasons I set out on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is seriously at fault when he says that I have not told Members what I intend. I spelt out what I had in mind in great detail on 8th February this year in what was perhaps too long a speech. The point of introducing the Bill was that I was concerned. I have campaigned in another place on behalf of battered women, arguing that they should be given more justice than they receive at present. I tabled the Bill because a battered woman who has suffered from years of violence and who then kills in reaction to that violence is given exactly the same life sentence as a cold, calculating murderer.
It is preposterous to put the same moral culpability on to somebody who commits a killing of that kind or perhaps a mercy killing as one would put on a calculated assassin or, for instance, the Moors murderer. The same moral culpability through all these murders is preposterous. That is why I want the mandatory life sentence ended.
A distinguished Member of this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, commented on the
926
question of moral culpability. I have not told him that I intended to quote him as I learnt only 20 minutes ago that the Committee was to debate this matter today. He said,
"Murder…consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degrees of culpability, ranging from brutal, cynical and repeated offences like the so-called 'Moors murders', to the almost venial, if objectively immoral, mercy-killing of a beloved partner".—[Official Report, 8/2/93; col. 481.]
No noble Lord could put it more eloquently than that. That is the situation. There are all these vastly varying degrees of moral culpability. The Minister is quite wrong to stand pat on this ancient ill thought out case of saying that we must stand by the mandatory life sentence. The reason the Government are so cowardly on this issue is that they are afraid of public reaction. They want to be seen as tough. But I am tough. I am a hardliner on brutal crime. I want cool, calculating murderers to have life imprisonment. I feel very strongly and deeply about that. But to give the same sentence to a mercy killer or a brutalised wife is palpable nonsense. I do not want to make a very long speech but that is the nub of my case.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
3.22 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The right to collective enfranchisement]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have one difficulty on which I should be grateful for the Committee's help. Anxious as I always am to help the Government to get through their business, I am proposing not to move Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 which stand in my name. I understand, having spoken to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that he is quite content that I should do so. His amendments will therefore take their ordinary place on the Marshalled List according to their numbers. I hope that that will be acceptable to the Committee.
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Anxious as I am, as I have said previously, to help the Government all I can, I do not propose at this stage to move Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("provided that the relevant date shall in no circumstances be less than three years after a qualifying tenant commenced his occupation of the relevant premises.").

927
The noble Lord said: I only wish that my good feeling toward the Government was sufficiently powerful to induce me not to move this amendment, but it is of such importance that the Committee would wish to spend some time considering it.
My difficulty with the Bill, as I said at Second Reading, is that it takes a very broad brush to a very fine problem and as a result makes little sense and less fairness. It gives to all tenants, regardless of their deserts, and it takes away from all landlords, regardless of their merits or their defects. It sets out to alter agreements for the benefit of all tenants and to the detriment of all landlords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene. For the benefit of the Committee, is the noble Lord also speaking to Amendments Nos. 28, 32, 37 and 38?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I should have made it absolutely clear that all these amendments are grouped together. At a slightly later stage in my remarks I shall deal with the points of other amendments which are grouped with this one.
As I was saying, the purpose of the Bill is to alter agreements for the benefit of tenants and to the detriment of landlords. It makes no reference to the deserts of the one or the defects of the other. It raises questions about the whole future of leasehold tenure. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to give us the wisdom, albeit at second hand, which he will have been able to derive from the Minister for Housing, as to how he and the Government see the future of leasehold tenure after this Bill has been passed. It would seem to me that potential landlords might be a little reluctant to take any step at all in such a direction, although I had previously understood—I daresay that I was wrong—that the Government regarded the continuation of leasehold as being quite important and as having a contribution to make to our affairs. My plea is that the Bill could have been aimed and should have been aimed at particular landlords and particular tenants.
I was interested—I am sure that Members of the Committee were interested—to read a letter written to the Spectator the other day by the Minister for Housing. It is a great regret that the limitations of our procedures prevent us from having the presence of the Minister for Housing because I regard him as being at least in loco parentis regarding this Bill. It is asking so much of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde to defend a Bill which is perhaps not his. I am sure that he regrets as much as we do that the parent is not here to defend his child.
In his interesting letter to the Spectator the Minister for Housing said:
"It is only reasonable that he [the lessee] should be given the ability and the right to determine the future of"—
mark the words—
"what is effectively his property by buying out the residual interest of the freeholder".
I leave it to the Committee to judge whether that is a fair comment on the contents of the Bill. The Minister for Housing went on to say:
"That is not confiscation. It is liberation".
928
In writing those words I really think that the Minister deserves a place by the side of Humpty Dumpty, who said that words should always mean exactly what he meant them to mean —no more, no less.
The Minister himself has said that, when it comes to paying compensation to the landlord who is not a willing seller, it should be measured as closely as possible to the value at which a free market between buyer and willing seller would anyhow arrive. That is a slight gloss on the words that are in the Bill. Any dispassionate examination of those words would prompt many people to say that they are not realistic in any way. There is no free market here. It is a hollow pretence to say that there will be one.
I come briefly to the amendment which I am proposing. It suggests that, in order to qualify for the right of enfranchisement, a tenant should have been in occupation of the premises for a minimum of three years. It may be that the Government will suggest that this is a wrecking amendment. I suggest that the only wreckage is the words in the Conservative manifesto. I am not an avid reader of party manifestos at elections. I do not attach quite the weight to them which others do. But, nevertheless, the manifesto is being bandied about. I shall be grateful if my noble friend will pass on this reminder to his honourable friend the Minister. He needs to be reminded about these matters; namely, that legislation will be introduced to cover houses or flats which had been the principal residence of the tenants concerned for at least five years.
That is a very unobjectionable principle. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is that the Government took it into their head to take a very big extra leap in this broad, sweeping way involving, as it does, charities, making no distinctions between good and bad landlords or between tenants of merit and others without too much desert.
There is only one other amendment to which I wish to make particular reference, and that is Amendment No. 28 in the name of my noble friend Lord Boardman. That amendment has the merit which mine does not have of conforming entirely with the manifesto pledge. I wish to make it clear—no doubt my noble friend Lord Boardman will echo these words —that in my view his amendment is preferable to mine in that it covers both points. It covers the two points of the time of residence being a qualification and also the other of the property being a main home.
In the broad approach that they have made, the Government are going to let all kinds of people—some of whom are not resident at the present time —into the flats or houses which they are going to be able to acquire on very favourable terms. Not all of them will even be resident in the United Kingdom. I am sorry for my noble friend the Minister. He is under some duty here to repeat to the Committee the explanation which doubtless he has been given by those advising him as to how he should conduct himself in what is for him a very awkward situation.
This amendment does only half of the job. In my view, that is not a fatal defect. The amendment is taking a half step towards a very desirable objective. I hope the Committee will regard it as such even

929
though, should it come to a division, the Committee may feel some regret that it is not currently voting on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Boardman, which I am sure the Committee would wish if it had the opportunity to do so, at this convenient hour of the afternoon. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boardman: Following my noble friend Lord Peyton, I trust that I can make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that I am speaking primarily to Amendment No. 28, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston, two noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and myself. The purpose of this group of amendments is the same. It is to require that the compulsory power of purchase which the Bill extends, be limited, as the manifesto does, to those who are using the leasehold premises as their private residence.
I first raise one of the fundamental points that this Bill gives rise to. That is, the sanctity or inviolability of a contract which should only be breached by government if indeed there is an overriding public interest that it should be so. It should not be used to frustrate or interfere with a private contract of a well-established legal kind and of long custom, between leaseholders and freeholders. That contract should not be breached or varied by government to force, as in this case, a freeholder against his will to sell to a leaseholder who may have no interest at all apart from that of an investment. The only way in which a contract between the two parties can be breached is if there is a real and genuine public interest that it should be so.
The old example which one quotes is the slavery legislation of 1833. There have been many breaches or interferences with contracts since then, but always on the grounds that there has been a public interest which justified that being done. In 1967, and again in 1974, the then Labour Government introduced leasehold reform, and in each case they provided that the benefit of buying the premises should only be extended to those individuals who were occupying the houses as their main residence. That was generally accepted as a public interest. Indeed, the matter was tested in the European Court of Human Rights. It was held then that it was acceptable, as a social purpose in favour of residents, to then infringe the contract, because it was in favour of those who were living in those houses. To that extent, it did not infringe the European Convention on Human Rights.
In this Bill there is no requirement for leaseholders to be living in the premises and that it should be their main home, in order that they may be granted by the Bill a compulsory right to acquire the premises from the freeholder. Under the Bill, those leaseholders who are given the right to such acquisition can be investment companies, foreign companies and people who are investing because it is an investment. The measure is not extended solely to those who are leaseholders because it is their home.
I am told that in the past 10 years or so in the West End over 50 per cent. of the property transactions have been by foreign companies or foreign
930
individuals. But that is not the point that I wish to make. The identity of the people making the acquisition matters not. If they are not residents, my plea is that they should not be extended the special privilege of being able to acquire premises compulsorily from the freeholder.
As I have said, the Labour Government recognised that in 1967 and 1974. They restricted the right of purchase to those who were living in the premises. As my noble friend Lord Peyton has said, the Conservative Party recognised that in their manifesto last year. The whole section is headed "Home Ownership", which is quite rightly extolling the benefits of home ownership. The manifesto makes the commitment to give,
"residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market rate".
I expect that the Conservative Government will fully uphold that commitment in the manifesto. I would not expect them to go beyond that and to extend that enfranchisement right to leaseholders who have no residence in the flats concerned, no intention of residing there, and who have never done so. That goes far beyond any manifesto commitment and is, I suggest, a breach of the promise to freeholders (implicit in the manifesto) that the Government would limit enfranchisement to those leaseholders whose flat is their principal residence. I believe that the Government are going beyond that. The manifesto itself could not have been clearer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain how he can reconcile the differences between that manifesto commitment and the Bill. I believe that it would be a very real derogation and breach of principle if the Government now proceeded with the Bill without accepting the provisions which are now before the Committee, as principally enshrined in Amendment No. 28.
Of course, I recognise that the enfranchisement of flats presents special problems. The Bill accepts that private residential occupation is an essential precondition for the enfranchisement of houses. The Government have tabled their own amendment stating that in the case of extended leases for flats, residential occupation is an essential requirement. All that I am asking is that that same requirement of residential occupation should be included for the enfranchisement of the freehold of flats in just the same way as it was expressly stated in the Conservative manifesto.
It may be said that the Government are concerned that, if such provisions were included, it would make it difficult for there to be enough people resident in the flats to be able to exercise their right to enfranchisement. That may well be so, but if that is the case, which is the fairest course to take? Is it fairer to say that some residents are unable to enfranchise because not enough of them are living in those flats? I suggest that they should be given the right to an extended leasehold and, under Clause 35, they are given that right. That provision is included in the Bill—and rightly so. However, they should not be entitled to buy unless there are enough of them. I do not think that it would be very helpful or would carry out the

931
Government's expressly stated original intentions if the excuse that there are not enough leaseholders to allow them to enfranchise were accepted. I do not think that that is valid. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not pursue that line but, by his expression, I fear that he is likely to do so.
It may be the case that certain definitions can be improved with regard to the amendments of both my noble friend and myself. Some amplification may well be needed in the case of people who have two homes, both of which are residences. I accept that that may not be entirely clear and I hope that it can be clarified at a later stage.
Perhaps I may make just two further points. The first is that the media have tended to concentrate throughout on saying that our amendments are tabled and our criticisms of the Bill are made for the benefit of the central London estates. Of course, those estates will be severely affected. I would not deny that, but that argument overlooks the thousands and thousands of freeholders who own blocks of flats in other parts of London and throughout the United Kingdom. Since it became known that I have been taking an interest in this, my mailbag has contained a very large number of letters from people who, relatively, will be hit much harder than the big central London estates if the Bill is carried in its present form. I should therefore like to take your Lordships' minds away from the thought that the effects of the Bill will be limited to a few large central London estates. They will not be. Perhaps I should also make it clear (because of the large number of interests that Members of your Lordships' House inevitably have) that I have no interest in any way with regard to any flats and their enfranchisement or non-enfranchisement.
I would have urged the Government to have dealt with the very real problems of the ownership of leasehold flats, such as management agreements and the like, in a somewhat different way. However, that option does not arise at present. The Government have chosen to deal with this matter in a way which causes great injustice to freeholders who are forced to sell to people who have no residency at all. There will be forced sales from one investor to another at a favourable price. We shall discuss prices at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill.
I hope that, in supporting the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton, the Committee will take account also of the other amendments in this group, and particularly of Amendment No. 28 which requires the compulsory enforcement of sale and enfranchisement to be exercised only by those who are living in that block of flats as their principal private residence, as defined in a later amendment. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. Better still, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will follow the logic of it and make it unnecessary for us to divide upon it. Either way, I ask the Committee for its support.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this group of amendments, and in particular what I may call the "Boardman amendments", using the "Peyton amendments" as a stepping stone to that objective.
At the outset it is understood that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made known his concern and displeasure lest amendments are carried which appear to him to wreck his Bill. I shall be corrected if I am wrong. But your Lordships may think that the due exercise of the revisory role may not be pre-empted in any circumstances by such cautionary observations.
There is no mandate whatever for this Bill as it stands. It calls into question the rectitude of tenets of traditional Conservative values and constitutes a proposal for legislation which is unsatisfactory and wholly misconceived. The extra leap, to which my noble friend Lord Peyton referred, is there in the Bill, but it is not in the manifesto and it is not part of traditional Conservative values.
I shall be brief. The amendments to which I speak are only but one group of the many manifest dimensions of error and injustice tied up ugly in the complex legislative verbiage of the Bill. As the Bill stands without amendment, it is but a muddied mess of populist potage, in particular with regard to the provisions which are concerned with the right to enfranchisement. In this context, I have no interest whatever to declare other than perhaps a putative right to enfranchisement under the Bill as it stands which would be removed if the amendments that I support were to be carried in—and I hope that the Committee will carry them in. If these amendments (which reflect the manifesto commitments of 1966 and 1992, which, by my lights, are wholly acceptable in principle serve in the view of my right honourable friend to wreck the Bill as it stands, then let the Bill be wrecked. Your Lordships may well entertain a contrary opinion, having regard to the merits of the argument.
The merits of the argument are essentially few. They have been canvassed with great eloquence by my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Boardman. Essentially, they are these, and I turn first to the home ownership pledge in the manifesto. The Bill is not a home ownership pledge. Secondly, it was never the intention to confer the right of enfranchisement upon a person with many or more than one home. The concept of a principal residence for tax purposes for a person who has more than one home is a matter of election but, having elected for tax purposes, is that election to be treated as binding for the purposes of enfranchisement? The qualification in Amendment No. 37 of a principal private residence as meaning the "main or only residence', is wholly apt, wholly appropriate and wholly requisite in justice to implement the manifesto commitment. I am not—although in a sense it may appear that I am—taking on the Government against their manifesto commitment.
Thirdly, as the Bill stands, the foreign investor who buys up long leases in a block of flats or converted house and sublets through agents, never having set

933
foot in the United Kingdom, never having any intention to do so or to make his home in any of those flats, would qualify for the right of enfranchisement. In my book, that is a manifest injustice and one which I shall never support.
Lord Monson: I added my name to Amendment No. 7 because the Bill, as it stands, paves the way for totally undeserved short-term profits to go to totally undeserving people, often at the expense of the beneficiaries of charities. Anyone with £250,000 to spare—nowadays there are any number of people who can readily lay their hands on a quarter of a million pounds without difficulty—be they British, foreigners living in Britain, foreigners living abroad, or companies, whether onshore or offshore, will be in a position, as the Bill stands—assuming that the freeholder receives no more than 50 per cent. of the marriage value—to make a profit of between £38,000 and £47,000. That is before deducting stamp duty and legal costs, but they do not amount to much.
Assuming those purchasers complete the whole process within six months, which should not be difficult, that equates to an annualised return of between 28 per cent. and 37 per cent. Assuming that they are astute and experienced enough to set things up carefully so that they can complete all stages within two months, then their return will rise to between 84 per cent. and 111 per cent. on an annualised basis. How can the Government defend that, and how can the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats defend such profiteering, often, as I said, at the expense of the beneficiaries of charities?
Lord Coleraine: What a splendid, populist speech my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has just made. We should have enjoyed hearing it at greater length on Second Reading. I have an interest to declare. It is that I am the leaseholder of a flat in a block of eight flats. I shall explain something about the holdings, because that illustrates the difficulties that arise when one introduces amendments such as those we are discussing. The eight flats are all let on long leases. They are all qualifying leases. Two of the long leases are for terms in the region of 125 years. The remainder are for shorter terms. Over the past 10 years, two of my fellow residents have found it possible to reach terms with their landlords and buy their long leases. We have six relatively short leases out of eight. That gives us the right to collective enfranchisement, whether the long leases come in or not.
The longer leaseholders are not interested in acquiring the freehold. They have what they want. Last year we started proceedings against the freeholder to acquire his interest under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, because he had not complied with his covenants. The longer leaseholders who were not interested in buying the freehold were not interested in contributing to the cost of that action. That is what would happen if it came to collective enfranchisement. The six short leaseholders would want it, the two longer leaseholders would not.
The flat in which I live is not my sole home. I have lived there for 17 years. It has been my home for 17
934
years. Generally I live there four or more days a week. If I, or some other lessee in my position, is struck out of the right to collective enfranchisement in the circumstances set out in the amendments the remaining five qualifying lessees on the shorter leases would find themselves unable to enfranchise because they are only five-eighths of the whole, which is not enough. They would remain able to enfranchise in theory, but they would have no rights under the Bill for collective enfranchisement or for lease extensions.
I do not know what my noble friend Lord Peyton intends to do with the amendment or what will be the effect of voting on it, if it came to a vote. It is plainly defective because it provides that the occupation of the premises is the qualifying factor, and the premises are the whole block, and "occupation" has a certain legal meaning which is not appropriate to the Bill. I wish we were having the debate on Amendment No. 28 because it is to Amendment No. 28 that I would address my few remarks.
There is no principle behind the sole or principal residence test. Like everything else in the Bill, it is a question of the rights of property. Resident and non-resident owners, be they foreigners or of whatever colour, are equally interested in the good management of their flats and the effect of diminishing terms of their leases on the value of their investments. There is no reason in principle why they should not be entitled to enfranchise. The precedent the other way is contained largely in taxation statute, which is not relevant to what is before us today, and in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which is not an Act that immediately enamours itself to all those who would use it as a precedent today.
The final point is that to disfranchise non-resident owners would throw the property market into chaos, because once a flat owner had been disfranchised, and the remaining flat owners in his block were enabled to enfranchise, and did enfranchise, the lease of the one who was excluded by the amendment would immediately be of considerably less value. It would not just be of considerably less value in his hands, it would be of less value in the hands of any person who happened to buy it at a later date. It is a foolish amendment. I hope that the Committee will resist it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that most of his speech was so full of what I would call specialist pleading that it left me disturbed. The only other thing I noted, apart from the words in the Bill, was the absence of a contribution from the Labour Benches.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It will come all right. Do not worry.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The Labour Party has made it clear outside the House that this is a Tory squabble: it is a matter for the Conservative Party. If it is, we must take on the responsibility and deal with it. The advice that I would give, if that is not a presumption, to my noble friend and to my noble friend the Minister, is to approach the matter in a practical way. There is no point in making more Second Reading speeches. The principle behind the Bill was settled in

935
the other place and on our Second Reading. The principle, I think, although they got away with it, is a clear attack on what I call the sanctity of contracts. The position people are in, they entered into willingly. The sanctity of the contract is being interfered with by statute. That breach of the sanctity of contract is important. The whole of ordered society depends upon the continuance of the sanctity of a contract. However, that argument has been conceded and the other place has given its consent to the Bill as it now stands.
The practical approach is to try to amend the Bill in a way which does not interfere with the principle that was accepted in another place and on Second Reading in this House. We must try to amend the Bill so that it will conform with what the Government claim to be their case. The Government claim that their main reason for pursuing this legislation is because it was in the manifesto. That was not this Government's manifesto; it was that of the Conservative Party. The interpretation of the manifesto by the Conservative Party outside is overwhelmingly at variance with the interpretation put on it by the Government in the words which they have used in the Bill. I believe that the manifesto can be honoured in the way which was intended by the acceptance of Amendment No. 28. That removes the main objection of those who, having accepted Parliament's power to settle the principle, can now get down to making the Bill practical.
I followed closely the debates on the Bill in another place and the Second Reading debate in this House. I had thought that the Government would be eager to accept Amendment No. 28 because it gets them off the hook as regards the most potent parts of the criticism that they are having to face. I do not believe that the Government intended to give the benefit of the preference—they are giving a preference outside the contract that people willingly entered into—to people who are not residents in a property. In order to try to encourage people to buy council houses we did not say that anyone who was not living in a council house could take advantage of the benefits that were being offered. I appreciate that if we also wish to encourage the ownership of flats by people who occupy them Amendment No. 28 provides for that.
The amendment in no way interferes with the general principle and the detail of how the provisions should be applied and worked out. It merely gives an advantage to the residents of flats; in particular, those who have lived in them for more than three years during the past 10 years, and it is an advantage that we want them to have. Without Amendment No. 28 the Bill will allow all kinds of people who cannot begin to claim to be residents to take advantage of its benefits.
A practical approach is necessary from both sides. My noble friends, who may have deep objections to the Bill as a whole, should say, "We think that it is bad in the sense that it infringes the sanctity of a contract. However, it has gone through the other place, it has had a second reading in this House, it exists, and we accept that". As a Conservative who was prepared to accept the Conservative manifesto I demand that the
936
Government take a practical approach and, having received concessions from my noble friends on the general principle, admit that the words in the Bill do not represent what deep down they truly wanted.
I hope that there will be no need to take the matter to a vote. However, if I am asked to vote it will be for Amendment No. 28. That amendment, if accepted by this House and eventually by Members in another place, will make the Bill what the Conservative manifesto—not the Government manifesto—intended. It is with the hope that a practical approach will be adopted by both sides that I strongly commend Amendment No. 28 to the Committee.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: Amendments Nos. 28, 37 and 38 appear in my name and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for so eloquently outlining the background to them. I support the amendments but that is not to say that I do not also support Amendment No. 7 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I support it but I wish that he had gone a little further.
Before speaking to Amendment No. 28 perhaps I may draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Amendments Nos. 53 and 67 have not been forgotten about. I propose to speak to them just before or just after Amendment No. 52, which is where I believe they properly belong.
While eliminating any feelings of xenophobia about ownership interests in a block of flats, whether national or international, and any other aspects of the ownership, I wish to draw attention to some of the practical considerations. Furthermore, I wish to leave aside the question of manifesto commitments because I am not bound by the manifesto in question.
There are certain aspects which must be convergent in the context of the Bill. We are talking about people's occupation of their principal private residence and that must be respected. However, that is not universally the case and they need protection from the effects of having to go cap in hand to a landlord who does not want to co-operate. I believe that by reputation many of the better known landed estates in our urban areas are well run. I do not have any axe to grind; I do not act for or against them in my professional capacity as a chartered surveyor. However, it is well understood that some of the estates are considered to be well run.
The occupation of the buildings, their management and the long-term security of those whose interests need to be protected should be convergent. Unfortunately, on any reading I have made of the Bill they are not. If anything, I see those factors to be divergent. There are no provisions in the Bill which insist that the control of a building must be for the benefit of its occupiers.
If the Bill is to operate in a manner consistent with the Government's home ownership philosophy all those factors must come together. I cannot help wondering what interests, other than trading one asset for another, an investor owning one flat in a block will

937
have. What interest will there be for a company which owns a flat, other than a commercial interest of which it forms some ancillary function?
So I have to ask the question: are we looking at an interest in somebody's home or are we looking at other interests? The only conclusion I can draw is that if there are insufficient home owners within any particular building and if Amendment No. 28 in particular would impinge on that, the question to be asked is whether we have a quorum of tenants in that situation who have an overriding interest in the property in the first place which therefore would trigger the philosophical principle behind this. If by Amendment No. 28 the Bill should be in some way damaged as regards the breadth of the enfranchisement that might otherwise take place, then I draw attention to an amendment standing in my name, Amendment No. 139. That would give a wider right of extending leases under the Bill.
It seems from what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, that when long lessees have extended their lease they are not particularly interested in enfranchising. But does that not tell us what market demand really is? Does it not tell us that market demand is in fact for extended leases and the right to extend and freedom from being held to ransom by a greedy landlord?
I should like to think that some owners of the better known estates, particularly in inner London, have not got where they have by being overtly greedy landlords. Other Members of the Committee may have different views, but certainly I have not seen or read anything which casts aspersions on those estates. I would therefore refer to the fact that within the body of amendments some will be proposed that substantially alter the way in which the right to enfranchise will come into being. It is within the gift of this Committee, during its discussions now and later on Report, to be able to tailor amendments that are made at this stage "in the raw" and make sure that they fit with the mechanics that one wishes to see in practice.
Therefore, while I can understand that there may be reluctance on the Government's part to accept Amendment No. 28 they must realise at the same time that there are other matters which represent a safety net for this. It seems to me that it is going to be too difficult to enfranchise. I also consider it a very expensive and long-winded method of dealing with the particular problem of control over a building in which residential occupiers live. A "fall back" must be a sensible and logical corollary—something along the lines of Amendment No. 139, to which I shall speak later.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, talked about the chaos that might ensue from the amendment. I am doubtful whether any such chaos would be less than the chaos which may well ensue if the Bill is left unamended. There are all sorts of anomalies in the way management and freehold ownership can be secured under the Bill which, on close examination, will not necessarily be tied into and inextricably bonded to use and occupation by those residents in that building. For instance, the management, via a management trust—there is an amendment later standing in my name about this—does not have an
938
interest in property. It has an interest in the management but it does not have an interest in the property; that is to say, it is not a landed interest. The Bill as it stands would do nothing to make these matters a focal point concerning the interests of the people in that building. Therefore I recommend Amendment No. 28 in particular to the Committee and I am glad to be able to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: This debate started with my noble friend Lord Peyton, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, talking about manifesto commitments. I too was a Minister in a government but much more junior than my noble friend Lord Peyton. When, as a Minister, one had a hand in the drafting of a manifesto, one backed it throughout. I see no reason to change my mind on that.
What are the origins of this particular manifesto commitment? They lie in a day's debate in another place in March before the election. There was very lengthy discussion of enfranchisement and of the principles of commonhold—and I regret that commonhold still has not come forward. On that day the Labour Party was notable for its support of the principle and the Liberal Party was notable for its absence from the entire debate.
I must say that I find this particular amendment a very interesting one. I had a hand in the drafting of the right-to-buy legislation, which gave the opportunity to hundreds of thousands of council tenants to buy the property they lived in. We made very clear two points. First, they should be actually resident and, because they were going to get a substantial monetary advantage by a discount, they would have to abstain from selling for a particular length of time: otherwise, they would forfeit part of the benefit they had got. So I see nothing fundamentally wrong in the principle of saying that the person benefiting should at least have resided in a particular property as principal place of residence for a period. I do not mind whether it is three years or five years. There is a principle here.
At the moment I do not see why one should disregard that. It is perfectly true that in the debate in another place in March this particular issue did not come up. However, I think it is a principle that over the years most people within the Conservative Party have felt that there is an inherent right to ensure that people benefiting should have some sort of tie to the particular property involved.
Again, I had a hand in the legislation that dealt with some of the bad landlords, especially in London, although they do exist elsewhere. One must not overlook the fact that there are bad landlords. The people we tried to get were those bad landlords who were non-residents and sometimes even non-resident in this country. Part of the legislation ensured that even if they appoint managing agents it is now possible to get those particular bad landlords in this country for certain causes. So I do not believe, having looked at the Bill very closely, that there can be anything "wrecking" about this amendment. A

939
wrecking amendment may arise later if one tries to take out charities. I shall speak on that as a charity trustee with property interests.
The question of compensation is tied in partly with this amendment. I shall speak later on that. However, I believe that there is a lot in what my noble friend, Lord Harmar-Nicholls said. There is nothing inherently wrong with this amendment. Of course it is defective. How many times have I stood at the Dispatch Box answering debates and saying that an amendment is defective? It does not matter. Defects can be put right by those people who hold most governments to ransom, the parliamentary draftsmen, without whom we would all be lost. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that the one argument never to accept about an amendment is that it is defective. If the principle is right, the right words can be found.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Coleraine, by how much he would benefit from the enfranchisement of his flat. It seems to be extremely relevant.
Lord Coleraine: The answer is that I have not the least idea. I have tried to set out for the Committee all the circumstances which exist in my block which might ultimately result in my benefiting from enfranchisement.
The Earl of Onslow: It appears that I owe the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, an apology. On Second Reading I said that he is a Maxwell director. I now know that he is not a Maxwell director but he was a director of the Mirror Group of newspapers when Mr. Maxwell was controlling it and not afterwards. However, I certainly apologise for using the wrong tense.
The basis of my criticism still stands. It seems to me that some people stand to gain large sums of money from this provision. They are speaking on it and will vote on it.
The next point is that there is a charity which belongs to the BP pension fund. That pension fund has its own amount of money. It has a block of flats which is lived in by one American and four South Africans. They are drooling at the thought of enfranchisement. None of them are residents. If this amendment is passed they will receive a large capital gains tax-free benefit and I do not like that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: At this point, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I shall express an opinion from these Benches.
There is one point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Leasehold is not solely a London problem. It is important that the Committee should have firmly in mind the following figures. A Consumers' Association survey revealed that of all long-leasehold flats in 1992, only 26 per cent. were in London. Therefore, Members of the Committee are wrong to speak of this as a London problem. It is only a quarter of the problem.
Furthermore, as regards the social class of the head of household, 59 per cent. were of social classes C1 or
940
C2. Therefore, we are not talking about the very rich. We are talking about what used to be known as the skilled working class or lower managerial working class. Furthermore, 84 per cent. of ownership leaseholds were conversions, not original buildings. That in itself gives rise to problems.
The last statistic which I shall give to the Committee—and this is where I come to the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Boardman—is that 60 per cent. of all owners of long-leasehold flats were first time buyers. Those people bought a leasehold and then moved on to buy a freehold, as the Consumers' Association found out in its survey.
The Committee will know from what I have said that I shall oppose both the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Boardman. I say that for two reasons. First, both amendments would seriously affect the Bill and seriously reduce the prospects of collective enfranchisement of leaseholds. I shall explain why that is so in a few moments. Secondly, I oppose them because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that they would both seriously distort the housing market and the market for leasehold flats.
As regards the three-year qualification, the Consumers' Association study undertaken in 1992 said that approximately one-third of owners of long-leasehold flats moved on within three years. If those people were disenfranchised, it would reduce the universe of people who would be able to enfranchise collectively, not just by those people who were thereby disenfranchised but because of the multiplier effect on the other people in their building who would lose qualifying tenants. Unless the Government were prepared to reduce the figure from two-thirds downwards, the scope of the Bill would be seriously reduced. The Committee will be aware that on Second Reading I said that our quarrel with the Government, if we had a quarrel, was not about the principle but about the scope of the Bill. I meant that the scope should be widened rather than narrowed.
As to residency, again the same argument applies. The matter of principle as regards residence has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. Again, broadly I agree with what he said. Perhaps I may say to other Members of the Committee that it is quite false to use as an analogy the residence qualification as regards the sale of council houses. In that case, discounts were given depending on the length of residence. If Members of the Committee opposite wish to have discounts introduced, that is another matter which Members of the Committee will wish to debate. However, it does not seem to me that they would gain much support from the Minister on the Front Bench. That is a bad analogy.
The main objection is that were the amendment to be passed very few blocks would be able to enfranchise. In the end, the Bill would have an extremely limited effect. I do not regard this as a wrecking amendment. The noble Lord said that there may well be a wrecking amendment at a later stage;

941
but I do not regard this as such. However, this amendment would seriously reduce the scope of the Bill and for that reason, we oppose it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: I declare an interest. I am a director of a company which owns flats, but if Amendment No. 28 were passed none of those lessees would be affected because, so far as I know, they are all permanent residents.
Much has been said about the manifesto. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee about the manifesto. It states that the Government will give to:
"residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market rate".
I shall not discuss the market rate. That has been distorted because of the so-called marriage value where the market value is divided between the leaseholder and the freeholder. I shall return later to that matter.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine raised the question of principal residence. It is well accepted, and he knows well, that for capital gains tax purposes one must declare which house is one's main residence. That residence enjoys capital gains tax exemption. Any other house which one might own is subject to capital gains tax. That capital gains tax element is a matter which compounds the unfairness in the Bill.
If an owner of a residential flat is enfranchised and he buys the freehold and the value of the leasehold to the freeholder increases, the amount of money that the freeholder receives is liable for capital gains tax but the amount of money which the principal resident receives is exempt from that tax. That compounds the unfairness of this legislation.
I understand the Salisbury convention that the House never overturns a manifesto commitment of whatever government. I do not believe that Amendment No. 28 spoils the commitment, because later there is an amendment in my name whereby I want whatever valuation is put on a property so that the difference between the leasehold and freehold interests can be seen. I do not believe that that should be taken immediately because it compounds the unfairness of the Bill. Here we are saying to a freeholder that he is forced to sell to the leaseholder at the bottom of the market. Consequently, I believe that we should defer the valuation. We can go through all the rigmarole of qualifying lessees and all the rest of it, but the actual valuation should not be taken in six or nine month's time when the property market is at the bottom.
The manifesto commitment assumed that this was the Conservative Party's extension of home ownership. At Question Time last week I asked the Minister the following question:
" … does my noble friend think the Housing and Urban Development Bill will increase private rented accommodation?"—[Official Report, 3/3/93; col. 663.]
That was a manifesto commitment. My noble friend will well remember that he simply replied, "No, my Lords". If there is a commitment to extend home ownership and the Minister answering says that this Bill will not do so, I am a little concerned.
942
My noble friend Lord Boardman has introduced an amendment which my noble friend Lord Peyton has said is a better one; it is deeper and covers all the points. I agree with that. For the life of me, I cannot see why any government of this country should enfranchise people who do not live in this country but who use some of their flats merely as holiday flats. Why should the directors of overseas companies and so on who occupy these flats be given the right to enfranchise their flats? The Government have given way on a subsequent amendment on the extension of leases. If the Government can give way on that point, I cannot see why they will not give way on the question of extension of freeholds.
The Bill has created a tremendous amount of concern within the Conservative Party because in many cases its effects are confiscatory. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked whether the Bill would be compulsory as far as tenants and others were concerned. In reply the Minister said:
"My Lords, this Government have no desire compulsorily to require landlords to sell their houses which are let".—[Official Report, 3/3/93; col. 663.]
That is illogical. The Bill is saying to freeholders that they must sell the leaseholds to whoever the tenants may be, whether they live in this country or abroad.
This is a bad Bill. I would have thought that we could fulfil the manifesto commitment made at the last election by altering the Bill. We are enfranchising people who have flats, but we are not allowing to be given away to people who do not live in this country flats that are only their private or sole residential flats. I am not a natural rebel but in these circumstances, unless the Government do give way on Amendment No. 28—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that my noble friend will not distinguish too much between Amendment No. 7, on which we could have a vote at a reasonably early hour, and Amendment No. 28. My noble friend Lord Boardman and I are absolutely at one that if we win a vote on Amendment No. 7, it will be a victory for us all.
Lord Clark of Kempston: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton because it means that my speech can be that much briefer. He has said exactly what I was about to say. I hope that the Minister does not have at the top of his brief "Resist", because we must carry out Conservative policy and preserve the sanctity of contract which this Bill is about to violate.
Lord Annan: I must declare an interest in that I live in a house of leasehold tenancy. I do not live in a flat. Therefore, I hope to escape the censure of those who think that I may be speaking out of pure self-interest. It should be made clear that there are those on the Cross-Benches who do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We do not have £250,000 to spare. Indeed, some of us would be very glad to have £250,000. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was entirely right that, if this was passed, a large number of leasehold flat owners would be disenfranchised. If it were accepted, the tenants of many flats, particularly those in a building which contains more than two or three, would find it

943
virtually impossible to get enfranchisement. It would need only one tenant to die, fall ill, be absent for several months or to have moved for the application to enfranchise the rest of the tenants to fail. The way I read the amendment is that the three-year test means that the whole process will have to start over again. Directly the tenants have got their act together it needs only one of them to be unable to give consent for the whole process to be postponed until the new tenant has completed a three-year term. By that time another tenant of the block may have moved and another postponement will have to take place; in other words, the fountain of beneficence to the leaseholders will continue to play but the tenants will never get any water.
Baroness Hamwee: We have had much discussion this afternoon about whether or not the provisions of the Bill reflect the Conservative manifesto. The taunt has been made that those on the Opposition Benches are not taking part in that discussion. I am sure the Committee will understand that, to the extent that that is an internal party discussion, we must treat it as a spectator sport. What is not a spectator sport to those on these Benches is the achievement of the best Bill. On Second Reading we said that we broadly supported the Bill and the attempts to deal with the problem of leaseholds as wasting assets, in particular the problem of bad landlords.
This afternoon many comments have been made in defending accusations—which have not been made —that this and other amendments in this group are wrecking amendments. It seems to me that there is an element of "protesting too much" about these not being wrecking amendments. One only needs to listen to some of the introductory speeches to draw one's own conclusions as to whether or not the amendments are intended to wreck or improve. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has made the point very well that we must look to the best outcome for as many leaseholders as possible. To disenfranchise the large majority of leaseholders, as may happen if Amendment No. 7 or No. 8 is passed, cannot be to the good of the Bill.
There may be questions about the benefits that would accrue to investment companies which have no interest as residents, but those can surely be met through other amendments.
Lord Boardman: I understand that the noble Baroness does not want to become involved in arguments concerning the Conservative manifesto. However, do not even those on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that the inviolability of contract should be preserved unless a real public interest is involved? If the noble Baroness agrees, where is the public interest in forcing one investor to sell to another investor?
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that I dealt with that point at Second Reading. Like other Members of the Committee I have no wish to make too long a speech but I believe that contract is, by and large, sacred. I
944
thought very hard before making my points at Second Reading, but I believe that there is a public interest which overrides that primacy of contract.
As I said at Second Reading, it is not the case that the properties which are the subject of the Bill could have been ignored by a purchaser, who could have bought a freehold instead of a leasehold property. Very often only leasehold properties are available within a price range or a geographical area. I believe that there is a public interest, which this Bill endeavours to address. First, long leaseholds are a wasting asset. Secondly, effective steps should be taken against bad landlords to enable long leaseholders, subject to their bad management, to take steps to preserve their own assets because, in investing in the leasehold, they too have an asset.
I want also to refer briefly to Amendment No. 32. It has been said that it is not a xenophobic amendment. However, it excludes a tenant who is not resident in, or a national of, the United Kingdom. That puzzles me because it seems to me that it must exclude all foreign nationals, even those who are resident in the property in question. Indeed, it may exclude a couple where one spouse is a British national and the other is not. It is therefore understandable that the amendment should be described as xenophobic.
I have no wish to prolong the debate. Many noble Lords have said that they hope there will be a vote at an early hour. However, we seem to have lost some of the audience, perhaps to tea. That is understandable.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is high time that somebody on this side of the House spoke in opposition to the amendments. I know that my noble friend Lord Coleraine did so at the beginning but since then we have heard speaker after speaker putting forward a case in favour of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, said that he hoped that the Minister's brief is not marked "resist". I hope that it is.
My noble friend Lord Boardman, and my noble friend Lord Peyton before him, supported the amendment very ably. However, my noble friend Lord Boardman made it very clear in his speech how destructive the amendment would be. He said that 50 per cent. of the property purchased recently in the West End was bought by foreigners. If that is true that would rule out any block which those people occupied and would disenfranchise the other 50 per cent. of occupants.
My noble friend Lord Boardman also suggested that one would get a freehold for nothing. That view has come through clearly. It is quite wrong. The freeholder will receive a fair value for his property. I was rather shocked by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Clark that valuation might be deferred until a more favourable time. The Bill refers to 50 per cent. of the marriage value: that should be a fair value at any time. Whenever one receives one's money that reflects the true value of the property. The suggestion of manipulating the date of valuation in such a way as to be more favourable to the freeholder is scandalous. However, if I owned a property company perhaps I might think that way.

945
We have been asked not to repeat Second Reading speeches so I shall not declare the extent of my interest once again. I have a degree of interest, but it is limited.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the wonderful profits which are to be made. I have been trying all my life to make wonderful profits and it is not as easy as the noble Lord implied. I do not accept the figures which he produced, and I have had a number of dealings in property during my years in the United Kingdom. One of the amendments would disqualify me on the grounds of nationality. If I lived in one of those leasehold flats I would be ineligible to apply for enfranchisement as I am not a UK national. I am a Commonwealth citizen and an Australian rather than a UK national. Therefore the amendment would disqualify me.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine made a very interesting speech. The case which he illustrated made it clear that if tenants were offered longer leases which represent good value they would not wish to enfranchise. Surely that is the answer to my noble friend Lord Clark and anyone who has a property interest. If one offers one's leaseholders a longer lease on very good terms they will not wish to enfranchise. That was a most interesting point.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in his clever way, said that he was being practical. I thought that he was totally impractical, and his intention was definitely to frustrate the purpose of the Bill.
The sale of council houses is not a parallel. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, in that case people were given discounts of 50 per cent. In the case of the enfranchisement of blocks of flats, far from receiving a discount many people will find that they cannot enfranchise because the cost will be too great.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a very interesting point. He said that management of the building in the interests of the tenants was most important. The Bill does not cover that important point, and I hope that my noble friend will return to it at a later stage. My noble friend also made the point that many people want merely to extend a long lease but are not being offered that facility. In the past few weeks I have been looking for a flat for an Australian friend. In block after block of flats there is nothing available except flats with 35-year leases. There is no possibility of obtaining a mortgage on a 35-year lease. Therefore, purchasers of such properties are very limited.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Finsberg that commonhold would be desirable and I hope that we shall see that provision come into effect. I believe that the amendment is not in the interests of the Bill or in the interests of the people. I support rejection of the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: We have heard some interesting speeches about matters of principle, but we are in Committee. Therefore, I shall deal with the matters raised in this series of amendments on residency qualifications. I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of
946
Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who addressed themselves specifically to the group of amendments.
It seems to me that if we accept the amendments we would, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, disqualify a large number of people. That would be quite wrong. For example, many people live in one part of the country and work in another. It is unreasonable that they cannot have a secondary residence and be entitled to the benefits under the Bill. By the same token, surely we should not exclude foreigners in any way. We are becoming increasingly closer to the European Community or at least we are trying to, although one may be forgiven for wondering how long it will take. Many foreigners come to the United Kingdom from Europe in particular, because this is a great manufacturing and financial centre. There is no reason why Europeans from the Continent should not be able to purchase in the same way as UK residents, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
Finally, many people may buy homes for retirement while working elsewhere. I am thinking in particular of people in the services and other professions and diplomats, who are sent abroad for long periods and wish to have a home for their retirement. Are they to be excluded from purchasing under the terms of the amendments? The amendments are wholly inequitable.
Despite the siren voice of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is quite capable of dealing with the Bill. I hope that he will resist the amendments forcefully.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may add my voice in wholehearted support of this group of amendments. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes comes from the opposite end of the earth. Perhaps it will come as a surprise to her that the distance between our views is as great as the distance between our countries. My noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein has complained bitterly about the unfairness for people who might be disenfranchised from purchasing a freehold because they live in one place and work in another. I do not consider that unfair. Those people signed a contract. They bought the leasehold in the first instance. They knew what they were signing. Does my noble friend realise that the freeholder may not wish to sell? Why should the Government pass a Bill which forces a person to sell something that is rightly his when he does not wish to? That seems to me a little socialistic, but I may be wrong.
Some noble Lords have spoken about the sanctity of contracts. It is an important point. I remember well, as will a number of noble Lords, the party opposite passing the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which effectively tore up the contracts made between landlords and tenants in the agricultural sector without their knowledge and consent. It took away all confidence that the party opposite might not carry out such retrospective legislation again. Therefore landlords were extremely circumspect about how they conducted their business in the country.

947
I regret to say that we now have a conservative Government—I believe that it is probably spelt with a small "c" at this juncture—doing exactly the same thing with residential property. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, the provision does not only affect London; it affects Bath, Edinburgh and many of the beautiful towns in this country. The Government are undermining the confidence of landlords and of those who wish to enter into freely-made and legal contracts between one party and another. It is a dangerous step to take.
I accept that there is a clear manifesto commitment. I regret it but I do not argue against it. However, I believe that we ought to do everything possible to contain the Bill and the provisions thereof along the lines of the manifesto, and no further. On that basis I urge the Committee to support the amendment and any other amendment which simply retains the reference to residential occupation and ownership.
Lord Jacques: I wish to support the Bill and oppose the amendment. First, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a housing association which owns a block of 72 flats. Not only is my flat my main home; it is my only home. I have lived in it for more than three years. Therefore with regard to the amendments, I have no interest to declare.
The housing association of which I am the chairman has a lease for 125 years with more than 100 years to run. Its members, the residents of the flats, also have a lease from the association for 125 years with more than 100 years to run. It is quite clear therefore that there would be no great material gain in obtaining the freehold. With such a long lease one need not worry about the freehold. However, money is not the only consideration. I should like our association to obtain the freehold because I wish to be free of the tyranny of the landlord.
Such tyranny can act in different ways. I shall give an example. Our block consists of 11 storeys. Consequently, we have two lifts. We suffered a nuisance factor with cycles being taken up and down in the lifts. We wished to build a shed in which to house the cycles so that we did not have damage to the building by cycles being brought inside. Although there would never have been need for planning permission if it had been an individual household, the planning committee decided that we had to have planning approval and that there would be a charge of £55. We then received a letter from the landlord stating that he would have to give approval and that there would be a charge of £60. That is what I mean by the tyranny of the landlord. I eventually intervened and the charge by the landlord was reduced to £25. However, the planning permission was given for only five years. At best we shall have to pay the landlord and the planning people every five years. At worst we shall have a cycle shed which will have to be pulled down at the end of the five years. That is a completely unsatisfactory position which would have been mitigated if we had owned the freehold.
In this country we are years behind the times in ownership of property. Commonhold is already in existence on the Continent and in the Commonwealth.
948
The Bill is a first and important step towards commonhold. I suggest that we take the opportunity to bring up-to-date our law relating to the ownership of property.
Lord Strabolgi: I wish to say a few words against the amendment. However, I wish in general to comment on the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and others about the so-called inviolability of contracts with the willing buyer and willing seller. I do not believe that that is always applicable to flats.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. It may be of comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to know that my flat does not qualify on many counts. However, I am a committee member of one of the residents' associations of the City of Westminster; and I have also lived in London all my life. Up to about 30 or 40 years ago, a flat in London was a satisfactory type of residence. The flats were owned mostly by Key Flats, and other old family companies. The rents went up a little every few years. There was a nice resident porter, a fire in the hall, and so on.
One or two property developers and speculators then discovered that if they bought the freehold, they could threaten the tenants with eviction unless the tenants bought the long leases. The tenants were on short leases and had been happily living in the flats for many years. They were therefore forced to buy the long leases. They scraped the money together. Many of them were not well off; they were people on pensions, and so on. They believed that they would have security for the rest of their lives. What did the owner then do? He recouped what he lost on the lease with service charges. Those went up all the time. The tenants were made to sign contracts which said that the service charges would be for the servicing and any necessary refurbishment of the building. What did that mean? Not just painting the windows but building penthouses on the top.
I know of a block of flats in Chelsea where there has been scaffolding on the building for five years. The building is owned by a company with its head office in the Cayman Islands and an operating office in Luxembourg. The tenants could not at first find out who were the landlords, and when they eventually did find out, the landlords soon went bankrupt and were succeeded by others. It is a complete mess.
We and all tenants owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, and other Members of Parliament of all parties for central London, for the fight they have put up on behalf of tenants. I think that the Bill is an effort—which I commend—to put the whole basis of tenure of flats in London on a decent basis. As my noble friend Lord Jacques said, why should we be the only country which has this absolutely crazy system? In America and Europe people own their own flats, and the sooner we have a sensible system the better. I commend the Government for having done this.
5 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: I intervene at this point rather reluctantly; but I am concerned that, one hour 37 minutes into the Committee stage, we are still hearing Second Reading speeches about points of principle. I am also concerned that we are not aware of the impact of the Bill throughout the land. It has been said that this is a Labour Bill, that it is not a rich man's Bill; all kinds of comments have been passed. We now have before us a series of amendments which are not called wrecking amendments, but in one way or another they are thwarting amendments. They will thwart some of the intentions behind the Bill.
I declared my interest at Second Reading. I am a contented tenant and have been contented for many years. But it is not London that we are talking about; it is the nation as a whole. We have seen the figure of 750,000 people who will be entitled to enfranchisement. We do not know the cost. We are assured that ultimately the price will be fair; and we shall come to that matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Let us assume for one moment that the consideration that is paid to the freeholder, the head lessors and whomever, is fair. Let us assume that the legal fees that will be charged in that connection will also be fair, because I think that they may well be the most unfair of all. It has been said that if people wish to enfranchise a block of flats, each person may have to pay £6,000 to £7,000 towards some of the legal costs. I do not know what noble Lords who are lawyers charge in the way of fees these days, but they are fairly extensive. The more complicated an issue is, the extra cost in terms of enfranchisement could be considerable.
I do not oppose the concept of the amendments: that we should, in general, look after ordinary British residents who wish to live in or own homes. However, what is a primary residence and how many people may be excluded if the amendments are passed? If we take the figure of 750,000 people, and carry out a little research, we may examine the electoral role and make the assumption that those people who are not on it are foreign or are not entitled to be enfranchised. If we look at a few blocks of flats around London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, we find that if such amendments were passed, probably as many as 350,000 people would not be able to be enfranchised because they were part of minorities, because of foreign domination or second home domination in the property. Many people would be adversely hurt for the wrong reasons.
Let us make the assumption that we are talking of people who are normally resident in the United Kingdom, unless they happen to work abroad, or who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and who pay their taxes and make a contribution to society. If we look at ownership and ask what are the likely breakdowns, first there are single-parent families at one level; husbands and wives who may own a second home, one in one place and another in the country. There may be people who have bought genuinely properties for their family and children to live in at some time in the future. There are those working
950
I abroad for international corporations or for themselves who have left the country but who own a home or a flat and who wish to return to it. They may find that they are disadvantaged.
I do not believe that the purpose of the amendments is necessarily to hurt people who genuinely, in the spirit of the Bill, would be entitled to buy the freehold of their flat. I wondered how and why those freehold and leasehold activities came in. I was originally told that leaseholds were part of British history; they were applied to flat land and the ground floor; but because one could not incorporate the whole building, leasehold came in.
We talk about money and the cost; that is probably what it is all about. If we make the assumption that at a later stage in the Bill the consideration payable will be fair—as it probably will—then much of the principle of opposition over sequestration or nationalisation disappears. My worry is more for those people who find that in principle they thought they would be entitled to receive the freehold of their flat. They are then prevented from doing so for reasons beyond their control.
Lord Strathclyde: During the course of this afternoon, many of my noble friends have expressed their concern for my well being. I can tell them that have very much enjoyed what has clearly been a most lively and healthy debate. However, this afternoon the Committee has a weighty responsibility as a revising Chamber, looking at a Bill and a provision which were passed with all-party support without a vote in another place.
My noble friends have argued eloquently in support of their belief that the extension of existing rights intended to further home ownership should not be available to absentee tenants. They pointed to various precedents, particularly that of the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. The Government accept that there is some logic in the view that only long leaseholders who actually live in their flats ought to benefit from the ability to take control and stem the inevitable decline in the value of their asset.
Nevertheless, all long leaseholders have to pay rent and service charges, and are entitled to value for money and a say in how their money is spent. This applies to those who own the flat as a second or possibly future home. Non-resident long lessees who sublet have a duty as landlords themselves to ensure that their property is well managed. These arguments suggest that all qualifying tenants should be able to participate in collective enfranchisement, regardless of whether they live in their flats. I strongly believe that a residence condition for qualification for collective enfranchisement in flats would not be fair.
However, such a test is not acceptable for other reasons, too. The main one is that it would substantially reduce the number of blocks in which collective enfranchisement could take place. My noble friend Lord Boardman refutes this argument. The average period of tenure in flats is thought to be about seven years. At any one time a significant proportion of long leaseholders in a block would not have lived in

951
it long enough to qualify for participation, so the requisite majority would never in practice be attainable.
Other effects of a residence test on enfranchisement are that individual blocks could move in and out of eligibility frequently, making it harder actually to find an opportunity to claim, and that tenants would have difficulty in ascertaining the status of their block because they could not always readily discover the residential status of non-participating qualifying tenants.
In fact I am convinced that a residence test for participation in collective enfranchisement would render unworkable this part of the Bill. Long leaseholders of flats would in practice just not be able to take over full ownership of their blocks. We would end up with a worthless, discredited piece of legislation and our declared policy would not be delivered. I understand that that is not the intention of my noble friends who moved the amendments.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that absolutely clear in another place. He said that to include a residency test would make the right to collective enfranchisement unenforceable by many tenants who can themselves meet any residency test and all other requirements. As I said earlier, members of another place accepted his argument and the matter was not pressed to a Division.
The first chapter of the Bill confers upon qualifying tenants a collective right to purchase the freehold of the building containing their flats. That is collective enfranchisement. We believe that the time has now come to extend to flat owners the right of enfranchisement, which has been available to long leaseholders of most houses. An increasing number of leases will be entering the period in which they will become difficult to sell, and whereas most leaseholders of houses have control over repairs and maintenance, owners of flats are entirely in the hands of their freeholder. A majority of leaseholders report that landlords fail to meet their obligations regarding the upkeep of the building and the proper handling of tenants' money. It is right that long leaseholders of flats should have the same opportunity to take full responsibility for their homes as other owner-occupiers. We believe in the expansion of owner occupation. We cannot bring that about if the amendments are accepted.
Much was said by my noble friends Lord Peyton, Lord Boardman, Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Finsberg, and other noble Lords, about our commitment in the manifesto. My noble friends sought to suggest that the Bill goes beyond our manifesto commitment to enfranchise residential leaseholders. The manifesto said that we would introduce legislation giving residential leaseholders living in blocks of flats the right to acquire the freehold of their block at the market price. The word "residential" applies to the lease, to distinguish it from a commercial, or business, lease. There is a long established market differentiation between the two types, which many statutory provisions reflect. The identity of the occupier is of no consequence in
952
identifying into which category a given lease falls, and both parties to leases are aware of that. So I feel that I can say quite categorically that the Bill does not go any further than we promised. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said that the Bill does not reflect traditional Conservative values. I believe that at Second Reading I proved beyond doubt that it does because of the Conservative Party's long-term commitment to allow leaseholders to buy their properties.
The amendment will prevent flat dwellers from becoming enfranchised. It is not comparable to the legislation of 1967 or 1974. That legislation dealt with individual rights of tenants to buy their houses. The provision, the Bill and the principles behind it were passed in another place, reflecting all party support—something which this House normally cherishes.
I have to ask: what gives a tenant merit by virtue of living in his main residence? Why do my noble friends believe that he should be allowed enfranchisement whereas somebody who is away temporarily should not. Furthermore, many of my noble friends seem inexplicably to have turned their faces against investors. They have also expressed their concern that foreigners should be allowed to buy their own properties. But why should landlords be willing to sell long leases of perhaps 100 years or 120 years but not be willing to sell the freehold?
I know that my noble friends have been asked to support Amendment No. 7. We have been told that it is a defective amendment and I can confirm that. We have also been told that Amendment No. 28 is better than Amendment No. 7. But we are still possibly faced with a situation of voting on Amendment No. 7. So my noble friends will vote not only for a defective amendment but in all probability for the wrong amendment. I believe that situation to be ridiculous and, for the reasons that I have laid out, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may first of all reassure the Committee that it is not my intention to go over the whole of the debate. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all who have taken part, even though not all managed to agree with the point of view that I put forward. Perhaps I may have my noble friend's attention, as I am about to say something polite to him. I should like to express my deep appreciation of the skill, courtesy and charm with which he replied to the debate.
Having said that, I am deeply sorry that at the end he dragged in by the heels that musty, grubby old argument, so dear to Ministers without his skills, that the amendment has defects. If the amendment has an acceptable principle, the defects could easily be ironed out by the Government with all the resources at their command. I am sorry that my noble friend went so far as to spoil an otherwise very good speech with that bit of grubbiness.
I should like to make one further point, and I hope that even Members of the Committee who have spoken with eloquence against the amendment will pay attention to it. I feel very uneasy that we should

953
pass a measure without even concerning ourselves that one of the results could well be—indeed, will be—a windfall to people who have not occupied the premises, have no intention of doing so and could, as soon as they have enjoyed that windfall, themselves become landlords with short-term tenancies.
I do not know whether my noble friend is inclined to take such arguments seriously. For me they are serious. I do not enjoy being invited to support measures, as we so constantly are, which have not had the adequate thought and attention of Ministers. In those circumstances I feel I can do no other than take the opinion of the Committee.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Chorley, L.

Acton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Aldington, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ashcombe, L.

Crathorne, L.

Atholl, D.

Crawshaw, L.

Attlee, E.

Cross, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Denham, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Donegall, M.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Elton, L.

Boardman, L.

Faithfull, B.

Bolton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Borthwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bridges, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Grafton, D.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grantchester, L.

Chalfont, L.

Greenway, L.

997

Halsbury, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Hampden, V.

Peel, E.

Harrowby, E.

Pender, L.

Harvington, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Head, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Hertford, M.

Radnor, E.

Hood, V.

Reay, L.

Hylton, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Rockley, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

Kindersley, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Kinloss, Ly.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Knutsford, V.

Selkirk, E.

Lawrence, L.

Stedman, B.

Leconfield and Egremont, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Strange, B.

Lindsay, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Lytton, E.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tryon, L.

Middleton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Munster, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Aldenham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Howe, E.

Annan, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Jeger, B.

Kissin, L.

Arran, E.

Lockwood, B.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Barber, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Biddulph, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cadman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Moyne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Newall, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nicol, B.

Carnock, L.

Ogmore, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Coleraine, L.

Parry, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cranborne, V.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

David, B.

Richard, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Falkland, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Galpern, L.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Geraint, L.

Shackleton, L.

Goold, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Spens, L.

Hacking, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hastings, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

998

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Vivian, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Tordoff, L.

Wakeham, L.

Torrington, V.

Wigoder, L.

Trumpington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wolfson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Young, B.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 185 names. The Clerks recorded 186 names.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Scottish Office: White Paper
5.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement about Scottish constitutional issues which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, since the general election the Government have been conducting a wide-ranging examination of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom and the way our Westminster Parliament works for Scotland. I am today placing before the House a White Paper setting out our conclusions—Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good.
"The Act of Union of 1707 secured for the Scottish people a strong and special place within the United Kingdom. It guaranteed the continu-ance of Scotland's separate legal, educational and local government systems. The more recent
956
establishment of the Scottish Office itself, as a department responsible for administering much of Scotland's government, is another illustration of the capacity of the Union to accommodate—indeed to encourage—diversity. Equally, the Union has enabled Scotland to participate fully in the affairs of the United Kingdom, and Scots have done so to considerable effect. The United Kingdom is a partnership of peoples that has achieved great things and from which all its constituent parts have benefited.
"The initiative known as "taking stock" has led us to come forward with a range of proposals aimed at reinforcing the Union and Scotland's place within it. First, recognising Scotland's separate legal system and its other legislative needs, the Government propose a number of initiatives to improve the existing parliamentary arrangements for handling Scottish business. The Scottish Grand Committee at present has powers to debate Scottish matters and the Scottish Estimates and to take the Second Reading debates of Scottish legislation. It is also empowered to meet in Edinburgh. We propose to build on these arrangements, providing for up to 12 general debates each Session, with the opposition parties selecting the subject for debate on a set number of occasions though, of course Scottish matters, like Scottish legislation, will, where appropriate, continue to be debatable on the Floor. We also propose a new procedure allowing for debates on affirmative resolutions and on prayers against negative resolutions to be referred when appropriate to the Scottish Grand Committee. The arrangements enabling the committee to handle Scottish legislation will remain unchanged, with any Second Reading vote being taken formally on the Floor of the House. The Report stage and Third Reading debate will also continue to be taken on the Floor of the House in the usual way.
"We further believe that the Secretary of State's responsibilities have become sufficiently wide to justify augmenting these arrangements by proposing that from time to time sessions of Questions to Scottish Office Ministers be held in the Scottish Grand Committee in addition to those that take place every four weeks in this House. These sessions could be held either at Westminster or in Scotland. We also propose that at the end of each meeting of the committee there should be an opportunity for an adjournment debate specifically on matters of concern to Scotland. It may occasionally be appropriate also for statements to be made by Scottish Office Ministers to the Scottish Grand Committee. In addition, we propose to establish a new procedure, to enable the Scottish Grand Committee to invite the Scottish Office Minister in another place and also the Lord Advocate to give evidence before it on matters within their fields of responsibility.
"Some of these changes will require amendments to the Standing Orders of both Houses and we shall

957
bring these forward for debate in due course, having first consulted with opposition parties in the usual way.
"Standing Orders of the House already contain a provision that enables Bills to be referred after Second Reading to a Special Standing Committee. We consider that this provision can provide a particularly appropriate mechanism for scrutinis-ing some Scottish Bills and we propose its wider use for some Scottish legislation in future, with provision for the evidence-taking sessions to be held where appropriate in Scotland.
"Taken together, I believe these measures will lead to a significant improvement in the handling of parliamentary business relating to Scotland, in a way which is less remote, is more responsive to Scottish priorities and concerns and which may relieve some of the pressure on the Floor of the House. I stress, however, that in all these procedural changes Scottish Ministers will remain fully accountable to this House and the Scottish Grand Committee will remain wholly a committee of this House. The integrity of Parliament will and must remain intact.
"We also propose changes in the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. Recognising the important role of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies and their capacity to meet local needs in the delivery of the Government's training schemes, from April next year the responsibility for training policy in Scotland will be transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland, within the framework of the Government's overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies.
"Responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council will be transferred to the Scottish Office from the Department of National Heritage, also with effect from April 1994. We also propose to transfer the ownership of Highlands and Islands Airports Limited from the Civil Aviation Authority to the Scottish Office. And, in the context of the policies emerging from the forthcoming White Paper on Science and Technology, we shall review the scope for transferring to the Scottish Office responsibility for schemes for encouraging industrial innovation.
"These proposals represent a worthwhile integration of decision-making power in the areas I have mentioned, with the other activities for which the Scottish Office already has responsibility.
"Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to be able to confirm to the House that my honourable friend the Minister for Energy is today announcing that his department will open a major new oil and gas office in Aberdeen to serve the off shore industry.
"I also wish to ensure that the Scottish Office is more visible in Scotland and more accessible to the general public. I propose to publish in future a concise and accessible annual report on the activities of the Scottish Office and the non-departmental public bodies and next steps agencies
958
for which I am responsible. The annual report may be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for scrutiny and debate.
"Although my department already has offices throughout Scotland, we shall seek opportunities for further dispersal within Scotland. This will apply both to parts of the Scottish Office and to non-departmental public bodies for which I am responsible. In addition, in accordance with the principles of the Citizen's Charter, we shall establish a central inquiry unit accessible from all parts of Scotland for the cost of a local telephone call. This unit will be backed up by the designation of many of the existing departmental offices as Scottish Office information points. We shall examine the case for supplementing this facility with other information points in smaller towns around Scotland, operated on an agency basis. The White Paper also sets out other plans I have to further the goal of the Citizen's Charter by making my department more responsive to the needs of the people of Scotland.
"Last December the leaders of the European Community met in Scotland for the successful Edinburgh Summit that marked the climax of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community. We shall seek to hold further such events in Scotland in the future. In that context I am pleased to announce that the European Community will hold a Europartenariat conference of small businesses in Glasgow in December. Further details of this major event will be published shortly.
"Madam Speaker, the partners to the Union need to work at bringing the reality of the Union alive for all the people of the United Kingdom. This White Paper outlines how Scotland's status as a nation within the Union can be more effectively recognised. The Union was and still is good for Scotland and good for the United Kingdom, but that does not mean it cannot be made better; and we stand ready to consider other measures to this end which may emerge over time, to the benefit of all its partners.
"The White Paper I am publishing today does not mark the end of the 'taking stock' process but the start of a renewed emphasis by the Government on the importance to the United Kingdom of all its component parts. We will continue to seek further ways of strengthening the Union and Scotland's place in it.
"We reject utterly the arguments of those who want Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, either through the direct means of separation or by way of the slippery slope of a separate parliament. Our firm commitment is to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, secured through this House and this Parliament. The United Kingdom is a partnership of nations that has endured. We believe strongly that it is a partnership for good. In that spirit I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. He will be aware that because of the length of the last debate the White Paper is released and we have had an opportunity to glance through it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us some idea as to whether time will be found for a debate on the White Paper.
I believe that everyone on this side of the House, and possibly people in Scotland generally, will be pleased that the Government have now very slowly become aware of the genuine movement in Scotland for more control and for a distinct voice in its own affairs. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord has burned the midnight oil and has probably agonised with his fellow Ministers in producing the Statement and the White Paper.
I am sure that he will not be too surprised to hear, from what we have had time to read, that in our opinion, his labours have really brought forth a mouse. It is a mouse which I am prepared to forecast will be found inadequate by the people of Scotland. It will certainly not persuade them that this Government are serious about giving Scotland any real national control of its own affairs.
Of course we cannot but welcome much of the Statement. But we cannot be expected to be widely enthusiastic about something which falls so short of addressing the real aspirations of the Scottish people. More meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh or perhaps in other parts of Scotland can do no harm and would probably be helpful. Specific Scottish Question sessions held in Edinburgh are also a tiny step in the right direction as is the idea of having adjournment debates on Scottish matters at a reasonable time of day. That perhaps means that the Scottish media will be able to relay reports on them to the Scottish people instead of what happens in the other place where adjournment debates are held at midnight or sometimes long afterwards. At those times few people are concerned.
We welcome also the fact that the Secretary of State will be taking control from the CAA of the Highlands and Islands airports: so the Secretary of State will have a direct interest. I hope that that means maintaining or, better still, improving communications with the islands. We are not quite so happy about what has been said regarding the transfer of oil and gas offices to Aberdeen. We need to look very carefully at that. I believe that Aberdeen will be very disappointed if all that results is the arrival of medium to low-grade executives. The feeling in many parts of Scotland—I have heard this also from Americans—is that because of the way Aberdeen has become a real centre for deep sea oil extraction and drilling, the head office for all gas and oil exploration should be located in Aberdeen. Perhaps we shall have a chance to discuss that later.
The Statement was able to refer only briefly to the Citizen's Charter. That is something we shall read about, and no doubt it will be raised by other Members. We shall discuss it carefully when the White Paper has been circulated. There is very little flesh on
960
the bones of the Citizen's Charter, whether it is the Scottish one or the national one put forward by the Prime Minister. I believe that the Statement and the White Paper, far from stemming the desire in Scotland for real, devolved government within the United Kingdom—my party has always been quite clear on that point—will whet the Scottish appetite for more national control. However, if the proposals are a 10-day wonder, which I believe to be more likely, they may well prove to have been a waste of very valuable time and a worthless exercise as far as the ordinary people of Scotland are concerned.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I too would like to thank very much the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for having repeated the Statement. There are a great many administrative and procedural proposals, some of which may be useful. Most of them, I believe, will make very little difference at all. No doubt they will have to be discussed but not, I think, now.
However, there are one or two questions I would like to ask, partly because they are general questions and partly out of pure curiosity. First, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can assure us that the devolution of the Scottish Office and the spreading of responsibility from the centre will lead to a reduction in staff and not an increase. I hope that there will not be simply an increase in staff and buildings all over Scotland.
Secondly, I notice that Second Readings will be taken formally on the Floor of the House. I take it that that is merely a polite way of saying what happens now, which is that, whatever happens in the Scottish Grand Committee, if the Government wish to press a Bill they simply produce it on the Floor of the House and use their majority to get it through.
Thirdly, I am interested in the telephone calls. As I understand it, anyone, anywhere in Scotland, can, for 10p or whatever it is, ring the Scottish Office and indulge in whatever questions they wish to raise. It is true that one cannot ask a Minister. I shall not be able to ring the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and say, "I would like to have a chat with you about the new Bill". Who will I be able to telephone? What kind of people will be responsible? Is there any limit on that facility? I can visualise certain people spending hours over months raising interesting questions with impunity.
Lastly, I understand that this is the start of a process and that this is not the last word. With rather waning hopes, I hope that the process may eventually deal with the crux of the matter. That is contained right at the end of the Statement where it says:
"The United Kingdom is a partnership of nations".
That admits that the Scots are a nation. If they are a nation then surely they have the right to say that they want to run their own government, at least for some purposes. They have shown that time and again. They have some rights that should be taken notice of. If one continues to disregard the crux of the matter, which is not administrative or procedural, but democratic, then I believe that ultimately we shall run into considerable dangers, not least for the Union. The real thing which may be endangered by ignoring the Scots'

961
desire for better democratic procedures is the Union. Let us remember that it was the intransigent Tories who ultimately forced Ireland out of the union with the United Kingdom. Do not let that happen to Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords on the Front Benches for the welcome they gave to what is contained in the Statement to the extent which they did. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, indicated in a ringing conclusion that he was anxious that our Union should be maintained. It is the very purpose behind the paper that we should do what we can to secure that, within the context of the United Kingdom, there should be some arrangements made as to the diversity that occurs in our respective component parts. If Scotland were inclined to go its own way as a separate nation, against what would seem to me sensible political judgment, that would have to be recognised if it was clear and unequivocally expressed.
However, we must appreciate that we cannot build into the arrangements unilateral devolutionary changes which put England or other parts of the United Kingdom at a disadvantage in any respect. I appreciate the policy of the party which the noble Lord represents that there should be a federal system, but I am bound to say that in the time that I have spoken about this matter in England, I have yet to find anyone who wants to break up England into individual federal units.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, indicated in his general way that the Statement was inadequate. I rather suspect, however, that there is some relief within the Labour Party that we should have dealt with the matter just to this extent. It is perfectly obvious to me, as I am sure it is to him, that there are now four clearly identifiable component parts within the Labour Party in Scotland in relation to what should be done about constitutional affairs. Like the distinguished honourable Member for West Lothian, there are those who are unequivocally unionist and would not like to see any degree of change. There are still some who espouse an ill-digested devolutionary pattern which has within it unresolved issues. There are also some who are federalists in a liberal sort of fashion. Then there are some who are crypto-nationalists. I do not think that the noble Lord can conceal that there are those difficulties within his own party.
The noble Lord asked whether there would be an opportunity for debate. That is a matter for the usual channels although, as I indicated in the Statement, there will necessarily be some debate on Standing Orders and particular changes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that a number of the changes to the Scottish Grand Committee —I suppose, not least, questioning myself—will be useful. I cannot say that I look forward to it particularly, but I hope that a constructive model will be adopted in the style of questioning. Indeed, perhaps I may say to the other place that there might be some lessons to be learned from this House about the way in which questions are addressed to Ministers.
962
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord was so grudging about the transfer of oil and gas jobs to Aberdeen. The White Paper states that initially some 60 jobs will be transferred. I understand that that has been warmly welcomed. It should help to secure Aberdeen pre-eminence as an oil centre in Europe.
I was also asked a number of questions relating to the Citizen's Charter. The reason that we have suggested that it would be worthwhile setting up a network of points of contact and communication around Scotland is, first, that it fits in with the idea of the Citizen's Charter. If anything has emerged as part of the process of taking stock, it is that there is still a surprising degree of ignorance about the range and activity of the work of the Scottish Office. I hope that that misunderstanding will be avoided in future and that the way in which the Scottish Office works will be better understood by people in Scotland. I do not envisage that Scots the length and breadth of Scotland will be spending their time and 10p to telephone to ask silly questions, but I hope that in areas relating to health, industry, education, fishing and agriculture, people will be genuinely anxious to ascertain the appropriate point to which they should go to secure advice. I do not believe that that will increase the staff of the Scottish Office to any significant extent although clearly if some jobs are to be moved from south of the Border into the domain of the Scottish Office, there will be some increase.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, as I think that your Lordships will know, I remain in favour—I have always been in favour—of the Union. Having said that, equally, I have campaigned very forcefully for the Scottish people to have more say in running their own affairs.
I have not had the opportunity to read the White Paper, so I shall not expand on it at any length. However, one or two points have struck me. I think that it is most important that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet frequently in Edinburgh, and I should like to consider that point further. I also understood (but I am not very clear about it), that people would be called on to give evidence before the committee. If that is so, it would save the telephone calls that have been mentioned—and the 10 pence pieces. If, however, that is not the case, it is critical that there should be an ability for certain representatives from Scotland, from outside the Houses of Parliament, to be able to say something in Edinburgh or otherwise. If that is given force in the White Paper, all well and good. If not, we must look to see whether we can find something that improves the provisions to that extent.
Finally, I fully support the desirability of a debate. It is all very well to say, "This is a matter for the usual channels", but I feel sure that all Scottish peers would want to have a debate on this subject.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, during the time of my noble friend Lord Younger of Prestwick, arrangements were put in place that the Scottish Grand Committee should be able to meet in

963
Edinburgh. If there is an extension to that proposal now, it is that there should be the opportunity for it to meet not only in Edinburgh, but potentially elsewhere in Scotland. It is not difficult to envisage that in relation to, say, a fisheries matter or a Highlands and Islands matter, it might be appropriate for the committee to meet in Aberdeen or Inverness.
I believe that the point about giving evidence is covered in two respects. As a Minister in this House I am, of course, primarily accountable to it, as is my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. What is envisaged is that in certain circumstances (in a way, by extension from the process that occurs before a Select Committee), we might give evidence to the whole of the Scottish Grand Committee regarding a particular aspect of our respective responsibilities. A further aspect which we think could be useful is that, by extending the idea of the Special Standing Committee, those who might want to give evidence, such as either professional or voluntary Scottish organisations, might welcome the opportunity to give their evidence in Edinburgh instead of being subjected to the difficulty and the expense of having to come to Westminster.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, since my family have been involved in working for and defending the Union since the time of King James VI, perhaps I may congratulate the Government on eschewing the fragmentation syndrome of separatism. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to explain a little more about this evidence business? Is it that the Scottish Grand Committee will, on occasions, be able to resolve itself into a kind of Select Committee to take evidence from those outside Parliament as well as inside it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. As far as taking evidence before the Scottish Grand Committee is concerned, the present proposal is obviously a matter on which we are prepared to consult with the Opposition parties and, indeed, others. At present, it should be restricted to the giving of evidence by either myself or my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. There is already power for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to take evidence not only from Ministers either in this House or in another place, but also from the public in Scotland. Since its establishment it has, to my certain knowledge, regularly taken evidence from individuals in Scotland.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the Minister say who was consulted before the White Paper was composed? Is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend Lord Carmichael said that this is the result of the Minister burning the midnight oil? All I can say is that it must have been a fairly short wick. Is the Minister further aware that this White Paper is not even original? The historical part of it is a direct lift from John Gibson's book The History of the Scottish Office, and the explanation of the ministerial functions at the Scottish Office are easily obtained from the Library of either House of Parliament.
Is the Minister further aware that I agree with him on the point that we are all determined to preserve the
964
unity of the United Kingdom? All my work as co-chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention has been designed to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom.
The debate taking place in Scotland, which seems to have gone over the Government's head, is directed towards devising a system that will preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. It is not tinkering in the way that the White Paper proposes that we should tinker: 12 general debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. We cannot meet the eight days that are presently laid down, because they are always squeezed into the last two weeks of July. How on earth shall we be able to meet 12 days if we cannot meet eight at the minute?
In relation to Questions to Ministers in the Scottish Grand Committee, where does that place the Secretary of State who has a United Kingdom responsibility for forestry matters? Does that mean that UK Members of Parliament will be able to table Questions on forestry matters to Ministers in the Scottish Grand Committee? Those are matters for which the Secretary of State has United Kingdom responsibility. Nowhere does the White Paper address that question. Does the Minister appreciate that, while I accept that he has done his best—I was interested to see him yesterday climb into one side of the bed with the nationalists and today fall out the other side while making it clear that he had no interest in nationalism —it is not good enough. To produce a lasting permanent solution we shall have to go further than the proposals contained in the White Paper.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, indeed I did burn the midnight oil. I burnt most of it considering the report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, trying to make some sense of it and trying to understand what we can do about the vexed question which the noble Lord, with his long experience of political matters in Scotland, knows remains wholly unresolved since the first time such matters were debated with any intensity in the middle of the 1970s. It is that Scottish Members of Parliament come to the other place and have the opportunity to vote on matters relating to England and Wales whereas English Members of Parliament would not be able to vote on Scottish matters. As the noble Lord is aware, that matter is not addressed in the paper over which he claims some authorship.
I make no apology if the noble Lord has noted that we have found sources for what he describes as the historical chapters in the document. What I sought to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, which was disappointing, I confess, is that as at 1993 there are still those in Scotland who have not yet appreciated—the noble Lord may believe that it should be a legislative devolution—the extent of the administrative devolution which is already in the hands of the Scottish Office. It was thought worth while to explain that again.
This set of proposals is not prescriptive. The proposals are permissive. If Scottish Members of Parliament want to take advantage of being able to make a greater contribution within Scotland and to ask questions, that is for them to decide. I believe that they can take advantage of those opportunities. I

965
entirely agree with the noble Lord that we do not want, as has been the case in the past, to crush everything into the last weeks of a hot July. I hope that it might be spread more carefully throughout the year now that we have a clearer framework of what might be done.
I would advise the noble Lord to look again at the White Paper because he has misunderstood it. The idea is not that Scottish Questions should be considered exclusively within the Scottish Grand Committee. Those proposals are additional. Where, for example, English Members of Parliament wish to ask Questions of the Secretary of State for Scotland, they would still have the opportunity to do so once a month. They would still have that opportunity in respect of those matters, such as forestry, for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is lead Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the proposals will he warmly welcomed by those people who want Scotland to remain firmly a part of the United Kingdom? In particular is he aware that the proposal to bring a European conference to Glasgow this December will be as welcome as was the Euro-summit that went to Edinburgh last December? That indicates clearly that Scotland is firmly part of the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I can ask him about the Scottish Grand Committee and the legislative programme in Scotland. Does he envisage that the proposals he has outlined will help with the passage of legislation suggested by, for example, the Scottish Law Commission, which is needed if the law of Scotland is to be kept up to date? That is an important aspect which I hope the proposals will resolve.
Lastly, does my noble and learned friend agree that he and his right honourable friend have taken stock, in contrast to the parties opposite which wish to have assemblies and parliaments which would cause fractures in the body politic of the United Kingdom? For all the midnight oil burnt by people who propose assemblies, they have never succeeded in addressing what Mr. Tam Dalyell christened the West Lothian question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the welcome that he has given to the proposals in the White Paper. I am sure that he is right to welcome the announcement of the Europartenariat conference in Glasgow. If Glasgow and Scotland take advantage of it, it could be of considerable value to them. It will help secure Glasgow a prominence in Europe.
On the Law Commission proposals, we believe that, if the Scottish Grand Committee is used effectively, it should enable those law reform Bills which are essentially uncontroversial to pass through Parliament more efficiently than has sometimes been the case. If my noble friend has an opportunity to read the White Paper in detail he will see that reference is made to that matter.
I am sure that my noble friend is not accusing Members on the Benches opposite of wishing to bring the union of our countries to a conclusion. However,
966
there are those in Scotland who would. We believe —we say this with some regret—that they still do not seem to appreciate that their proposals for assemblies can only hasten us towards an undesirable conclusion.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, much of what I was going to say has already been said. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Statement does not involve the break-up of England. That has nothing to do with the matters before the House. The title of the White Paper is Scotland in the Union. The real question is the preservation of the fabric of Scotland, because it is in serious danger of disintegrating. The Statement and the White Paper have been produced after one year's deliberation by the Prime Minister and his Ministers. Despite that length of time, the White Paper fails miserably to meet the expectations of the people of Scotland who wish to have an efficient and nationally recognisable form of government which recognises the unique position of Scotland as a nation within the Union, which is what the White Paper is said to be all about.
There is another phrase used in Scotland which is the equivalent of "tinkering". It is "footering about". That is what the Government are doing. They do not know which way they are going. They are just footering about at the edges of legislation. To Scotland, what has been produced is the equivalent of the poor man having the scraps from the rich man's table. The White Paper clearly reflects the Government's obsession that any degree of legislative devolution to Scotland—not a Scottish parliament —is the first step on the slippery slope towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. No one on this side of the House seeks that. We seek to preserve it.
What is needed is the establishment of a positive and efficient legislative machine to deal positively and quickly with Scotland's problems in health, education, industry, law and order, business and so forth, all of which have their own Scottish dimensions requiring Scottish solutions, and quick solutions in many cases. This package will not deal with the agitation North of the Border, not merely by the Scottish National Party —I just mention it in passing, because it is passing —but by people who want genuinely to preserve the United Kingdom, but who are affronted by the way in which Scottish legislation is dealt with and who look for a fair deal in Scottish legislation.
Debates and Question Time in Edinburgh are welcome. However, that amounts only to political window dressing and has nothing to do with positive legislation, which the people of Scotland are seeking.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the White Paper fails miserably to meet the separatist aspirations of the Scottish Nationalists I am delighted. I hope that they will find nothing in it which gives them any comfort. It is intended to strengthen the Union. They can vote for us in the Lobbies as often as they wish; but in that they will find no satisfaction in securing their separatist aims.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is a lawyer. However, he is only one of many members of the party opposite which has looked at the issue for years and years and has come nowhere near trying to address a

967
solution to the West Lothian question. If the noble Lord wants an assembly to deal with the matters which he mentioned, he must honestly face up to the problem of providing a solution to what is to be done about Scottish Members of Parliament coming to Westminster and voting here.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I wish to deal with a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay. I recall a speech made in this House by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel in a debate on devolution. He said that he had become a firm devolutionist because during his early days as Minister of State at the Scottish Office he spent time examining 200 Bills which had been passed during the previous 20 years and he considered that only seven should have gone near Westminster. Will the proposed Grand Committee be able to take some of the legislation? I was fiercely involved in the Bull Licensing (Scotland) Act which caused great controversy. Will the Grand Committee be able to deal with similar legislation in order to take the load off London?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes. My noble friend makes an important point. One of the features of the package which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland considers to be of value is that if our proposals work, not only will they allow for a more efficient dispatch of Scottish business, but they will relieve the pressure on the business on the Floor of the House of Commons. That should be welcomed by our English colleagues in another place. That is desirable and the kind of measure referred to by my noble friend could constructively be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I know that time is running out, but I believe that questions are in order. First, the Minister said that under the new legislative arrangements for Scotland and the Scottish Grand Committee, Standing Orders in this House and in the other place will be amended. Are there any implications in the Statement for the procedures of this House and its treatment of Scottish legislation?
Secondly, in undertaking the background work and preparing the Statement, has the Minister taken into account the fact that he is in the middle of a similar exercise as regards local government in Scotland? Does the Statement relating to the devolution of Scottish legislation have any implications for the new structure of local government which he envisages?
Thirdly, while we emphasise the importance of being part of the Union, there is no reference in the Statement about the responsibilities of the Union to Scotland in an economic sense in so far as there is no reference to regional government or the distribution of government offices and so forth, which should be part of the spin-off of being a member of the Union.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may respond quickly. I do not envisage that there will be any alteration to the powers of this House. Some aspects of our Standing Orders might be applied to allow for a more efficient dispatch of Scottish
968
business. Some alterations may be required as far as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I are concerned.
The Statement does not address the issue of local government because, as I indicated to your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, it forms no part of the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there should be a movement of the powers of local government into the centre and into his authority. For that reason, the issue is not addressed. Not only is it intended that there should be a movement of jobs away from the centres of Edinburgh or Glasgow to other parts of Scotland, but also, as happened in the case of jobs in oil and gas, that there should be a movement of jobs out of London into Scotland. That has been our policy for some time.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
6.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Acquisition of leasehold interests]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Coleraine: The Bill is technical and I wish to ask my noble and learned friend a question which I have not had an opportunity to discuss with him. It relates to the terminology of Clause 2 which provides for the acquisition of superior leasehold interests to the leases of the qualifying flats. It appears to make no provision for the acquisition of leasehold interests superior to leases of other property included in the premises to be acquired; that is to say, commercial property or flats which are not let to qualifying tenants. Is that a drafting oversight?
It may be that it is intended that the leasehold interests superior to the commercial properties or to the flats which are not let to qualifying tenants shall remain in being and shall not form part of what the nominee purchaser buys. If so, the curious result may follow that the price paid for the freehold reversions of such properties as part of the premises being acquired will be comparatively low in cases where the freehold interest is subject to a long head lease at a ground rent. I should have thought that the intention would be to sweep up all the intermediate leases in the purchase but that is not what the Bill appears to provide. I shall understand if my noble friend cannot now answer the question, and I hope that he will write to me.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My understanding is that my noble friend's understanding is correct. Indeed, it is not the intention that intermediate leases of the kind that he mentioned shall be acquired. It is intended that all that shall be acquired are the intermediate leases which lie above qualifying tenancies. That is because the policy of the Bill is to allow qualifying tenants to acquire the rights which affect them. In order that they should be able properly to exercise the freehold which they are acquiring it is therefore necessary for them to be able to acquire the leasehold interest interest between them

969
and the freehold. That is why the clause is drafted in such a way. I noted my noble friend's point about the effect of the provision on other issues and perhaps I can write to him about that.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Premises to which this Chapter applies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 43, after ("owned") insert ("directly or beneficially").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, and 15. The amendments are of a technical and almost probing nature. They relate to the premises to which Chapter I of the Bill applies and are designed to explore whether greater precision should be given to some of the phrases used in Clause 3.
I speak first to my Amendment No. 9. The point here is that the premises might be owned by a "person" and that might be a body corporate. It seems to me important that if it is owned by a body corporate then we should be able to find out, or have means of being told, who is the beneficial owner of the premises and who, on some occasions, may be hiding behind a corporate body. That is why I insert the words "or beneficially", because those really are the crucial words in that amendment.
The other three amendments in the group will no doubt be addressed by those noble Lords who have proposed them and I would only say that, in their different ways, they seem to be trying to achieve greater accuracy of expression in Clause 3. I would have no difficulty at all if the Government were to agree that any of these might be suitable in some modified form to bring greater precision. Clause 3 is a very complex clause which needs a little bit of discussion and perhaps some clear responses from the noble Lord when he replies. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Likewise, in replying to Amendment No. 9, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. I understand the noble Lord's intention in moving his amendment, which is to prevent a freehold being divided, perhaps within a family, simply to avoid enfranchisement. I do not consider that the amendment would actually achieve that aim. It would be very difficult for tenants to prove that a landlord had a beneficial interest in a separate freehold. There could be many forms of such an interest. A company may transfer part of a freehold from an associated company, or one person may hold part of a freehold on trust for the freeholder. Where such a person or company is otherwise unconnected, it would be difficult to prove any beneficial connection, if indeed one existed.
I recognise the noble Lord's intention that this should be a probing amendment and perhaps I may add that I do not think that it is necessary either. It would not be in a freeholder's interest to divide up his asset simply to avoid enfranchisement. Where a block is not eligible for enfranchisement, then a long leaseholder would be entitled to lease extensions and this ongoing right would prevent a freeholder from
970
getting freehold reversion. Because this extension is an individual right, tenants are more likely to exercise it than enfranchisement. Once a freehold is divided that division would have to remain, or the block would once again be able to be enfranchised.
In many cases disposal of an interest in a block would be a relevant disposal under the 1987 Landlord and Tenant Act, which would allow tenants to have a right of first refusal of the sale. In that case there would be no benefit to the freeholder as he would still have to sell his interest to the tenants. Our aim in drafting provisions for enfranchisement has been to make them as practical and as simple as possible. I am sure the whole Committee would endorse that aim. It would make the enfranchisement process very complex if more than one freehold needed to be acquired and might result in blocks not being able to be enfranchised as the process was too complex and therefore too costly.
We have also made it clear that enfranchisement should only enable long leaseholders to control the property in which they have the greatest financial stake. To enable them to purchase the freehold assets of more than one freeholder might extend the scope of enfranchisement beyond the leaseholder's reasonable interest. Therefore, this amendment would in all probability not achieve the aim of preventing a block being split, and the amendment would be one that was easy to avoid. I recognise that the noble Lord has probed, and I hope that I have given him the responses that he requires. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: The Minister has not commented upon the other amendments. No doubt my noble friend Lord Lytton will speak to his own amendment but the Minister has not commented on Amendment No. 14. That is a probing amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving it his indirect endorsement. These are, of course, all constructive clarifying amendments and not political in any sense of the word, but I should be grateful for the Minister's reaction.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite correct. Amendment No. 13 relates to the provision that a self-contained part of a building may be enfranchised where it is possible to separate services from the remainder of the block without significant disruption to the rest of that block. The amendment would prevent separate parts of a building being enfranchised unless separation of services can be achieved without significant costs.
I am sure the Committee will agree that enfranchisement needs to relate to self-contained units to ensure that the premises for enfranchisement are viable and that any remaining part of the block which is not enfranchised is also viable. We have provided the smallest viable units able to be enfranchised separately, because the aim of enfranchisement is to give long leaseholders the right to control just the immediate premises in which they have a financial stake. They should also make a block simpler to manage after enfranchisement.

971
I consider that this amendment would frustrate the aim of ensuring that enfranchisement is exercisable over the smallest viable unit. The effect might be to require a larger unit to be purchased, possibly at greater expense to individual tenants than the cost of separating a smaller block. The current provision concentrates on the effect of the division of services on tenants in the part of the building which is not being enfranchised, and it ensures that they are not disturbed.
The provisions do not dictate the maximum costs of separating a block as this is properly a matter for the tenants and they will consider whether the cost is reasonable as part of their overall costs of enfranchisement. Significant cost is subjective in this context, because even a large cost may not be significant to tenants as part of the overall costs of enfranchisement. It is the tenants who will decide to enfranchise and it is they who will decide if the benefits of enfranchisement are worth the cost. That will include any costs of providing separate services, and this must properly be a matter for them to decide.
In Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which the noble Lord has raised, the concern is about the effective enfranchisement of those tenants who do not wish to enfranchise when part of the block has been separated. It is right that the Committee should be assured that they can continue to maintain their block and not be adversely affected by the enfranchisement. I share that concern and perhaps it might help the Committee if I explain how our provisions ensure that the interests of all parties are maintained.
We have provided that the smallest viable unit should be able to be enfranchised. That will ensure that leaseholders may only enfranchise the property in which they have an immediate financial interest and should ensure that the block enfranchised will be simpler to maintain. We have also ensured that separation of a block can be achieved only where services are separate or where the separation of services does not result in significant disruption. Both these provisions ensure that leaseholders who do not wish to enfranchise are not unduly affected. There is a balance to be struck here. Clearly enfranchisement may have some impact upon leaseholders who remain in a block. Their interests must be balanced against the aim of giving leaseholders control of their own property, and we consider that we have got that balance about right.
I understand the specific concerns that should the majority of the service charge payers in a block wish to enfranchise only part of the block the other leaseholders may be left with defective leases. The leases could be defective because the total of the service charges collected in a block may no longer be sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining the block. Where this happens there is a remedy. Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 allows leases to be varied where they are defective. The remaining leaseholders can apply for variation of their leases where these no longer make satisfactory provision for the repair or maintenance of a flat, or of the building, or of any other land or building let to them.
972
I consider it important to ensure that the right to enfranchise should relate just to the immediate property in which long leaseholders have a financial stake. I consider that in achieving this aim there is sufficient protection for other parties. I recognise that noble Lords have said that they have sought to probe, and I hope that the explanations I have given will prove valuable to them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Could the noble Lord reassure me on one point? Am I right in thinking that the expression "person" in Clause 3(1) (a) could be a corporate body as well as a private person—that is, "person" includes a body corporate?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I can confirm that that would be the case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If two-thirds wish to exercise the right to enfranchisement and one third does not, an issue may arise as to whether, as Clause 3(2) (b) (ii) states, it,
"could be so provided without involving the carrying out of any works likely to result in a significant interruption in the provision".
Who decides that issue? What machinery exists for the protection of the minority? "Without significant costs" could provide a little extra danger. Does it involve any danger? Will the Minister deal with that? I do not understand how the protection would operate in practice.
Lord Strathclyde: The answer lies in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 which goes to some lengths to provide protection for tenants who are affected by the actions of their landlords. Therefore, the clause needs to go no further than it does.
The Earl of Lytton: The Minister has given a very full answer to the amendments before I have even moved them. However, the Committee will be pleased to hear that that will shorten matters. However, I still have residual doubts about the 1987 Act and the "reconfiguration" of existing leases in the light of changed circumstances as regards the recovery of service charge elements.
It seems rather unsatisfactory that the remaining non-enfranchising tenants should subsequently have to incur expense in dealing with this aspect. The situation arises purely because the service charge may be assessed over an entire development. When a part of it is extracted, the terms of the existing leases still cover the whole, without taking account of the fact that perhaps one quarter has been taken out of the frame through an enfranchisement process.
It seems to me that to tie in with the operation of enfranchisement there should be a provision relating to the rewriting of the necessary parts of existing leases. It would be undesirable for all leases on an existing development—a multi-block development or a single block with many entrances and separate service cores—to be rewritten.
Secondly, I am anxious that the injurious affection element which might otherwise fall on enfranchising tenants in part may be artificially inflated by reference

973
to a service charge anomaly which is happening elsewhere. If that is not sorted out contemporaneously with the enfranchisement process, it could make the process very expensive for a pioneer enfranchising group within a complex or a large development. Therefore, the question of benefits which are bestowed by cutting up developments through the enfranchising process needs to be thought through. I hope that the Minister will reassure me further by writing to me subsequently on the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the last remark of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to the fact that existing tenants might find that having bought the leases, their costs were higher than had previously been the case. That happened to me many years ago. We should not want the situation to arise in which people are enfranchised and then find that they are faced with higher costs. That would be a great disincentive to enfranchisement. It is an important point to be considered.
Lord Coleraine: I support the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. My noble friend has answered well arguments about the separation of services. However, his answer as regards the separation of service charges was less persuasive. The Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee has referred me to the way in which the Bill fails to deal with a number of problems arising on the one hand out of the enfranchisement of unnaturally divided buildings and on the other out of the failure to group buildings together for one enfranchisement where common sense suggests that that should take place rather than allowing individual buildings to enfranchise separately.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has pointed to the fact that the Bill makes no provision for the revision of the leases of flats which are left outside a block artificially created for enfranchisement purposes. The remaining flat owners must bear the considerable expense of lawyers' and surveyors' fees which will be needed for the revision of their leases. For example, account will have to be taken of service charge contributions and new percentages will have to be agreed. Another example is that the remaining flats may end up with the increased capital and overhead charges of an expensive boiler and central heating system from which a number of users have seceded. The seceding flat owners will not wish to reach a new agreement with those left behind if, following enfranchisement, they wish to have their own independent systems. Equally, several blocks may be managed as one. There may be a sinking fund or unallocated reserves in the bank set aside to deal with the re-roofing of one of the blocks. How will that money be dealt with when only one of the blocks elects for collective enfranchisement? The Bill makes no provision for that.
As my noble friend said, it is true that such covenants in leases can be compulsorily varied but only under the provisions of Part IV of the Landlord
974
and Tenant Act 1987. That Act has not worked well in practice and so far as I am aware, no practitioners have made much use of the provisions of Part IV.
The problem of court costs which may be involved is difficult. The flat owners may not agree with the freeholder as to how the leases should be varied. They may have to pay the costs of an application to the court. That does not seem to be fair given that those leaseholders never asked to be the third party to an enfranchisement problem and would gain no benefit from it.
If the freeholder is likely to incur costs in the lease variations, will my noble friend tell me whether those can be recovered from the nominee purchaser under paragraph 5 of Schedule 5. If so I assume that that would only be an advanced estimate of the costs likely to be incurred at a later date. In that regard I can see the freeholder telling the LVT—the leasehold valuation tribunal—that he will need the very best and most expensive professional assistance. In that case, the costs would be very high. If the nominee purchaser must pay, will my noble friend confirm—and this is important—that paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 provides that the marriage value will be reduced by the amount paid?
I know that my noble friend has been made aware of other anxieties expressed in regard to problems which may affect freeholders and lessees in cases such as those that I have mentioned. Anxiety has been expressed both inside and outside the Committee. I hope that the Minister will look further at this difficult area of the Bill and possibly move amendments at a later stage to deal with some of the anxieties expressed.
Lord Strathclyde: I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Coleraine and to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I said in my original reply that I shared some of the anxieties of the noble Earl but I went on to explain why I felt that those anxieties had been taken into account. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, kindly invited me to write to him on the matter. I should be happy to take up that invitation and I shall send a copy of the letter to my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister for that satisfactory reply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps he will be kind enough to send a copy of the letter also to Members on the Opposition Front Bench and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11.
Page 4, line 46, at end insert ("except where two-thirds of the total number is not a round number, when it will be deemed to be the nearest whole number.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis. The amendment is designed to ensure that smaller blocks will not need to have a disproportionately large percentage of flats let on long leases to qualifying tenants before they are eligible for

975
enfranchisement. For the convenience of the Committee, the amendment is a half-way house between Amendment No. 10 (which has not been moved) and Amendment No. 12. As the Bill is drafted, at least two-thirds of the flats must be let to qualifying tenants if a block is to qualify for enfranchisement. Thus, whenever the theoretical threshold is not a whole number, it must be rounded up to the nearest whole number. In smaller blocks of flats this has a disproportionate effect. For example, in a block of five flats the quorum will be four (80 per cent.) and not three (60 per cent.), even though two-thirds of five is three and a third, but one-third of a flat cannot qualify for enfranchisement.
Our amendment seeks to ensure that, where the theoretical two-thirds threshold in a block is not a round number, it will be deemed to be the nearest whole number rather than necessarily being raised to the number above. The 1992 Consumers' Association survey revealed that a large percentage of flat owners lived in smaller blocks. Half of those surveyed lived in buildings comprising fewer than five flats, with nearly three-quarters in buildings comprising fewer than seven flats. The problem is an important one. Unless the threshold is amended to take account of the effect on smaller blocks, a not insignificant percentage of flat owners will be unable to attempt collective enfranchisement. That problem was recognised by the Government in the Bill's passage in another place. They promised to review the practical effects of the threshold on smaller blocks of flats. I look forward to hearing the result of the Government's deep thoughts on the matter when the Minister replies.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carnock: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 12 that stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and myself. In speaking to the amendment I have to declare an interest as the owner of a long leasehold flat in a large London block and the owner of freehold premises in the country that are subject to a shorthold tenancy. Amendment No. 12 and the others that stand in my name have been put forward after discussion with the Enfranchisement League, which is an organisation of leaseholders' associations representing over 18,000 leaseholders. In the majority of cases the number of flats in a building will not be a multiple of three, so that upon multiplication by two-thirds, fractions of one-third or two-thirds will be thrown up.
The Bill provides that in all cases those fractions will be rounded up to the next whole number. They will not be rounded, whether up or down, to the nearest whole number; they will always be rounded up. Under the Bill many situations will certainly arise in which tenants will have no right of collective enfranchisement because the two-thirds threshold has been raised to the next higher whole number in the rounding-up process so that they fall below the higher threshold. Under the amendment the two-thirds threshold will be reduced to the next lower whole number so that tenants in certain blocks, who will
976
otherwise find themselves below the threshold, will find themselves above the threshold and the blocks will qualify for collective enfranchisement. The amendment will not apply to blocks that contain fewer than five flats. In the case of blocks that contain two flats, both tenants will have to qualify; in the case of blocks containing three flats, two tenants will have to qualify; and in the case of four-flat blocks, three tenants will have to qualify. A five-flat block is the smallest block that will be affected by the amendment. Upon multiplication by two-thirds, five will become three-and-one-third. Under the Bill that number will be rounded up to four; under the amendment it will be rounded down to three. The provisions of the Bill mean that if only two tenants do not qualify collective enfranchisement will be blocked. Under the amendment, collective enfranchisement will proceed and will be blocked only if the number of non-qualifying tenants increases to three. In the case of larger blocks the effect of the amendment will be similar but perhaps not as marked as in the case of smaller blocks.
The purpose of the legislation is to effect reforms in the law relating to leasehold tenure. As presently drawn, the Bill would bias the rounding process against change. The amendment would bias the rounding process in favour of change and would therefore be more favourable to the purposes of the Bill than the present drafting of the Bill. The Nugee Committee found that 75 per cent. of flats in inner London were in converted buildings commonly comprising 10 flats or fewer. Accordingly, this amendment, while making a very small numerical change, will affect a very large number of flats and in many cases will determine whether or not they will qualify for enfranchisement. If the principle of the amendment is accepted, there will be an impact on Clause 11(2) which deals with the number of signatures required for an initial notice. If no change to that subsection were made, in certain cases an initial notice would require only two signatures, which some people might think were too few. After careful consideration, it would appear that any necessary change would be purely consequential and could be agreed at a later stage.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: The amendment is to a certain extent about numbers and the "arithmetic" game. In an earlier speech the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sought to support amendments that extended the scope of the Bill. In that context it seems to me that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Carnock is slightly superior. When one comes to analyse the fractions, his amendment widens the scope of the Bill which in these circumstances one may think is preferable.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. My noble friend Lord Montgomery is right in saying that this amendment is purely about numbers. Wherever one draws the line somebody will feel that he or she is on the wrong side of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has said, similar amendments were tabled in another place in an attempt to make the two-thirds rule more equitable, particularly where there were 10

977
flats or fewer, because of the way in which the two-thirds rule operated in smaller blocks by driving up the qualification to a higher effective percentage. Noble Lords will recognise that the distortion is not so great in blocks of more than 10 flats. We promised to examine whether or not there was another way in which to deal with those blocks to bring the effective threshold slightly closer to 66 per cent. I should emphasise that we are not disposed to move away from the broad principle of the two-thirds rule. We have reaffirmed that we consider this to be the correct figure. We considered making an adjustment for smaller blocks but found that that would make the Bill unnecessarily complicated. The need to make the adjustment for larger blocks is not so great but would still make the Bill unnecessarily complicated.
In smaller blocks such adjustments would increase the likelihood of a minority of tenants being able to enfranchise, given that only two-thirds of the qualifying tenants need to participate. We therefore decided not to make adjustments similar to those proposed by the amendments.
As I said, such a likelihood is less in larger blocks. Two-thirds is the threshold and it is easily understood. I appreciate that some blocks will fall just outside the threshold and that adjustments such as those proposed by my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might make a few more blocks eligible. However, the cost would be to make the Bill unnecessarily complicated. It is inevitable that some blocks will fall just outside the threshold irrespective of where one draws the line.
The two-thirds rule is well precedented in other legislation, and indeed has been accepted even by the Church of England Synod as a significant majority. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Annan: Before the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replies, perhaps I may point out the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, offered an olive branch to the Government on this issue. He did not try to reduce the figure. He merely said that if one rounded down instead of rounding up, a few more people would be included. That, after all, is the object of the Bill—to enfranchise and to be as liberal as possible. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will take the matter back and consider it further.
In a block of five or more flats a great many people would benefit. It is important to note that the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, did not make any plea for blocks containing fewer than five flats. It is a genuine attempt at compromise on the part of the noble Lord. I hope that that will commend itself to the Minister.
It is for that reason that I hope that it may be possible to give a little on this issue. After all, can one conceive of anything more damaging to confidence in the Government than if hundreds of leaseholders, encouraged to believe that at last they would be able to obtain a freehold property, found that by some abstruse manipulation of fractions their hopes had been dashed?
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Annan, added a powerful voice to a genuine problem
978
which the Minister must consider. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, was right to say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carnock, is superior to mine in the sense that it would potentially enfranchise collectively more leaseholders. We tried to offer a reasonable and uncomplicated way out for the Government, one which the Government, in their deep thought, do not seem to have arrived at for themselves.
The noble Lord should consider that in a block of five flats the quorum will not be two thirds, Synod or otherwise. It will be 80 per cent. It will be four out of five. That cannot be right. If two thirds is the Government's aim, let us take the nearest round number to two thirds. Three out of five is 60 per cent. and one cannot divide flats into fractions.
I urge the Minister to put aside his brief for the moment, note what noble Lords have said, take the matter back and have another look at it so that we can debate it again at the next stage. I hope that he will be able to do that.
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly owe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a reply to his plea. I recognise that my noble friend Lord Carnock offered an olive branch and that much of what he and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said is based on good sense. I do not have a closed mind on this issue. I should like to read carefully in Hansard what noble Lords have said in Committee. I make no commitment whatsoever, as the noble Lord will understand, to bring anything forward at Report, but I am happy to consider the matter further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that chink of light. We have made a little progress and we shall see what happens at the next stage of the Bill. I remind the noble Lord that we take the issue seriously and will be looking for improvement in the Government's position at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carnock Lord Carnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert ("provided that, where such building or such part contains not less than five flats and where such two-thirds is a whole number and a fraction of a number, then, for the purposes of this paragraph, the fraction shall be ignored.").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful for what the Minister said in relation to my amendment. We shall be considering the matter very carefully, possibly with a view to returning to it later.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Kindersley Lord Kindersley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert:
("() The condition mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above is not satisfied if the person there mentioned is a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960.").
The noble Lord said: I am delighted that the amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 19, 29 to 31, 35, 150, 153 and 155, all of which cover the general principle that charities within the meaning

979
of the Charities Act 1960 and ecclesiastical landlords as defined in Section 31 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 should be exempted from this legislation.
At the Second Reading of the Bill, I tried to explain the effect that the Bill would have on charities and in particularly on Smith's charities, in which I must declare an interest as chairman. Since then I have been overwhelmed by the support I have received in the corridors of this House and in a number of telephone calls and letters.
My attention was drawn last night by one such supporter to an extraordinarily misleading article circulated in this House yesterday by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association with detailed criticism of the way Henry Smith's Charity runs its affairs. If those can be regarded as the tactics of desperation to counter the support we are gaining in this Chamber, I suppose that my trustees should feel encouraged rather than offended.
The association is in a complete muddle over the distinction between capital and income and seems to regard our Kensington estate as a completely unsuitable investment for a charity. How lucky that the association was not around when our original trustees made their investment in Kensington in 1628 with Henry Smith's bequest of £2,000! We would have virtually no beneficiaries now if the association's advice had been followed then. Now we have a portfolio which is well balanced between real estate and investments in the stock market, thanks to the sale of long leases on the estate. I hope that the Committee will allow the trustees to continue to use the leasehold system in the management of our assets to produce the optimum mix of security, capital growth and income for our beneficiaries.
During the Second Reading I noted the anxiety expressed by a number of my noble friends concerning the dangers to which the Bill will expose cathedral closes around the country, most of whose medieval to Georgian buildings are owned by a charitable entity controlled by the dean and chapter of each cathedral. I have therefore put down some simple amendments which have the effect of exempting charities and ecclesiastical landlords from the enfranchisement proposals of the Bill.
I am particularly delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who unfortunately cannot be here today, has supported the amendments. I was also very glad to see the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Chamber earlier today. I believe that his presence in the Chamber underlines the anxiety that the Church feels about the Bill and the danger to which it exposes the Church's properties around cathedrals and elsewhere.
Why are the Government setting their face against an amendment which appears to have such massive support in this Chamber? The Minister, Sir George Young, the architect of the Bill, was kind enough to receive for the first time representatives from Henry Smith's Charity soon after the Second Reading. I was foolish enough to believe that he had been so impressed by speeches made in this Chamber in favour of exempting charities that he wished to let us know
980
that there had been a change of heart on the Government's part. Not a bit of it. His last minute conversion to good manners in being prepared to receive us was soon marred by the complete inflexibility to which we had become accustomed, coupled with the astonishing remark that we were too late.
The Committee is well aware that I have not had much opportunity to attend this House; and the novice is, I expect, all too evident in the way in which I move the amendment. However, from a distance, it appeared to me that one of the vital and valuable roles of this House in recent years has been seriously to study the Bills which come to it from another place with clauses the full effect of which had not been completely appreciated amidst the clamour of different interests which prevails in another place. It has been the duty of this Chamber to stand back from the Bill and calmly and judiciously to recommend amendments to ensure that the provisions are as fair as possible to all concerned. That is why I was so shocked to hear the Minister, Sir George Young, tell me, before amendments had even been put down after Second Reading, that it was too late.
After the first shock I was then amazed to hear the Minister state that if charities were to be exempted from the Bill their leaseholders would feel let down by the Government since enfranchisement had been promised in the election manifesto. What an admission, and what a feeble excuse to put up against the relatively few charities involved and the Church. We have heard quite a lot about the election manifesto promise. However, I notice that an honourable Member in another place, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, has recently proudly proclaimed in an article in the London Weekly Times that he successfully sneaked the measure into the manifesto at the last moment without anybody noticing. I quote Mr. Fishburn on the subject of the manifesto in this article. He stated:
—Bahr you may say, 'Who reads that?' Well no one of course. But once there was that commitment, just 10 lines in length, it gave reality to what had before been but a shadowy idea".
What an extraordinary way to introduce legislation which has the effect of destroying a landholding system which has worked well for 200 years for Henry Smith's Charity and probably longer in the country as a whole.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that that same honourable Member for Kensington was not always a supporter of compulsory enfranchisement in the days before the general election. Indeed, in a letter to the manager of Cadogan Estates in 1989 he was at pains to explain that he would never be a supporter of such a confiscatory measure. He stated categorically that any right to buy would be anti-Tory and the worse kind of state bossiness. What changed his mind? I am not a political animal. Therefore I leave others to form their own conclusions. However, it seems to me that the legislation has little to do with principles and everything to do with expediency.
No wonder it is such a hotch-potch Bill with all kinds of artificial, arbitrary limits such as the low rent test and the 10 per cent. of floor space for commercial use. There must be plenty of would-be enfranchisers

981
feeling let down by those features in the Bill. But the Government appear to have no problems on that score. Nor, it would appear, is there much concern for those who might have looked forward to enfranchising their properties on the Crown Estate around Regent's Park. The Government are apparently quite happy that those properties should be exempted on the ground of maintaining the national heritage. There is plenty of let down there, I imagine.
Yet when we suggest that charities and the Church should be exempted, we are told that the relatively few tenants involved would feel let down—and that the Government simply cannot permit.
We are all accustomed to progressive taxation. We feel, rather in the Robin Hood tradition, that it is acceptable to rob the rich in order to pay the poor. However, in the case of charities such as Henry Smith's which will be affected by the Bill, the Government are behaving much more like the wicked sheriff of Nottingham by robbing the poor (the beneficiaries of Henry Smith's Charity) in order to pay the rich (the leaseholders of our Kensington Estate). Confident that the Committee will not allow such robbery, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Wolfson: I have noted the remarks of my noble friend. Will he tell us what net loss of income would arise if the proposals in the Bill were passed? Not all the properties would be acquired. The moneys received would be invested to produce a return. Already two-thirds of the assets of the trusts are in investments. Will he comment on a remark contained in the notes of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association? I have no connection with that movement. The notes state:
"The Association has a particularly high level of complaints about managing agents in respect of freeholders with charitable status".
Will my noble friend comment on the statement that for each £1 of investment income 1p goes on expenses; and that for each £1 of property income 44p goes on expenses? I have had much to do with charitable trusts, charitable works, and so on. I regard such expense ratios as quite insupportable.
Viscount Whitelaw: I suppose that I ought to declare what can only be described as a very remote interest. I spend a great deal of my time now seeking to raise money for varying charities and good, worthy causes. I am also the chairman of the Council for Charitable Support, a body set up to find ways of obtaining more for the charity, charities and worthy causes. That is why I rise to speak. If I cannot speak as chairman of such a body it would be surprising.
My noble friend Lord Kindersley said that he is not a political animal. If I am an animal of any kind, I must be a political one. Yet he has put forward his case so well that there is little more to say. I wish simply to put this point. Last year £12 million was distributed to various charities and good causes. It was a difficult year for all charities. I can tell noble Lords that a more difficult task than seeking to raise money from people at the present time I do not know. Obviously other people are better at that than I am. But I can tell the Committee that it is a difficult task. Over the years that body has given money of about
982
that figure to many charities through the way they have managed their affairs and their estate. We are now told that they will not be able to do that any more. Someone said to me the other day when I protested, "Ah, but, you see, it will all be all right because the compensation they will receive afterwards will make up for it and they will always have the same amount of money". I have lived too long in politics —I do not understand the mathematics but I understand politics—and I do not accept that suggestion for one single moment, I do not believe it for a second. That is why I am speaking today.
I simply wish to ask whether it really makes sense to deprive a great many worthy charities—and of course I include the churches—in this way. It does not seem to make sense. I say to my noble friend that the Government should think again about this during the passage of the Bill. I feel that it is hard for many people who gain from the charities and expect money from them. The charities do so much good. I know that it is easy to point that out, but in the Bill to turn our backs altogether on them at this time seems extraordinary. I hope that the Government will think again on such a worthy subject involving a trust which, as my noble friend Lord Kindersley said, has held an exemplary position over a long time. Its wonderful tradition is being undermined by an Act of Parliament and I find that very difficult to accept.
The Earl of Radnor: I wish to support the series of amendments for several simple reasons. Never in my experience—although possibly in the experience of other parliamentarians—have I come across any government depriving a charity of some of its rightful wealth. It is no good thinking that the Smith's charities or any other charity owners of property will not be deprived of their wealth. It has already been said today, first, that the charities will lose the marriage value; and, secondly, that the timing of the sale will not be theirs, and the timing is extremely important for real estate. A third point which was not mentioned is that surely as fairly large charity estates, of which we have heard, gradually become eroded by the leasehold enfranchisement, so their administration costs will have to be kept in balance with the decrease in income. I am sure that that will be almost impossible and will represent a third loss.
I believe that, for the small number of charities compared with the whole gamut of this—to me—iniquitous Bill, my noble friend should concede this small point.
The Earl of Onslow: I can see that my noble friend on the Front Bench is totally unable to accept the amendment. If he accepts it, then he admits that the Bill by its very nature, is unfair to charities. If he gives way, then he is being unfair to private individuals; so he is unfair either way. He is in a bit of a pickle, if I may be so bold as to say so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thought that the amendment was moved in a superb Second Reading speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. It took a full 10 minutes and he put the case fully. However, I cannot agree with it. I believe that there is a big

983
difference between a charity running property as an investment and a charity providing charitable, inexpensive accommodation. I put into that category the Peabody Trust which I understand has provided valuable accommodation for people, going back to Victorian times. It continues to do so.
As far as concerns the charity of which the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, is chairman, I have not read the information issued to the House, although I was interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. They were relevant as regards how much less could be spent on administration in other fields. However, I clearly recall a man sitting, year in year out, in a Range Rover in a South Kensington mews saying that a charity which I shall not name was unfair to tenants. The last time I saw him he was on a bike, I do not know whether his circumstances had been reduced—perhaps by his tenancy obligations, who knows?
There is certainly a big difference between the tenants of charities who are in business just as a property company would be and the Peabody Trust. Harrow School owns large slices of Maida Vale; the hospitals own large slices of South Kensington. A tremendous number of people would fall into that category of charities. I believe that it is right that tenants of such properties should have the same rights as other people. However, the situation is totally different where a charity such as the Peabody Trust provides low-priced accommodation. I oppose the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I cannot add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said. I believe that this is a wrecking amendment. If it were passed so many people would be taken out of the scope of the Bill as to make it almost meaningless. I do not wish to say anything against charitable institutions; they are like mother-love, one cannot say anything against them, one has to make moving speeches in favour of them.
However, charitable institutions which provide accommodation at charitable rates can certainly be excluded from the Bill, as the noble Baroness said. But I do not believe that charitable institutions of whatever nature, which operate as property companies and use the income from those property operations for charitable purposes, are any different from any other organisation that deals in, owns or leases property. Therefore I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, and we shall support the Government if the amendment comes to a Division.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel happy and contented with the comfort he has just received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He has not received much from behind him yet and I do not propose to give him any myself.
Firstr, I disagree, as sharply as one is allowed to with people on one's own side, with the comment made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. She rebuked
984
my noble friend Lord Kindersley for making a Second Reading speech. I thought that he made an admirable speech backed by extraordinarily good information and humour. He suggested powerfully that the Government had got it wrong. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was also made to wince a little when my noble friend Lord Whitelaw spoke. I hope that those comments will be passed on with some vigour to the Minister with responsibility for housing. We all recognise that he is the parent of the Bill and it is unfortunate for my noble friend that he has to sit here and support a Minister who is responsible but who is not here.
I believe that charities should be exempt and that the Government are quite wrong in at least giving the appearance of treating the objections made on behalf of charities in so cavalier a manner. I have not yet heard any trace of Ministers even taking the objections seriously. I am curious to know whether they have even bothered to obtain the views of the Charity Commission. They may have, and, if so, I shall be interested to hear the views and also what encouragement the Government received from the Charity Commissioners to proceed along the lines proposed in the Bill.
I do not know what efforts have been made to ascertain the views of right reverend Prelates about the effects on cathedral closes. I remarked in the course of my Second Reading speech that they are places of great beauty and peace which have been cherished and preserved over many generations. They are now at risk. I am anxious to know whether the Government are in any way interested or worried about the possibility that the closes may in future lose the character which they have acquired over many generations.
Perhaps some Member of the Committee could explain to me the difference between Regent's Park and Belgrave Square. I find it difficult to understand. And what is the difference between Regent's Park and a cathedral close? The Crown Commissioners say that Regent's Park is something very special. I do not think that anybody would challenge that view. However, it might be said that what is good for Regent's Park is good for Belgrave Square and for other squares in London which are places of great beauty and charm. When the Government say that such places will be protected by estate management schemes, I believe that the Government are in very grave danger—putting it as politely as I can—of deceiving themselves with a good liberal dosing of their own eyewash.
I take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. He dealt with the matter very well. He said, "The charities will get their money" as if that were the same thing. Assuredly the charities will get their money, though not everybody thinks that they will be obliged to sell. Let us not have too much nonsense about the "willing seller". The charities will be obliged to sell and they will get the money. But whom am I addressing except a member of the present Administration who is not uninformed about inflation? Comparing the history of our country over recent years with that of others—I hope that I shall not be told that I am being grossly irrelevant here—I

985
believe I am right in saying that in 1960 the pound sterling bought eleven and a half German marks. It is not quite the same today. The view of those who suggest that the charities ought to be content with receiving whatever money the Government believe correct is not acceptable.
I make this plea to my noble friend. I hope that he will not make the ghastly solecism which I thought he made earlier of saying that the amendments are defective. If the Government would accept the principle, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Kindersley, who is both modest and intelligent, would be delighted to say, "Well, do better, so long as the Government accept the principle". I hope that my noble friend will feel able to do that. I very much hope that, whatever is done with the amendments, between now and Report stage the Government will—I strongly suspect for the first time—give some serious thought to the role that charities play in our society. I am the chairman of a charitable trust. I know very well the pressure of demands upon resources which are necessarily limited. The Government now want to say, without giving a backward glance, that charities must suffer with the rest. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appeared to say just now, it is outrageous. I believe that to take that kind of cavalier attitude to giving and to the people who give is wrong. I hope that my noble friend will take that message back and at least give the impression of treating the point seriously; and, even more important, that he will bring back from his colleagues some evidence that they too have taken it seriously.
Earl Jellicoe: I have some hesitation in further prolonging the discussion. Nevertheless, I feel moved to make a brief intervention. First, I should like to avow a very direct interest. I happen to be one of my noble friend's clients. I happen to hold the leasehold of a small flat in Onslow Square. I suppose that, if the Bill were to pass without the amendment of my noble friend, I might be the beneficiary by a penny or two. But I would not feel at all let down if the Committee were to agree to my noble friend's amendment. I would not feel let down for two reasons. The first is the very commendable management of the estates, squares and crescents which Smith's Charity has looked after over a very long period of time. It is due to that good management, I believe, that that particular part of London makes such a marvellous contribution to London's architectural heritage. The second reason is that given already in support of my noble friend's amendment; namely, the contribution which Smith's Charity makes in the charitable field. I happen to have been a beneficiary of the generosity of Smith's Charity: it is a charity close to my heart.
I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, describe my noble friend's amendment as a wrecking amendment. That does not seem a fair description of an amendment, moved with sincerity, which has attracted a great deal of support in the Committee.
Lord Chalfont: I shall not detain the Committee long. I do not like the Bill at all. I do not like it as it has been brought forward by the present Government.
986
I would not like it if it had been brought forward by a government of the party opposite, as indeed it might well have been. I do not like it for a number of reasons which it is not proper to go into now. I shall not embark upon anything like a Second Reading speech. I do not think, with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, made a Second Reading speech either. I believe he made a speech which addressed itself to the amendment he moved, and the noble Lord made it eloquently, forcefully and persuasively.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—although certainly there are arguments of an intellectually respectable kind to be made on both sides in respect of charities—made a notable contribution. I was much more influenced, however, by the profound and weighty remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he asked the Government to agree to think again. That was surely a modest enough request. I urge the Government and the noble Lord to take his words to heart and at least give the matter some further thought. If not, I must tell him that should the occasion arise I shall vote in support of the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I was quite surprised to hear of the dissatisfaction with Smith's Charity. I have known a few people living in its houses and they have been remarkably satisfied with the low rent. That is a little out of date. I cannot imagine that anybody who has taken a house from a charity can ever have imagined in his wildest dreams that he would be able to force the charity to sell at a later date. Such tenants must have realised what they were doing when they took the house on in the first place.
I am also concerned about the Peabody Trust, which I do not know at all but which I understand from what has been said asks very low rents. I cannot help thinking that the Peabody Trust and other people who, for altruistic reasons, let out houses at a very low rent (it happens occasionally) will probably suffer very severely for their altruism.
The heritage aspect has been mentioned. Onslow Square and that whole area owes a great deal to the care shown by the charity. Planning permission very often cannot control as well as the owner can.
Finally, it seems to me amazing that the Government will allow, and indeed encourage, people in charitable housing to make a profit out of a charity.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps my noble friend will address his attention to two points relating to the amendment. The first may be regarded as somewhat facetious. But I wonder what the late Mr. Henry Smith would be thinking in regard to his generosity had he known that this was what was going to happen to the foundation that he created. I venture to suggest that he might have been inclined to be less generous than he was.
The other point is more serious. Has my noble friend considered whether or not, by retaining the charitable aspect within the context of the Bill, the

987
Government are acting in the public interest? If they are not acting in the public interest, it brings into question the whole legality of the Bill, at least in relation to charities. Retrospective legislation on the sanctity of contract where it benefits the public is all right, according to the European Court of Human Rights adjudicating on the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. But I seriously doubt whether there is any public interest in an absentee leaseholder or investor who may well purchase the freehold compulsorily by the Act, which would not then be his principal place of residence. Therefore, it would infringe the rules laid down by the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board, otherwise one could wind up in a certain amount of trouble.
Earl Peel: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps he will be kind enough to inform the Committee whether or not the National Trust will be exempt. If so, then the amendment is acceptable; if not, it creates a dichotomy.
Lord Selsdon: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kindersley for introducing the amendment. It is in a way a divisive amendment and causes me a lot of personal anxiety. If I support the Government, am I deemed to be anti-charity and anti-Church? I am not sure about that. My noble friend mentions Smith's Charity and he speaks therefore with a fully declared interest. My knowledge of Smith's Charity is limited but I am probably one of the few Members of your Lordships' Committee who has intimate knowledge of the Ottoman Empire and of Turkish pirates.
I look at the original objectives as they were defined for the Charity Commissioners and without any malice aforethought. It is for,
"the relief of the poor kindred of Henry Smith".
I should like to know who the poor kindred are; whether any of the leaseholders or tenants of Henry Smith are poor kindred or not. But, more important, it is for,
"the relief and maintenance of Godly preachers".
Being, like my noble friends Lord Jellicoe and Lord Whitelaw, broad of Church and broad of mind, and also a great supporter of Winchester and anything with which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester might be associated, I find myself in a difficult position. I therefore withdraw from that argument and ask myself, "When is a charity not a charity?" Are we at the moment talking of a charity as a charity, or a charity as a property owner? If someone is registered under the Charities Act, are they any more valuable to society than those who are not registered and also make sizeable contributions?
I declare my interest that I was actually born in a Henry Smith house; my family lived around there. The only argument we ever had was when we wanted to put the only handkerchief tree in the United Kingdom on the balcony; quite understandably the charity objected.
When I look at what we are discussing, I am confused. If we exempt charities, how many leaseholders will not be able to enfranchise? I should
988
like to know. How many charities are we discussing? I am quite sure that no one in this Chamber is anti the spirit of charities and anti the giving of freedom to invest wherever they like. But we should like to see more housing for the underprivileged and for those who cannot afford higher rents. At the moment the housing associations are doing as much as they can, but in general there is no significant investment by charities in low cost or subsidised housing.
Equally, when we look at Henry Smith's, for whom I have a great regard, it says that that charity is number seven or number eight in the batting order among the top 25 grant-making trusts by size of income. That is relatively small compared with the Wellcome Trust, the Wolfson Foundation or the Leverhulme Trust. It is about the same size as the voluntary donations made by British Telecom or the London clearing banks to voluntary societies.
When I spoke to my noble friend yesterday, I suggested that it would be nice if the charities themselves could make some positive suggestions within the overall concept of the Bill to widen enfranchisement and to allow more people to own their freeholds. I cannot believe that any of the charities are against that principle provided that at all times it does not reduce the value of their assets or their freedom of manoeuvre. There are those who would say that a property investment for £2,000 from 1628 has been a remarkable investment; others may say that if we removed inflation it may not have been so great after all, and in the past few years those who were unfortunate enough to be locked into property may have seen a devaluation of 25 per cent. plus the devaluation of the currency where they could not invest internationally.
I am certainly not against any of the charities which are freeholders or landlords, and, far from that, against the Church or the principles for which we all stand. But I believe that we are mixing apples and pears; we are confusing matters. We are talking about enfranchisement of flats and properties; we are not talking about charities, knocking them and trying to reduce their assets.
I suggest to many of those who oppose the Bill on principle and say that it is unfair in monetary terms, to concentrate their efforts on the question of compensation and payment. I suggest also that the charities themselves might take the advantage, in a democratic way, of consulting their tenants. They may be surprised at how many tenants share their views and feel that they wish to continue voluntarily rather than to have the opportunity for enfranchisement. Were I a tenant of Henry Smith's I would willingly continue and would not wish to do anything to take away assets from that great charity.
As I say, I am not speaking against Church or charity; I am trying to introduce a bit of rationality.
The Marquis of Hertford: I shall be brief. My noble friend said that we are not taking away the assets of a charity. But that is exactly what we are doing. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether anybody in this Chamber seriously believes that a compulsory sale results in a fair price.
Lord Crawshaw: Two noble Lords asked questions about the running of Smith's Charity. As my noble friend Lord Kindersley cannot speak again, I can speak as a trustee of the charity. At any rate, I hope that I can speak with some authority, if not as much as he.
In response to the noble Lord who raised the question of the proportion of the revenue which was distributed, I can only say that in a property-owning charity such as Smith's we have great obligations in the field of upkeep, improvements and other developments in the various squares. Of course, that takes a great deal of money. The £12 million is distributed after all that has been dealt with.
With regard to who are the poor kindred of the leaseholders, that is not the whole situation. The point is that the estate is run commercially, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery pointed out at Second Reading. It is the revenue from the leaseholders which is distributed to the poor kindred and all the other charities mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kindersley. I expect that he will say something in that regard in his wind-up speech.
Going on to the general point, all things being equal I can go along with the Government on the ideal of people owning the place in which they live; but as we well know, things are not always equal and I would put home ownership around sixth in my list of ideals. I would rather be a leaseholder on a good estate and have a good job than be a struggling homeowner, perhaps unemployed, with an impossible mortgage and a mass of other debts and problems. As a trustee of Smith's Charity I suppose that I was one of those whom my noble friend Lord Strathclyde challenged at Second Reading to demonstrate why our leaseholders should be at a disadvantage compared with the leaseholders of other landlords. But he really did not consider the position of all the other parties in the deal, and in particular all the charities which receive the £12 million a year, a sum built up over very many years and with, if I may say so, a good deal of skill. I suppose it would be unfashionable to suggest that the landlords might get a little consideration. But I can only tell the Committee of the enormous work in his own time which our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, puts in. It is something which people further away from the charity may not appreciate.
It might be argued that our system could be extended and not finished. The Government believe that businesses should be run by business and not by the Government. I might suggest that welfare should be run by charities and not by the Government. I can think of masses of savings to the Treasury, which no doubt finds the National Health Service to be a bottomless pit. People would know when they lease a flat that a high proportion of the rent will go to welfare. To me it is preferable to pay rent, for which, after all, one gets something, than to pay more and more tax. As my noble friend Lord Peyton said at Second Reading, others must be and should be encouraged to make similar bequests to the one which Henry Smith made.
I have a little knowledge of the workings of the Church, although not as much as the right reverend
990
Prelates present. I imagine that there must be a relationship between the rents which the Church as a landlord receives and the stipends which ordinary country parsons—there are parsons in the cities as well—receive. From my observations not many people in the Church are overpaid. I would not like to see the Bill do anything which would damage the Church's revenue and income.
Finally, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that we have in existence a valuable and approved system. I do not think it is up to us to show that the leaseholders are treated unfairly. It is up to the Government to show that their proposals are an improvement for all concerned. I so agreed with my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he said that we must reflect more on all this. I do not know whether the matter could be referred to a Select Committee to hear a little more evidence. However, I am far from satisfied that all avenues have been explored. Much more examination is needed before we see the break-up of the charitable estates, including that of Henry Smith, at great expense and with great disruption. If anything is wrecking, I suggest that the Bill is more wrecking than the amendment. I have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Kindersley.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: It is no discourtesy to the noble Lord to say that this debate seems rather like Henry Smith versus the rest. There seem to be a very large number of people speaking for Henry Smith's Charity or certainly who support that point of view. The Church has been mentioned several times, from the time that the two-thirds majority in the General Synod was referred to by the Minister, and therefore it may be appropriate for me to say a few words from these Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, kindly invited me to associate myself with this amendment. I said that there was no way that I could because I could not possibly be here on a Tuesday afternoon. I said that I had to go to a dinner in London at eight o'clock but that I could perhaps sit on these Benches for an hour or so before that. As luck would have it, the amendment has come up just while I am here for these moments. Therefore, perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of the Bishops.
I think it is true to say that the Church of England is ambivalent on this amendment because we are not in the business of fighting our own corner. We are not in the business primarily of seeing to and caring for our own assets and our own benefit. If the Government decide that this is the way in which the Bill should go through and the amendment is rejected, then the Church of England will accept that, take it on the chin, try to readjust to it and recognise that the benefits that come through the Bill for the leaseholders —they are the people we feel for because that is the other side of the ambivalence—will be enjoyed and that their rights will be safeguarded. If that is the way it is to end up, we shall be content.
However, the Government should remember the cost that will arise. There will be a cost in terms of

991
income. I am quite certain that, if the Church Commissioners could be better represented here, they would be, because in all conscience they cannot afford to lose many more millions of pounds. It means the clergy and their pay. That may have to be acceptable.
The reservoir of charitable giving and charitable influence will clearly be diminishel if the Bill goes through unamended. It may be that that is what the Government wish. It would be sad but nevertheless one would have to accept it as the decision of the elected Parliament of this land. There would also be the loss—this applies particularly to the Cathedral close—of the ambience, because the possession and control of property is not entirely for the sake of making money. It is for preserving an area—an area of peace and sanctity, particularly in the Cathedral close. Although there are not many Cathedral closes still left in this happy state, nevertheless it will be a further erosion of what those have.
So if this comes to a vote, I shall be going through the Lobby on behalf of the amendment. However, I should like to say to the Committee that the Church of England sees both sides of this argument and is in its perhaps typical, ambivalent role here.
Baroness Hamwee: The Committee will be most grateful for that extremely thoughtful contribution. It is helpful to have our attention turned to other landlords who fall within the ambit of the amendment. One of the reasons I wish to speak to it is because I think it is most unfortunate that Members of the Committee should have been circulated with information—perhaps misinformation—concerning a particular charity. That was most regrettable. I am in no way influenced by the information that was received but I do not think it is a practice that is to be encouraged.
The debate is not about Smith's Charity. It is in part about Smith's Charity, but by no means to the extent that one might have thought from the energetic contributions made by those who speak for it. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, went right to the heart of the issue. When is a charity not a charity? What benefits should be given to a charity? Is it appropriate that a charity should be treated differently because it is a charity, or should we be looking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, suggested, at the activities?
I believe that the noble Baroness was correct in her analysis. One must consider not the identity of the landlord but whether his activities are those which should be protected. I believe that in many cases the charities are holding their property portfolios as, if you wish, a commercial investment. We are not talking about the provision of housing to meet, for instance, a need for low cost housing. The Peabody Trust was mentioned along with the question of low rents. I suspect that the rents referred to are those for short tenancies and not the long-term leaseholds that are the subject of the Bill.
I regret that I did not understand the comment that the reservoir of charitable giving will be affected by the amendment. That did not seem relevant. I do not
992
believe that the British public would be dissuaded from contributing to a charity because it saw some element of confiscation by the Government.
Lord Swinfen: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The element of charitable giving by the general public does not come into it. It is the element of charitable giving by the big grant-making trusts who give from the income from their investments.
Baroness Hamwee: That takes me to my next point, which is whether the provisions amount to confiscation or robbery. As Members of the Committee have said, if they do amount to robbery then that is the fault of the whole Bill; it is not something that should be put right just for charities. It is a much more fundamental point and needs to be addressed for all leaseholders. I do not believe that it amounts to confiscation.
The last area of concern is that of ambience. That is a concern which I share. But it is one that should be addressed through other measures. There are measures later in the Bill which deal with environmental matters. I agree with the distinction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I feel that it would not be right to apply overall concern about the Bill just to charities because they are charities, without thinking through the consequences.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: When my noble friend Lord Kindersley introduced the amendment with his usual skill and charm, he exclaimed that he was a novice. If he is, then he is no mean advocate for his cause. It is therefore no surprise that he had a great deal of support when he moved around the corridors outside. Indeed, I was one of that minority with whom he spoke and, as he knows, I do not entirely agree with him.
It is perfectly legitimate for him to mount his arguments in the way that he has, particularly about the Minister and in general about the Bill. I am sorry that he should have mentioned the Member for Kensington, Dudley Fishburn, because he is not here to defend himself and cannot be. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that Smith's Charity is extremely efficient. Nobody would question that, and I have said so before.
The point is that it is a property company and an extremely efficient one. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for it to be treated differently from other property companies. Of course, it does great good works, but this is not a Bill about charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon made that point clearly. Nobody is trying to do down charities. They are a very good thing. The Bill is about property and the right to enfranchise leaseholders across the country. Therefore one set of leaseholders should not be disqualified in favour of another. Everybody must be treated equally before the law.
The noble Baroness is right in that if we are arguing whether the Bill is a good thing, that has already been done in another place at Second Reading. I hope that

993
my noble friend will therefore be able to resist the siren calls he has heard from so many of those who have spoken in favour of the amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: I greatly take to heart the concerns that have been raised on an exemption for charities. I note the great sincerity that has come from my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. I certainly do not take lightly anything that has been said. My noble friend Lord Peel asked about the National Trust. I can tell him that property on inalienable land is exempt. He will find that in Clause 85.
During the Second Reading debate earlier this month there were two speeches from my noble friends Lord Kindersley and Lord Crawshaw, both of whom are trustees of Smith's Charity. We have had powerful contributions from them again today and from other noble Lords. I therefore welcome the opportunity of setting out the Government's position in detail.
I have no knowledge of any uncomplimentary remarks made about Smith's Charity during the course of the past few days. It is not part of my case whether or not Smith's Charity is regarded as either a good or a bad landlord. Naturally I admire the tremendous work which is done by so many charities. I have seen the list of donations made by Smith's Charity: it is clear that it helps an enormous number of charities throughout the country, including those working with the young, the old, the ill, and even drug addicts, to name but a few.
It would clearly be most unfortunate if this legislation were to impede the work of that charity. Similarly, the Church Commissioners are significant landlords of leasehold properties and their important work of providing pensions for the clergy must continue. The Committee would rightly be concerned if such bodies and other charities were to be seriously and adversely affected by the Bill. Some of my noble friends have suggested that this would be the case. It is my job to reassure the Committee that that will not be the case.
I appreciate and understand the concerns that have been expressed; they were not unexpected. When the Leasehold Reform Act was debated in this Chamber in 1967 an amendment was tabled and agreed that would have exempted from the provisions of that Act houses on land owned by bodies established for charitable purposes. However, the amendment was overturned in another place and Parliament in its wisdom decided not to exempt charities from the leasehold enfranchisement provisions in that Act.
Although all charitable bodies spend their income in support of charitable ends, most raise it in a strictly commercial manner and rightly so, as my noble friend Lord Crawshaw explained. The Church Commissioners have made clear that their objective is to maximise their capital assets and revenue. The trustees of a charity are generally under a duty to use their assets to the maximum effect. So, from the point of view of a tenant, it makes little difference whether his or her landlord may be Smith's Charity or the Church Commissioners on the one hand, or, for the sake of argument, one of the great estates on the other.
994
All of these charities and all the great estates will expect to sell leases at the market rate and will impose on their tenants repairing and insuring obligations. The tenants of charitable landlords are seeking enfranchisement sometimes as strongly as those of other landlords. I can see no reason why they should be excluded from the rights of enfranchisement just because their landlord's property investment portfolio might be affected.
Many of the arguments put forward by my noble friends are based on the premise that, quite apart from the principle of enfranchisement, the valuation proposals contained in the Bill will harm the charities' financial position. It will come as no surprise to the Committee if I say that I do not accept that that is so; but if, for the sake of argument, I were to accept that it were so, I am still not convinced that that would make a case for the separate treatment of charities.
If it is unfair to treat charities in this way, it is equally unfair to treat, for instance, my noble friend the Duke of Westminster, or a property investment company, or an individual who may have inherited his freehold in that way also. So, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon put it so clearly, the key argument is whether the price of enfranchisement is fair. I anticipate a very full discussion on valuation when we reach that part of the Bill.
I should at this stage say that it is not our policy that there should be confiscation of assets at less than market value. Our aim is that the valuation basis should be fair to both parties. We do not wish to enrich tenants at the expense of landlords, or landlords at the expense of tenants. Tenants will not be able to purchase their freeholds at discount and there should be no wind-fall gains. The marriage value brought about by enfranchisement will be shared between landlord and tenant in the same way that it would in the market.
As has already been mentioned, tenants of charitable housing trusts, where the flats are in housing accommodation provided by the trust in pursuit of its charitable purposes, will not be qualifying tenants and those charitable organisations will be exempt. Housing trusts are bodies that use all or substantially the whole of their funds for the purpose of providing housing accommodation. They do not hold it for investment purposes or manage their property in a commercial way.
Where charities have let flats on a long lease, presumably to raise funds by way of the premium, they have to all intents and purposes sold that property to persons who have every right to consider themselves owner-occupiers. They will usually have the greater financial interest in the property and, like other leaseholders, the expectation of being able to enfranchise.
I do not wish to have a fight with my noble friends on this. As I said earlier, I take to heart the words of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, but I believe that the case has not been made as to why charities should be treated any differently from any other landlord. Therefore, I ask my noble friend whether he will withdraw his amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Kindersley: I am interested in and should like to reply to the last remarks of my noble friend the Minister. I shall attempt as quickly as I can to reply also to some of the other comments that have been made in the past few minutes. I deal first with the basic and fundamental point that was made by my noble friend the Minister that charities will not be harmed by the Bill because it allows for perfectly fair valuations. That is a matter for debate and none of us is at all clear exactly how the valuation will work and what view the tribunal that will be set up will take. Therefore, the future is slightly misty for us.
The point that I should like to register is that if it is the case that half or fewer than half of the leaseholders in Henry Smith's Charity decide to exercise their rights to enfranchisement, there is no question in my mind but that we, as trustees, will have to withdraw from property in London because we would be left with the tattered remains of a once marvellous estate. The curious thing that nobody seems to have seized upon yet when talking about this—perhaps because we have all been thinking in the short term —is in due course (because whatever the prognosis about management being possible when individual freeholders are in charge, and we have heard my noble friend Lord Lindsay comment on his practical experience of that), the estate would lose the high standards that it has set to date. Nobody is going to spend £2 million on gardens and railings in anticipation of the future wellbeing of the estate. There is no question but that standards will suffer. We shall therefore have the curious anomaly that those leaseholders who rushed in, thinking that they were going to make a quick buck from converting into a freehold, will find themselves with freeholds in an area where the standards have gone down. Property will become less desirable and its value will actually be diminished rather than maintained at the high levels which all our long leaseholds in Henry Smith's Charity command today.
To my mind, that is a very convincing point that meets a number of the criticisms that have been made during the debate. I was glad to hear that praises outweighed criticisms; but my job is to answer some of the criticisms and that basic point answers a lot of the criticisms that were made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. He asked for some specific answers about the loss of income and loss of value. Those questions are difficult to answer because, as I have said, things are uncertain. However, we asked our surveyor who runs the estate to make a rough estimate as best he can at this stage of what the legislation would be likely to mean to the value of our property in Egerton Gardens, where all the houses have been converted into flats. His preliminary estimate, based on the information available to him at the moment, is that the value of Egerton Gardens to Henry Smith's Charity would depreciate by £2 million. That is the best estimate that we can make of the loss of value now.
Turning to the loss of income, I point out that we are a long-term charity. No doubt, in the short term, we could at least make up for the loss of income from the properties that are enfranchised, particularly if
996
interest rates became higher again and we could deposit the money at a higher rate than we were getting from the rents. But we look to the long term, and that would not be a sensible thing to do unless we felt that the whole portfolio needed a big cash element in it because of the dreadful economic outlook.
However, I can give the Committee some figures to answer the questions that were raised about the amount of money that is spent on the management of the Henry Smith's Charity estate. This stems from the peculiar document to which I have already referred. It is of course ridiculous to try to compare portfolio investments with estate management; but comparisons can be made. Again, it is the apples and pears problem. Of course, we have much higher management expenses in running the Kensington estate than in running an investment portfolio. I do not think that I need to insult the intelligence of the Committee by making that remark, but the question was asked. We have some figures to show that despite the extra expenditure that has to go into the running of an estate of 70 acres in Kensington, between December 1984 and December 1988 the annualised total return, which includes capital value and income, was 27.42 per cent. in the case of the Kensington estate, and the equivalent return from our investment portfolio was 12.5 per cent. In the period between December 1988 and June 1991, the return on the Kensington estate was 27.9 per cent. and the equivalent return from our investment portfolio was 13.3 per cent. I hope that will answer my noble friend Lord Wolfson who is not here, which is a pity.
I hope that I have covered the main questions that were asked. I apologise for the fact that my opening remarks were not in accordance with custom in Committee. I said in my opening remarks that I was a novice. I am a novice now. I hope that I have answered the points made by my noble friend the Minister, and that I have made clear to him that the charity will suffer and that there is a case for the exemption of charities. I believe that we have sufficient support in Committee to put the amendment to the vote.
8.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; NotContents,116.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 9.15 p.m.
House resumed.

British Railways Bill
8.20 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In doing so I declare an interest. The Bill is a Private Bill promoted by the British Railways Board on behalf of a number of its sectors, on behalf of two passenger transport authorities and on behalf of the Department of Transport. It was deposited in 1990, having passed the Commons, and it received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 28th January. It has since been before an Unopposed Bill Committee. I shall turn to the amendments made there later in my speech.
First, perhaps I may summarise the works which will be undertaken if the Bill is enacted. InterCity sponsors one work; that is the construction of a footbridge at Marholm, near Peterborough, on the east coast mainline. British Rail's freight businesses are the sponsors of four of the works. One involves the reinstatement of a piece of line at Guide Bridge in Manchester to facilitate the operation of aggregate trains. The second work is also reinstatement but this time at Edge Hill, Liverpool, to enable trains carrying imported coal to run directly from Liverpool docks to Fiddlers Ferry power station. The third work at Worksop is a new piece of line also concerned with imported coal. In this instance the line runs from south Humberside ports to Cottam power station. Power generation is also the reason for a fourth work, which is the construction of a new siding at Sherburn in Elmet in North Yorkshire. In that case the work is needed for the unloading of limestone, which the flue gas desulphurisation plant will turn into insulation material.
Two passenger transport authorities are seeking powers for new works. West Yorkshire wishes to construct additional tracks between Holbeck Junction and Leeds City Station in order to alleviate congestion and also to create capacity for, additional services. Merseyside wishes to reinstate a section of the line at St. Helens in order to improve connections with the west coast mainline. The temporary diversion of the Leeds to Skipton railway at Bingley is promoted on behalf of the Department of Transport to accommodate the construction of the new Aire Valley trunk road. In the context of that work, time is of the essence.

999
The Bill also authorises the closure of a level crossing at Foxfield on Regional Railways Cumbrian coastline and land purchase for a new siding at Strood in Kent on Network SouthEast.
On Second Reading the Bill also made provision for the extension of a line at Ashford in Kent together with the associated permanent closure of a level crossing at South Willesborough and the reconstruction of a nearby road bridge. Those works are no longer necessary and the promoters deleted the relevant clauses while the Bill was before an Unopposed Bill Committee.
A number of other typographical amendments were made in Committee as well as amendments to take account of changes in other legislation. Generally, all the amendments were made either to resolve ambiguity or to stay au courant with present legislation. I do not propose to go through all the amendments, although I can do so should any noble Lord so wish.
The Motion to be moved by my noble friend Lord Aldington relates to the works originally proposed at Ashford. I shall do my best to answer his points when the time comes. It seems to me that my noble friend's Motion may give rise not only to questions of detail in relation to Ashford but also to points of general importance about our procedures for passing Bills. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will give the House some guidance on that matter.
I repeat the comments that I made on Second Reading because I believe that they have a significant bearing on issues which my noble friend may well wish to discuss. The powers sought in the Bill in relation to Ashford were removed because the situation had dramatically changed and they were no longer needed.
I wish to stress to your Lordships the importance of the Bill. It is not about privatisation; that is a topic for another day. One could question the necessity of granting British Rail powers to undertake works when privatisation is so close. But regardless of ownership the works included in the Bill are essential to permit the railway to continue to operate economically and safely. I believe that successor bodies to British Rail—indeed, the proposed new body, Railtrack—will desire the completion of the projects in order to ensure the smooth operation of railway services. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mountevans.)
8.25 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert ("but this House regrets that on the motion of the promoters the Bill has been amended so that the promoters claim that they will no longer have to honour undertakings given by them to the Select Committee in another place in June 1991 in connection with the level crossing at Aylesford Place, Willesborough, Ashford, Kent, to provide alternative routes for persons and vehicles by the time the level
1000
crossing has to be closed for reasons of increased rail traffic; and invites the promoters to reconsider their position.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I tabled the amendment because, under the procedure of the House relating to Private Bills which are alleged to be unopposed, it is the only way open to me to raise such an important issue. Before I embark upon my argument I wish to say that I am somewhat surprised that my noble friend did not refer to an intervention at Question Time yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The noble Lord said:
"My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the British Railways Board has stated that in the event of increased international traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel—which we all hope will be the case—the board will stand by its original commitment for the reconstruction of the Crow Corner bridge".—[Official Report, 8/3/93; co1.824.]
My noble friend did not refer to that intervention and therefore I must assume that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was misinformed. If that is not so and the commitment exists, and if that is what the British Railways Board believes, I should wish to rephrase a great deal of what I intend to say. However, owing to the silence that has followed my words I must assume that that is not the position of the board of British Railways.
The issue is important to the House because the undertakings, which I shall spell out in a moment and which I spelt out on Second Reading, relate to the rights of the community of Willesborough to move across the railway which divides it. There is only one surgery in Willesborough and it is in the north. If people living in the south of the area are to attend the surgery but cannot drive across the level crossing in vehicles, how can they do so unless the Crow Corner bridge is widened?
Secondly, the issue is important to the House because the undertakings were given in another place in front of the Select Committee in order to satisfy complaints by the petitioners—the residents of Willesborough—that alternative crossings would be provided by the time the crossing must be closed for reasons of increased traffic.
The third reason why the issue is important is that in my view the procedure of this House has been used by promoters to get out of undertakings that were made no doubt in good faith in another place. Those are three important issues. I believe that I have accurately summarised the undertakings in the Motion. Further particulars can be found at col. 1389 of the Official Report of 28th January 1993. I then explained the position making it clear that Miss Sheila Cameron, QC, who appeared for the promoters before the Select Committee in another place, pointed out that the level crossing will have to be closed with the advent of the Channel Tunnel. That is what she said and that is what she said was the opinion of the board: it had nothing to do with the works. My noble friend has consistently misled the House in saying that it had to do with the works. That is not the position that counsel, who was briefed by the board, put to the

1001
Select Committee. It was not because of the works but because of the increased traffic coming from the advent of the Channel Tunnel. What she said was:
"This level crossing will not be closed until the Crow Corner Bridge has been reconstructed and brought into use for motor vehicles".
She went on to say:
"The closing of this level crossing has now become necessary with the advent of the Channel Tunnel",
and she explained why. I added to her explanation, as your Lordships will remember. She explained that, with the advent of the Channel Tunnel and the extra traffic, it simply would be impracticable to open the crossing for more than five minutes or so in the hour.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans replied on the 28th January to what I had said. I cannot complain that he did not give a full reply, because, although I have had consultations with him, I had not given him in full a copy of what I was going to say. But your Lordships will find what he said in Hansard at col. 1394 on 28th January. He said that things had changed since those undertakings were given. He said:
"not only has the station itself been moved" [from where it was proposed to be]—
he is referring to the international passenger station—
"but other factors have changed".
He went on to say that the opening of the Channel Tunnel had been delayed. It has been delayed by about a year, but this Bill has been delayed by about one and a half years, so I do not think that helps him on that particular point. He then went on to make a surprising point. He said that the delay:
"will enable British Rail to undertake the re-signalling of the Ashford area and include Willesborough level crossing into the new plans in time for the introduction of international services".
However, as I have explained to the House, Mr. Urie of British Rail was kind enough to give me a schedule of the times and each hour of the day when the crossing could be opened; and there were two hours when it could be opened for three minutes or thereabouts. There were a whole lot of other hours when in practice it would not be possible to open it, because British Rail are not really very clever at keeping exactly to their timetable. It is inconceivable that there would have been many minutes available.
So in effect what Miss Sheila Cameron QC had to say was absolutely correct, and Mr. Urie's later information makes it even worse. Therefore I have to dismiss all the reasons —I call them excuses—that my noble friend gave why these undertakings no longer applied. I must add in a lighter tone that I am reminded of one of Aldous Huxley's sayings:
"Several excuses are always less convincing than one".
The fact is that this was a firm commitment, given to a Select Committee deciding on the petition, among other things, from the local residents of Willesborough. It was given for a very good reason and it should be honoured, because conditions have not changed. We all know that one of the favourite excuses or reasons for trying to get out of an undertaking is that conditions have changed, but I have to say that they have not.
In the Unopposed Bill Committee, the Lord Chairman of that Committee (my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees was unhappily ill that day and his predecessor took the chair) put to the
1002
British Rail representatives what I had said in my Second Reading speech. He put it succinctly, forcefully and very sympathetically; and I am most grateful to him for doing so. The British Rail spokesman replied—there is no shorthand note available but I had with me the Ashford Borough solicitor, who took a note—that the responsibility for the bridge was the highway authority's and that the highway authority—that is Ashford Borough Council—was unable to proceed with that part of the scheme.
That statement is incorrect: in fact both statements are incorrect. the responsibility clearly lies with British Rail, as was accepted in front of the Select Committee in the other place. It is simply not true that the Ashford Borough Council is unable to proceed with its part of the scheme; and it has been so told.
Unfortunately, in the procedure that we have with Unopposed Bills, it was quite impossible for me to be heard to correct that statement, or for the Ashford Borough solicitor to be heard. I think something is wrong there because the Unopposed Bill procedure is fine when the Bill is not being altered, but when it is being opposed by the promoters, I think it is not unreasonable that other people should be allowed to test what they have to say. However, there it is. We have to accept what is there, and that is why I am stressing this point to your Lordships tonight.
My noble friend Lord Caithness will remember that during the Second Reading debate he cast a little doubt upon how correct I had been in going into all these details then, because he said that the Committee stage was obviously the right place for doing that. I think he will now know, as I have discovered for myself, that with this kind of so-called Unopposed Bill, the Committee stage gives no chance for any such thing to be done. It was quite impossible for me to utter a word and, being a disciplined man, I did not do it then and so I am doing it now.
I do it, I have to say, with a feeling of sadness that a great authority like British Rail should try to "welsh" on undertakings given in another place. I use that word advisedly. Those undertakings were given in very good faith at the time and were meant to be accepted. They are now trying to get out of them, and that is what that unpleasant word means. I think it is bad that they should do that. I cannot believe that the board of British Rail knows what has happened or that the chairman of British Rail knows what has happened. I therefore hope that one of the things that my noble friend the Minister of State will do is to see that Sir Bob Reid, whom we all know and admire, is informed of what actually happened. Nobody has contradicted a word I have said so far. I hope that Sir Bob will be informed about what has happened and with his management will investigate how comes it that they, as a leading public sector authority with a great reputation and a great tradition, should renege on undertakings in this way.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will not say that, as he is neutral in these matters, he will not intervene. I suggest to the Government that they cannot be neutral as regards the good faith of public authorities which they own and whose chairmen and

1003
boards they appoint. Nor can they be neutral when a promoter of a Bill uses our procedure in such a way as to get out of undertakings made in another place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not seek in any way to challenge the noble Lord, but were this Bill to pass now and British Rail were then to seek to revive its original intentions, is it his view that further legislation would be required in order to deal with that situation? How would the matter be dealt with? Would it simply be a matter for planning permission? I am genuinely uncertain as to what is the situation in that eventuality.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I too am rather uncertain about that matter. Before the debate began I was reading two long opinions on the subject—one one way and one another—on what are the various rights and duties. Unless I am misinformed, I see no difficulty in British Rail proceeding with the passenger bridge, even though the power to do that has been dropped from the Bill. I do not believe that British Rail has ever said that it cannot proceed with the widening of the bridge because it no longer has the power to do so. When British Rail sought powers to stop up the level crossing—and it had to obtain the power to do that—certain undertakings were given.
This is an unusual procedure. I am asking the House to register with me its regret that this situation should have arisen with or without the permission and knowledge of the board; that does not matter. There should be a request to the board to look at the matter to see whether it can resurrect the commitments given in the other place, even if that is in the form of the commitment described by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, yesterday. We should take this matter seriously. This House cannot do its job properly if it does not try to safeguard undertakings given in another place.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert ("but this House regrets that on the motion of the promoters the Bill has been amended so that the promoters claim that they will no longer have to honour undertakings given by them to the Select Committee in another place in June 1991 in connection with the level crossing at Aylesford Place, Willesborough, Ashford, Kent, to provide alternative routes for persons and vehicles by the time the level crossing has to be closed for reasons of increased rail traffic; and invites the promoters to reconsider their position.").—(Lord Aldington.)
8.41 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on this matter. He made out a very powerful case, which demands to be answered, about the unsatisfactory aspects of the procedures which have been followed by British Rail. I do not intend to cover the ground he covered, but the House deserves an answer to the questions he raised.
I concentrate simply on the point about the convenience for the local community in Ashford, to
1004
which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, referred. It is a longstanding problem in that part of Ashford. Undoubtedly it will be greatly aggravated, if not made impossible, once the Channel Tunnel trains begin to run from the end of this year or shortly after. I have information from Eurotunnel which says that the timetable currently proposed by the national railways envisages that Ashford will be served by 14 Channel Tunnel trains per day in either direction. I believe that I am right to remember from briefing that I received from Kent County Council that during the night hours something like 10 or 12 freight trains will run in each direction. In those circumstances, the continuation of the level crossing as a practicable method of getting across the lines becomes impossible. In the light of the undertakings that were given in another place, it is strange that British Rail should change its position and withdraw its undertakings in your Lordships' House, leaving an anomalous situation which seems to make it impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, or any other noble Lord to deal with the situation created.
Finally, I am afraid that the history of British Rail's relationships with the communities of Kent over the railway aspect of the consequences of building the Channel Tunnel have been extremely unhappy. We still await some final decisions on where the line of the high speed train will run. As yet, there is no end to the uncertainty which has caused so much blight. In many ways, this episode in relation to the level crossing is a further symptom of the extremely unsatisfactory and unhappy way in which British Rail has conducted its relations with the local communities in Kent.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is right—and I believe that he is likely to be right—to say that this is not a matter which has been dealt with at the highest level of the board and that the chairman of British Rail may not be fully aware of what has happened. However, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has made a valid case and some account should be taken of it.
8.47 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, as Chairman of Committees, I am reluctant to intervene on controversial matters in debates on Private Bills. I do so now because I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Aldington raises issues of general concern.
I can well understand why my noble friend has tabled this amendment. In that way he seeks to give other noble Lords some indication of the point which is troubling him. The House will not have had to wait for his speech to know what is on his mind. He may well believe that the procedure which he has adopted gives the best of both worlds: the promoters get their Bill and my noble friend registers his protest.
However, the House should be quite clear that the complaint of the noble Lord does not relate to anything in the Bill which is now before the House. The undertakings referred to in the amendment concern provisions which are no longer in the Bill. As it stands the Bill contains nothing to which any

1005
objection has been raised. I ask the House to consider whether it would be right to refuse it an unqualified Third Reading in those circumstances.
The Companion to Standing Orders states on page 111 that:
"Debate … on Third Reading … should be relevant to the Bill in the form in which it has emerged".
Although that is stated in the context of Public Bills, I believe that it holds good also for Private Bills.
More generally, I question whether the House should ever be invited to give a Third Reading to a Bill and at the same time to attach to it what amounts to a label announcing that the House believes the Bill to be unsatisfactory in certain respects. If the House considers that a Bill is unsatisfactory, in my opinion it should not pass the Bill. On the other hand, if the House considers that the Bill is proper to be passed, it should do so without reservation.
Therefore, I hope that if my noble friend does not withdraw his amendment, the House will think very carefully about whether or not the amendment should be accepted.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak tonight without a party label and I do so in the absence, through illness, of my noble friend Lord Underhill. Fortunately, his illness does not appear to be too serious; it is one that affects his back, and he is unable to be here. He has taken a keen interest in this Bill, and I am sure that the House will wish him well.
The questions that have arisen as a result of the very unusual circumstances very eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, give rise to much concern. I believe that we were on the horns of a dilemma—certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, was—in the sense that if a means was not devised to raise these very serious concerns, the situation would have passed completely unnoticed. The noble Lord has expressed the view that he hopes that the British Railways Board at the highest level will take note of what has been said. That could not have happened at least without correspondence and the ability to know with certainty that the board at the highest level would consider the matter, which I believe is now inevitable. Therefore, the remarks of the noble Lord have served a good purpose.
The House will be grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the Chairman of Committees, for setting the situation right as he sees it. He has spoken with considerable force, and it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, to consider his position in the light of those observations. But I sensed from what Lord Ampthill said that in no way was he seeking to blame the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for taking the course that he did; indeed, I believe that he had no other choice.
The exceptional circumstances that have arisen here are, to say the least, strange. One's reading of the previous debate and the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, about the statements made by Miss Cameron on behalf of the promoters of the Bill are ineluctably clear and are not capable of any misinterpretation. The undertakings were given. One
1006
worries a great deal that in the light of allegedly changed circumstances it is as easy as all that to resile from those solemn undertakings. I believe it is a little unfair to blame the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for misleading the House. He speaks on behalf of the promoters; it is they who must bear the responsibility, not he. I do not want to deflect that. Perhaps I may add in parentheses that if the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had been here tonight he would have taken the strongest objection to the use of the verb "to welsh". I am not a Welshman, although my name may sometimes give that impression. I feel that that use of language was unfortunate. However, it is not germane to the main issues we are considering.
Undertakings that are given in any place—certainly when they are given in a court of law or to one of the Houses of Parliament, which is much the same thing—cannot be resiled from lightly. I have a feeling that what might have been properly done would have been for the whole Bill, in the light of the changed circumstances, to be withdrawn and brought back without reliance being placed on the fabric of the original Bill in the light of those changed circumstances. The questions that arise are for all of us, not simply for the promoters of the Bill. They are for the Minister as well. We are all Members of this place. In those circumstances, the Minister cannot simply say that the Government have to be neutral. This is a matter of great seriousness for this House and the other place. I have not come across a situation quite like it.
Those undertakings were given in order to allay anxieties raised by the petitioners. We are now in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, which perhaps may be more properly directed to the Minister or to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, is pointing dramatically at the Minister to reply to the question that I put. What is the position in the event that British Rail decide to reinstate the undertaking and act upon it? I do not know the answer any more than the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Will they then have to seek further legislation to undertake that position? Can they proceed simply on the basis of an application for planning permission? Can they apply to the Minister for his fiat to go ahead? All of those are highly relevant questions that impact on the deliberations in which we are engaged tonight.
My noble friend Lord Underhill raised other matters during the course of his contribution to the Second Reading debate. Although I do not believe that the questions were appropriately answered during the course of that debate, I believe that the main attention tonight should be directed to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. They are points of substance. They are matters which should certainly not be repeated and should not be allowed to be a precedent. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will at the very least duly apologise on behalf of the promoters of the Bill for the circumstances that have arisen that have, not through him, misled people; they have misled Ashford council and certainly this House and another place.

1007
Having said that, I do not want to get too firmly enmeshed one way or the other because I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is proposing to do. I have a feeling about what he proposes to do, but that remains to be seen. The mystery will be cleared up shortly.
8.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, first I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, how sorry we are to hear that his noble friend Lord Underhill is ill. The noble Lord is highly respected in this House, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will pass on to his noble friend the good wishes of the entire House. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that if one cannot welsh on a commitment, presumably one cannot scotch an idea. However, I leave that to the noble Lord as a lawyer to give me legal advice later in the evening on the point.
I am grateful for the clear way in which my noble friend Lord Mountevans has presented his Bill, as amended in the Unopposed Bill Committee. I, like the rest of your Lordships, have listened carefully to the strong case put by my noble friend Lord Aldington. I can well understand the reasons that have led him to pursue this matter and propose his amendment. The Government have considered the Bill as it now stands and are content with the powers sought by the British Railways Board. It is important that the board have the powers necessary for operational and business reasons. The Bill was deposited in 1990, and I very much hope that it will make progress and be given a Third Reading this evening.
Your Lordships will recall that during Second Reading I referred to departmental interest in Works No. 4. The Bill provides for a temporary deviation of the Leeds and Skipton Railway to allow the new Airedale trunk road to be built under the railway. If the Bill was not to proceed quickly, there would be extremely detrimental effects on the timing and cost of the Department of Transport's road scheme, and it would also cause considerable inconvenience to rail users. My noble friend Lord Aldington has been very critical of the British Railways Board. During Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mountevans explained the circumstances appertaining to that particular point of concern. I say to my noble friend Lord Aldington that, as I understand it, the British Railways Board intend to comply with the agreement with Ashford Borough Council to widen Crow Corner bridge when they next reconstruct it, and when the conditions relating to the construction of a link road under the bridge are met. That is the latest advice that I have received.
All noble Lords will have listened with particular care to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. In this House we are fortunate to control our affairs as we do and when the Chairman of Committees makes such a statement it behoves your Lordships to pay particular attention to his words.
I should like to be as helpful as possible to my noble friend Lord Aldington. I confirm to him that I shall
1008
pass on to the chairman of British Rail what my noble friend said, not only today but also at Second Reading. I hope that that will go some way to ease his concern. The House knows how strongly my noble friend feels about the subject. It is right that I should pass that on to the chairman of British Rail. I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising that point while bearing in mind what my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said.
The Government wish the Bill to make speedy progress. Before it does I should like to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as to what British Rail would need in order to obtain authority in the future if widening Crow Corner bridge. That depends on the circumstances. I am advised that if the rebuilding of the bridge was in the normal course of events approval would simply be a case of planning permission by the local planning authority. For example, if the rebuilding of the bridge was triggered by development of the new town site as was originally proposed that procedure would apply. However, if the widening was triggered by the Channel Tunnel rail link it is likely that any necessary rights or consents would be obtained as part of the statutory process for the rail link.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in our debate this evening. I sincerely appreciate the sentiments which my noble friend Lord Aldington expressed with regard to the subject he raised tonight. However, I am, alas, unable to agree to the Motion he tabled. My reasons are very similar to those which I gave at Second reading. I feel unable to apologise for misleading the House because I believe that I was right at the time, and I hope that I am right now.
The House has been made well aware of the situation surrounding the level crossing at South Willesborough. The situation has not changed since Second Reading, but I stress that it has changed since the Committee considered the matter in another place. My noble friend Lord Aldington tabled the amendment because of the commitments given by British Rail during the Bill's Committee stage in another place during June 1991. At that time it was generally assumed that the Crow Corner bridge would be reconstructed. The fast rail link to the Channel Tunnel and the then proposed siting of the international station at Ashford would have rendered the crossing closure and bridge construction necessary. The routing of the proposed high-speed link is now by no means certain. It may not even approach Ashford. The then proposed siting of Ashford station has been changed because the Government rejected British Rail's original proposal. The site now proposed, some quarter of a mile to the west of the present site, does not require the reconstruction of the bridge.
Also, in 1991 it was thought necessary to reconstruct the bridge because it appeared impossible to accommodate Channel Tunnel rail freight vehicles because the span of the bridge was too low. That

1009
reason is no longer valid either. It has proved possible to overcome the problem by lowering the track and leaving the bridge intact.
In 1991 there were also proposed road improvements associated, first, with British Rail's former new town works and, secondly, with the orbital park. For various reasons neither of those proposed developments has proceeded at the pace expected when the Committee considered the matter in another place in 1991.
The Bill did not seek any powers to carry out those associated highway works. Both the reconstruction of the bridge and the highway works proposed to go underneath the span would have been authorised by other procedures. At the time of its Committee in another place the Bill sought to stop up South Willesborough level crossing and construct a new section of railway associated with the international passenger station and compatible with the high-speed rail link as then proposed. As I said, those reasons no longer exist.
Mention was made of the oral Question which my noble friend Lord Aldington asked yesterday. One of the answers was omitted. I am indebted to my noble friend the Minister for reminding us yesterday that circumstances have changed since the Committee stage in another place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He adverted to the Question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, yesterday. In the course of that debate a statement was made, when a question should have been put, by my noble friend Lord Carmichael to the effect that:
"the British Railways Board has stated that in the event of increased international traffic arising from the Channel Tunnel … the board will stand by its original commitment for the reconstruction of the Crow Corner bridge".—[Official Report, 8/3/93; col. 824.]
I may have misheard the noble Lord and the Minister, but I thought that the noble Lord said that that was not the case while I sensed from what the Minister said that it might be the case. The noble Lord might like to clarify the point. It may be that I am being obtuse.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me I shall come to that point later.
My noble friend Lord Aldington referred to the undertakings given by the promoters during the Committee stage in another place, in particular those relating to the reconstructed bridge. It is true that if one studies the transcript of those hearings one can find reference to those items. However, as I sought to demonstrate at Second Reading and have sought to demonstrate again tonight, they related to a particular set of circumstances which applied at that time. British Rail has consistently refused to pay for highway work. In its agreement with Ashford Borough Council its obligation to reconstruct the bridge is activated only when a railway operational reason makes its reconstruction necessary. I hope that that answer deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I understand that when operational necessity dictates it is British Rail's intention to rebuild the bridge.
1010
I hope that those facts demonstrate what was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Caithness when he said yesterday that British Rail in effect believes that the situation has changed sufficiently for the works originally envisaged to be no longer necessary. Your Lordships will be aware of British Rail's statutory duty to operate,
"having due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
It is worth mentioning in the context of safety of operation that British Rail has undertaken to build a footbridge in the position under discussion to alleviate some of the problems that arise from the crossing being less readily usable by motor traffic. It will at least be of some consolation to the pedestrian traffic. I believe that my noble friend referred to the bridge as the passenger bridge. I hope that that is what he meant. "Due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation" is an obligation which is the basis for all British Rail's expenditure programmes.
For railway reasons, as I have argued, it is no longer necessary to reconstruct Crow Corner bridge and British Rail would be in breach of its statutory duty if it were to proceed with reconstructing the bridge without being able to prove operational necessity. The only issue surrounding the Bill, now that all references to Ashford have been deleted, is that of the intensification of the rail service. I cannot deny that the crossing at South Willesborough will be less readily usable by vehicular traffic. However, as your Lordships are aware, that happens to a greater or lesser degree whenever British Rail increases its service levels.
I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Aldington will find it possible to withdraw his amendment in the light of what I have said and given the fact that I will ensure that his remarks are read at the highest level within British Rail.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, before my noble friend spoke I was certainly considering making a short statement withdrawing the amendment. However, I am horrified that my noble friend continues to repeat what he knows from the transcript that I have in front of me is completely untrue. The Select Committee of another place was told that the level crossing had to be closed, not because of the works or the position of the international passenger station, but because of the increase of traffic as a result of the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Miss Sheila Cameron QC explained at some length the effect that that would have on the times of the opening. What my noble friend has been briefed to tell your Lordships is simply not true. I have to say that and say it firmly if this debate is to go in front of the chairman of the British Railways Board.
However, having said that and having recovered a little of my poise after the anger which my noble friend's speech inspired in me, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness very much indeed for saying that he will pass on the debate to the chairman of the British Railways Board. That accomplishes my purpose, if I may so so. Of course I take full note of what my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said. If I had felt even more strongly than I now do, I should still have felt that I had to abide by the advice given by him.

1011
However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend this. Could he apply his great experience and skill to the procedure on a Bill like this which leads perfectly reasonable people—your Lordships know me as a rather mousy, wet, quiet man normally—to become very upset? Such matters ought to be sorted out in Committee rather than having such detailed discussion on the Floor of the House. I put that matter to him. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993
9.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships may know, this order, which is being made under powers contained in Section 149 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, is one of a series presented at roughly annual intervals. It is concerned with the calculation of redundancy payments in the field of local government, and amends the original order passed in 1983 by bringing in some newly created employing bodies.
It may be helpful if I explain that an employee made redundant after at least two years' service is due a payment calculated according to his period of service with his last employer. Local authorities are legally distinct employers so that, other things being equal, an employee could receive a payment every time he became redundant, even though he moved on to another local government job.
This would not, however, properly reflect what actually happens in local government where a normal career progression commonly involves moving from one local authority to another, perhaps several times during an individual's working life. Consequently the law provides for redundancy entitlements to be based on total aggregated service in local government.
Unfortunately, there is no convenient definition of what constitutes local government. It is therefore necessary to list in a succession of statutory instruments all the employers with whom service can count, including many which have gone out of existence following statutory reorganisations as well as such new ones as are from time to time created. This latest order brings the list up to date by adding a few bodies, mainly in the higher education field, which have recently come into being. It also puts right a slight error in the numbering of the list which arose in the 1991 amending order.
I trust I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that these amendments are necessary, reasonable and uncontroversial. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, from this side of the House I thank the noble Viscount for the clarity with which, as usual, he presented the order. We are in favour, of course, of the principle of continuity as set out in the order and we believe in the principle that aggregate service should count towards redundancy. We accept that the list had to be updated and that the bodies added are in the field of higher education. We think that that is right and proper and we welcome the order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, this is a straightforward amendment, the effect of which has been clearly explained by the noble Viscount. I am happy on behalf of my noble friends to accept it.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
9.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Premises excluded from right]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("10") and insert ("20").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall deal briefly with the qualification of premises which may come within the enfranchisement net if they include a non-residential part. I shall seek to deal with the volume of that part.
As the Bill is drafted, premises or a building are excluded if more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor area is non-residential. I believe that that is too low a threshold. If the figure is 10 per cent. then a block of flats with shops on the ground floor would have to be 10 storeys high in order to come within the qualification. Many mansion blocks have commercial premises on the ground floor, particularly shops, and I suspect that few of them would be 10 storeys high.
Having taken the decision to proceed with the enfranchisement provisions, the Government will wish to create real and not merely illusory rights. They will want to allow enfranchisement on a basis which is as wide as is reasonable. If we are to accept that the rights are to apply to mixed hereditaments, then I believe that those rights should not be restricted to relatively few mixed hereditaments. I say that with a certain lack of knowledge, but having read the debate in another place I feel that it appears that there is little knowledge on the number of premises that will be affected. There was a good deal of discussion about Westminster, but I do not believe that Westminster is typical of the whole country. If the Minister, in either accepting or refuting the amendment, can tell the House the effect that 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. would have, it would be most helpful.
If the argument against increasing the figure from 10 per cent. is that the cost of acquiring the freehold for the other leaseholders would be too high, I do not believe that that is a basis for denying them the right. Certainly there will be implications in the cost, given that the value of commercial premises will affect the value of the whole of the premises. But to use that as an argument against an increase in the figure of 10 per cent. would be somewhat paternalistic. It must be a matter for the leaseholders involved. It must be their decision whether or not they seek to exercise the right and pay what will be required.
If the argument against an increase is that it will mean a loss of the right of the leaseholders to extend their leases —in other words to exercise rights under the next chapter of the Bill—I suggest that we reconsider the relationship between the two rights of enfranchisement and extension.
If the argument is, to quote the words of the Minister in another place, a concern,
"not [to] spill over into the commercial market as anything that undermined the generally satisfactory workings of that market would be unwelcome"—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/93; col. 926.],
that would seem to be an argument that enfranchisement should be allowed only if there is no commercial element in the premises. It is quite clear that the Government do not take that view.
There is no magic in the figure of 10 per cent. and the Government recognise that. Clause 4(4) provides for the Secretary of State to have reserve powers to amend the percentage. Given that there is no magic in 10 per cent., I should like to hear why it could not be 20 per cent., which I believe would be a more realistic figure. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 18 which stands in my name and is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Amendment No. 18 seeks, I hope, to clarify—I have to say "I hope" as I cannot be absolutely certain it will he seen that way by all parties—the manner in which floor areas fall to be calculated for the purposes of whatever percentage may be used. The amendment is in two parts. It sets out to insert the provision that,
"any garage, parking space, storage area or other part of the premises which is held on a long lease for use in conjunction with the residential parts of the premises shall not be regarded as being occupied, or intended to be occupied, otherwise than for residential purposes".
The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. It is an attempt to avoid arguments about what does or does not constitute the residential element. I need not tax the patience of the Committee by stating the obvious, other than to say that if the intention is that the Bill should operate smoothly in practice, it is important that there is a clearly defined definition for that purpose. That is the background behind that particular aspect.
The second aspect is the question of the internal floor areas of the building and the way in which the measurement shall be conducted. I am indebted for the help of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, of which I am a member. I asked about
1014
that particular point. When I first read the Bill I asked whether the method of calculating the floor area was satisfactory. The answer came back: "We do not think that it is terribly satisfactory".
I believe that the RICS had discussions with the Minister's department on that and other matters. The amendment attempts to improve on the definition contained in the Bill and I merely offer it to the Minister with the comment that, having kicked the problem around, it is the best that we can come up with. We can find no formula of words which is absolutely foolproof; there is nothing that is totally watertight in this instance. Matters such as the treatment of service cores within buildings and areas where one would not be able to classify its use with precise certainty as between residential and non-residential, raise significant difficulties.
Amendment No. 18 is a probing amendment to try and obtain some comment back from the Minister on what the current thoughts are on the issue. I want to impress upon him that the intention is to make the procedure run smoothly so that there are not endless battles through the courts or valuation tribunals in order to sort out matters which, on the face of it, one would expect surveyors to be able to agree as a matter of course. Obviously it is a matter of interpretation. It is an area which will be contentious as between the parties—between the freeholder and the leaseholder seeking to enfranchise. It is something that should be cleared up.
I have no specific comment to make in regard to the percentage that should apply. I know the Government's view and I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says. It must be a matter for others. I do not wish to be drawn into that argument. However, I commend Amendment No. 18 to the Minister for further consideration on this point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support Amendment No. 18. I do not intend to go into the detail of whether or not it is right. The principle of establishing the position of these areas is most important.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I too will speak to both Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. We agree with Amendment No. 17. The matter was discussed at some length in another place. Various figures were put forward and in the end the Government stuck at 10 and others thought that 20 was perhaps a better compromise.
The problem is one of leaseholders who live normally in mansion blocks built in the latter part of the last century and sometimes in the 1960s, particularly in the centre of towns where often commercial premises such as chemists, travel agents or bookshops occupy the ground floor. There are extraordinary problems in trying to find the right balance between making it extremely difficult for the people who hold the leases to enfranchise, and producing something which is over-expensive and too cumbersome. I take the view, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that 20 per cent. would be a better figure than 10 per cent. and I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether or not he thinks along the same lines.

1015
On the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I accept that there is a problem. I am not sure that the amendment solves that problem. Amendment No. 18 excludes areas leased to residents alone and, as I see it, would thus exclude a considerable number of blocks—for instance in some blocks storeys are given over to car parking for paying customers. Such blocks will be unenfranchisable under Clause 4 as at present drafted or indeed as amended by Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Earl, for no particular reason that I can think of. I accept the noble Earl's point. There is a problem and it is for the Government to explain how they intend to deal with that problem, given that the noble Earl quite rightly said that his amendment is of a probing nature.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Like other speakers I, too, shall speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. Clause 3 defines the premises which may be enfranchised under Chapter I. This is, however, further qualified by Clause 4 which defines that certain premises cannot be enfranchised even though they may meet the qualifying conditions in Clause 3. These are premises where more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor area, excluding common parts, is given over to non-residential use and converted premises that have a resident landlord and do not contain more than four flats.
As far as concerns commercial premises we have tried to ensure that enfranchisement will only affect properties where the commercial use is very much ancillary to the residential use. We are concerned that the proposed legislation should apply only to properties which are predominantly residential.
The issue was fully debated in Committee in another place and a number of amendments were tabled with the intention of raising the threshold. In Committee we promised to reflect further and the matter was considered extremely carefully. As my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State said during Report on the Bill in another place, and in response to another attempt to increase the threshold, we have come to the conclusion that it should remain at 10 per cent.
The threshold was chosen very carefully after extensive sampling and the taking of expert advice. There is no demand in the commercial property market for leaseholders of commercial units to have the right to purchase the freehold. On the contrary, there is great concern that our proposals for the residential market do not spill over into the commercial market. Anything which undermines the generally satisfactory working of the commercial property market and Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 would have an unsettling effect and would be unwelcome.
Research commissioned by Westminster City Council into properties in Westminster confirms that the 10 per cent. threshold will bring within the scope of the enfranchisement provisions the largest single block of mixed-use property in terms of both numbers of buildings and the average number of dwellings per
1016
building. The research indicates that at the 10 per cent. threshold 88 per cent. of flats are likely to be enfranchisable. Increasing the threshold to 15 per cent. might increase the number of flats that would be enfranchisable to 89.5 per cent.
Our consultation exercise has suggested that a 10 per cent. threshold seems the best fit—not only in London, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, but also elsewhere in the country—among all the other conflicting interests.
We are aware that many tenants in mixed-use blocks that will be excluded from enfranchisement by this 10 per cent. threshold have argued for it to be increased. I understand their concerns. It is difficult to predict how non-enfranchisable leases in properties excluded by the 10 per cent. rule will fare in the property market, albeit that they will have the right to lease renewal under Chapter II.
The commercial parts of a block are often much more valuable than the residential parts, sometimes 15 to 20 times more valuable. If the threshold was raised the cost of the freehold reversion could be prohibitive. Tenants would be acquiring interests worth more than their own flats and they would in many cases be unable to afford to buy the freehold. In those circumstances they would not benefit from our proposals because they would not have the right to lease renewal.
We feel that we have the balance about right but there are arguments on both sides for drawing the threshold elsewhere. That is why we have taken reserve powers under subsection (3) of Clause 4 to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different percentage threshold should the need arise.
I turn to Amendment No. 18. I can tell the noble Earl that I have sympathy with what the amendment tries to do although I have some concerns about the way in which it does it. Clause 4 makes it clear that, for the purposes of calculating the area of non-residential parts, any common parts of the building will be disregarded. The proposed amendment would expand this section to make it clear that, for the purposes of calculating the area of commercial use of the building, any garage, parking space, storage area or other parts of the premises held on a long lease in conjunction with the residential parts will be treated as occupied for residential purposes. I accept that this seems sensible.
I would be prepared to consider seeing if we can amend Clause 4 to make it clear that such areas are excluded from the calculation of the areas used for commercial purposes. It may be unnecessary because our definition of appurtenant property in Clause 1(8) means any garage, outhouse, garden yard and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoyed with the flat.
I appreciate that the amendment is intended to change the way in which the internal floor area is calculated so that it does exclude all common parts. I am not sure why the amendment is needed.
The Bill assumes that the floor or floors of a building are taken to extend without interruption throughout the whole building when in fact they may not. That may be the crucial difference between what is in the Bill and what is now proposed. I hope that the

1017
proposed amendment will not make the calculation of the internal floor area of the building more difficult. The proposed amendment shows that the present definition may give rise to confusion, but I remain to be fully convinced.
However, I accept that calculation of the residential and non-residential parts is crucial in deciding whether or not a block is enfranchisable and I am therefore prepared to consider whether the clause needs to be and can be amended to ensure that calculation of the interior floor area does exclude all those areas we intend it should; for example, open-sided parking areas underneath blocks, other parking spaces, garages, storage areas, stairwells and other common parts. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 17 and that the noble Earl will be happy with what I have said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. In central London there are a number of blocks which have quite large garage space underneath which were in use originally by tenants at fairly reasonable rents. However, many property landlords have now increased those rents very dramatically and to such a level that tenants are saying, "It is cheaper for me to go by taxi. I won't have a car".
Therefore, what was residential parking is becoming available. First, it was offered to the tenants; secondly, it is being offered on the open market as commercial garage space. When my noble friend is looking into the matter, will he also look into that aspect? It would be wrong if, because that situation exists, people were ruled out from enfranchising their flats. The garage spaces were never let on long leases. From the statement that my noble friend made about a flat on a long lease, I was not clear whether the garage also had to be on a long lease. The garages were always short-term tenancies: that is how rents have been increased so dramatically recently. I ask my noble friend to assure us that he will take that situation into account.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend makes rather a good point. It shows the difficulty about making an exact statement. It was my understanding that garages were held in conjunction with residential parts. Where that is clearly the case then they will be included as residential parts whether or not the tenants may have decided to treat them in a different way. Where the parking space belongs to the landlord, however, and he has chosen to let it on a commercial basis, that may be another question altogether. However, I have said that I am prepared to consider the amendment further and I shall do so.
Baroness Hamwee: In thanking the Minister for that reply, I believe that the discussion concerning the measurement of the respective spaces shows not only how important is that issue, but also how important is the 10 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or whatever percentage there may be. I have never been under any illusion that the measurement would be simple. I believe that as a professional it is one of the matters
1018
for regret in this Bill that there is so much material that a professional, both legal and surveying, can get his teeth into. I suspect that that may amount to insuperable obstacles in the exercise of the enfranchisement right.
I regret that the Minister gave me no new arguments with regard to the percentage. I think that I anticipated what he had to say when I moved the amendment. He talked of the extensive sampling that has taken place but, as I understand it, that sampling was extensive within the Borough of Westminster, but did not extend beyond Westminster. We heard earlier today that this is an issue not only for London but for the whole country. As I understand it, this issue of measurement applies particularly in many of our south coast towns such as Eastings and Hastbourne—I mean Hastings and Eastbourne, I should not elide the two. There appears to be no evidence to support the Government's case on that.
The Minister also said that Clause 4(3) will be used to alter the threshold "should the need arise". I am not sure what need might arise, but I shall not ask the Minister to come back on that. It is perfectly clear that it is a matter for the Secretary of State to consider whether or not the provisions are working reasonably well. However, there seems to be no objective measurement of that. This is the sort of clause that makes one feel that the drafting of the original does not entirely have the draftsman's confidence.
Above all, this short debate confirms the need to consider further the relationship between enfranchisement and lease extension. I shall consider the arguments and take them into account at a later stage when I may wish to return to this matter, but this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) any garage, parking space, storage area or other part of the premises which is held on long lease for use in conjunction with the residential parts of the premises shall not be regarded as being occupied, or intended to be occupied, otherwise than for residential purposes;

(b) the internal floor areas of a building or of any part of a building shall be the sum of the entire areas taken up by each floor of the building or part, there being disregarded only those areas taken up by any external walls, any party walls dividing the building from any adjoining building and any common parts of the building.").

The noble Earl said: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply and to assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that it was not my intention that the provisions should read as if garages in a compound or in a subterranean car park should be excluded to the detriment of residential occupiers of the building—in fact, quite the converse. I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her support for the amendment. She raised an important point about this—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Either the noble Earl is going to move his amendment and speak to it or he has no locus to speak at all if he is not going to move it.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton: Not moved.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("four") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: This is only a probing amendment because whereas I am certain that the Government's figure of four is too low, I suspect that the figure of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and myself of "10" is possibly somewhat on the high side.
The Government clearly and understandably want to prevent what might be described as full-time, professional landlords from benefiting from the exclusion contained in this subsection. I refer to people who, for example, buy a pair or even a trio of adjacent terraced houses for extensive conversion—possibly a horizontal conversion—and subdivision into a large number of flats. However, there are a very large number of mainly 19th century, single—and I emphasise the word "single"—terraced houses in London which have been properly converted into five or six or even—if the attic roof is raised and dormer windows are installed—into seven or eight flats; and I do mean flats, not bed-sitters. The landlord may well live in one of the flats in what was once his own undivided house with the intention of looking after the fabric and controlling the destiny of the house. As I have said, I would concede that our figure of 10 is possibly on the high side, but is there not room for a possible compromise at six or, better still, eight?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: The trouble with the amendment is that it would of course exclude the much smaller houses. The noble Lord spoke about terraced houses. There are many terraced houses which have been converted into only four or five flats. They would be excluded. The number he proposes is far too high.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 21 which is grouped with Amendment No. 20, although I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, proposes to move it. We on this side oppose Amendment No. 20 because, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it would raise from four to 10 the number of flats which would be exempted if there were a resident landlord. That means that for those leaseholders who have a resident landlord this is effectively a disfranchising amendment. The Consumers' Association research shows that about 6 per cent. of leaseholders have a resident landlord. That is a low number. However two thirds of the properties where there is a resident landlord comprise three flats or fewer.
I recognise that the amendment is a probing one, but if it, or a similar amendment, were to have the Committee's support, then virtually all properties with a resident landlord would be exempt from enfranchisement. Is that reasonable? After all, the
1020
growth in the number of flats, certainly since the 1980s, has come largely from converted houses, because 75 per cent. of all flats are now in converted houses. Where the landlord was a bona fide former owner of the house that was converted, there may be a case for protecting his interest where there are four flats or fewer. I believe that I am right when I say that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, may refer to that point when we come to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. Surely that protection should not apply when we are talking about 10 flats and, therefore, effectively a large commercial development into which, in some cases, the landlord may have bought subsequently and not been the original owner.
For both those reasons we oppose Amendment No. 20, and also Amendment No. 21 which would make it that much harder for leaseholders to enfranchise by raising the minimum threshold.
Lord Coleraine: I shall not speak to Amendment No. 21. I think it was grouped with No. 20 in error. One of the advantages of Amendment No. 20 which raises slightly the number of flats with the resident landlord exemption is that it would give more people the right to lease extensions. There may be some people who would rather have a resident landlord with a lease extension right than have a non-resident landlord with the right only to collective enfranchisement.
Lord Strathclyde: The effect of the amendments would be to extend the resident landlord exemption in Clause 4. Amendment No. 20 would extend that exemption to blocks containing 10 flats or fewer. Amendment No. 21—which I recognise my noble friend does not wish to be grouped, but the argument is the same—extends the resident landlord exemption to blocks containing more than four units, because some of those units may not be flats, but it would restrict the exemption to blocks of four flats or fewer.
We have restricted the resident landlord exemption to small blocks and by that I mean blocks containing only four flats or fewer. We consider it important that collective enfranchisement should not take place in premises where there is a resident landlord, but only where the premises do not contain more than four flats.
Our purpose in limiting the resident landlord exclusion to premises converted into not more than four flats is to limit the exclusions to smaller blocks that may at one time have been the landlord's home. We can see no justification for excluding premises with resident landlords that were purpose built as flats or for excluding premises containing a large number of flats or separate units.
Both the amendments will extend the resident landlord exemption to larger blocks where there are more flats or units. We have limited the exemption to blocks containing not more than four flats and we do not think that the exemption should be extended.
I know that the amendment is a probing one, but I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Monson: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I agree that the exemptions should not apply to purpose-built blocks but must be confined to houses which were once the landlord's home. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who suggested that the Bill be amended so as to restrict the exemption to cases in which the house had at one time been the landlord or landlady's home. That suggestion is not wholly unreasonable. However, a large number of houses in London, but perhaps fewer outside London, have four floors plus a basement and therefore one can have five large flats or a greater number of small flats.
1022
Will the Minister reconsider the matter, studying the situation in the parts of London in which there are a large number of 19th century terraced houses? I emphasise that they are single houses, and not large purpose-built blocks, which can be converted into more than four flats. I am not referring to bedsits, which is another state of affairs altogether. Perhaps the Minister will come back at the next stage with a compromise of six. I do not expect him to give an answer tonight and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("units") and insert ("flats").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment separately because it deals with a slightly different point. Members of the Committee may wonder whether they have read the amendment correctly. Yes, I come bearing gifts—at any rate a small token—to great estates. The intention of the Government, as stated in the department's pamphlet published in March 1992, is that the resident landlord exemption should apply in the case where there is a resident landlord in a conversion containing four or fewer flats. Under Clause 4(3) the situation which qualifies for an exemption is that there should be not more than four units. "Unit" as defined in Clause 34,
"means either a flat or a separate set of premises let, or intended for letting, on a business lease".
Where a house has been converted into four flats and a tobacco kiosk or into three flats and two small commercially let workshops the use of the word "unit" would take away the exemption. The amendment proposes that the word "flats" be used in order to put right what appears to be no more than a drafting error and to confirm the Government's intentions.
I note that in speaking to the previous amendment, by noble friend continually referred to four flats and not to four units. I take it that he will recommend that the Committee accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend because his amendment will extend the resident landlord exemption to larger blocks where there are more flats or units. We have limited the exemption to blocks containing not more than four flats and therefore we do not believe that the exemption should be extended. I cannot add a great deal to the reply which I gave in respect of the previous amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I shall read what the Minister said and see whether he is right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert:
("() This Chapter does not apply to premises forming part of a landholding for the time being designated as a heritage area under Schedule (Heritage Areas) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 44 and 151. The group of amendments is complicated technically but I hope that the thrust of the argument can be easily and briefly explained. The amendment should be seen within the context in which this part of the Bill is being debated.
The whole issue of our national heritage looms large in contemporary debate. The media devotes much space to it and the issue is regularly discussed in another place and in this House. In addition, we have a new Ministry of National Heritage. I wonder what would have been the reaction in all those arenas of serious debate if, say, five years ago, the Church had announced its decision to flog the close in Salisbury, or if Smith's Charity or the Grosvenor Estates were
1024
suddenly to put its entire London estate on the market. Quite simply, such action would have attracted universal condemnation. It would have been regarded as an outrage, the principal cause of that outrage centring on the fact that an extremely important facet of national heritage was being wantonly put at risk.
When five years later the Government seek, with good and honourable intentions, to address problems of injustice and the menace of bad landlords, it seems hardly to be noticed that in heritage terms these very estates are about to be disintegrated through sale. It is as though, for the purposes of this Bill, heritage issues were to be put aside and suspended.
These amendments seek to protect those areas of our historic towns and cities, limited in number and diverse in character, whose distinctive character and environmental quality depends to a great extent on the active involvement of their landlords. It would include, for example, the closes around our great cathedrals as well as some of the great London estates. On such estates the enforcement of covenants can go some way to maintaining the distinctive quality and character of the area and can be accomplished under schemes of management. I accept the value of those schemes of management, especially in the light of the amendments brought forward to strengthen their effectiveness, for which I am grateful to the Government. What I seek is the acceptance of the principle that to an equal or greater degree the landlords contribute to the maintenance and distinctive quality and character through their active management, investment and aesthetic control.
Specifically, I draw your Lordships' attention to five important areas where schemes of management, even when strengthened, are, I believe, found wanting. First, they cannot, for example, cover managing uses in an estate as a whole to ensure that the historic character of the area is not lost through pressure to maximise individual property returns solely within the constraints of planning legislation. I gave your Lordships examples during the Second Reading debate. While most commercial properties are not directly affected by the provisions of the Bill, their management as a small element of a predominantly residential area plainly would be.
Secondly, schemes of management would not be effective in the matter of environmental improvement as opposed to mere maintenance of what exists. An example might be the use of historically correct materials in re-paving a new street. Thirdly, I cannot see how effective the schemes would be in promoting active steps to prevent historic buildings falling into decay. Under the Bill, of course, the landlord's ultimate sanction to forfeit the lease would be lost.
Fourthly, schemes of management cannot be brought to bear, for example, in the matter of the painting of stucco terraces not only the same colour every five years but with the same paint and indeed at the same time. Finally, it is difficult to see how schemes of management would allow the exercise of a patron's aesthetic control over new buildings and alterations rather than mere reasonableness which could just as well be achieved through conservation legislation.
To justify exemption under these amendments, areas would need to be of outstanding importance in the national context: the number is clearly limited. These linked amendments introduce the concept of a heritage area. Landholding could be so designated if it is wholly and substantially contained within a conservation area and at least one-fifth of the area covered by buildings which form part of a landholding comprises listed buildings; if the landlord has undertaken to comply with a code of estate management practice; and if the landholding is of outstanding historic interest and its preservation or enhancement would be secured by management by one landlord and in accordance with the code of estate management practice. Once so designated, the area would be exempt from the enfranchisement provisions of the Bill. A good example of a heritage area which fully meets those criteria would be the Crown Estate stucco terraces around Regent's Park which have already been mentioned in earlier discussions and which Sir George Young indicated in another place will not be enfranchised. As Members of the Committee know, the Crown is entitled to ignore legislation. In fact, the Crown has agreed to the enfranchisement of its properties with certain exceptions. Such an exception is the case of the Regent's Park terraces on heritage grounds.
My amendments would exempt only a handful of estates which are clearly of national importance. The interests of tenants would be adequately protected by the provision for the extension of leases. Therefore, I contend that it would not be contrary to the spirit of the Bill but would clearly be in the public interest. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: I believe that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, says. I know Grosvenor Estates very well. The property is beautifully kept. The houses have to be painted every three years, not every five years, because the lead-free paint does not last as long. It is very important that that should remain.
However, there are provisions in Clause 63 of the Bill for management schemes. I remind the noble Lord also that there has been leasehold enfranchisement on the Grosvenor Estates since 1967 for the cheaper houses, although they are still very expensive. Those houses were priced below a certain ceiling. Those houses are still painted the same colour; there is no difference at all. It is important that that control should continue because with the British liking for individuality, one does not wish to see Eaton Square looking like a knickerbocker glory and painted all the colours of the rainbow. I agree with that; it is extremely important. However, provision is made for that in the Bill.
A more serious point is that if the many areas of London which make up the Grosvenor Estates, which are conservation areas, are excluded, there will not be much left in central London which it will be possible to enfranchise under the Bill. Although I believe that there is great merit in what the noble Lord says, and
1026
one can see the importance of the point which he makes, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, prays in aid Clause 63. It remains to be seen how that would work in practice after enfranchisement. There are all kinds of practical problems as regards how those schemes will work after enfranchisement.
Surely the restrained logic of my noble friend's reasoned presentation of principle is worthy—and I ask the Minister to consider it—of further consideration before Report stage. We must hope that the Minister will consider it further because as I see it, contrary to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sees it, this is yet another of those dimensions of manifest error in justice to which I have already referred in the context of Amendment No. 7, a dimension of error which my noble friend's amendment seeks to rectify.
I have stayed here not to detain the Committee with a speech which could not add anything to what my noble friend has said, but to have the privilege of supporting him on a Division if that should arise.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In speaking to Amendment No. 22, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 44 and 151.
In many ways, we are hesitant and sorry to challenge the amendments. I speak as a former commissioner of English Heritage as well as someone involved through local government in setting up many conservation areas. Therefore, we fully support the principle behind this cluster of amendments; namely, that we need stronger powers than those currently available to protect heritage areas. I am sure that we all share that concern.
However, having talked to many experienced colleagues in the conservation and planning world, on reflection I do not believe that this cluster of amendments is the most appropriate way to go about it. First, it assumes that enfranchisement will damage heritage considerations. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, there is no evidence for that. The 1967 Act enfranchised historic houses in cities like Bath and Norwich and in places like Hampstead and Belgravia. There is no evidence that following the 1967 Act there has been any deterioration in the heritage quality of those properties. I understand that something like 200 estate management agreements have been set up—for example, in places like Hampstead, Dulwich and Belgravia—which have been successful. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that leasehold as a tenure does not exist in Scotland. It does not exist in Paris or Rome, and yet they are cities of great historic quality and are properly and fully protected. I argue that if a leaseholder has a lease of diminishing value—which will certainly be the case 50 or so years on in a 99-year lease—that leaseholder is more likely to neglect the basic repairs essential to maintain historic houses. The inescapable fact of leasehold is that it relates to a diminishing asset. As it diminishes in value why should one be prepared to invest? Unless historic property is kept in sound repair—and leaseholders

1027
will have less and less inclination so to do—it will quickly become ripe for redevelopment rather than protection.
The next point I make in opposition to the amendment, although I entirely sympathise with the principle behind it, is that I do not believe it is right to deny many hundreds —perhaps many thousands—of leaseholders the right to enfranchise simply because they live in historic property with no evidence that they cannot properly maintain it. There is considerable evidence that in the 1960s many of the great estates were held together—needless to say, I exempt the great landlords perhaps presently in this Chamber—not for heritage considerations but in order to maximise redevelopment opportunities when the time was ripe.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, in moving the amendment, and by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, we all accept that, where we are talking about terraces of houses or flats in places like Belgravia, the heritage needs to be protected. One needs to protect against the neglect of stucco, which is a fragile material. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said, one needs to protect against cassata icecream painting of frontages. Perhaps one needs to check vibrant awnings set to mark or demarcate the three sets of bays of a flat. One needs to check against idiosyncratic coloured railings and doors, to say nothing of UPVC windows and the like. The thrust of our hesitation is that we believe that the right way to do that is through estate management agreements which can control development and the use and appearance of property, empower landlords to carry out work or repairs and impose obligations in respect of properties used in common. It may be argued that former landlords who are now no longer the freeholders of historic estates will have little financial incentive to ensure that such estate management agreements stick. Is that true? I cannot believe that civic-conscious landlords, particularly those who have cherished their properties for several hundred years, will walk away, particularly as it will cost such landlords nothing to maintain estate management agreements since the cost will be recharged to the former leaseholders.
Equally, I understand that in the case of many estates—for example, I believe this to be the case as far as the Grosvenor Estates are concerned—there is such a heavy admixture of commercial properties in such areas that undoubtedly they will see fit to ensure that estate management agreements are made to work. I understand that the sister of a senior Cabinet Minister, who acquired the freehold of a house in Belgravia under the 1967 Act, wanted to cut down a tree. She had to go not only through the estate by virtue of the estate management agreement but also through the planning authority, and quite rightly so.
Finally, we shall ourselves be moving amendments, for which we very much hope that we shall have the support of noble Lords opposite, including the Government, and certainly the support of English Heritage in principle. We shall move amendments to strengthen Clauses 64 and 65, which define estate
1028
management agreements. Draft clauses are including on the Marshalled List in Amendments Nos. 163 and 164, which may need to be refined before we discuss them, perhaps next Monday. In those amendments we propose that there should be an estate management agreement where so far none exists. Alternatively, where there is an estate management agreement which is not being properly enforced we shall move amendments to ensure that leaseholders can enforce it against the former landlord, local authorities can enforce it against the leaseholder and English Heritage can enforce it as a last default power on appeal to the leasehold valuation tribunal.
It may also be the case, as was trailed in the debate in the other place, that we need a wider debate about the adequacy of conservation powers for local authorities, particularly over the control of permitted development areas.
We on this side of the House firmly believe that there need be no conflict between protecting the heritage on one side, which we all, certainly on these Benches, want to do and respecting the rights of individual leaseholders to enfranchise on the other. We believe that there need be no conflict provided that estate management agreements are properly applied and observed, with default powers for local authorities and English Heritage to ensure that they stick. If we go that route I hope that we can meet all the anxieties.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the amendment but, since the question of management schemes has been raised, perhaps it is proper that I should do so as a professional observer of how people react in the real world of property.
I should like to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and question how Clause 63 will work in practice. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, had to say, but I am not convinced that that is how people react.
Through the Bill we are replacing a blanket proprietorial interest with a dispersed series of individual interests in different parts of what was once a large estate. The process may be fast or it may be slow, but there will eventually come a point when the freeholder's interest is so dispersed that the concept of carrying out environmental improvements, or even environmental maintenance such as the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, mentioned in connection with the investment being made by Henry Smith's Charity, ceases to be of any relevance to the freeholder who has seen his proprietorial interest gradually eroded. There will come a time when he will walk away from that situation.
I am convinced that that is what has happened. I am reinforced in my view by seeing how the marketplace has reacted to property legislation over the past 20 or 30 years and the effect that that has had. Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, from my own observations I cannot come to the same conclusions as the noble Baroness, although no doubt she has very good reasons for reaching that conclusion.
A real problem is in prospect. People are driven by very simple motives. Management and the continuity

1029
of that management either protects a proprietorial interest or it makes money. I do not see that the recovery of cost as an item in a management scheme would be of any interest to any of the people involved in large-scale heritage properties or in large-scale urban or rural estates which would be affected by the Bill. I do not believe that those people have such an interest in management; they are not management organisations. I am convinced that others will fill that void. I believe that there is a potential problem. I do not know whether that supports, or otherwise, the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord. However, I relate closely to the problem that he identifies. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, also made the point that something does not fit. The Minister would do well to have a further look at the issue.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to follow the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was a member of the Greater London Council's Historic Buildings Committee. We found that there was great difficulty in doing anything about the arches in London because no one owned them. For example, many of the mews in South Kensington have an archway at the entrance. Many other parts of central London have attractive archways. In our experience no one maintained them because no one accepted that they owned them or had any obligation for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are both right. The noble Baroness is right in saying that so long as there is a commercial interest people will continue to maintain the property. The noble Earl is right in saying that when that commercial interest ceases, whether because the last of the freeholds is sold off or for another reason, no one will continue such maintenance. I understand that in law positive covenants are very unsatisfactory in terms of enforcement whereas negative covenants work very well.
In Trevor Square, Knightsbridge, all the freeholds have been sold off. When they were under one management and were leasehold properties they were maintained, but no better than at present. The local residents have taken over as freeholders. The square is well maintained. Therefore, the system can work but it is important to ensure that there is such provision in the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: There seem to be many good intentions, but I am not sure how they will be realised. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. Perhaps the Government would like to break the ice on this occasion and move in the direction of the helpful suggestion made by one of the people behind the Minister which is in no way ruinous to the Bill. If the Minister does not do that, it will be very odd. In the inheritance legislation enacted in 1984 the Government seemed to recognise that there was a problem. They dealt with the problem in a reasonably effective manner. Because they are now so anxious to sustain the chastity of this measure, if that is the right term, they are resisting all change.
1030
I am anxious to help the Government. I urge them to avoid the shameful process of backtracking on their own past wisdom and pursuing the path of insisting on every detail in the Bill without exception.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, faced the problem clearly. However, when he found that to provide such a measure would involve a substantial number of exceptions, he said, "No, we cannot do that. We must have the Bill". Therefore, his good intentions came to nothing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said very attractively and beguilingly that she was in favour of the issue in principle. However, she then suggested that we had better put our faith in estate management schemes. I read the later part of the Bill. I am bound to say that I wish I could share the noble Baroness's apparent faith in those estate management schemes. I do not know who will have any interest in sustaining them. There will be a great deal of hassle, worry and trouble about them. However, the Bill proposes to give the landlord residuary powers. I am asking why we should accept such provisions. Not only will the landlord have power but great responsibility, considerable costs, and absolutely no interest in performing the duty which will be put upon him. That seems to me very unwise indeed.
We shall come to discuss that feature in more detail when we reach the relevant clause. Meanwhile, I hope that my noble friend will at least give himself and us a change and say that he will take away my noble friend's amendments and give them serious and friendly consideration. I should be upset to hear him say that he will not meet them at all and will put them in the same waste paper basket as the rest of the amendments.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I am always distressed to have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Peyton because he is always so witty and beguiling in the manner in which he deploys his arguments. Also, my noble friend Lord Cavendish is quite right to be preoccupied with the heritage. Many of us are, and he produces a good argument for it. But there are a great number of measures already in place concerning the heritage as well as a great number of organisations: English Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission, local government restrictions and planning regulations. All those are at present concerned with preserving the heritage in one way or another. If the heritage is not being maintained adequately by the enormous plethora of existing regulations, then there is cause for something to be done about it. However, this is not the right place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, put the point properly. She said that of course we are concerned with the heritage but it should not be at the expense of a clause like this and thus disqualifying vast numbers of people from the purpose of the Bill. That is not what this should be about.
The proposers of the amendments may be on the right track in their intentions, but they have put them in the wrong place. They should be dealing with the matter possibly not in this Bill at all but in another one and certainly not at this stage and in this manner. I

1031
hope that the Government will not listen to my noble friend Lord Peyton, as they were encouraged to, and will remain on the same lines as before.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: In supporting the amendment, I wish to underline one simple point. The Crown estate commissioners have apparently said that they intend to follow the obligations which are imposed upon other landlords under the Bill. They are in the happy position of being able to exercise their own judgment as to how far they go in doing so. But they have apparently said that they feel it is necessary to exercise their judgment in favour of excluding themselves from the Regent's Park terraces. If they perceive it to be a major problem, then surely it is one and the Government should recognise it as such. That is what my noble friend is trying to do with his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Many of us share the intention behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. We are very much concerned that the integrity of conservation areas should be preserved. It is the case, however, that conservation areas cover large tracts of varied townscapes. It may well be that the procedure of management schemes would meet the issue. English Heritage itself has been a pioneer in proposing management agreements for scheduled monuments. Although of course the circumstances of ownership are different, it may be that the same kind of approach could be applied to the heritage component of urban townscapes, where we are concerned with the heritage element.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give us encouragement along the lines indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as to how estate management schemes might be made effective in such a case. We very much share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, that if the urban areas pass out of single ownership, integrity may be lost. But it may well be that they can properly pass out of single ownership or single freehold control, if estate management schemes can be made to work. That seems the crux of it, and I for one am doubtful about the outcome at this stage.
The Earl of Lindsay: I support my noble friend Lord Cavendish in this amendment. As with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, my doubts about the adequacies of the Bill for properly conserving some of our heritage areas are based on practical experience. I know those who support the Bill more firmly say that there are estate management schemes set up in Clauses 63 and 64. If they fail, we might also have the freehold management schemes. Behind those are the planning authorities; English Heritage; and legislation on listed buildings and conservation areas. Despite the organisations, if one looks around today in almost any area with some kind of heritage, there are flaws and problems in properly implementing the safety net.
Section 19 provisions from the 1967 Act, which have been mentioned as a great plus point for the possible estate management schemes of this Act, are not wholly good news. There have been some
1032
successes. There have been plenty of failures. I would caution people against quoting Dulwich too often. In Dulwich they are facing increasingly serious problems, and there is a danger that the Dulwich management scheme is about to disintegrate.
I look forward to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on Clause 64. Any strengthening of Clauses 63 and 64 will be very welcome. She mentioned Paris, Bath, Edinburgh and various other cities. I have extensive knowledge of Edinburgh, having lived there. There is a huge difference between the stone-built heritage of Edinburgh and Bath and the painted stucco heritage of London. In Paris there is a huge difference between the architecture and the planning codes on one hand, and the pattern of rental leasing and owner-occupied property. I have a general concern on the subject and therefore I intend to support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful for the opportunity of participating in the debate. I say at the outset to my noble friend Lord Peyton that I always try to deal with my noble friend's amendments in a friendly manner. I hope that when we disagree he understands it is because the force of argument lies with the Government rather than with opponents of the Government.
On the matter of dealing with heritage areas and estate management, I hope that I can demonstrate why these amendments are not necessary but why I believe that I have a crumb of comfort for my noble friends who would like to see us moving in that direction.
All these amendments are intended to exempt certain historic buildings and heritage properties from the leasehold enfranchisement, lease renewal and lease extension provisions in both this Bill and the Leasehold Reform Act. They do this by enabling the Secretary of State for National Heritage to designate heritage areas within which buildings will be excluded from these provisions.
Amendments Nos. 22, 33 and 44 are intended to exempt historic buildings and estates from the leasehold enfranchisement provisions in Chapter I by reference to heritage areas.
Amendment No. 44 introduces a new schedule which would make provision for the designation of heritage areas by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. The other amendments, Amendments Nos. 22 and 34, would disapply the rights of enfranchisement to properties which form part of a landholding designated as a heritage area, disqualifying long leaseholders of such properties from being qualifying tenants.
Amendment No. 151 would amend Clause 59 in the Bill. That clause will amend the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by removing the rateable value limits in that Act and extending leasehold enfranchisement to higher value houses.
Amendment No. 151 would also exclude from the provisions of the 1967 Act those houses brought within the scope of the Act by Clause 59 that are in landholdings designated as heritage areas or are properties transferred for public benefit under the provisions that would have been introduced by

1033
Amendment No. 26. Noble Lords are no doubt looking forward to an interesting and lively debate when we consider that amendment.
The amendments would exempt historic buildings or estates in their own right by reference to what are referred to as "Heritage Areas". They would require the Secretary of State for National Heritage to designate landholdings on application, presumably by the freeholder, subject to certain conditions. They would be designated where a substantial part of the landholding falls within a conservation area, at least one-fifth of the area comprises listed buildings and the landlord has undertaken to comply with a code of estate management practice, which will also be required under the amendment.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage would need to be satisfied that the landholding is of outstanding architectural interest and that its continued existence with one landlord, in accordance with a code of estate management practice, will make a material contribution to the preservation or enhancement of its character or appearance. I cannot help feeling that the amendments are designed to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State more powers with respect to heritage or historic estates because of an inadequacy with the existing laws for listed building and conservation areas which are there to protect historic buildings and areas. If there are problems in that regard then they should be addressed in respect of that legislation.
The amendments are not as wide as those previously tabled in another place, but the suggestion is still that those areas can only be effectively managed and will only retain their architectural and historical merit if the existing leasehold arrangements are left unchanged. Therefore, the amendments still cut right across our desire to keep exemption from leasehold enfranchisement to an absolute minimum and our desire to keep such exemptions on the face of the Bill. The proposed amendments would give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the power to exempt any properties he sees fit. The issue again is whether it is necessary that estates should continue in single ownership if they are to be managed effectively and leaseholders be denied the right to enfranchise.
I cannot accept, and do not believe, that the case has been made that, as a general proposition, landlords are necessarily better at management or more likely to care for and preserve an historic building than the leaseholder who lives in it. My noble friend Lord Lindsay mentioned the estate of Dulwich. The friends that I know who live on that estate are quite happy with the arrangements and believe that it exists for their benefit.
It has been argued that the leasehold system itself acts against the proper care and maintenance of property: if a leaseholder of a house knows that he has only a short-term and diminishing interest he has less incentive to plan for the long-term care of the property. Our proposals for estate management schemes should answer that problem and I have no doubt that we will discuss those in some detail when we reach Part IV of the Bill. Estate management
1034
schemes will allow the freeholder to continue to exercise some influence over the use, maintenance and redevelopment of a property even though the leaseholder has enfranchised, and I have said that there is no reason why freeholders of historic estates should not apply. They would allow the freeholder to retain control even though the leaseholder has enfranchised. The terms of an estate management scheme can deal with the appearance of a property and can empower the landlord to carry out work to maintain or repair it and can impose obligations relating to use and public access that are already contained in the leases.
I have already mentioned, and perhaps should remind the Committee, that amendments will be tabled to enable local authorities and English Heritage to promote estate management schemes where the landlord or representatives of the tenants have failed to do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the Minister will kindly give way. Will the Government also be tabling amendments for default powers where there is an estate management agreement in place that is not being enforced?
Lord Strathclyde: I am quite prepared to consider that point between now and when we reach that part of the Bill.
I believe that long leaseholders are fully capable of caring for the buildings in which they live. Where owners of historic buildings have let property on long leases they have, to all intents and purposes, transferred ownership of that property. The leaseholders will usually have the greater financial interest in that property. I also believe that the system of estate management schemes will provide more than adequate safeguards where in the general interest there needs to be coherent management of an area as a whole.
I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will understand why I cannot accept the main thrust of his amendments. I do, however, have some general concerns about heritage and we are dealing with those through estate management schemes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was not clear or, frankly, satisfactory. I ask categorically—because it will affect the way I would vote on a Division—whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to assure the Committee by giving an undertaking that the Government will introduce effective and proper powers of enforcement. That was the question asked by the noble Baroness. She received no answer.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that my noble friend should be talking in terms of having a Division when I have given a very full answer and offered certain aspects known as estate management schemes that we can discuss in far greater detail when we reach that part of the Bill. I said that I would consider the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I cannot be more categoric than that. My noble friend will, I know, be sympathetic to that but I hope that that will not affect the way in which he will vote.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend say to which part of the Bill he was referring when he said that he will consider it when we reach that part?
Lord Strathclyde: All the estate management amendments will come up when we reach Chapter IV of this part of the Bill. Clauses 63 and 64 deal in great detail with estate management schemes.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. In concrete terms, the crumb of comfort that was promised was so small as to be almost invisible but I felt that the tone was positive. There seems to be concern on all sides of the Committee that we must get this matter right. I certainly share the reservations of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the enforceability of estate management agreements. A determination exists in the Committee to get this right. In the light of the suggestion from my noble friend the Minister that he will bring forward amendments and in the light of Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which I have not had time to study, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert:
("(3A) Where premises are built as part of a larger scheme of development the right to collective enfranchisement shall not be exercisable in respect of those premises until the whole development has been completed or until three years have elapsed since the premises were completed, whichever is the sooner.").
The noble Earl said: This again is a probing amendment. I hope that it will receive the response that I was able to get from the Minister on the previous amendment I moved for which I was most grateful. The amendment relates to flats developments which are under construction.
The problem which may arise is that the Bill would allow enfranchisement to occur as soon as two-thirds of the relevant part of the property or perhaps two-thirds of the first phase was occupied. In the context of an on-going development, where roads, infrastructure and matters of that kind are still unfolding, I can see that this would cause tremendous problems with the developer where he has to come back to provide for common services, for the completion of roads, drainage and so on. I do not think it would be helpful if residents of one part, as it came on stream, could make a pre-emptive strike in that situation. The amendment seeks to avoid that situation arising. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to tell me that it is not necessary but I do not see anything in the Bill at the moment that would prevent it happening. In consistency with my aim to try to make sure that when the Bill becomes law it will operate smoothly and satisfactorily in practice, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall be very brief. We see circumstances in which this amendment might be sensible, but our reservations are that where there is a major development involving many blocks the
1036
amendment would, as regards the early blocks, hold up the tenants' rights to seek enfranchisement for three years, and for no good reason; and where those blocks could function independently. We believe that the right answer is commonhold and we await that Bill. On balance we do not support this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I also believe that it would be better to sell the following blocks on a different basis. I hope that that will apply. Therefore, it would be only the existing blocks that I hope would be enfranchised. The amendment may not be necessary for that reason.
Lord Strathclyde: In these provisions our concern is to ensure that leaseholders can take control of their own property. That is why we have provided that enfranchisement can relate to the smallest viable unit. It will ensure that the leaseholders can only control the property in which they have an immediate financial stake and will make management simpler. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to sterilise the right to enfranchise just because the block is part of a large development.
I do understand the concern of the noble Earl that it may make it more difficult for a developer who wishes to provide common services to the development, and that the first block to enfranchise might claim the freehold to the common parts. The developer will, however, be aware of the right to enfranchise and will need to take this into account when the development is phased. It may well be in the interests of both the developer and the tenants if their intention to enfranchise is known before the development is finished, as this may make a difference to the provision of communal services.
If the tenants do wish to purchase the freehold of common parts, and that would disrupt the development, then the freeholder can offer permanent rights over those parts in lieu of the freehold. This provision will ensure that other blocks can benefit from the common parts.
This Bill intends to give tenants increased rights for ownership and control. I do not consider it right to block those rights while a developer builds adjoining property in which the tenants may have no interest. There is provision in the Bill to ensure that the common parts can be retained for the benefit of other leaseholders so the amendment is unnecessary to protect them. I hope that gives the noble Earl some comfort.
The Earl of Lytton: It is certainly not my intention to press this amendment. In the light of what the noble Lord said I shall certainly consider the situation more carefully. I feel that he may be right in a number of respects, but there may also be circumstances where things could go badly wrong. I should have preferred to see something which prevented matters going badly wrong. On the basis of what the Minister said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this amendment I am glad to see that I am supported by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to vary by order, upwards or downwards, the percentage of internal floor area occupied for non-residential purposes which, if exceeded, prevents qualifying tenants from having the right to collective enfranchisement. Similarly, it would remove the power of the Secretary of State to vary by order, upwards or downwards, the number of flats in the building of the resident landlord above which the resident landlord exemption does not apply. Furthermore, the amendment would exclude the right of the Secretary of State, under Clause 89, to make different provisions in both of those cases for different areas.
Any order made under the subsection could alter the rights of either tenants or freeholders. It would operate with icy even-handedness to move the goal posts against the flat owners or the freeholders. One moment flat owners in the block would have the right to lease extensions; the next moment, after an order, they would find that they were coerced into collective enfranchisement.
A few amendments ago I was listening to my noble friend replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who wanted to increase the commercial percentage from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. My noble friend said that in future 15 per cent. (or some other figure) might be found to be the right percentage. He said very happily that that could be dealt with by order under this subsection.
Perhaps I may envisage the case of a purchaser buying, say, a 30-year lease in a block with a large shopping parade at its feet. The first thing that the purchaser would want to know is the percentage of commercial use. Let us assume for a moment that he is advised, after expensive surveys, that it is 12 per cent. The purchaser might well go ahead and complete the purchase of the 30-year lease. He would move in and, if my noble friend's amendment to a later part of the Bill is accepted, he would have to wait for three years before his right to a lease extension arose. I envisage that that gentleman or lady might be very sorry indeed to discover after a couple of years that, by a mere order of the Secretary of State, the percentage figure was raised from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. so that he no longer had the option of a lease extension. If he wanted to improve his position, he would have no option but to join his fellow lessees in what would amount to a fairly extensive and complicated financial operation of buying out the shops. That is not the sort of operation that every leaseholder wishes to get involved in.
This is not a power that should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. Parliament alone - and by primary legislation - should decide whether and to what extent the rights of expropriation contained in the Bill should be exercised. I advise my noble friend that I envisage the need for further primary legislation on this matter of lease enfranchisement within the few years that may pass before the Bill is seen in operation.
1038
Once the legislation has been in place for a little while the Government will have the opportunity to change the goal posts by primary legislation if that is what they feel inclined to do. On this occasion, I do not think that one should be prepared to accept the Government's excuse that it will be difficult to find time for primary legislation to do something that could be done by order. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Before we proceed any further in discussing the amendment, perhaps my noble friend the Minister would care to tell the Committee why he thinks that it is necessary to give the Secretary of State what I think Ministers tend to call "flexibility", which means that they can do anything they like, whenever they like. Before we debate further whether it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have those powers, can my noble friend tell us why he feels that it is necessary to put them in the Bill at all?
Lord Renton: This is a Henry VIII clause of a particularly damaging kind. It would enable fundamental provisions of this part of the Bill to he changed by ministerial order, presumably checked only by the negative resolution of Parliament. And they are indeed fundamental provisions. One has only to refer back to earlier parts of the clause to realise that. It is important that we should know whether it is to be 10 per cent. of the floor area, a greater or a lesser part, that is to govern the criteria.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that this is the first amendment we have considered today with which Members on both sides of the Committee have been in agreement whereas formerly they were in disagreement.
Lord Monson: From these Benches I, too, oppose the excessive powers granted to the Secretary of State by the subsection, as it stands. I wish only that the hour were earlier so that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale could be here to give this Henry VIII subsection the pasting that it deserves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I might add my voice to what has been said. This is the first time that I have seen such a blatant Henry VIII clause. I do not know what we were debating when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the early part of the clause. I do not know why we were debating that at all, because the Secretary of State has powers to move the figure from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 90 per cent. on any day of the week, at any time, when he gets out of his bath. So I do not understand why we were having that debate.
If the clause said merely that the Secretary of State can do what he likes—fix the percentage; and decide what is the internal floor area—well, if that is what the Government want, let them try to do it. It is one of the most absurd clauses I have ever seen in a Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble friend replies, I put down a similar amendment without prior consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or

1039
my noble friend Lord Coleraine. I was suprised to find myself in their company. However, I am fortified by the reflection that I cannot again be wrong and that my noble friend, who has had such a happy day relying upon the support of the opposite Benches, might find himself constrained to look at the amendment with some sympathy, inspired by a little apprehension that he might be obliged to move in its direction.
There was a time, I am sure—I cannot exactly remember it, because it must be buried in the mists of history—when I had great regard for the wisdom of Secretaries of State. There was a time, but I cannot put a date on it, it was so long ago. Now, in the light of experience, my confidence in the wisdom and judgment of Secretaries of State is on the whole restrained and comes to the surface only in the very best of weather, and certainly not at this time of night. I ask my noble friend to understand that when governments come solemnly to Parliament and say, "This is what we recommend", and Parliament, in its quiet docile way, urged on by the Whips and everything else, says, "All right, we accept this", it is going too far when the same people say, "Of course, as soon as you lot are finished with it, we want to be free to change our mind and your decision". That is not the way to treat Parliament. It is interesting to note the way that that argument has been rehearsed again and again, and Ministers take not the slightest bit of notice. I am sure that the conversation my noble friends on the Front Bench are having is interesting, but I hope that they are deciding that this matter is too important to settle tonight and that they would like to put it off until the morning by which time they will have had second thoughts, with, I hope, some flowering of wisdom in the interval.
I do not want to detain the Committee for any length of time. I merely ask my noble friend whether there is any possibility that Ministers will at some time realise that this kind of clause is unwelcome to Parliament and that Members on both sides of the Committee have tonight once again expressed their distaste for such stuff. If my noble friend could communuicate that distaste to his colleagues, that would be helpful.
Lord Strathclyde: I have been beaten over the head by my noble friend Lord Peyton and I can see that on this issue everyone is against me. I do not think that there is any point in continuing the debate much longer and I am happy to look at the matter properly between now and Report. I know that at present the power is negative and I can understand why that is acceptable. Perhaps we should do away with the power altogether or perhaps have an affirmative power. I shall take the amendment away, consider it and discuss it with one or two of my noble friends. We can decide what to do about it on Report but I do not think it is worth discussing the matter for much longer in Committee.
Lord Coleraine: I am glad to leave the matter in the hands of my noble friend. I do not normally stand up here and talk about government by regulation; it is
1040
not a subject which I normally get excited about. However, I find this a most objectionable use of the power. When I am interested in a subject I see no basic difference between the negative and affirmative procedures. We want this clause out of the Bill altogether and I hope that my noble friend will think carefully about those words. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No 25:
After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause:
"Exclusion for housing associations.
. This Chapter does not apply to premises where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and the flats in the premises—

(i) are particularly suitable, having regard to their location, site, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age;

(ii) are occupied by persons of pensionable age or physically disabled persons; and

(iii) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling him.").

The noble Baroness said: The proposed new clause seeks to exclude from leasehold enfranchisement leasehold schemes for elderly people where the freeholder is a resident of a registered housing association. I suggest that the specialised nature of the services provided, as described in the new clause, makes that type of housing worthy of different treatment.
As the Bill stands, leaseholders of housing associations' sheltered housing schemes are able to exercise enfranchisement. The new clause is designed to seek to exclude the sheltered housing schemes. It would affect only schemes where the housing association had not received housing association grant, known as HAG. HAG-funded schemes require the association to retain 20 per cent. of the equity. Under Clause 16 enfranchisement would not apply in that situation. Many housing associations have undertaken sheltered housing schemes without using housing association grant. The clause would affect those schemes.
I do not propose the new clause lightly. I understand that there may be an argument against it and that it discriminates against a particular group of people; namely, the leaseholders in such schemes. However, perhaps the overwhelming argument is that, faced with the needs of an ageing population, the leasehold enfranchisement should not apply to take out over time the warden services and other special provisions. Ultimately the properties might be sold to people who are not elderly and the supply of sheltered accommodation might be reduced at a time when the need for it is increasing.
The wording of the proposed new clause has drawn heavily on the Housing Act 1985, which excluded sheltered housing from the right-to-buy provisions. In anticipation of the argument which might be made that restrictive covenants could do the job as well as this amendment, perhaps I may say that covenants are open to being changed between the new freeholder

1041
and the leaseholder once the freehold has passed to the new freeholder. Therefore, I would not accept that such covenants would be sufficient.
I am aware of the irony of endeavouring to preclude by the new clause an agreement freely entered into. That is a discussion which we have had several times. However, I believe the weight of public interest would be in favour of this proposed new clause. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am very happy to support this amendment. The main underlying purposes of Part I of this Bill, as I understand it, are twofold: first, to prevent a minority—and it is a minority—of bad landlords making life a misery for lessees; and, secondly, to prevent difficulties cropping up for lessees during the last 30 years or so of their lease. Neither problem occurs in this case, of course, because the landlords, almost by definition, are good landlords, and since the schemes in question are relatively novel in nearly every case there will still be 60, 70 or 80 years of the lease to run.
Those who benefit from enfranchisement will therefore not be the lessees themselves but more probably their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, nephews or nieces who will want to enfranchise and then sell the property at a profit. There is nothing wrong in wanting to benefit your children, nephews or nieces, but not at the expense of the potential beneficiaries of these very highly targeted schemes which have done so much good to so many people.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The Bill, on the whole, is a very grey Bill, which is why I did not inflict myself on your Lordships earlier on today. However, there are areas where the grey shades over to white, and that is where it manages to make certain that owners of leaseholds who are bad landlords are put in a position where they have to sell; and that is worthwhile. At the other end of the spectrum, there are areas where it shades over into dark grey, and even black. I thought the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, was in the dark grey area but I supported it because of that: I thought it was worthwhile. If that was worth the support of a number of your Lordships—and a large number did support it—this one surely is much more so. This is an area where we ought to preserve the work and the rights of the people who are providing good housing for elderly and disabled people.
Lord Renton: Although the three noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have their names on this amendment are not supporters of the Government, I feel pretty confident that there are a number of supporters of the Government who would agree with me that it would be unrealistic and unthinkable for housing associations which exist to provide accommodation for people of pensionable age or physically disabled people, and which have a resident or a non-resident warden, should be subject to the provisions of this Bill. It is just not the sort of scene for leasehold enfranchisement. I would therefore very
1042
much hope that my noble friend would feel that this is another point that he could take away and consider between now and the Report stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As one of the signatories to this amendment, and indeed an opponent of the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, points out, I entirely support what the noble Lord says. It does not seem to me that this amendment would prejudice in any way the Bill as it stands if it were accepted, and it does not prejudice the interests of those who are in sheltered accommodation or who might need such accommodation in the future. Clearly, if sheltered accommodation is exempt from the provisions of the Bill and the new clause is accepted, elderly leaseholders would automatically receive the right, under Chapter II of the Bill, to renew their leases in line with leaseholders in other bonded schemes. In fact, it is that right rather than enfranchisement which is of greater interest to those living in sheltered accommodation.
The amendment may be defective in its terms, but I believe that the Minister would be wise to look very carefully at the matter and to accept the principle of it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly said, this is not a matter which we should allow to go through the Committee unamended.
Lord Hylton: I played a small part, in company with other Members of the Committee, in exempting this kind of accommodation from the right-to-buy provisions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly said, at a time when we are facing a dramatic increase in the elderly population and an extremely sharp increase in the number of frail elderly people, this is a timely amendment and I am glad to support it.
Lord Monk Bretton: I have given my noble friend on the Front Bench no trouble so far this evening. However, I should like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I am president of a charitable housing association which is called the Sussex Housing Association for the Aged. That is a registered housing association. It was also registered under the Charities Act 1960 but is now classified as an exempt charity. That association has entered into various schemes ranging from sheltered accommodation to extra care homes.
It established a satellite company called SHAA Retirement Homes Limited which, although controlled by SHAA, does not have registered status. That provided sheltered housing by persuading commercial interests to build it and then taking over the freehold interest when it had been sold off on 99 year leases. That has been done extensively by both charitable and non-charitable housing associations.
There is a problem because those associations are caught by the Bill as it stands. The amendment would get them off the hook. I am not clear why enfranchisement of sheltered housing accommodation is a desirable objective for anybody and it may never happen. Should we do so in order that our heirs could live in that accommodation? I should have thought

1043
probably not because as we grow older, we shall allow our heirs to live in our former houses while we live in the sheltered accommodation.
At present, SHAA has been thinking of dissolving that satellite company which does not have charitable status, and bringing the properties back under its own charitable umbrella. I understand that that will not work because while the Bill excludes from enfranchisement the charitable housing trust—for example, the Peabody Trust, and there are not many of them—it does not exclude charitable housing associations. I do not fully understand the need for that differentiation. I wonder whether or not it is an oversight.
I am not sure whether we are also speaking to Amendment No. 33 which is grouped with Amendment No. 25. It is possible —I am not sure —that Amendment No. 33 might also produce a solution to the problem to which I refer, even were it not so widely drafted as it is at the moment and was restricted further so that it applied to charitable housing associations but not to housing associations. I hope very much that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to offer some help in this rather complicated matter.
Lord Strathclyde: This new clause would exclude from enfranchisement premises where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association and the flats are designed for and occupied by persons of pensionable age or disabled persons with the services of a warden. I believe that it creates an unnecessary and unfair restriction. It is unclear as the clause is drafted of which lease the registered housing association must be the immediate landlord, but I understand the principle that is put forward.
The effect of the new clause would be to make a lot of blocks unenfranchisable. Chapter II would still operate to give the right to obtain new leases to the long leaseholders in the blocks but that would be poor compensation for the disenfranchised lessees who would be unable to take control of the management of their blocks. If the intention is that Chapter I should not apply to housing association blocks containing any sheltered housing the situation could arise that a large block contained only a few such flats but the right of enfranchisement would be denied to the whole block. In any case, it is unfair to deny long leaseholders the collective right to buy the freehold simply because they live in housing association-owned sheltered housing. Why should such people be prevented from taking control of the development—which they effectively own—and overcoming the diminishing value of their leases?
The drafting of the new clause follows broadly paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. That provision excludes sheltered housing for elderly people from the right to buy. However, that is not a relevant precedent since the purpose of the paragraph in the Housing Act 1985 is to ensure that sheltered flats or bungalows remain available for reletting on secure tenancies in due course rather than sold to the tenants. That is a valid restriction on the right to buy. The same restriction is inappropriate for the right to enfranchise as the enfranchising tenants are already
1044
long leaseholders of their flats. The purchase of the freehold would simply mean that there was a new landlord. The freeholder-leaseholder structure would remain.
I can understand the concern that after enfranchisement the new freeholders might sell the properties to other people who were not elderly or disabled and the flats would move out of the sheltered housing market. That would be unlikely to happen because any restrictive covenants in the lease, which might specify for example that the flat was only to be let to the elderly, would remain. Such covenants could not be changed unless both parties to the lease agreed. If the freeholder and leaseholder happened to be the same person there would be the democratic right to alter the lease if that person so wished. There may be residents of sheltered housing who choose not to participate in enfranchisement. The terms of their leases will remain unchanged so that any services, such as a resident warden, will be maintained. The terms of tenancies held by non-qualifying tenants will also be unaffected, and it may be that a non-qualifying tenant will not even have a change of landlord since a lease superior to the interest of a non-qualifying tenant is not liable to acquisition. If the tenant on a short tenancy rents direct from the freeholder the freeholder will have the option to take a leaseback of the flat if he so wishes.
Amendment No. 33, which is grouped with Amendment, No. 25, would prevent any tenant whose immediate landlord is a registered housing association from being a qualifying tenant in respect of either collecive enfranchisement or lease renewal. Again, that creates an unfair and unnecessary restriction. It is our intention that leasehold enfranchisement should apply to as many long leaseholders as possible and that there should be few exemptions.
The definition of a charitable housing trust has been drawn quite tightly. It is a housing trust as defined in Section 6 of the Housing Act 1985 and a charity within the meaning of the Charities Act 1960. Only where the tenant's immediate landlord is both a housing trust and a charity will the exemption apply, and it will do so on a flat-by-flat basis only. A housing trust is a corporation or body which uses its funds for the provision of housing accommodation. Some housing association flats may well fall under the definition of those which are exempt from enfranchisement.
The amendment proposed would, however, exclude from enfranchisement and lease renewal the tenants of all housing association flats. Why should long leaseholders be denied the collective right to buy the freehold simply because their immediate landlord is a housing association? It would be unfair to prevent such tenants from taking control. Where a housing association has let a flat on a long lease we consider that it has already disposed of the major interest in that flat. The price which leaseholders will have to pay for the freehold will reflect the full market value of that interest. Landlords will therefore be fairly compensated.
Both amendments would therefore interfere with rights which we wish to give to tenants under this legislation. The former is the most perverse. It

1045
suggests that if one is able-bodied and young it is perfectly legitimate for one to enfranchise, but if one is old or disabled in some way the amendment indicates that one is not capable of making a choice whether or not to enfranchise. I cannot believe that that is the intention of those who moved the amendment because I cannot believe that that is right.
Lord Renton: I am really quite shocked by the explanation which my noble friend has given. It seems to me that a registered housing association is in a very similar position to a collective freehold. To ask a lot of elderly people, some of whom may be in the mental state which many of us reach in our eighties—and I speak as one—to decide whether they should change an arrangement which may have suited them for years and exchange it for the complicated provisions under the Bill, where only four ninths of the residents in the particular block of flats are required to agree to what is going on, is unreasonable and almost inhuman. I believe that my noble friend should keep a more open mind on the matter and agree to take it away.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I was involved in the Housing Act 1985 and I seem to have heard many of the arguments before. I am still not greatly moved by them. The Government was dragged screaming by this House into amending the 1985 Act, with a degree of success. So far as I am aware that has worked very well.
I do not know whether the noble Lord understood much of the brief which he read out at great speed, but I shall give him credit for having done so. However, most of us will want to read very carefully in Hansard what he said and consider whether the issue should not be raised again. I could not follow the noble Lord's arguments, but I was not convinced by those arguments any more than I was in 1985.
Lord Strathclyde:Of course I shall want to consider very carefully what has been said in this debate. I have said in many of the debates we have had in the course of today that I want to do that, and this is no exception.
There is a point here on which I suspect that my noble friend Lord Renton and I shall disagree. I do not see why, if one happens to be old, that should exclude one from the ability to make a choice. It does not mean that one has to opt for leasehold enfranchisement, but simply that one should not be excluded by the Bill because one happens to be old. I may be quite wrong on that point, which is why I am happy to reconsider the matter and read what has been said. If I am wrong, I am not sure that I have fully understood the points that have been put to me by my noble friends.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Unless there is such an exemption, there will not be the right to extend the lease, which is the most important thing.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord says that that is the most important thing. I do not believe that that is so. The most important factor is the ability of people to enfranchise and to be in complete control of their affairs, if that is the choice of the tenants.
Baroness Hamwee: I am extremely grateful to the Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment. It is quite clear that there is a considerable degree of concern on the issue.
I did not introduce the amendment intending it to be ageist in any way. I do not suggest that elderly people are not capable of making choices. My anxiety is to preserve the type of accommodation and the services that accompany it, and not to lose those to an increasingly elderly population.
I do not agree with the Minister on the suggestion that a restrictive covenant can deal with the matter. However, I refer to the issue regarding a block of flats which contains only some specialised units. I accept that it is common for there to be blocks with flats on the ground floor which are designed specifically for elderly and/or disabled people. Perhaps I should reconsider the situation in that light. I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have pushed the Minister from his original flat refusal to consider the proposal into at least accepting that he will take it away and reconsider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion for property transferred for public benefit
.—(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to property which—

(a) belongs to a body not established or conducted for profit and in relation to which the Treasury has for the time being given a direction under section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; or

(b) is for the time being designated by the Treasury under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

(2) Where an application to the Treasury for a direction under section 26 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in relation to a property or designation of a property under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of that Act is or has been made at any time before the expiry of one year from the coming into force of this section then subject to subsection (3) below if (before or after the making of the application) a notice is given by a tenant of a house of his desire to have the freehold under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ("the tenant's notice") or a notice is given under section 11 ("the initial notice")—

(a) no further proceedings need be taken towards the determination of the terms of the proposed acquisition to which the notice relates beyond those which appear to the landlord in the case of the tenant's notice or the reversioner in the case of the initial notice, to be reasonable; but

(b) the tenant in the case of the tenant's notice or the nominee purchaser in the case of the initial notice may at any time withdraw the notice by a further notice in writing given to the landlord in the case of the tenant's notice or the reversioner in the case of the initial notice and he shall not be required to make payment to the landlord, reversioner or any other relevant landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice withdrawn.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall cease to apply—

(a) if within a period of two years from the date of the application it is withdrawn or the designation is refused or not given or no direction is given; or

(b) if the applicant has not, by advertisement or by other appropriate means given adequate notice to persons interested informing them of the application for designation.

(4) In the case where an application is withdrawn or refused subsection (2) does not apply at any time falling after—

(a) the date of withdrawal of the application, or

(b) the date when the decision of the Treasury refusing the application becomes final,

as the case may be.").
The noble Lord said: My second heritage amendment is rather long and complicated. I have needed the extensive help of English Heritage in drafting it. However, it is again simple in principle. I regard it as very important. I make no apology for detaining the Committee even at this late hour.
The amendment seeks to ensure that our national heritage does not suffer as a consequence of inheritance tax liabilities by the forced sale and break-up of important properties. Buildings which are of outstanding historic or architectural interest, together with their contents, and land essential to the protection of their character or amenity, can be exempted from inheritance tax if they are given to a non-profit making body.
They can also be designated by the Treasury under Section 31 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. This has the result that, subject to undertakings being given concerning maintenance and public access, they are conditionally exempted from inheritance tax.
Those provisions, originating some 20 years ago, are widely accepted as being in the public interest, since the loss of tax is outweighed by the public benefit enforced through the conditions, such as those to which I have referred, of public access and maintenance. By permitting enfranchisement and thus potential break-up of such entities, the intention and benefit of existing legislation could be frustrated. To my mind, an issue of principle is therefore involved, despite the small number of cases to which it applies.
Properties which are eligible for conditional exemption are generally comparable in quality, importance and the degree of public access, to those houses held inalienably by the National Trust, and which are specifically exempted under Clause 85 of the Bill. Indeed, I pointed out at Second Reading the irony of the fact that the arrangements for conditional exemption and its predecessors were designed precisely to obviate the need for some of those houses to be taken into the care of the trust or the state.
The leasehold enfrancisement provisions of the Bill would undermine this important protection. If an estate owner is forced to sell part of the property, the undertakings given at the time of conditional exemption to maintain the character of the property and provide public access are likely to be viewed as broken by the Inland Revenue and I do not believe that the government dispute that. It will be damaging to both public and private interests.
If the Inland Revenue decides on review that the entity has been materially affected by the sale and no longer justifies conditional exemption, the owner would then be faced not only with paying tax on the value received for the disposal but on the value of the whole estate that has been exempted at the
1048
time of the last taxable transfer. That, in turn, would almost certainly trigger a general sale to meet the tax liability and thus damage the public interest in the protection of the heritage by maintaining such entities intact.
Aside from the damaging threat to the heritage, the Bill, unamended, represents a wholesale betrayal of those owners who have entered into an agreement with the Treasury in good faith, only to find it reneged on with potentially ruinous consequences both in terms of their own financial liabilities and the heritage they sought to protect.
Since to qualify for exemption an estate does not have to be wholly in single ownership, it may be argued that a scheme of management could avoid damage to its heritage value. However, it would not, in the view of English Heritage, provide an effective tool to bring about the visual unity which comes from the common control. More importantly, I am advised that it is not possible to enforce, through such schemes, conditions in leases which require public access, which is one of the main conditions of exemption.
The proposed new clause seeks to avoid these damaging consequences by excluding designated properties from the application of Part I of the Bill. It also provides a limited time period of one year, during which designation may be sought for potentially eligible properties. During that period, and until the Treasury has made its decision, any applications to enfranchise would be frozen.
The number of properties which would be affected by the provision is small. To date, only some 160 have been recommended on the ground of outstanding importance and of those only about 60 have been designated. The proportion of those properties which are subject to potential enfranchisement leases is itself very small. To accept the amendment would not, in my view, compromise the principles of the Bill, but it would recognise an established principle and would be of great help in protecting heritage interests of acknowledged importance.
I believe the amendment would improve the Bill and correct an injustice which I am sure the Government never intended. I beg to move.
Lord Boardman: If my noble friend is right in his analysis of the consequences—and I am quite sure that he is—then those consequences of the enfranchisement could cause gross unfairness for a small but important section of the community. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will respond to the amendment in terms which will enable him to accept it. That would put right something which would otherwise be most unjust.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It will not surprise the Committee that we on this side are obviously uneasy about the amendment. It deals with a small number of properties which, if held by the National Trust, would be inalienable. Throughout the discussions today and in future debates on the Bill we seek to maximise the opportunities for enfranchisement. However, on this amendment we are dealing with a small number of properties which had special protection under

1049
inheritance tax agreements in return for public access, and which, when introduced, had the support of all parties.
If we on this side could think of a better way to meet the objectives that the noble Lord is pursuing we would seek perhaps to oppose the amendment and produce amendments of our own. As we cannot, we propose not to vote on the amendment should it be pressed to a Division.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment, but I have already spoken to it on another aspect of heritage exclusion. We are concerned with a very small number of cases, with again yet another distinct and important dimension of error and injustice. I ask the Minister to take this back.
Earl Peel: I asked my noble friend earlier about the National Trust and he confirmed that it will be exempt under the Bill. The amendment which my noble friend Lord Cavendish moved appears to give the same principle to heritage property as is given to the National Trust. It seems to me that we shall be discussing or contemplating double standards here if the amendment is not accepted by the Government.
There is also the question of endowments which would go with such properties. If the amendment were not accepted, those endowments would be likely to be subject to some form of retrospective tax which would have very considerable effects on the donor. I would have thought that that would only lead to confusion for the owner and would certainly work against the better interests of the general public.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I have listened again with some care to what my noble friends have said. I appreciate that there is worry that if these properties are enfranchisable there would be serious implications for some estates. There is anxiety that coherent management of the estate would be lost and that the inheritance tax consequences of the disposal could trigger a review by the Inland Revenue of the conditional exemption.
I do not feel that the best way of dealing with this matter is in the Committee stage. I said that I recognised that there was anxiety. I am happy to take the matter away and discuss with my noble friend Lord Cavendish exactly how we might be able to meet these worries, if that is possible. I cannot give a commitment, and my noble friend will know why I cannot give a commitment. But I believe it is worth discussing this point perhaps round a table rather than in Committee.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I thank Members of the Committee for taking part and for the sympathy expressed for the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I understand her position. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing. That is entirely satisfactory and has enabled me not to press the matter to a vote this evening. I am very grateful for his offer to discuss the issue. I hope he will include the comments made by my noble friend Lord Peel about
1050
the fate of endowments. That is an area where I find it difficult to establish the principle. Meanwhile, I hope that my noble friend will accept my thanks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Qualifying Tenants]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("at a low rent").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have added their names to the amendment.
The amendment provides that to be a qualifying tenant it is not necessary to have a lease at a low rent. The low rent test provides that unless you are a tenant at a low rent, you cannot be eligible to join in the collective enfranchisement. That means in addition that in marginal cases where one less qualifying tenant many mean that two-thirds of the flats in the building are not held by qualifying tenants, not only does the tenant lose out but collective enfranchisements may not be possible for any of the qualifying tenants in the building.
The idea behind the low rent test is that collective enfranchisement should only be permitted to flat owners who have a substantial value or investment in their leases. The right should be refused to those who are merely renters paying a rent. One way of separating the two categories is by applying a low rent test. But that only works if the term "low rent" is defined in such a way that it includes something approaching all rents other than full renting rents, or rack rents. The Oxford Companion to Law defines a rack rent as the highest rent obtainable; the full annual rent of the property. It is the rent that you pay when you have not paid a premium. It is when rents are less than rack rents that they have substantial monetary value and satisfy the criteria which the Government have identified as necessary as qualification for enfranchisment.
Unfortunately, the low rent test in the Bill operates at levels so far below rack rent levels that it catches a great number of leases which change hands for considerable premiums and which should qualify for enfranchisement by those criteria. In Standing Committee in another place no Back-bencher spoke in favour of retaining the test. But it was never shown, and it was barely suggested, that flats let on long leases of 21 years or more are let at rack-rents.
The low rent test was debated on Report in another place. But the debate was on an amendment to remove the low rent test from houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and it was on that basis that Sir George Young put the case for retaining the test. I felt that it was a pretty thin case put forward by my honourable friend Sir George Young, the Minister for Housing, when answering the case for repealing the low rent test for houses. He said little about flats. He referred to the fact that the ground rents under house leases had been manipulated to prevent enfranchisement, and went on to say,
"In the case of flats, it is far less likely that ground rents have been manipulated in any way. Enfranchisement for flats

1051
is a recent development—first announced to the House in July 1991. As I said earlier, different statutory limits apply for leases granted since April 1990, these being £1,000 in Greater London and £250 elsewhere".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/93; col. 921.]
The arguments which Sir George deployed in relation to low rent tests for houses do not apply to flats. Flat enfranchisement is a collective operation and whatever illogical rule may be invoked to sustain the low rent test in respect of houses does not apply to flats. To exclude one flat owner may deprive the rest of the right to collective enfranchisement. That is something the Government do not wish. Furthermore, in general the claim of flat-owners to enfranchise, locked together as they are within the long leasehold system with little control over the repairs and management of their properties, is even more substantial than the claim of house lessees.
There is no history of a low rent test for flats. Indeed, I need not remind the Committee that in July 1991, when the department's first proposals for enfranchisement were published, no low rent test was to be applied to flats. The Lord Chancellor's departmental consultation paper on commonhold had seen no reason why one should be applied. It was not until March 1992 that the low rent test was first proposed. It may be that I have not been as observant as I should have been, but I have not heard or read why there was a change. The Committee may wish to be reminded why the Government changed their mind, and I ask my noble friend, when he replies, to tell the Committee who or what it was that persuaded the Government to change their mind. Perhaps he could also tell us why the consultation process on the Bill has been half-hearted and inadequate. I would like to think that it might be continued a little this evening so that when we eventually come to a decision on this question, we may do so with a fuller understanding of the meagreness of the arguments for including this unfair and illogical test in Part I of the Bill.
Before I formally move the amendment I shall say a few words about two of the grouped amendments. I anticipate that at this time of night, noble Lords who intend to move other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 27, may not feel that they should speak to them. However, Amendment No. 41 in the name of my noble friends Lord Carnock and Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, attracts me. My noble friend Lord Carnock seems to think that a lease rent of £6 a week for a flat is a low rent. I agree with him. I hope that the Minister does also, or perhaps he can tell me where I can lease a flat for twice that sum without having to pay a substantial premium.
I shall be interested to hear also what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has to say of her
1052
amendment, but possibly not tonight. She will propose that from and after 1st April 1990 the low rent test for flats in Greater London shall operate at rents above £2,000 a year instead of £1,000 a year. Forty pounds a week is more than £6 a week, but it still does not seem a high rent to me.
I have one final thought for my noble friend the Minister, which follows on from the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Gardner. There will be no difficulty in future in selling long leases at rents of £1,000 a year in Greater London or £250 a year elsewhere for substantial premiums. Why, if the Government believe that the long leasehold system is outdated, are they so unashamedly legislating for its continuance? Will my noble friend the Minister please tell the Committee why the opportunity has not been seized to abolish the low rent test altogether if the lease is granted after the date of Royal Assent? I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is very late and I hope that my noble friend Lord Coleraine will agree not to proceed with the amendment tonight. The amendment is so important that it would be desirable for him to bring it back as the first amendment on another day. It could be brought back as a new amendment on Monday afternoon. By then we will all have had the benefit of reading what he said, which will be on record in Hansard. I put that suggestion to my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may take up the suggestion of the noble Baroness. Instead of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, putting down the same amendment I suspect that we might put down an amendment of a rather similar nature for Monday, which we could debate then if the noble Lord is good enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carnock: As my amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 27 I should like to say that I think that my noble friend's amendment is better than mine and that I support it. But if it is not accepted by the Government I propose to speak to my own amendments in their proper place in the Marshalled List.
Lord Coleraine: Having heard what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, I wonder whether it would be in order for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment now. I do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before midnight.

  CAP: SUBSIDIARITY
  CAP: SUBSIDIARITY
  EXECUTIVE AGENCIES: CHIEF EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS
  EXECUTIVE AGENCIES: CHIEF EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS
  LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER: RELEASE ON LICENCE
  LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER: RELEASE ON LICENCE
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS WORKING IN THE UK
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS WORKING IN THE UK
  DTI DEREGULATION UNIT: SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME
  DTI DEREGULATION UNIT: SOCIAL ACTION PROGRAMME
  EDUCATION GRANTS: NATIONAL CURRICULUM (BOOKS)
  EDUCATION GRANTS: NATIONAL CURRICULUM (BOOKS)