Sitting of 29 March 1993

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

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the average unemployment rates for each of the travel-to-work areas in Gwynedd during each of the last three years.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report.
    Average unemployment rates for TTWAs in Gwynedd for the last three years are as follows:

    Travel-to-work areas in Gwynedd—unemployment

    TTWA

    1990

    1991

    1992

    Bangor and Caernarfon

    8·4

    9·9

    11·4

    Conwy and Colwyn1

    5·9

    7·4

    9·1

    Dolgellau and Barmouth

    5·5

    7·7

    8·8

    Holyhead

    10·1

    12·5

    14·5

    Machynlleth1

    4·1

    6·4

    7·6

    Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

    5·7

    8·1

    9·4

    Pwllheli

    7·2

    8·9

    9·8

    Source: Department of Employment.
    1 These TTWAs are only partly within the county.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister of State aware that one of the supranational companies that have been seeking a location in Ynys Môn or Arfon has delayed its investment decision because of uncertainty? Is he also aware that many supranational companies that aim to sell their products to the European Community are uneasy because of the delay in getting the Maastricht Bill on to the statute book? Will he impress on Back Benchers of all parties who supported the Bill at the general election a year ago the need to get it on to the statute book so that we do not lose vital jobs?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is vital that we get the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on the statute book, and especially vital for Wales. There is no doubt in our minds that most of the inward investment that we have secured for Wales—and we have done pretty well—has been because inward investors have one eye on the European market.
    Mr. Ron Davies: If the figures are anything like the Welsh average, they will be completely unacceptable. In any event, do not they prove, among other things, that there is not much benefit to the people of Wales in doing deals to keep the Tory Government in office?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the fact that unemployment came down in Wales last month by no fewer than 1,400, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) the decline was 228, one of the largest constituency declines in Wales. We have had a good Budget for sustainable growth. There is confidence in Wales, and we are looking forward to growth and to Wales leading in that growth.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Bosch is closing its alternator plant in Stuttgart and doubling production at the plant in Llantrisant? Is not that good news for the Welsh economy, which will——
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very limited question dealing with a particular travel-to-work area.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the male population aged 16 to 64 years is classified as economically inactive (a) in the south Wales valleys (b) in Wales as a whole and (c) in Britain.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): According to the latest census, the figures are 22·8 per cent., 18·8 per cent. and 13·4 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Secretary of State realise that in a recent league table based on the 1991 census, of the 55 counties of England and Wales the four with the highest levels of economic inactivity are all Welsh: Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan, Gwent and Dyfed? Does the Secretary of State agree that levels of economic inactivity are a very good index of deprivation, more so than unemployment or even the rise in unemployment? In redrawing the assisted area map, would not it be perverse if funds were redirected to the south-east of England, with its underlying prosperity? Will he fight to ensure that, at the very least, Wales maintains its existing assisted area status?
    Mr. Hunt: Of course we must ensure that Wales is treated properly in the assisted area review, which is taking place at present. The consultation period is over, and Ministers are now considering such issues.
    The hon. Gentleman is right. Activity rates are an important indicator, in particular in pointing to the transformation that has taken place in Wales, with the decline of its dependence on industries such as coal and steel. As for the future, it must be a good sign that unemployment rates in Wales have been below the United Kingdom average for six consecutive months.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that economic inactivity rates are no guide to the level of unemployment because they include those in further and higher education? Under this Government, there are more people in further and higher education. Will my right hon. Friend always make the point that economic activity includes that aspect as well?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have seen a level of activity in Wales which takes into account a range of issues. He is right to point out the reasons for the higher level of inactivity.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Given the undoubted high levels of economic inactivity in Wales, can the Secretary of State explain why he is so deliberately undermining the finances of the Welsh Development Agency? Does not he understand that the cut of £30 million in the Welsh Office grant from the last financial year to the next financial year, coupled with the enforced selling of property assets, is creating a black hole in the WDA budget? Is not the Secretary of State attempting privatisation by stealth and forcing the Welsh Development Agency to make decisions that are wholly inconsistent with its job as a development agency? Does not he realise that the proper role of the WDA is not to make profits by charging high rents and by selling assets, but to encourage development by strategic investment and by good estate management?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise that in the coming financial year, the gross budget of the Welsh Development Agency will be at its highest level ever in cash and in real terms. I make three further points. First,
    4
    the hon. Gentleman could do the Welsh Development Agency a great deal of good by having a word with his hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who never ceases to take an opportunity to run down the achievements of the WDA. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should have well in mind the words of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the importance of Europe and of Maastricht. The hon. Gentleman has failed to address that point and he does so at his peril. Thirdly, I am happy to confirm today—I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned this—that there is a package of 51 projects by small and medium-sized companies involving a total investment of almost £9·5 million and 690 safeguarded and new jobs. It is time that the hon. Gentleman started talking up Wales instead of giving a constant message of misery.
    Mr. Richards: Will my right Hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision by the President of the Board of Trade to give the Connah's Quay power station the go-ahead, thereby reducing the level of economic inactivity in north Wales by several thousand? Does he further agree that if the Opposition are truly interested in bringing down the level of unemployment in Wales, they will vote with the Government for the White Paper tonight?
    Mr. Hunt: If the Opposition were really interested in economic growth in Wales, they would support the Maastricht treaty and the whole issue of Europe. If they were really interested in economic growth in north Wales, they would not table an amendment, as they have for today's debate, which would spell the death knell of the Connah's Quay power station development. It will be interesting to see how many Opposition Members go through the Lobby tonight in support of the amendment which would destroy the jobs at Connah's Quay.

    Assisted Areas
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the need to provide full assisted area status for the Llanelli travel-to-work area.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have received a number of representations about the Llanelli travel-to-work area. Some request that Llanelli be upgraded to development area status whereas others seek to maintain the status quo.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was probably an error some years ago to reduce Llanelli's status to intermediate status? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that we have high rates of unemployment and very low rates of economic activity, which are getting even lower? We are at the far end of the M4 corridor. South-west Wales, unlike Ireland, Spain Portugal and Greece, gets nothing out of the Maastricht treaty. Will the Secretary of State and the Government, therefore, make a decision soon to restore full assisted area status?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman will know that all factors mentioned in the June consultative paper are being taken into account. We had to await the outcome of the coal review, and our proposals will of course have to be cleared by the European Commission. I am aware of some of the disadvantages of the Llanelli travel-to-work area, but I am glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman that unemployment also decreased in his constituency last

    5
    month. We are improving the M4, and I am sure that he would be the first to agree that the completion of the Baglan to Lon-las section will help considerably in bringing inward investment to his constituency.

    Government in Wales
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had about the future of government in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend had extensive consultations before he published his White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales and he is now seeking views on the future of the Welsh Grand Committee.
    Mr. Hain: But does the Minister agree that the Government are standing like King Canute in front of a tidal wave of opinion in Wales in favour of an elected Welsh assembly, and that no seedy deals with the nationalists will buy off that opinion? Does he realise that, although Plaid Cymru may be willing to accept a few pathetic little appointments from the Tories, both it and its new Tory partners will be swept aside in the county council elections by Labour candidates favouring an elected Welsh assembly, the restoration of local government powers and democracy and an end to undemocratic quangos?
    Mr. Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been marching leftward in his life, but he will be aware of the celebrations that are taking place as yet another country rejects socialism. Faced with the march of progress, he will have to disabuse himself of the dream that a Welsh assembly might be a last refuge for the Labour party.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the referendum in Wales in 1979, some 85 per cent. of the Welsh electorate voted against an elected Welsh assembly, and that one of the leading campaigners against it was the immediate past Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A Welsh assembly has been overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Wales. I remember the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) saying that, as long as he was active in political life, for the rest of that political life he would campaign against such a Welsh assembly.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is not it absolutely clear that, if Wales is truly to take her place at the heart of Europe, we must secure a legislative parliament for Wales similar to those already secured by the small nations and historic regions of Europe? Do the Government understand that, as distinct from the Labour party, which wants a second-rate assembly or regional council—though it does want a Parliament for Scotland—we in Wales want real dcmocracy?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is here, at the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons, that we have real democracy. The future for the Principality of Wales lies here, not with any of the half-baked ideas of which we have been hearing. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Labour party cannot even come clean on exactly what it has in mind.
    Mr. Murphy: Does not the Minister realise that, as the majority of the Welsh people voted Labour last year, as all the Welsh Euro MPs are Labour, as the vast majority of
    6
    Wales's Westminster MPs are Labour and as the majority of councillors are Labour, any proposal to set up a so-called Welsh forum without the involvement of the Labour party is nothing more than a meaningless and empty gesture? Does not he accept that the House is waiting with great interest—it would be courteous if he told the House—to hear what are the arrangements and what is the deal between the Government and the Welsh nationalist party? We have a right to know.
    Mr. Jones: As we have said, we are seeking views on the future of the Welsh Grand Committee, and the hon. Gentleman would be most welcome to come forward and give his views on that. We look forward to hearing from him.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Expenditure per pupil in primary schools was £1,398 in 1990–91, compared with £1,038 in 1978–79 on the same price basis. This represents an increase of 34·7 per cent.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient money is being delegated to schools in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: No, we are not satisfied that local education authorities are delegating sufficient moneys to schools in Wales. However, from this April, at least 85 per cent. of the potential schools budget must be delegated to schools, with at least 80 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget delegated on the basis of pupil numbers weighted for age.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly affirm his own and his Department's commitment to the retention of village primary schools in rural Wales, notwithstanding the fact that on a cost-per-child basis, they sometimes cost a little more than urban or area schools?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: We have made special allowances for rural schools in sparsely populated areas in the local management of schools formula. I am very glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman's local education authority, Powys, is contemplating the delegation of as much as 95 per cent. of the potential schools budget to local schools.

    NHS Trusts and GP Fund Holders
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many NHS trusts and fund-holding general practitioner practices have been set up in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: From Thursday of this week, there will be 14 national health service trusts in Wales and 74 general practitioner fund holders.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer which reveals a large increase, on 1 April, on last year's figures. Is the experience in Wales similar to that in Dorset, where people of all political parties and none are now coming together to say that trust hospitals are a success?

    7
    Is that the experience in the Principality? Will my hon. Friend be able to come to the Dispatch Box soon and tell us that there are 100 per cent. trust hospitals in Wales, as there are in Dorset?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. The expansion is significant. We have only one NHS trust at the moment, but there will be 14 on Thursday and 48 more GP fund holders. That is real progress and real devolution in respect of taking decision making as close as possible to patients. About two thirds of the NHS in Wales will be in trust status and I look to the further progress that that will represent.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: With regard to GP fund holders, what criteria will they use when rationing, so that their patients know exactly how such decisions are made?
    Mr. Jones: I do not think that that question applies, because there is no question of rationing. The constant scares that fund-holders will somehow run out of money are not correct. That will not happen. If there were to be any deterioration in respect of the situation of a GP fund holder, the fund-holding situation would be withdrawn in the interests of the patient.

    Police
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the subject of reorganisation of Welsh police forces and overall control of them; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Several, but this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Llwyd: In the light of the recent review announced by the Home Secretary, will the Secretary of State confirm the need to ensure local control and accountability of Welsh police forces? Will he also confirm that, if it were offered, he would support overall control of Welsh policing being transferred to the Welsh Office?
    Mr. Hunt: On the first point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already told the House of his intention that half the membership of the new police authorities should be locally elected members. He will be dealing with the details of the constitution and functions of the police authorities in his White Paper later this year.
    With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that matter is always kept under review. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is always looking at the whole question of devolution of further powers to Wales. Indeed, training matters were transferred to Wales last year. Next week, the university of Wales, higher education and the arts will transfer to Cardiff from Whitehall.
    Mr. Roger Evans: Will my right hon. Friend note, and convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the degree of concern in Gwent at initial suggestions that the Gwent constabulary might be singled out for amalgamation purely on grounds of size? That force has an excellent record and there are many similar-sized police forces, such as those in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Dorset, which also have happier records than some of the larger forces in metropolitan English areas.
    Mr. Hunt: I am impressed with all that I have seen of the Gwent constabulary. As my hon. Friend knows, I recently visited the Gwent constabulary. I am impressed with the way in which it conducts policing. As my right hon. and learned Friend made absolutely clear in his statement to the House, we are moving away from the consideration of any question of structure and amalgamations and concentrating on the more efficient policing policies. Those policies will be made clear to the House when my right hon. and learned Friend publishes his White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the intense speculation that the number of police forces in Wales would be reduced from four to three will not go ahead? Is not it absurd that it was even mooted to do so without this being under his direction?
    Mr. Hunt: I was concerned at some of the stories that I was reading in the press which bore no relation to discussions going on within government. I was, therefore, pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that there was no substance to the stories and that the most important thing is to concentrate on the ways in which policing in Wales can be made more efficient and more effective.

    Local Government Boundaries
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the representations he has received concerning his proposal to remove the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wide from Ogwr and place them in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Since 1 March, we have received 44 representations about the proposal to transfer those communities to a Vale of Glamorgan authority.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is not it true that the vast majority of the communities have made it clear that they totally oppose the transfer of Saint Bride's Major, Coychurch Lower, Ewenny and Wide into the Vale of Glamorgan? After all, those communities are part of the natural hinterland of Bridgend. They are in the Bridgend travel-to-work area and have an existing loyalty to that area.
    Can the Minister instruct his civil servant, who is replying to letters from my constituents, to cross out the concluding sentence of the letter in which he makes a claim which is not true—that the Vale of Glamorgan is more used to dealing with small rural communities than is the Ogwr borough? In communities with under 4,000, it is 10:7 in favour of Ogwr and in communities with under 3,500, it is 9:7 in favour of Ogwr. If one looks at the size of Saint Bride's Major, which is the biggest community council, one sees that six communities in Ogwr have a population that is less than that of Saint Bride's Major—only two are in the Vale of Glamorgan. What the civil servant says is totally untrue. I hope that the Minister will listen to the representations from my constituents.
    Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will certainly listen to representations about any points of detail. The Boundary Commission is to examine boundaries after the legislation is in place to see whether there are any anomalies. I do not accept the fundamental premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Essentially, these communities are geographically and socially part of

    9
    the Vale of Glamorgan and I suggest that it would be more appropriate for them to be part of a Vale of Glamorgan authority.
    Mr. Sweeney: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the issue of the White Paper, the Vale of Glamorgan borough council made a suggestion to Ogwr that a joint survey be commissioned to produce an independent result of opinion in the communities in question but that that was rejected by Ogwr, greatly to the disappointment of those in the Vale of Glamorgan who overwhelmingly support the inclusion of those areas in the vale?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend makes an important point in the matter of independent consultation. I am aware that he is in tune with communities such as these four from his representation of the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline the reasons for proposing a unitary authority based on Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, together with the community areas of Rhymney, Darran Valley and New Tredegar.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The proposed Heads of the Valleys authority brings together communities that have a similar social, economic and cultural heritage. A unitary authority for the area, by building on the strengths of all its component parts, will provide the effective local government which is needed to deal with its social and economic problems.
    Mr. Smith: Under the proposal for the new Heads of the Valley unitary authority, could the Minister give more details about the community links between Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr? Can he tell me the time that it would take to get from Swffryd in the south of Blaneau Gwent to Merthyr Tydfil by travelling on public transport? Of all those people who submitted evidence—I believe that the evidence is now in the Library—can he tell me how many people and who submitted evidence supporting a unitary authority based on the heads of the valley proposal?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has received a total of 252 representations, often conflicting, about possible boundaries for authorities in the valleys. I visited Blaenau Gwent on 19 March and talked to councillors there. I am well aware of their anxiety to remain an authority on their own. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the population of the area has fallen. In 1971, it was about 85,700 and by 1991 it was down to 76,900. It is very important that we should create a unitary authority which is viable.
    When I travelled from Tredegar to Ebbw Vale I noted that we went by the Heads of the Valleys road. Only a little further along that road is Merthyr.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the journey between Tredegar and Ebbw Vale he went past a monument located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)? It is three stones which commemorate Aneurin Bevan, who represented the area for 30 years. The three stones represent the communities of Tredegar, Ebbw Vale and Rhymney—three areas to be brought together under the proposals of my hon. Friend.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I certainly noted that memorial to the late Aneurin Bevan. Indeed, I am so long in the tooth that I remember going to hear the declaration of his result in a general election, which Gaitskell conceded. Nye Bevan said:
    "I shall not concede victory until the last ballot box is opened."
    Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Member did not include Merthyr Tydfil in his list. I have not yet found an individual or representative organisation in my constituency which supports the Minister's proposal. I noticed that he was quiet about the 250 people and organisations who have written to him. Which one or more of them supports the principle of a Heads of the Valleys authority as proposed by the Government?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: A Heads of the Valleys authority makes a great deal of sense for the main reason that I gave —that Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent have a similar economic and social history. I am sure that if Merthyr had been included in Nye Bevan's constituency, it would have been proud of him and of the constituency.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for male unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: The figures are 6,234, 17,307 and 107,900 respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that in recent weeks Newport has suffered two severe blows: first, the loss of the Marconi factory and 400 high-tech jobs and, secondly, his decision to authorise a waste disposal plant at Newport to be run by a dubious American company which will do considerable harm to the old image of the town? Why does not he listen to the views of the people of Newport on the matter? I assure him that, if he did, his stock would be far higher than it is at present.
    Mr. Hunt: Inviting though that challenge is, I point the hon. Gentleman to the facts. Some years ago 5,424 people were unemployed in his constituency. That figure has now fallen to 4,020. In view of the record level of inward investment and of inward investment projects, combined with regional selective assistance projects, I am hopeful that many hundreds and thousands of jobs will come to Wales during 1993. That should prove to be good news for the whole of south Wales and his area in particular.
    Mr. Dafis: May I remind the Secretary of State that it is two months since the meeting at which we discussed the report of the west Wales task force—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) please resume his seat for a moment? If hon. Members have any complaints to make perhaps they would do so through a substantive motion which I can see and ensure is debated in the House.
    Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I take points of order at the end of questions.
    Mr. Dafis: It is now two months since the strategy group meeting, following the publication of the report of

    11
    the west Wales task force. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that it is important for momentum and confidence to be maintained in the task force area, but we have heard nothing since that meeting at the end of January. When will the Secretary of State be in a position to give us a progress report on what has happened since the end of January and when will he announce the name of the task force project director?
    Mr. Hunt: First, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the west Wales task force and the strategy group were set up through a Welsh Office initiative. I have chaired each of the group's meetings and I am determined that it should reach a positive result. On the Withybush project, as he knows, £0·5 million has been allocated to provide meat processing facilities at Withybush next year and officials are liaising closely with Preseli Pembrokeshire to ensure maximum benefit to Withbush and the community that it serves. Will the hon. Gentleman also recognise that several of the projects announced today in and around Dyfed will bring good news to some of his constituents?
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that last Friday 260 aerospace workers lost their jobs, adding to the 3,200 unemployed people in my constituency and to the 17,000 who are out of work in my county and taking £3 million a year out of the local economy? That is a serious blow and comes hard on the heels of the recently announced loss of 500 Airbus jobs. May I warn the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Trade seeks to take development area status from my constituency? I want a commitment from him that he will fight for that status.
    Mr. Hunt: There were several points there. First, on corporate jets, I regret the job losses, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that Broughton will remain the main manufacturing centre for corporate jets. The hon. Gentleman may recall that unemployment in his constituency alone was more than 5,000 some years ago and that the figure has now fallen considerably. Of course I shall do my best to ensure that Wales has a positive response from the review of assisted area status being conducted by the President of the Board of Trade and myself, but the hon. Gentleman must decide whether to support his party in the Lobby tonight on an amendment that would destroy the opportunity of jobs at the power station.

    Japanese Corporations
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last had meetings with the management of Japanese-owned corporations based in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Japanese investment in Wales continues to be a great success and I have regular contact with the companies concerned, both in Wales and in Japan.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Wales has the highest investment from Japan of any nation in the European Community, on a per capita basis, and probably the highest invesment on an absolute basis? Does he agree that that is a result of two things? First, it is a testimony to the hardworking spirit of the people of Wales. Secondly, as it is the Prime Minister's birthday,
    12
    today of all days should not we accept that it is also due to his unique opt-out from the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty, which creates jobs in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are very proud of the tremendous Japanese investment in Wales. I hope that every hon. Member will join me in commending the Japanese for the way in which they continually put more resources into Wales. We now have 43 Japanese companies, employing more than 12,000 people, and they constantly tell me that they come to Wales because the quality of the work force there is second to none outside Japan.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Although all hon. Members recognise the invaluable role played by inward investment, does the Secretary of State realise that Japanese, German or American inward investment, can be only a supplement to the well-being of the economy of Wales? The disgraceful decision to close the Betws and Taff Merthyr collieries—which will be debated later—will do nothing to strengthen the Welsh economy. All that it will do is put men out of work and families on the dole.
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the decision on Taff Merthyr was communicated to the work force as long ago as 20 August last year. The future of Taff Merthyr is now a matter of consultation between British Coal and the men. British Coal has made it absolutely clear that if it sees no further use for either Taff Merthyr or Betws, it feels obliged to offer the future management of that pit to the private sector.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany. It must be a matter of great pride to Wales that we have just heard from Bosch that it plans virtually to double employment at its factory, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) earlier. Bosch says that the performance of its factory in south Wales is better than any factory it has in Germany or anywhere else in the world. There must be great pride in Wales at those comments.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Scientific and Technical Research
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his Department's total spending on supporting scientific and technical research projects was in 1991–92.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): The science budget in 1991–92 was £930 million.
    Mr. Hawkins: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him to join me in welcoming the fact that some £30 million from his Department's budget is being spent via the Natural Environment Research Council on developing models for dealing with flooding problems in coastal areas? That research will be of enormous benefit to my constituents and will help in the design of new sea defences to cope with our flooding problems. It will also be of benefit to other right hon. and hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Given the very large sums that have to be spent on coastal

    13
    defences, it is vital that good basic science underlies it. I am sure that the House is proud of that work by the NERC and much of its other work.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that in the past 10 years there has been a 30 per cent. cut in real terms in the amount devoted by Government to civil research and development? In total, between Government and industry, we devote 1 per cent. less of our GDP to research and development than do Japan and Germany. How can we compete industrially with those industrial super-powers when we devote so little of our resources to research and development?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he is talking about Government spending in relation to civil research. The United Kingdom spends about 0·51 per cent. of GDP compared with 0·43 per cent. in Japan. We are in the middle of the pack of the G7 countries in relation to Government expenditure on civil research.

    Charter Marks
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charter marks have been awarded so far.
    Mr. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charter mark awards have now been made.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Thirty-six charter marks were awarded in 1992. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the 1993 charter mark scheme on 17 February. The closing date for entries is 30 June 1993 and the charter mark winners will be announced in September or October. Up to 100 charter marks can be awarded this year.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that even organisations that were unsuccessful in obtaining charter marks this time round, such as Bydales school in Marske in my constituency, benefited greatly from having the opportunity to review the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the services that they provide in accordance with charter principles?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Several of the winners expressed a great welcome for the charter mark. For instance, St. Mary's secondary school in Londonderry said:
    "The prize is a tremendous morale booster to everyone connected with the school and the community it serves."
    That was also true of those who did not win on this occasion but who might in the future.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the citizens charter and the charter mark movement have had an enormous effect on both companies and public bodies? Purbeck district council in my constituency has started a scheme called Purbeck Pride to involve everyone in providing better public service and to involve private enterprise in giving service of a high standard.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. A beneficial competition is going on between various parties in local and central Government over who invented the concept. I was with the Labour leader of Leicester city council last
    14
    week to see that council's local charter prizes being awarded. I do not begrudge the council that competition; it is helping to raise standards of public service.
    Mr. Skinner: Why have the Government never awarded charter marks to the miners and others who work in mining? The productivity of British pits has risen by 155 per cent. in the past seven years and last week Bolsover produced coal at 50p a gigajoule—that is half the world price. So why do not the Government give the Bolsover miners a charter mark, instead of the right hon. Gentleman and his mates, including Tarzan and all the rest of them, closing 31 pits? If he did the job right and handed out awards to the workers, not to some of these tinpot business men, the Government would be doing the right thing. Instead they propose to throw 30,000 miners out of work. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself: he and his mates should have been strangled at birth.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the productivity gains to which the hon. Gentleman refers, together with the support offered by the President, will increase the market for coal. That is exactly what the proposals are about.

    Freemasons (Public Servants)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make membership of the freemasons by public servants a declarable interest; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Civil servants are already required to report conflicts of interest which affect their official duties. This includes freemasonry, where relevant. We intend for clarity to incorporate a list of possible conflicts of interest in the civil service code, which will include a reference to freemasonry.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply. I think I am right in saying that the Ministry has no serious plans to face up to this problem, apart from a token reference. Of what is the Minister afraid? Is it of the fact that the Tory party is so deeply in hock to masonic interests that it dare not face up to what hon. Members on both sides of the House know is quite a large problem? Only a few weeks ago a Tory Member mentioned to me that 34 of the 39 members of his local county council were masons——
    Madam Speaker: Order. Interesting though they are, we do not want conversational exchanges across the Floor of the House. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point now.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not the point the fact that the Tory party is too deeply in hock to masonic interests?
    Mr. Jackson: I am afraid that I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his paranoia, but I will make the point that we have been meeting the concern that he has expressed. I have announced a shift of policy—we will be changing the civil service code and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that. We have communicated with the Council of Civil Service Unions and we are consulting it about the step. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do a serious bit of lobbying, as opposed to making paranoid party points, he may like to talk to the civil service unions.
    Mr. Wilshire: May I preface my question by saying that I am not a mason? I am, however, alarmed by what I heard my hon. Friend say. Does he agree that if he is to require the disclosure of membership of the masons, that establishes a fundamental principle that would have serious, even dangerous, implications—including a requirement to disclose membership of a religious order or organisation? That would be very dangerous indeed.
    Mr. Jackson: That will not be a requirement. The requirement will be that if the civil servant is aware of a possible conflict of interests, he should declare it. The amendment of the code on which we are consulting the civil service unions would put it on all fours with the local government code, which has been working successfully and which does not give rise to the objections that my hon. Friend cites.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that if that welcome change to the civil service code is to take place and apply to senior civil servants, it should be applied also to judges?
    Mr. Jackson: The Office of Public Service and Science is responsible for many things, but not the judiciary. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is so responsible, to the question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Charterline
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the pilot Charterline telephone information service will be launched.
    Mr. Waldegrave: In May 1993.
    Mr. Deva: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, by publishing information on the police, local authorities and the national health service on Charterline, he will augment and complement the publication of the key performance indicators that have been agreed already?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be a practical step in making public services more accessible and comprehensible to their users. If the pilot scheme in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire is a success, we shall offer great benefit to people when we take it national in due course.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Charterline opens, will it not take great pressure off the calls from the public asking whether they have the right to know? Will the Minister stop saying, "Yes, in principle, we support more open government but, no, we do not support legislation" and back the Right to Know Bill, which is before the House, and which has the wide support not only of my right hon. Friends and all Opposition parties but the media, the public and a growing number of his own Back Benchers? If we had the right to know, the Charterline, as it existed today, would be able to answer calls about why the Government have not given pit-by-pit information on pits that are marked for closure—information which would have meant that we had a better debate later this afternoon. Should not that be the way to take the pressure off Charterline?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in getting his Bill, which is in Committee,
    16
    mentioned on the Floor of the House. I understand that there are good debates going on in the Committee. He is right to link the charter campaign. with openness, but it is a sadness to many of us that, for example, when steps were taken on publishing more educational information, that did not get much of a welcome from the Labour party.

    Next Steps Agencies
    Mr. Gale: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of key performance targets were met by next steps agencies in the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: On average, next steps agencies met three out of four of their key targets in 1991–92.
    Mr. Gale: Given the undoubted success of that considerable reform, will my hon. Friend tell the House what plans he has for the creation of new agencies in the immediate future? Will he reassure the House that the creation of any new agencies will not weaken the accountability of Ministers to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Jackson: As it happens, a number of new agencies will be coming on stream in the next couple of weeks. Already, 50 per cent. of the civil service is working in agencies and that will rise to 60 per cent. by the beginning of next month, which is the beginning of the new financial year. As to accountability, hon. Members have only to look at the huge range of information provided about next steps agencies in the Library to see how much accountability has been improved by the introduction of the agency idea.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is not it ludicrous for the Minister to talk about the fulfilment of performance targets when the Benefits Agency remains such a shambles? For example, last week, a constituent of mine had her benefit application delayed because of one mistake discovered after three months and another mistake discovered after 11 months. Is not it time that Mr. Michael Bichard was sacked from a job for which he collects £79,000 a year for preventing those in poverty from getting the pittance for which they apply and that that service was made properly answerable to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Jackson: The whole House is familiar with the background to the problems relating to the disability living allowance and the Benefits Agency. It has been the subject of many exchanges at Question Time and in other debates, but a strong effort to put matters right in the agency has resulted in real progress.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that the creation of the new agencies will not suck work out of London, where it is well done and valuably done, even though I know that, where work has been agencified—forgive that terrible word—away from London, arrangements have been made for telephone connections between Londoners and the agency concerned?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government are aware that the geographic and economic circumstances that underlay the relocation policy need to be reappraised in the light of the way in which the recession has affected London, including jobs in London. That is something about which we are thinking.
    Ms Mowlam: Will the Minister try to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—the matter concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House—about accountability in agencies? There is declining accountability, with the Government creating health hoards, education boards, development corporations and training and enterprise councils and we are to see the introduction of police boards. As one of the Sunday newspapers reported, appointees tend to be place-people from the Conservative party. Will the Minister explain how genuine democratic accountability is meant to function?
    Mr. Jackson: The creation of agencies has made no difference to accountability to Ministers and, through Ministers, to the House. If the hon. Lady is so concerned about accountability, why did she propose during a recent interview
    "to be more radical than the Government, to step over them on next steps and say, 'If we are being serious, let us give an agency manager the power to make decisions within his budget"'?
    If the hon. Lady is so concerned about accountability, why is she proposing to go further down the road that the Government are following?

    Citizens Charter
    Ms Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the citizens charter into new areas of public services.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: The citizens charter principles extend to all areas of public service. We will, however, publish new standards of service in 1993 in charters for child support, for the local environment and for further and higher education. Existing service standards—for example, in primary and secondary education—will be increased to reflect improvements in the delivery of public services.
    Ms Quin: Has the Minister any plans to give disabled people a better deal through citizens charters? Will he consider the position of one of my constituents, whose journey by rail on a Sunday was disrupted by repairs? After waiting for a long time, he was forced to accept a lengthy bus journey. That proved difficult for him because there were no facilities for disabled people. Will the Minister review the charters to ascertain how he can give disabled people a better deal?
    Mr. Jackson: We had a useful exchange on this issue when questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were last before the House and the matter was raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who is sitting next to the hon. Lady. I tried to explain then that the Government had considered the possibility of introducing a charter for people with disabilities. We concluded that the best way to handle problems of the sort that she described was to ensure that, where appropriate, the interests of disabled people are taken into account in the creation of every charter. If the hon. Lady wishes to contact me about the constituency case to which she referred, I will do what I can to ascertain what best can be established.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend believe that it might be a useful exercise to extend citizens charters to
    18
    local government, especially where there has been corruption and even, possibly, the Transport and General Workers Union?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would be appropriate to extend the citizens charter to areas of local government. I say that in the light of this comment in Tribune:
    "Labour local government is lack-lustre and incompetent. In a few cases it is simply corrupt and nepotistic. This is nothing new. Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of British political life for as long as anyone can remember."
    The way to put that right is to have a proper charter for Labour local authorities.
    Mr. Cryer: If the Minister extends his charter marks into transport, will the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and Labour-controlled Bradford council be given a charter mark if they restore the homerunner bus service for women? The service was established with Home Office money to provide safe and secure transport for women travelling late at night. It is facing cancellation because of the withdrawal of Home Office money. If Labour-controlled councils continue to provide that service despite the great difficulties that they face as a result of central Government cuts, will they be given a charter mark, or are charter marks given only to Tory-controlled organisations?
    Mr. Jackson: As it happens, this is not a question about charter marks. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of any organisation in his constituency that should apply for a charter mark, we hope that it will do so.

    Charter Mark
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public service organisations have asked his Department for information on the 1993 charter mark competition; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Since the launch of the 1993 charter mark scheme on 17 February, the citizens charter unit has sent out nearly 40,000 copies of the charter mark information leaflet and more than 5,000 copies of the charter mark guide for applicants. I will send one to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Early indications are that there will be a very good response.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend welcome the way in which Conservative-controlled Kent county council is applying the charter principles to its whole range of services for people in Kent?
    Mr. Jackson: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in his commendation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster visited Kent county council last autumn to see the progress of its charter programme and he was very impressed by what he saw of that efficient and progressive Conservative council.
    Mr. Olner: Is the Minister aware that a conflict may arise from this Thursday in relation to care in the community? Will he see fit to extend the charters into such activities, so that the services required are not rationed by

    19
    the county councils' financial arrangements? It is crucial for the people involved to know that they will get a fair deal
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will certainly examine how the charter principles can be applied to the new arrangements under community care, if they are not already covered.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Hams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the Government for time to make a statement on the deplorable action of the French in regard to the Royal Navy, giving the response that Her Majesty's Government will make, in view of the possibility of further action by French fishermen later today?
Madam Speaker: I have had no information that at this stage any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of this point of order, which concerns the availability of papers for the debate on the coal industry. I particularly request that the protocol agreement relating to the French electricity link be made available. It was referred to extensively by the President of the Board of Trade in his statement last Thursday, and is referred to in all the documents relevant to the debate. I remind you, Madam Speaker, that the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry include part of the protocol agreement.
Last Thursday, the President of the Board of Trade sought to leave the impression that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had announced and negotiated the link in 1978. He accused my right hon. Friend of not having wrapped up the details of the contract before announcing it. You will know, Madam Speaker, that the protocol agreement was not signed until 1981. You may also know that it has never been published, that none of the consequential agreements has been published and that both protocol and agreement were made available to members of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on a confidential basis.
My point of order is this: how can the House and the public form a judgment on the advantages and disadvantages to Britain of the link when the basic agreement is not available to the House or the public? As the President of the Board of Trade sought on Thursday to make significant political capital out of his statement, I strongly urge that he be pressed to make the protocol and other agreements available to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. I am ready to answer the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has been mentioned. If he has a point of order—not a point of argument—of course I must hear it, but I will hear only from the right hon. Gentleman who has been mentioned.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates not to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), but to the fact that, in quoting my words, the President of the Board of Trade failed to state that, in announcing the connector, I had said that it would
"provide an opportunity for the export of coal-fired electricity to France."—[Official Report, 3 August 1987; Vol. 955, c. 546.]
22
That was the statement that I made, and the President of the Board of Trade suppressed it. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Some right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to jump the gun. These are matters for the debate which we have not yet reached.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for giving me notice of his point of order. I have ascertained that the protocol and subsequent documents that he wishes to be made available are commercial agreements between the Central Electricity Generating Board and Electricite de France. I cannot direct that such documents should be laid before the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, other papers relevant to this matter are available. It is not for me to comment on whether or not they are adequate, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, for the purposes of today's debate.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on a ruling that I have already given.
Mr. Richard Caborn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that this afternoon you will announce that the debate will be on the White Paper and the official Opposition's amendment. May I raise with you points that were raised last Thursday during business questions at columns 1259 and 1260 regarding the amendment that stands in my name and that of a number of other hon. Members? The Trade and Industry Select Committee was asked, by a resolution of this House, to look into this matter and report. Will the Select Committee's recommendations be put before the House? Since the White Paper was published by the President of the Board of Trade only a short time ago, hon. Members ought to have the opportunity to vote today on the Select Committee's recommendations.
Madam Speaker: It is not for me to determine when the Select Committee's report should be debated in the House. I recollect the exchanges last Thursday to which the hon. Gentleman refers. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under Standing Orders, I am required, at 10 o'clock tonight, to put all the matters under consideration. It is for that reason that I am able to select only one amendment. That amendment stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is impracticable, under our Standing Orders, to select more than one amendment for today's debate. I intended to make that announcement before we started the debate. If we can start it, I am sure that it will all become clear to hon. Members.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order; I am on my feet. Has the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central something further to say?
Mr. Caborn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you saying that the interpretation has to be that the Government did not respond to the request of the shadow Leader of the House that we should have a full debate and vote on the question?
Madam Speaker: The business of the House is not a matter for the Speaker, strange though that may seem. It is a matter for the Leader of the House and the usual channels. I have to work under the Standing Orders. For that reason, I am limited to selecting only one amendment today.
Several hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. I want no more points of order on the matters that I have dealt with.
Mr. Martin Redmond rose——
Madam Speaker: Is this a separate point of order?
Mr. Redmond: Yes, it is. May I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker? Does business confidentiality still apply when a company has gone out of existence? The CEGB no longer exists. Therefore, any agreement between that company and the French is no longer a commercial agreement.
Madam Speaker: The question that was put to me was whether I could require the documents to be laid before this House. I have no authority to require documents which are other than state papers to be laid before this House.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that when Sessional Orders have been tabled at the beginning of parliamentary Sessions I have on several occasions raised issues and there has been debate about them. I draw your attention to the fact that Sessional Orders give the right to Members of Parliament to be heard.
In the face of a considerable lobby, may I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ensure, first, that Sessional Orders are applied and, secondly, that some of the energy of the police is used to facilitate the lobby by miners of this House so that they can present their very strong case, particularly to Tory Members of Parliament, in the Lobby and in the Grand Committee Room and make sure that some Tory MPs go into the Lobby to keep open the 31 pits?
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly see that the matter is referred to the Serjeant at Arms and do what I can to facilitate the entrance of constituents to the building.
Mr. George Stevenson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You referred to the official documents being presented to the House. The Secretary of State laid considerable emphasis on article 30 of the treaty of Rome. Article 31 of the treaty requires lists of products and services that are subject to quantitative restrictions to be agreed by member states. I have checked with the Library. No such list is available. I suggest that it is critical information for the debate.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to refer to the Library, it would be extremely helpful. The treaty of Rome has been in existence for quite some time now.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund [No. 3] Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Coal Industry
  [Relevant documents: The First Report of the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1992/93 on British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal (HC 237), and the Second Report from the Employment Committee of Session 1992/93 on the Employment Consequences of British Coal's Proposed Pit Closures (HC 262-I and -II).]
  Madam Speaker: A number of hon. Members may well be disappointed at not being called today. Therefore, I am now appealing most firmly for voluntary restriction on length of speeches. I have no alternative but to limit to 10 minutes speeches made between the hours of 6 and 8 o'clock.
  As I said earlier, I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.41 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the White Paper 'The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review' (Cm 2235).
  Let me remind the House of the opportunities for British Coal that I announced last Thursday. I followed very carefully the arguments put forward by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. There were three themes to my proposals. The first was to create a wider market for coal. The second was to provide British Coal with a tapering subsidy to give it the chance to seize the opportunities of the enhanced market. The third was our determination to press ahead with our plans to privatise the industry.
  Let me start with the wider market for coal. There are considerable differences of view as to the likely demand for coal. They reflect uncertainty about the longer-term demand for electricity. If the demand should prove to be as high as many commentators, including the Select Committee, expect, coal has every opportunity to take advantage of it. Within the existing firm forecasts, everyone agrees that we should help British Coal to secure the market that is currently filled by imports. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I am offering hundreds of millions of pounds to bridge the gap between British Coal's cost of production and world-related prices.
  No one I know disputes that there is significant tonnage to go for, although, as I have told the House, there is considerable disagreement among the Select Committee, independent consultants, British Coal and the electricity generators as to the likely size of that market. I think that everyone understands that no amount of forecasting creates a marketplace; it is customers who create a marketplace. However, the Government are putting British Coal in the most favourable position to add these supplemental tonnages to the core contracts which, I am pleased to tell the House, have been announced today.
  I have also told the House of the various ways in which I acted on behalf of the Government to increase the market for coal. The importation of orimulsion is to be reduced to the minimum contractual level for the foreseeable future. British Coal told the Select Committee that it believed that opencast production would decline from 16 million tonnes to 12 million tonnes. Last Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a statement of interim guidance to planning
  26
  authorities on opencast coal developments. We intend to renew our dialogue as soon as practicable with the French Government about the use of the interconnector.
  I have, of course, published a summary of the legal advice which confirms beyond doubt that unilateral action by the Government would leave us open to very considerable risks. The outgoing French Government told us that they expected the present imports to decline and they confirmed that we are able to use their national transmission system to export electricity to France and to third countries beyond. As confirmation of that, a £100 million contract has been signed for electricity to be exported from the United Kingdom to France over the next eight years.
  I have announced that, with the Director General of Electricity Supply, I shall enter into discussions with large users to examine the circumstances in which they might bypass the pool and whether demand-side bidding would improve the workings of the electricity market. In addition, the Government are reviewing the current regulation of on-site generation, which could offer large users an alternative source of electricity. They are all ways in which the demand for electricity could be increased, and that in turn means greater opportunities for British Coal.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: I am grateful for the various measures that my right hon. Friend has announced but, at the very moment he was standing at the Dispatch Box making a statement last Thursday, a representative from British Coal was briefing the unions in Nottingham—the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers specifically—on the prospects, as British Coal saw them. It told them bluntly that there was no additional market for coal to justify retaining the 12 pits beyond the period of the subsidy and that, furthermore, if there was to be any hope of survival, it would be by reducing their costs to the point that they could displace one of the 19 pits which at present has an assured future. That would seem to be directly sabotaging my right hon. Friend's statement and assurances.
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most serious situation, which I have discussed with the chairman of British Coal this morning. I shall deal in a minute or two with the precise points that he has raised.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Secretary of State has been outlining what the Government are prepared to do to fulfil the statement made last Thursday. Is he prepared to assure the House that there will be a level playing field for the coal industry compared to the gas and nuclear industries? That is very important to the 700 men who work at the Sharlston pit in my constituency. The pit is doomed to early closure, as outlined by the Secretary of State last Thursday. May we be assured that there will be a level playing field and that the reserves at Sharlston will be worked? Unless the Secretary of State can assure us of that, the debate is meaningless.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman asks many questions. I must point out to him that the decision to close a particular pit has to be taken by British Coal. British Coal can take that decision only when it has gone through a process of consultation which takes into account all the issues that are raised in such a process. I cannot

  27
  today—and no Minister ever could in such circumstances—anticipate what the outcome of the consultation will be. The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what I have to say because it will apply to a large number of other pits—indeed, to all other pits—as well as to that to which he referred. A significant number of things that I have said, and which I shall be able to repeat in my speech, are relevant to the pits that may face closure.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The problem with what the Secretary of State has said today, what he said the other day and what was said on 13 October is that the figures for the contracts for coal to the power stations were 40 million tonnes last October plus 30 million for the four successive years. Last week he said that the figure was 160 million tonnes. It is the same amount—40 million tonnes followed by four successive years at 30 million tonnes. If he does not alter those contracts upwards, those 19 pits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he cannot."] That was what he was supposed to do. That is what the review was all about. If he and British Coal do not alter those contracts, the 19 pits that still exist, the 12 pits that will stay open for two years, the six that have been mothballed and the pit at Maltby will all be scrambling for the same amount of coal. He can talk until he is blue in the face, but he must alter those basic contracts with the power stations, otherwise we shall not save any of the pits that he talks about.
  Mr. Heseltine: I do not know about talking until I am blue in the face. The hon. Gentleman usually talks until he is red in the face if he is running into difficulty. However, if he had waited until I had made further progress with my speech, he would have seen that, in addition to explaining the additional opportunities that I have been announcing to the House since last Thursday, I am now about to come to the essence of the recommendation of the Select Committee's proposals: that we should help British Coal to gain some of the enhanced markets by subsidising its production costs.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State explain how it is possible to make a decision about the future of the coal industry in isolation? He has agreed, in the White Paper, to bring forward the nuclear review, but that will not be until later this year. A decision on renewables will be taken later this year. The planning guidance on opencast mining will be issued, presumably, later this year—there is interim guidance already. The decisions about orimulsion by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will not be made until later this year. The Secretary of State gives the impression that he is trying to buy a few votes to get him over the hurdle of Back-Bench opposition tonight. The strategic decisions about Britain's energy policy will be put off into the future when, one by one, each industry will have a decision taken separately. He will have washed his hands of the coal industry by selling it off.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know that the first imperative was to secure the signing of the contracts that have been announced today. They are due to run out on 31 March. Without them there was no contract at all for British Coal. I then agreed with the Select Committee all the items that it was to consider and all the items that I was to consider, as I was not prepared to come back to
  28
  the House and have it suggested that we had both not looked at all the items of common interest. There has been immensely constructive work together to secure those ends. I then took the principal recommendations of the Select Committee which relate not to core contracts, but to supplemental contracts.
  It is those supplemental contracts which are now capable of being negotiated because of the decisions that I am announcing today and the decisions announced last Thursday. In addition, the market itself can be widened because of the various decisions that I have already announced. A significant number of decisions have already been taken. But—and this is the critical point from which the Select Committee cannot run and from which I cannot run—in the end it is not for Governments just to forecast or to say what they would like to happen. Customers have got to come forward and sign the contracts.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of firms throughout British industry which, during the downturn in the economy, have been struggling to maintain their markets and to become more competitive? They have done that—all honour to them—without any subsidy from the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend further accept that the miners are exceptionally fortunate to have been given this opportunity to win back more markets if they can? They are now on their own; it is up to them to win back the markets, and they will not do so if they go on strike.
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised some important points.
  Ever since I became responsible for this policy subject, I have been deeply concerned about the problems facing the mining industry and particularly about the mining communities that are dependent upon that industry. That is one of the reasons why I was able to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to secure a significant redundancy package—which is not in any way equalled by those received by the vast majority of people who lose their jobs in the recession—and to make my announcement about the regeneration package about which I shall say something in a few moments.
  The House is well aware of the problems that face tight-knit communities when the principal industry on which they depend declines or has to be closed. That is not a new phenomenon: the problem has faced this country as long as I have been in politics and has not been restricted to the coal mining industry.
  Let me now deal with the subsidy that the Government will make available to meet the difference between British Coal's cost of production and the world market-related prices. I have accepted the principal recommendation of the Select Committee that I should provide a subsidy to enable British Coal to compete with imports, which are currently running at about 8 million tonnes. Some people have claimed that the subsidy is only for two years. That is not what we say in the White Paper.
  The subsidy is there to help British Coal become world competitive over a period of time. The Government's policy, therefore, is that the subsidy should be reduced, over the period to privatisation. Yes, as I said on Thursday, we are committed to privatisation at the earliest practical opportunity. It is the only way of enabling the

  29
  industry to take full advantage of the opportunities that the market offers. Privatisation may well come in two years' time. I myself would very much like that to happen. If it does not come then, the subsidies can continue. If it does, negotiations about the financial terms become part of the sale process. I must emphasise that we have made it clear that we are prepared to embrace the range of figures put forward by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Heseltine: It is important that the House should hear a complete section of my speech at a time so that it can take these matters on board.
  We have made it clear that we are prepared to embrace the range of figures put forward by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. The Government are prepared to follow the central proposal that emerged from a thorough and careful review. I have not been able to accept every aspect of that reveiw, but, in the main, I have consistently praised the work of the Select Committee. It should be remembered that we have based our response to the House on the work and conclusions of an all-party Select Committee of the House.
  Finally, I have guaranteed—and the chairman of British Coal has announced—that no pit threatened with closure will be closed without the private sector being given the chance to operate it. In that context, I am prepared to offer the private sector equivalent subsidy arrangements, subject to the relevant EC provisions, if it can demonstrate that it can secure a genuinely additional market.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Has not the Minister now given the whole game away? The subsidy is to encourage privatisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Of course it is. Everyone in the mining industry knows that, if a pit is mothballed and offered to the private sector, the private sector will get the benefit of the subsidy and offer to re-employ some miners—some—at lower wages and in poorer conditions than they had before. That is why the Minister's statement last week was simply not believed by anyone. We did not think that he wanted to save jobs; we thought that he wanted to put the mines back into private hands. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Heseltine: Talk of giving the game away is rich coming from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who announced the connector with France without signing up on the details. If anything was given away, it was Britain's mining industry by the right hon. Gentleman.
  We will press ahead urgently with our plans to privatise the industry. On any calculations, British Coal, as a private company, would be one of the world's largest coal companies.
  I made it clear last Thursday, and I have made it clear from the beginning, that I cannot offer a guarantee about the size of a future market. In deciding not to specify the number of pits for the future, the Select Committee clearly recognised that and agreed with the point that I am making. As the chairman of British Coal said today:
  "I welcome the fact that all collieries have an opportunity to compete for a market that was not available at the outset of the coal review."
  The subsidy arrangements will therefore enable British Coal to do that. The chairman has made it clear that his
  30
  company will do all in its power to seize the opportunities that the White Paper makes possible. There is, therefore, now a significant new market to go for. These opportunities are above and beyond those provided by the core contracts.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said about the chairman of British Coal. Statements apparently came from British Coal this weekend which gave the clear impression to some people that a number of the 12 pits would not remain open for more than about nine months and that, among those that did remain open, some might well be substituted for the 19 that are not at present on any list. I should be most grateful for any assurances that my right hon. Friend can give on those points.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He heard what I have just said about the pits on the list of 12 and those on the list of 19. The chairman of British Coal has made it quite clear, and I could repeat the words, if my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) would like me to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will. As I said, the chairman of British Coal said today:
  "I welcome the fact that all collieries have an opportunity to compete for a market that was not available at the outset of the coal review."
  That is the point that I am trying to put to the House. The subsidy arrangements will enable British Coal to compete for that market which was not available. The chairman of British Coal has made it absolutely clear that he will do all within his power, as will his company, to seize the opportunities that are now available as a result of what the White Paper has made possible.
  As I was saying, those opportunities are above and beyond those provided by the core contracts. It is not British Coal's intention that the future of the 12 pits will be secured at the expense of the 19 pits which were outside the scope of the present review. The opportunities for the 12 pits are those of the additional market.
  The Government are, as I said in response to an earlier intervention, well aware of the very serious impact of pit closures on mining communities. We have made available to British Coal one of the most generous packages for voluntary redundancy currently available. In October, a substantial package of regeneration measures of about £180 million was announced. I augmented that in my announcement of last Thursday to bring it to around £200 million.
  As the House will know, Lord Walker has been appointed to pull together the activities of all the Government Departments and agencies and he has already visited many of the areas that might face closures. The training and enterprise council programme has been agreed in principle by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Those contingency plans make provision for some 25,000 additional people to be retrained and helped.
  British Coal has made it clear that it will act quickly to reclaim sites for development. Enhanced assisted area status has been promised to Doncaster, Barnsley and Mansfield.
  In October, I announced that the Government would consider enterprise zones for those areas most affected by closure, should closures be determined by British Coal. I can now go further than that. If there is a substantial reduction in employment at mines in the vicinity of

  31
  Easington in County Durham, the Dearne valley or Mansfield as a consequence of the proposals announced by British Coal on Thursday, we intend that enterprise zones should be set up in each relevant area. Thus, there could be up to three new enterprise zones.
  The zones are intended to provide a focus for regeneration over a wide area. They are expected to generate several thousand new jobs and attract significant new investment over the next 10 years. Their aim is to stimulate the construction of new manufacturing and commercial premises and promote economic diversity by introducing new enterprises. We have promised further help for those areas affected by closure proposals through extension of the regional enterprise grant scheme for small firms in areas not already benefiting.
  Last week, I announced financial support for the new east midlands regional development organisation which, among other things, will promote inward investment to the region. Additional money will be available to regional development organisations in the north-east, Yorkshire and the west midlands. English Estates has put together a provisional programme of about 1·5 million sq ft of business and industrial space and acquisition and servicing of 600 acres of land. The programme will support some 18,000 jobs.
  I can well understand the anxiety of communities faced with the need to change from their present reliance on coal. I know, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the House, how successful such change can work out to be. The fact is that, during the 1980s, we have seen change introduced and we have seen the results.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: One matter of anxiety in the coalfields which the Minister has not yet touched on is the question of safety in the mines. On several occasions in the past six months, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment have referred to the desirability of dismantling the safety regulations. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a matter of enormous concern to the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, which sponsors me in the House and which has made an immense contribution to maintaining both safety and production records in the pits. Does he recognise that, if he goes ahead and dismantles safety in the mines, lives will be lost—and it will be on his conscience and that of his colleagues.
  Mr. Heseltine: When I joined my Department and examined the political issues facing coal, the first thing I said was that I would do nothing to deteriorate—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House must realise that interruptions use up the precious time available.
  Mr. Heseltine: I sometimes wonder what people who must go down the mines feel when they see the response of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) asked a serious and important question to which I was about to give an unequivocal answer. I made it clear that I would do nothing to prejudice safety standards in the mines. That was the first thing I said, and I have remained consistent in that position, although the House fully realises that these matters are, rightly, for the Health and Safety Executive.
  32
  As the House knows, we are consulting over the 1908 Act. I give the House an assurance that no decision will be taken in my Department which prejudices safety in the mines. I hope that that is as categorical as I can make it. We have seen changes take place before. In many ways, Lord Walker changed the economic opportunities in south Wales. His contribution was proverbial, and Labour Members know exactly how much he did.
  When the steel industry faced closure in Shotton, some 7,000 jobs went. But 10,000 new job opportunities were created in the 1980s.
  I had to help with the problem of Corby when the British Steel plant faced closure, with a loss of 3,500 jobs. With enthusiastic support—I say it—from the local Labour council, the new town corporation and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), 11,000 new jobs have been created in that part of England.
  Mr. William Cash: On the jobs issue to which my right hon. Friend is addressing himself, will he give an assurance that if, at the end of the consultation process for Trentham and perhaps some of the other pits, Trentham was privatised, it would have full and free access to all coal purchasers so that it could run its affairs properly, in line with the market forces that my right hon. Friend has considered? Will he please give me an assurance, especially about Trentham, on that point?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will understand the difficulty of intervening in the statutory procedure for consultation. However, I made it clear to him that any pit —obviously, that includes Trentham—which British Coal determines to close after consultation will be made available to the private sector. I have made it clear this afternoon, and I have said earlier, that if any private sector organisation can find a genuinely additional market for the coal, I shall be prepared to offer a subsidy along the lines of what I have announced so that it can sell the coal.
  There is nothing to stop such a private sector organisation approaching the generators in the electricity supply industry. However, my hon. Friend will understand that we are talking about a genuine additional marketplace. Therefore, it would be misleading if I did not say that I would not regard access to the core contracts which have been announced today as a genuine additional marketplace. That would merely have the effect of closing down pits in other parts of the country. I have given my hon. Friend a wide-ranging answer which applies in general terms to other pits which might face closure.
  In truth, two fundamental differences of approach have emerged continuously in the debate about coal on the Floor of the House. First, the Labour party, with the significant exception of members of the Select Committee, has refused to engage in any serious discussion of the options. It has set aside any attempt at reasoned arguments, often those of its own members of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No.
  The Labour party has argued that there is an opportunity for massive intervention in the marketplace that would protect the coal industry from competitive pressure. That is the first distinction between the arguments of the Opposition and those of the

  33
  Government. The Government believe that energy policy is a matter for a competitive marketplace in which a diversity of supply is on offer to a wide range of customers who, in the exercise of their discretion, will exert a downward pressure on price and continuous pressure for efficiency.
  The second gaping divide is the almost unbelievable contrast between the policies Labour Governments have pursued in practice and the pretence which the Labour party now offers about what it believes that we should do. I begin with the concept of the visionary plan which the Labour party tells us about. It could not be more clearly stated. In 1974, the "Plan for Coal" opened with the following ringing sentences":
  "Coal's major role and new importance in the entirely changed energy situation facing Britain is clearly presented in the National Coal Board's Plan for Coal. It is the most ambitious forward strategy ever prepared by the mining industry, calling for £600 million of new investment, first to stabilise and then to expand the nation's coal-mining capacity over the next decade."
  On page 9 the vision was quantified.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: How many tonnes?
  Mr. Heseltine: As always, the hon. Member has forgotten the figures, but I shall remind the House of them.
  In 1973–74, the market of 133 million tonnes was to increase to 150 million tonnes by 1985. To achieve that, the plan was quite specific—new investment of £1·4 billion in the 10 years to 1985. That was the plan, the vision and the certainty. The only thing that has changed is that the hon. Member who had so much to do with the plan has forgotten what he put in it. At best, it was gross naivety and at worst it was a great confidence trick.
  I have the figures for 1985. Far from achieving the forecast increase to 150 million tonnes, the figure was down to 118 million.
  Mr. Benn: The Tories were in office in 1985.
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade is being economical with the truth. Have you the right to tell him to be more correct as he is deliberately misleading the House?
  Madam Speaker: Order. First, that is not a point of order but a question of debate and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to debate it if he catches my eye. Secondly, I cannot accept his remark and must ask him to withdraw it, and not to waste the time of the House further in this serious debate.
  Mr. Redmond: I withdraw it.
  Mr. Heseltine: When I gave the figures for 1985, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield observed that the Tories were in power then. At last, I have found something on which I can agree with him. I had anticipated the Pavlovian reaction of Opposition Members. I realised that if I mentioned 1985 it would occur to them that it was all the fault of the wicked Tories. Their broad theory would be that if only we had got on with those plans and had allowed all the good work put in place by the Labour party to continue, as they had intended, all would have been well.
  I took the liberty of checking the facts. In 1973–74—when the Tories were certainly in office, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will remember—output was 142 million tonnes. In 1978–89, the output achieved under
  34
  Labour was 119 million tonnes. Far from an increase, far from a plan for coal, all Labour managed was to decrease output by 16 per cent.
  Your curiosity will have stretched to what happened to the bills, Madam Speaker. Labour promised to invest £1·4 billion in 10 years, but the actual cash invested was £5·7 billion. The cry will go up—perhaps the Opposition have learnt their lesson as the cry did not go up. All that dramatic increase in investment would have been under the Labour party.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: What about producing 119 million tonnes now, you clever little sod?
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether you heard that remark and I shall not repeat it, but it calls for a withdrawal, on your instructions.
  Madam Speaker: I believe that I heard what I thought was an unparliamentary remark, in which case I must ask the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to withdraw it.
  Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word "clever".
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman understands that he is using up, as I have said before, very precious time in the debate. I do not want to exchange words with him about the word "clever". [Interruption.] Order. I shall use the authority that the House has given me if the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) continues to interrupt in that way. I am sure the hon. Member for Bradford, South will take the matter seriously and withdraw the remark.
  Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Madam Speaker, I shall withdraw the word "little" and I shall withdraw the word "sod", because we need every vote in the House tonight. That is the only reason, because—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I need no qualification; I need a withdrawal. The remark was withdrawn. I hope that hon. Members will watch their language in this debate, and any other debate.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that the facts of Labour's record should so offend the hon. Member, but it is important that the whole House should understand exactly what they are.
  As I have said, the Labour party promised £.1·4 billion; the actual cash invested up to 1985 was £5·7 billion. Of course, the suggestion could be made that all of that had been invested before the Labour party left office. I have checked the figures again. Between 1974 and 1979, the investment in British Coal was £1·5 billion—
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of frustration.
  Mr. Boyce: Frustrated as I am, Madam Speaker, I believe that it is a genuine point of order for you.

  35
  On Thursday, I raised with the President of the Board of Trade the fact that the people facing redundancy were little interested in what happened five years ago, 15 years ago or 40 years ago.
  Madam Speaker: Order. It must be a point of order for me, not a point of argument.
  Mr. Boyce: Do we have to listen to this nonsense all over again?
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members have a free choice in the House, whether to stay or to remove themselves elsewhere.
  Mr. Heseltine: I think that the public may feel that the record of the Labour party is relevant to the discussion today. The great claim of the Labour party is that it has backed British Coal, but we have established that it actually ran down production. Its next great claim could be that it invested more than the Tories did in British Coal, but it cannot square that with the fact that when it had its five years, under the "Plan for Coal", it invested £1·5 billion and in the five years when the Tories had control, up to 1985, the figure was £4·2 billion. What we saw was Labour presiding over a declining market and rising costs.
  What else should the Labour party have done? It could, of course, have cut back on nuclear power, but the Trade and Industry Select Committee said no to that idea, and the Government also said no. The House may think that I am talking about a Conservative Government, but I am not; the Labour Government said no. They said no on 15 May 1978, when the Labour Government decided:
  "After three years of discussion, the Government believe that the nuclear component is necessary for the energy policy of the United Kingdom; that a Windscale expansion of the kind proposed is necessary for that nuclear component to develop properly."—[Official Report, 15 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 177.]
  Who said it? The right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
  This should cause the House—even Opposition Members—no surprise, because on 25 June of the same year the same right hon. Member said:
  "All the forward forecasts, which go to the first quarter of the 21st century, indicate a growing role for nuclear power."
  He was referring to the 20 per cent. about which I reminded the House last Thursday.
  What are the facts? We have still not reached 20 per cent. dependence of nuclear power, yet the Labour party, despite its forecasts, is trying to back off. The fact is that the Opposition knew; they had the forecasts; and the only other qualification that they conspicuously possess is a remarkably short memory for the facts.
  I need not detain the House long on the interconnector with France. I explained the position comprehensively last Thursday. So careless were the Labour Government with our national interest that they approved the multi-million pound project and authorised the Central Electricity Generating Board to proceed. Does the right hon. Member for Chesterfield want to tell the House that he did not know that the treaty of Rome was in place when he made the announcement? Or were the Labour Government so keen to announce jobs before the forthcoming general election that they sold the principle and left the critical details to the generosity of the French
  36
  negotiators? Even for the right hon. Gentleman, that seems to be carrying the international brotherhood of man a shade beyond reasonable caution.
  Of course, the Labour Government also knew about gas. They could have refused to allow so rapid a development of the North sea. They were the ones with a plan for coal. What was their policy on gas? On 8 December 1975, they said:
  "Our objective, as a Government, has been to seek to do all we can in the national interest to develop gas and oil resources in the North Sea and to secure the situation for the future. That is the basis of a great future of this country." —[Official Report, 8 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 163.]
  Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did I not hear you say that speeches should be short? Does not that apply to Ministers and Front-Bench spokesmen as well as to others who might be lucky enough, if there is still time when this Minister has finished, to be called? Would you bring the Minister to order and remind him of the time factor?
  Madam Speaker: I have no authority to bring any Minister or Back Bencher to order in that sense. I simply make a plea, in the interests of all in the House, for shorter speeches.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have deep sympathy with that point, Madam Speaker. I have given way to a large number of hon. Members, and I believe that I should report to the House the views of the Labour Government on gas, because one of the most important criticisms levelled by Labour—but not by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—contains the idea that we should cut back on gas. So let me tell the House what the Labour Government said about it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion that the President of the Board of Trade moved related to the White Paper, which is meant to be about the future of the coal industry. Will the President deal with the future and not give us lessons that we, and above all the mining industry, know about the past?
  Madam Speaker: All Members are responsible for the arguments that they put here. If we could make some progress, I might be able to call other Members to put the opposing arguments.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must surely be aware—if he is not, his hon. Friends will remind him—that the Select Committee report extensively discussed the issue of gas. It must be relevant to our decisions and our discussions whether the Labour party believed that there was an alternative to cutting back on gas. Let me tell the House what the view of the last Labour Government was about gas. Then we can judge the validity of the criticisms that Labour Members are now making. They said:
  "Our objective, as a Government, has been to seek to do all that we can in the national interest to develop gas and oil resources in the North Sea … That is the basis of a great future of this country. As we move towards the 1980s, we shall be an energy-strong country. We shall be the most important country, in energy terms, in Western Europe, and one of the most well-based in the world."
  At that point, an intrepid hon. Gentleman asked, "At what cost?", to which the response was:

  37
  "That is a concept for the faint hearts of the Conservative Party to ponder."—[Official Report, 8 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 163.]
  Who announced that bold policy of allowing gas its head? It was not, this time, the wild optimism of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield; he is guiltless of that statement. It was a then much more humble figure—the Minister of State, Department of Energy, our old friend, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the more rope the President of the Board of Trade is given, the more likely he is to hang himself? Are we not meant to be discussing future energy policy? Is it not the case that he will be consigned to the history books, just as he is now talking about policy of 20 years ago? What matters is now.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Heseltine: The House will have listened to the debate and to the exchange that we had on Thursday and a wider audience will have listened to the way in which the Labour party has abandoned all that it did when it was in power as though there were a simple way forward.
  There is a speech that every right hon. and hon. Member should read. It was made on 20 October last year by Lord Marsh in another place.
  Mr. Skinner: He is a Tory.
  Mr. Heseltine: That is their answer: he is a Tory. If he is a Tory, it may well be because he has sat in a Cabinet with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and learnt the arrant nonsense that was discussed there. Let me quote Lord Marsh.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the President of the Board of Trade, but he may not quote speeches made in the other place unless they were made by a Minister. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can paraphrase.
  Mr. Heseltine: I recognise your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that Lord Marsh should say that the social devastation of what happened under a Labour Government, when he was a Labour Minister, should not be forgotten must rank as a serious part of the discussion about how one judges the integrity of the Labour party.
  And so—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is also a rule of the House that, even though one may disagree violently with the hon. Gentleman who is speaking, one at least gives him a hearing.
  Mr. Heseltine: It is not that the Opposition disagree with me, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is that they do not want the facts paraded. The Labour party cannot stand the facts because they do not square with the argument that it puts forward today. However, we shall reveal just what the Labour party did when it had the power to deal with these matters.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is talking to us about facts. I faxed a letter to the right hon. Gentleman at 7.30 last night in which I asked him to clarify the statement that he made on Thursday, which put 800 miners in my constituency out of work. They were
  38
  producing some of the cheapest coal at one of the most modern coal mines in the world. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my questions. Must I listen to a diatribe that has nothing to do with the well-being of miners?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member well knows that that is not a point or order for the Chair. The Chair is not responsible for the substance of speeches.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) refers to Maltby, a mine which British Coal has said that it is considering developing. That will attract investment of £29 million net and extend the life of the pit into the next century.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in October 1992 I asked him about the inbuilt discrimination against coal in the Electricity Act 1989, the measure which privatised the electricity industry? He gave me an assurance that he would consider that "inbuilt discrimination" as part of his review. Has he done that? If he has, and has found the discrimination that I believe to exist, why is he not acting to produce a level playing field between coal, gas and nuclear power?
  Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend must be fully aware, as the Select Committee determined and as I have made clear, that we are considering an immensely complex range of options. I have listed the areas in which we are helping British Coal, both with a subsidy to help it bid for markets and by widening the market for coal. It is a naive interpretation of what has happened to believe that British Coal has not received subsidies over recent years. There is about £1 billion a year of subsidy over and above world market prices in British Coal's current costs, and there was about £18 billion-worth of investment in British Coal in the 1980s. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend has said.
  We have provided British Coal with the opportunity to earn additional tonnage through supplemental contracts. We have given it the opportunity to compete. We have provided it with a wider market. Without Government action, that market would not be there. What has been the response of the National Union of Mineworkers? It wants to call a strike. Does the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, believe that the NUM serves its interests by going on strike? What will the customers of British Coal think if they see the industry going on strike at the very time when we are giving it a chance to compete in larger marketplaces?
  We have made it clear that the best hope for British Coal is to take advantage of the opportunities that we have provided and to move towards the private sector. We have seen privatised industry after industry move on to the world stage and win new markets. That has been the success of the 1980s. We want British Coal to seize the opportunities that are there.
  All we have from the Labour party——
  Mr. Redmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: From the Labour party we hear only references to the past and to subsidies. It continues to look backwards. That is all that it does. The House has heard its message, which has nothing to do with a viable and competitive British industry. I am sick and tired of listening to Opposition Members telling me what their fathers thought, what their grandfathers thought, and

  39
  what their great grandfathers thought. We are concerned about what their children will think if we do not make the economy competitive. We are not trying to build a land for the fathers of Opposition Members but we are determined to build a land for their children.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'declines to approve the White Paper, The Prospects for Coal, on the grounds that it fails to provide a long-term future for any of the 31 pits announced for closure on 13th October or to secure a contract for a single extra ton of coal above those contracts available on 13th October; notes that the reduction in contracts for coal is a product of the distorted market created by Her Majesty's Government on the privatisation of electricity and regrets the failure of the White Paper to open up the electricity market to fair competition from coal; records its surprise that despite a new subsidy on the purchase of coal Her Majesty's Government has not obtained any commitment from the generating companies to purchase more coal; is concerned that the White Paper will impose severe hardship on the communities around the 19 pits to be closed immediately and the further 12 pits liable to close within three years; recognises that the British Coal industry is the cheapest and most efficient in Europe; congratulates the management and workforce of the 31 pits on their achievement in doubling productivity within eight years while reducing the price of their coal; and calls for a balanced energy strategy that maintains existing volumes of coal production.'.
  I understand why the President of the Board of Trade did not spend the bulk of his speech talking about his White Paper. Having read it, I think that he was probably right not to do so. I also think, however, that on this occasion he could have spared the House his portrayal of a pantomime villain. I have shadowed the right hon. Gentleman for long enough to know that he plays it for the boos and the hisses—that that is what gives him his high. Hon. Members should not misunderstand me; there is a place for pantomime villains. As a child of 10, I loved to boo and hiss them as much as the next person. But the place for a pantomime villain is on the pantomime stage, not on the Floor of the House introducing a report that seals the fate of a major strategic industry and the jobs of 30,000 grown men—men of dignity and courage, who deserve better of the right hon. Gentleman than his vamping performance today.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spent five months on his review, being as self-indulgent as his performances in the House. The critical reason why he has failed to come up with a long-term solution to the problem of the pits in Britain is simple. Why has he not produced a White Paper that gives a future to those 31 pits? Has he never thought that he was wrong in wanting to close them in the first place?
  I thought that, after Thursday's statement, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) asked the most penetrating and revealing question of all. He asked the President of the Board of Trade to confirm that his conclusion was
  "that the economic analysis that my right hon. Friend made last year was right then and is right now."
  Modestly, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "my hon. Friend is right."—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1250.]
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment.
  We could not have had a clearer answer. The thousands of people who wrote to Conservative Members last October were wrong; the quarter of a million who marched to Hyde park for the miners were wrong; the 1 million who signed petitions for the pits were wrong. They had all got it wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knew better than they and was not going to change his policy.
  Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman had gone on to remind the House of the rest of the exchange that he quoted, hon. Members would recall that I said that we had taken care of the social consequences of an economic analysis that had not changed.
  While the hon. Gentleman ponders on that, may I ask him a question? Will he repudiate strike action on the part of the miners, or does he actually believe that it expands the market for coal?
  Mr. Cook: I shall have something to say about strike action in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the course of my speech, but let me say first that we did not come here to debate the social consequences of closing pits; we came here to debate how those pits could be kept open. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Nicholls rose——
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules.
  Mr. Cook: I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I shall answer the President of the Board of Trade, who asked the same question. His question deserves an answer.
  The right hon. Gentleman's statement last October did for Arthur Scargill what none of us believed possible: it made him more popular than the current Prime Minister. His statement last week has now achieved something that Arthur Scargill himself never achieved: it has persuaded the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to ballot for industrial action. That is the scale of the betrayal felt by those who work in the pits—not just members of the National Union of Mineworkers, but UDM members. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are barracking, asking from a sedentary position whether we support such action. If they support us tonight in defeating the White Paper, there will be no need for a strike.
  The President of the Board of Trade has spent five months on his review and in that time he has learnt nothing.
  Mr. Heseltine: Why does not the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
  Mr. Cook: With respect, I have already answered it. I fully understand and share the anger of those who were led to believe that there would be a solution and now find that there is none.
  The President of the Board of Trade may have learnt nothing in the course of those five months, but at least he started off knowing rather more than his Prime Minister, who accused me on Tuesday of wanting to fossilise coal. I hate to admit that I have ever been beaten to action, but I must tell the Prime Minister that 1,000 ft of pressure have beaten me to it by 1 million years. How can we take

  41
  seriously a review of the coal industry's future from a Government who still do not understand that they are dealing with a fossil fuel? We cannot take it seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman has not come up with one extra bag of coal to be bought from the pits that he claims to have saved.
  Let us be objective and let us be fair to the President of the Board of Trade. That was the test that he set himself and put to the House repeatedly: his task was to secure an extra market for coal. In his speech, he asked what those who go down the pits will think of Opposition Members. Let me point out that they do not include him, for he has not been down a single pit in the course of his review. When I asked him, during Question Time last week, why that was, he replied that his presence was more important where those who can enter into contracts with British Coal may be found.
  That was the test that the right hon. Gentleman set himself: where could he find extra contracts for British Coal? According to that very test, his White Paper is a failure. It does not contain a single contract for a single extra bag of coal.
  Mr. Jim Lester: What would those who go down the pits have felt if my right hon. Friend had not been able to announce today that he had secured the core contract?
  Mr. Cook: They told him what they felt on 13 October, when he announced precisely the same core contract as he has announced this week. There has not been an advance of as much as 1 million tonnes on the contract that justified his decision to close the 31 pits. Now, five months later, we are asked to accept that the same tonnage will save 12 of those pits.
  Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No. I have given way already.
  The right hon. Gentleman's argument is that, by providing British Coal with a subsidy that brings down the price of the coal at the pits concerned to that of imports, the Government will be able to replace imports with the output of those pits.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Cook: No; I want to finish this section of my speech.
  The problem with that logic is that the output of the 12 pits exceeds the total volume of imports. In the year now ending, they have produced 13 million tonnes. Next year, Britain is expected to import 9 million tonnes for electricity generation. Contracts have already been signed for 2 million of those tonnes, leaving a balance of only 7 million tonnes. Even if the output from those pits displaced every last tonne of imports for which no contract has yet been signed, there would be room only for 7 million tonnes, or the output of half the 12 pits that the President of the Board of Trade claims to have saved.
  That is the position this year; next year will be worse. Next year, the core contracts go down from 40 million to 30 million tonnes. In that year, British Coal will have to find extra output not just for the 13 million tonnes from the 12 pits, but for the additional 10 million tonnes lost on the core contract. That is a total of 23 million tonnes. Yet,
  42
  in that year, the total volume of imports expected is only 10 million tonnes. How will a subsidy help British Coal to find the other 13 million tonnes? If it does not find them, how will the 12 pits stay open beyond next April? I will give way to the President of the Board of Trade if he will answer that question.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: As well as asking that vital question, will my hon. Friend ask another? What credence can we give to the process of consultation about the 10 pits that are not even included in any of the figures? If my hon. Friend's figures are right, what hope or belief can there be in the integrity of the whole inquiry and consultation process, which could save Taff Merthyr and other collieries among the 10?
  Mr. Cook: There has been no offer to privatise them; it has been a clear-out sale.
  The President of the Board of Trade has had time to think of his answer, so I shall give way to him. Now that we have demonstrated that the output of those 12 pits exceeds imports, can the right hon. Gentleman explain to us where the market is for their output? Who is going to buy the 13 million tonnes?
  Mr. Heseltine: It is apparent that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Select Committee's report. Its whole essence pointed to a range of ways in which there would be a larger market. I have followed the Select Committee's principal recommendations, to enable British Coal to meet that marketplace.
  Mr. Cook: The principal recommendation was recommendation 17. The President of the Board of Trade is right, but recommendation 17 did not simply say, bring in a subsidy. Recommendation 17 said, bring in a subsidy and make it conditional on the electricity companies purchasing the additional tonnage. The right hon. Gentleman, in a negotiation process that would stun any union leader, has given the subsidy to the electricity companies, which they have taken, but in return they have made no commitment to buy one bag of coal.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind a figure for the compensation that would have to be paid to British Gas if it was made to tear up its contracts with the generators?
  Mr. Cook: I should have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's question if British Gas could guarantee a supply of gas to domestic gas consumers. British Gas has entered into interruptible contracts with the power stations, which means that they can interrupt the contract for gas for 55 days a year. Those 55 days will be during the winter, when British Gas needs gas for domestic consumers. I do not see why we should allow British Gas and independent producers to back us into a national energy strategy which would mean that for 55 days in the winter we were vulnerable to disruption of supplies.
  Arithmetic is plainly not the right hon. Gentleman's strong point. We have still had no answer from him. Where will the extra tonnes go? For that matter, where did the figure of 12 pits come from? If the President of the Board of Trade has not identified the market for those 13 million tonnes, how did he arrive at the figure of 12 pits saved? I think I have a clue which provides the explanation. The clue was provided by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the hon. Member

  43
  for Hatton—[Interruption.] I apologise. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Tatton, I am bound to say, sounds much more appropriate to the hon. Gentleman.
  Last Tuesday, the Minister for Energy was due to address the World Coal Institute. Last Tuesday, the Minister had other things on his mind, so he sent his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, who was introduced as having a background in coal and opencast mining, which interested the rest of us. As he left, the hon. Member for Tatton was doorstepped. He was asked about the prospects of success for the White Paper. His reply was, "We are mining a rich seam of support on the Back Benches."
  I suspect that in that reply there was more truth than we heard in an hour today from the President of the Board of Trade. The figure of 12 pits has nothing to do with the consequences of the subsidy, or with any calculation of what the market is for extra output. The calculation behind the figure of 12 pits is, simply, what is necessary to get Tory Back Benchers into the same Lobby as the Minister. It is a figure that owes nothing to Boyds, or Caminus, or to the other consultants. That figure was chosen by the Patronage Secretary and expresses his total knowledge of the mining industry. It is the figure that he needs to turn rebels into loyalists. I urge those loyalists not to be taken in by that. The Government are not mining a seam of support on their Back Benches; they are digging a pit for their Back Benchers to fall into, because one year from now none of those 12 pits will be open.
  Mr. Rod Richards: On the subject of rebels, the hon. Gentleman calls in his amendment for existing volumes of coal production to be maintained. That implies that the Connah's Quay power station will not get the go-ahead and that the several thousand jobs tied up with that power station will not be realised. Is the hon. Gentleman telling his hon. Friend the Member Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), whose constituents stand to benefit from some 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, that he should vote against the creation of those jobs and should support his party?
  Mr. Cook: I have already had correspondence with the management in charge of the Connah's Quay project. I have said to them that I see no reason to disagree with the proposal to use sour gas, which cannot be used for domestic heating.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs.
  Mr. Cook: No, I am not splitting hairs. Our concern is that gas, which is perfectly capable of domestic use, could more efficienty be used for domestic purposes than turned into electricity.
  If any of the rebels are in doubt, I urge them to look at the White Paper. It does not talk about saving 12 pits. The White Paper, crafted by civil servants, is more honest than the President of the Board of Trade has been with the House. Paragraph 13.8 says:
  "The Government has therefore concluded that there is a case for enabling British Coal to phase the inevitable closures needed … More pits will be kept open for longer in the interim."
  There is not talk there of a permanent solution—only of phasing and only of the interim. If the President of the
  44
  Board of Trade and the House really want to provide a long-term future for those pits, what they have to do is what the right hon. Gentleman has failed to do: tackle the rigged market, which is squeezing coal out of the chance to compete.
  The President of the Board of Trade was good enough to quote from British Coal's press release when he made his announcement last Thursday. It is a pity that he did not quote from the following paragraph, which said:
  "In its evidence to the Department of Trade and Industry inquiry"—
  that is, to the right hon. Gentleman—
  "British Coal made clear its view that only a radical transformation of the market would affect the prospects for collieries threatened with closure."
  That was British Coal's view: that only a radical transformation of the market would do that.
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying to us that it would be wrong to intervene in the market. This Government intervened only four years ago to create the rigged market. What is wrong now with intervening, when we see how it is working? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not working."] The President of the Board of Trade could have done a number of things, had he wanted to correct the market.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I gave way to him last week, and it turned out that he did not even know the unemployment figures for his own constituency. My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should return to his constituency, spend some time there and, when he is knowledgeable enough, come back here and then intervene in debates.
  The biggest failure in the White Paper is that the President of the Board of Trade has not accepted any of the recommendations of the Select Committee about how to change the rigged market. That, I presume, is why the Government have not tabled a procedural motion that would have enabled us to vote on the amendment in the name of the Chairman of the Select Committee. In that way, the House would have had the opportunity to endorse those recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman has ignored.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the President of the Board of Trade's attempt to suggest that the White Paper effectively follows the Select Committee's recommendations is a misrepresentation and a fundamental divergence from the Select Committee's recommendations? The hon. Gentleman has already said that the White Paper does not allude to the rigged market. In addition, the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a subsidy for coal is conditional upon securing extra contracts. The President of the Board of Trade's White Paper has not made one iota of difference. He has done nothing to secure those contracts.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has made his own point and I hope that he will speak later in the debate. I agree very much with him.
  As for the Select Committee's recommendations which the President of the Board of Trade has ignored, he could have accepted the recommendation that the nuclear levy be paid to an independent trust. Then we would know that

  45
  it had been set aside for decommissioning costs and that it was not being used to cover Nuclear Electric's current costs. If Nuclear Electric can compete, fine; good luck to it. But it is not entitled to a subsidy five times larger than the right hon. Gentleman's subsidy to the coal industry. Nuclear Electric's subsidy is so large that if it were given to British Coal, it could deliver almost half its coal to the power stations free of charge. The most extraordinary feature of this subsidy is that we pay it to the French as well. That is why we are now importing so much electricity from France, more expensive electricity from France than from British Coal or British Gas. The electricity companies buy it only because they can claim the subsidy that goes to nuclear power on French imports.
  The President has once again today tried to explain that this is all the fault of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The President is only here at the Dispatch Box to carry out the policies left in place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—a commitment to continuity in energy policy which I had not hitherto suspected of the Government. I will therefore give the House a brief history of the interconnector.
  As the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) was good enough to tell the House last week, the interconnector began life in negotiations under a Conservative Government. What happened in 1978 was that my right hon. Friend gave capital borrowing consent for the interconnector. The President's charge is that my right hon. Friend had not wrapped up the details of the contract. Hardly surprising, because there was no contract. The President has deposited in the Library a summary of the legal advice that he has received on the interconnector. Its opening paragraph explains when the contract came into being. It says:
  "The framework for the operation [of the interconnector] is governed by a Protocol entered into on 16th June 1981."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has an alibi for his whereabouts in June 1981. It was impossible to go to any meeting of 10 people in the Labour movement in 1981 without finding my right hon. Friend addressing it —he was not negotiating with the French over a protocol for the interconnector.
  Nor, may I say, is that the real problem with the interconnector. The turning point of its history does not come until 1989, the year when the Government gave Electricité de France the right to qualify for the nuclear subsidy. The Government, having given that subsidy, could have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee to remove it. To be fair to the President, he sent the Minister of State across to Paris to talk to the French and explore the problem. I have here the press release which he issued that day and I shall share with the House the very first sentence, the thing that the Minister of State felt was most important and should go at the beginning of his press release:
  "I made it clear that the Government recognised that it was not legally possible to prevent the importation of French-generated electricity via the link."
  Picture the scene, Madam Speaker. We have a Minister who is sent to France to negotiate for British interests. What is the first thing that he does? It is cheerfully to tell the French that he has not got a legal leg to stand on. I have tried hard to picture the same scene in reverse. I have tried to picture a French Minister landing at Heathrow
  46
  and, as he lands, saying that he recognises that it is not legally possible to get what he is asking for. I have failed to capture this picture in my mind's eye.
  The President told me last week that I was blaming the French. I do not blame the French Government. The French have a Government who stick up for France and good luck to them. I just wish that we had a Government who stuck up for Britain.
  But the biggest reason why coal is being squeezed out of the market is not nuclear, it is not the French; it is because, since privatisation, these Ministers have licensed a whole new generation of gas-fired power stations in the full knowledge that every time they signed a licence they were shutting three coal pits. On their plans, five years from now Britain will generate more electricity from gas than from coal. That is why the Select Committee floated the recommendation that the outputs from those gas power stations should be changed to mid-merit and to peak rather than following baseload.
  Mr. Churchill: Yes.
  Mr. Cook: I am glad that I have the support of the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on this point.
  On energy grounds, that is very attractive. When it comes to energy strategy, it is daft to put gas through power stations to turn it into electricity for baseload. The most sensible thing is to pump it directly to heat homes and factories. The most wasteful thing to do with it is to put it through a power station first, because that way one loses half the heat, not heating factories or homes but heating cooling towers. It would make sense when it comes to our national resources as well.
  To achieve this massive switch from coal to gas, we shall divert one third of the output of North sea gas into electricity generation. There is one clear consequence of that: North sea gas reserves will run out one third faster. When they do, we will be dependent on imported gas to keep the light bulbs burning. Gas on the international market comes from countries which are by-words for political instability, such as Algeria and Russia. A key event occurred in the course of the energy review which should oblige the President to rethink this strategy. Two months ago Russia increased the price of the gas that it exports to Germany by one third.
  There is a danger that we are repeating the errors of the 1960s and early 1970s when we relied on imported oil because it was cheap; when we became reliant, it was no longer cheap. When we find that we are reliant on imported gas, we will find that it is no longer cheap. But we need not become reliant on imports of gas if we conserve our own fuel assets and that should be the concern of a Secretary of State for Energy. The cost of his White Paper will be the loss of half our present coal reserves. That is what is at stake. The most revealing figures in the Boyds report are that half the coal reserves to which we have access are in the 31 pits at risk. There is a cost to the nation that should concern the Secretary of State with responsibility for energy.
  Dr. Hampson rose——
  Mr. Cook: No. I have explained my position already: when the hon. Gentleman has done his homework and comes back to the House, we will let him in.
  The right hon. Gentleman is also Secretary of State for Industry. There is another cost here that should concern

  47
  him. His White Paper has just put under the hammer another slice of manufacturing industry. Because Britain has the largest coal industry in Europe, it has the best mining engineering industry, too. It is a big export earner for Britain—£400 million in contracts won by the mining engineering industry last year. It, too, is at risk now. The Association of Mining Equipment Companies warned on Friday that
  "a sizeable and stable home market is essential for continuing international success."
  The industry will no longer have it and the association expects that jobs in the mining equipment industry will shrink from 22,000 to 13,000. Factories in places far away from coalfields, in places that will not see any of the measures which the right hon. Gentleman announced today to help the coalfields, will be affected.
  There is a final cost that should concern the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade. Next time he sits as President of the Board of Trade—possibly in lonely splendour because, as far as we can work out, there has never been a meeting at which anyone else has turned up—he should reflect on the cost to the balance of payments of the White Paper. Five years ago this country was self-sufficient in carbon fuels. The damning indictment of the Government's lack of an energy strategy is that by the first quarter of next century we will be importing three quarters of our primary fuels—this is an island built on coal which could still be surrounded by gas if hon. Members on the Government Benches were not so anxious to hurry up the burning.
  The rest of Europe must think that we are mad. If any of them had the coal reserves that we have, none of them would be shutting down those reserves. They would be regarded as a national asset. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] Conservative Members say that they are. On the figures in the White Paper, in the next four years Germany, which has smaller coal reserves, will have a bigger mining industry than Britain.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way. And it costs the Germans three times as much to mine that coal.
  Here I come to the point which I find it most difficult to forgive.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Cook: No, I want to finish.
  Here I come to the point for which I find it most difficult to forgive the right hon. Gentleman. He is closing not just some of the largest coal reserves in Europe, but some of the most efficient pits in Europe. I have seen them. They are pits which have had millions of pounds invested in them, investment that will now be left to buckle under pressure and be buried under roof fall. They are pits where miners have doubled productivity in the past eight years. They are pits where we have reduced the price of coal by one sixth in the past five years and could reduce it by one sixth in the next five years. How many other industries have doubled productivity and cut prices in the past five years?
  The right hon. Gentleman is fond of accusing us of running Britain down, yet here is one of the best success stories of British industry, and he is running it down. He is running down not only the pits but the communities around them, communities which were built there only
  48
  because the coal was found there, communities whose only economic purpose is to provide coal for the nation, communities which will be shattered if that purpose is taken from them.
  It is not only members of the Opposition who know that—some Conservative Members know it. Many of them gave promises to those communities last October. Today is the day they have to deliver on those promises, not at the end of the year when the first of the 12 pits closes and not next year when the last of the 12 pits closes. It will be too late to save those communities then. The time to save them is tonight.
  The right hon. Gentleman has taken five months to find a solution to give real hope to those pits and he has failed. The House now has five hours in which to record its verdict on the White Paper. I beg hon. Members of all parties not to fail those communities, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, and, when the vote is called, to reject a White Paper that betrays those communities and betrays Britain's coal industry.
  5.10 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I intend to be brief, so I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I do not give way very often, if at all.
  As the first member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to be called in the debate, I must make it my first duty to convey our thanks to all the staff who worked so very hard to produce the report which is before the House and whose conclusions have been taken so seriously by the Government in the White Paper.
  We had a daunting task to perform, under considerable pressure of time. It is a great tribute to the experts helping us and to the staff of the Committee who made our work possible that we produced a report in such a coherent form in such a remarkably short time. At the same time, I must say that there are passages in the report—other members of the Select Committee will possibly agree—where our conclusions did not carry the stamp of detailed and lengthy consideration. Parts of the report are, by nature, in the form of a communiqué rather than of a report. There are forms of words evolved late at night, on the last night available to consider them, because we had to formulate an agreement to disagree.
  Mr. Richard Caborn: Very well put.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I am glad to have the agreement of the Chairman of the Select Committee. It is important that the House knows where the agreements to disagree are and should not put excessive faith in some of the forms of words in the report.
  I am in no way dissenting from the main drift of the report, any more than the Government have dissented from it. We formulated the proposition that there should be a subsidy. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) disagrees with that idea, but the most important point is that the industry should have time—if necessary, time should be bought for the industry—to try to solve the problems that the House had identified and which it wanted solved, but it is an exaggeration to present the report to the House as it if were a carefully knit, coherent set of 39 separate recommendations, every one of which had to be accepted or the whole would fail. I deal briefly with one or two of the report's recomendations.

  49
  The Select Committee recommended that
  "the Government consider financial assistance to contracts undertaken in the non-ESI market up to a maximum level of 3 million tonnes per annum for five years."
  In response to that recommendation, in paragraph 16.15 of the White Paper, the Government rightly state:
  "British Coal made it clear in its evidence to the Review that it is likely to continue to be constrained by insufficient supplies of the grades and quality of coal required by the non-power sector. It does not expect price to be an obstacle to selling the relevant types of coal."
  On that basis, and understandably, the White Paper states:
  "The Government has, therefore, concluded that a subsidy would be unlikely to increase British Coal sales to the non-electricity generation market."
  It is important that that fact is recognised, and it was recognised in the Select Committee's report. The reason the recommendation appears in the final version is that some members of the Select Committee perceived a need for the extra market to be presented as being as much as 19 million tonnes.
  Mr. Cahorn: May I refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory about that debate in the Select Committee? I think that the 3 million tonnes came out of the original debate on 21 October during an intervention by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) on the President of the Board of Trade. Great play was made of the fact that Leeds city council, a Labour authority, was buying Colombian coal. If the right hon. Gentleman remembers, we scratched below the surface in the Select Committee and said how ridiculous it was that local authorities, and indeed health authorities, were having to buy imported coal because, if they did not buy the cheapest coal, the district auditor would be on their backs, telling them that they were acting illegally. We took an objective view of that and said that, even though the Government had placed those constraints on the authorities, we could assist them and assist the mining industry to find the larger market for coal. That was the logic behind the 3 million tonnes.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: It may have been the argument, but it was not necessarily logical. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's memory that we did not test the proposition by calling evidence on it. British Coal's statement that it did not regard price as a constraint on the selling of non-electricity supply industry coal is contained in the review and must be accepted. It is necessary for some of the exaggerated expectations——
  Mr. Adam Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the argument was not logical, but it was the argument that was used. Will he confirm that he accepted it when he signed the report?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I accepted the report which said that the Government should "consider" the recommendation. I deliberately prefaced my remarks with the comment that it was a form of words, evolved under pressure at the last minute in an effort to pretend that there was agreement. I do not wish the House to be misled about the strength of the structure of those words. Labour Members put more strength on the structure than it will bear.
  In an article in The House Magazine, the Chairman of the Select Committee uses the extra 19 million tonnes as the minimum expectation in relation to the additional market that is to be secured. We were talking about what additional market there might be; we were not making
  50
  promises. We had not tested the projections by asking the generators whether they would buy, or by asking British Coal if it thought that it could sell——
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: No, there is a limit to the extent to which the debate can become an argument among members of the Select Committee. I have a strong suspicion that other hon. Members also want to participate, which is why I want to be brief.
  The article to which the Chairman of the Select Committee put his name is misleading, because it suggests that British Coal's market could be expanded
  "beyond the additional 19 million tonnes."
  It is especially unwise to have used as an argument to support that the proposition that using combined cycle gas turbines
  "as mid-merit or peak capacity"
  was something on which the Committee had agreed and which would achieve that purpose. I shall deal with that point next.
  At paragraph 23, the Government respond to the Select Committee's recommendation that
  "The Government should explore the possibility of some of the CCGTs being used as mid-merit or peak instead of baseload capacity."
  The important words are "should explore". No member of the Select Committee objected to the Government exploring the possibility. However, no member of the Committee had sufficient evidence on which to base an expectation of what the result of that exploration would be.
  At paragraph 250(iii), we cite as an option
  Restricting the operation of CCGTs, so that they are not permanently on baseload."
  We then make the important point that
  "There is a cost involved, which we have not been able to assess."
  On the basis of pressure of time, we recommended that
  "The Government should explore the possibility of some of the CCGTs being used as mid-merit or peak instead of baseload".
  We had had no evidence on that subject, and we had no costs to put before anybody. It is important that the House should have some opportunity to know what costs may be involved. I asked Enron, one of the companies that gave evidence to the Select Committee, as the Chairman will recall, whether it could help on the matter. Enron's reply says:
  "The costs of not running CCGT plant in the most efficient way would fall in some combination upon four groups."
  The groups are listed as the consumer, who would be forced to buy higher-priced electricity from less efficient coal-fired stations, the generator, the gas supplier and the gas processor. All four would have in some degree to bear a cost. Enron quantifies its view by saying:
  "If 10,000 MW of CCGT were affected the annual cost of a reduction in load factor to 75 per cent. could exceed £250 million."
  I doubt whether, if the Committee had had that evidence before it, it would have framed its recommendation in precisely the way that it did.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his careful and revealing explanation of where one of the recommendations came from. Did the Select Committee take into account the loss of confidence that might apply

  51
  to companies investing in the North sea if it was felt that contracts that had been freely entered into were to be overturned as a result of the recommendation?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I cannot speak for every member of the Select Committee. However, I can assure my right hon. Friend that that consideration was very much in my mind and in the minds of a number of my colleagues. None of us——
  Mr. Caborn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I am sorry to say that I will not. I am reasonably confident that the hon. Gentleman will be called, so I shall take a chance on that. I ask him to be patient.
  I am fairly sure that we should not have accepted the recommendation if we had known that the costs involved, in financial and in psychological or economic terms, were likely to be what they can now be seen to be. I should be surprised if even Opposition Members would have been prepared to sign up to such a recommendation.
  I hope that we have been of help to the House in our report, but I point out that there are areas that should still be approached with caution. There was a need to have more work done than was possible because of time pressure. In that respect, I commend the Government's response in the White Paper because it deals with matters in a careful and reasoned way.
  Some of the accusations of indecision and delay which have been levelled against my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are thoroughly unjustified. The Select Committee had no chance to call the coal generators before it and to ask what they would do if they had the opportunity to buy subsidised coal, how much of it they would buy and how long they would negotiate about it.
  No one, least of all the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who has so much experience of negotiation, should be surprised that the process should have been protracted, and that an answer should not have been arrived at until the very last minute. For the hon. Member for Livingstone to accuse my right hon. Friend of wasting time entirely reveals his ignorance of what is involved. It was critical that there should be signatures on contracts, and it was necessary and inevitable that it should take that length of time to secure those signatures.
  The other very important recommendation made by the Select Committee is the emphasis on improved productivity and working practices. I regret that we had to place so much emphasis on those matters, because they should have been dealt with years ago. There can be no possible excuse for the antiquated and antediluvian working practices that restrain productivity in so much of mining, except where safety is involved.
  If safety is not involved—we received clear assurances on this from British Coal and others—the improved working practices should have been secured years ago. If they had been, I have little doubt that the strength of the industry and the markets it could command would be infinitely greater than they are today. It is the attitude of the reactionary and politically motivated unions as much as anything else which has prevented the industry from realising its true potential.
  Mr. Cormack: Not the Union of Democratic Mineworkers.
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I exempt the UDM, which has not been responsible for trade union relations in the industry over the past 20 years. If it had been, things might well have been different.
  The important thing is to look forward, and to recognise that there is now an opportunity for the coal industry to be saved by the exertions of those who work within it. It will involve management, which requires the infusion of privatised ability and privatised motivation, because British Coal alone cannot be relied on to do what needs to be done. It will involve labour. I hope and believe that many miners still believe in their industry and will welcome the opportunity that privatisation can give. Above all, it will involve those who want to sell coal. If British Coal cannot be confident of meeting and beating foreign competition, it is a sad day for the industry.
  This has been a long drawn out and painful process for the House and for all those involved. I commend my right hon. Friend on the way in which he has dealt with these difficult matters. I commend him for the conclusions in his White Paper, and I believe that the House should give those conclusions its full support tonight.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: I join the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) in expressing appreciation for the work of the staff of the Select Committee. They did a sterling job, and their dedication and professionalism were shown admirably during the very long hours involved. No member of the Select Committee had a gun held at his head to make him sign the report. All members signed of their own free will, and those who wanted to abstain were able to do so. The report was carried nem con.
  I shall pick up one or two of the points made by the right hon. Member for Woking, who seems to have rewritten the Select Committee report. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the combined cycle gas turbines. The figure of £250 million having been lost by the gas generators—I have not seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—was arrived at on the basis that coal was by far the cheapest way in which to generate electricity. To paraphrase: "They would, wouldn't they?"
  The figure of 19 million tonnes of coal for which we suggested support could be provided was based partly on the ESI market and partly on the non-ESI market. We made that recommendation against the background of the fact that, when the regional electricity companies came before our Committee, a number of them said that, within the ESI market, there would be a market for between 15 million and 20 million tonnes beyond the coal contract. That is on the record for all to see.
  Finally, on the productivity of our pits, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said that productivity in British mines has increased partly because of our superb engineering skills. The suppliers are now producing about £1 billion-worth of engineering goods, of which £400 million-worth is exported. They tell us unequivocally that their export capability will be lost if they do not have a home market of sufficient size to enable them to develop the best range of mining equipment in the world. When we talk about improving our manufacturing base, we ought to remember that some of the best

  53
  technology and engineering goes into our mines and that that will be lost to British industry if, over the next few years, the critical mass falls to the level that is predicted.
  The Government's White Paper and the Select Committee report are both published by HMSO, but that is where the similarity ends. When the President of the Board of Trade announced the pit closures last autumn, he said that they were necessary because there was not a market for British deep-mined coal. We therefore considered ways in which to open the market for coal. Unfortunately, however, the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper looked for a way out of a political row. In 90 days, under full public scrutiny, 11 Members of Parliament—six Conservative, four Labour and one Liberal Democrat—found a future for coal. In nearly twice as long, and in near-total secrecy, all that the President of the Board of Trade found was a new way to manage the closure programme.
  We should not find that surprising, bearing in mind the fact that, last October, the right hon. Gentleman warned us that the reprieve would be temporary and that any changes would be at the margin. He has certainly kept that promise. In the meantime, however, he has broken faith with the House and with the mining industry. If he never intended to do anything more than stave off some of the closures, he should have had either the courage to withstand the storm from his own side or the honesty to phase the closures there and then. He should not have subjected taxpayers to an expensive charade lasting five months and costing millions of pounds, and he should not have played a game of cat and mouse with the miners, whose families and communities depend for their livelihoods on decisions which, after months of prevarication, are being rushed through the House this evening.
  Dr. Hampson: In all fairness, I think that the hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Select Committee, will accept that we tended to fudge a number of critical issues ourselves. It was extremely optimistic to suppose that there would be no imports from France. Even if we could restrict such imports, we would be unlikely to get the figure down to nought—a 6·5 per cent. difference.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we might like to think of adding the subsidy on the industrial side, but it is sulphur emission controls on industrial plants that are tightening the market on the industrial sector for coal. The hon. Gentleman should accept that most of our options were based on the most optimistic expectations.
  Mr. Caborn: Whether they were optimistic or not, may I suggest that perhaps the most accurate and objective information and data before the Select Committee were those provided by the National Grid Company. We followed its predictions about the market for coal. We received a lot of information, and many people had axes to grind, but I do not believe that the carrier of electricity —the National Grid Company—had any axe to grind. The President of the Board of Trade refers to our being at the top end of the market. He should discuss that matter with the National Grid Company, because it is that company that gave us the figures on the basis of which we have made projections regarding the market up to 1998.
  The Government have gone to some lengths to suggest that the White Paper is consistent with the Select Committee report. Indeed, I read this weekend that the
  54
  White Paper adopts eight of the Select Committee's recommendations. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will elaborate on that, because my reading of the White Paper suggests that our proposals to open the market for coal by creating a level playing field in the energy market have been rejected almost without exception.
  In case anyone should doubt that, I would point out that we recommended increasing coal sales to the electricity market by extending the RECs' franchise. That was rejected. We recommended extending coal sales to industrial and domestic markets; increasing coal stocks; using some gas for mid-merit and peak; curbing French imports; restricting and curtailing orimulsion beyond the levels that the President of the Board of Trade has specified; reducing opencasting; reforming the nuclear levy; achieving a balance between energy capacity and demand; ensuring that the regulator considers the long-term interests of the nation; and establishing an energy commission.
  All those proposals were rejected. They were the main proposals in answer to the central question: "Is there a larger market for coal?", and, in rejecting those proposals, the right hon. Gentleman has rejected a strategy that would have laid the foundations for British Coal's survival and future prosperity, and the framework within which a balanced and secure energy policy could flourish. In short, those recommendations would have provided the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked of the President of the Board of Trade—which, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did not answer: how can a balanced, secure energy policy be developed up to and beyond the 21st century?
  Instead, we have a White Paper that hardly takes us an inch beyond where we were last October. In fact, the drafting of the White Paper could have considerably worse implications for the coal industry than the announcement of 13 October 1992. What we have is a change of tactic rather than a strategy—a scheme that swaps a redundancy big bang for the prolonged pain of closure. We have a device which may save the Secretary of State's face but will not save a single coal face, and which will result in the remaining pits facing even greater and more unfair competition than at present.
  Dr. Michael Clark: I respect the way in which the hon. Gentleman chaired the Select Committee inquiry and compliment him on it, but is he not being a little unfair in saying that the Secretary of State has rejected every recommendation of the Select Committee? Many of the recommendations have been included in the report. It is a travesty for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are no further forward than we were last October. It may be that all of us on the Select Committee would like to see more pits kept open, but the fact that 12 are to stay open, whereas last October none was to stay open, is something that the hon. Gentleman should not ignore.
  Mr. Caborn: I did not say that all the recommendations had been rejected—merely that the core recommendations on the central question that was posed to the House on 13 October and 21 October last year—"Is there a larger market for coal?"—have been rejected by the Secretary of State. I say genuinely to the hon. Gentleman, who is well respected in the energy industry, that my honest belief is

  55
  that the way in which the White Paper has been drafted will give a green light for licences that have been given out like confetti by his successor.
  On CCGTs, we shall be moving from the projected 30 million tonnes of coal equivalent that we suggested would be around in 1998. That figure may nearly double. I am now very fearful that the White Paper will give the green light, and that the dash for gas will continue and accelerate. That is one of my concerns about the way in which the White Paper has been drafted.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Surely the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the evidence that was put to the Select Committee on that subject. The majority of people who have been concerned with what he calls the dash for gas said quite clearly that there is now over-capacity in generating, and that it is most unlikely that there will be any increase in gas-fired stations in the foreseeable future. That was made very clear to the Committee.
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have now heard three interventions and two speeches from members of the Select Committee. I had hoped that we would have a balanced debate on a White Paper dealing with the future energy requirements of this country. I venture to request that we try to achieve that balance, so that we may reach a fair judgment of the situation and try to defend our constituents' interests.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience for a little longer, his wish will be granted.
  Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can rely on your protection, and that those of us who served on the Select Committee and hear accounts of the Select Committee that bear no relation to what we recognise shall be entitled to intervene in the normal way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members realise that it is for the hon. Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way. It is not a matter for the Chair or for any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Caborn: I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. However, I must respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). What he said was true in the context of the position when the Select Committee took evidence. However, the White Paper has inevitably changed matters.
  The White Paper has downgraded the coal industry; it has not upgraded it as we expected it to. It has not answered the essential question whether the Government can, through political will and legislation, create a larger market for coal. Unfortunately, that is the area of the Select Committee report which the Government have not acknowledged. Indeed, they have walked away from that point. That is my view as a Back Bencher and the view that I hold having spent long and laborious hours as a member of the Select Committee. I am entitled to my own point of view on that.
  Twelve pits are to be closed immediately, and six are to be mothballed, at an unknown cost and to a doubtful
  56
  standard, if the care and maintenance programme carried out at the pits closed last October is anything to go by. One pit is for development, at least until it is privatised. According to the Government, the remaining 12 pits are to be reprieved. However, according to British Coal, even those 12 pits are likely to close by the end of this year.
  Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of mothballing pits. We were told in evidence that that would be about £1 million a year.
  Mr. Caborn: That point is on the record.
  The promised subsidy is entirely dependent on British Coal securing sales that exceed the 40 million tonnes already contracted. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government failed to secure a single extra tonne during the five months of wrangling, it is highly unlikely that British Coal will succeed where they failed. Even if it does, British Coal says that it is unlikely that the 12 reprieved pits will survive this year.
  My analysis shows that all 31 pits—I believe that this is substantiated by many outside commentators—will close within two years at a cost of more than 32,000 jobs and around £2 billion. Eighteen pits will close almost immediately, throwing more than 18,000 miners on the dole.
  The closure programme will cost the taxpayer more than it would cost to keep the pits open. Three hundred years of coal reserves will be lost for ever. We will become even more dependent on gas—which is not simply a less efficient electricity producer, but also a more expensive one —much of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, will have to be imported.
  According to a Rothschild report in September 1991, because the Government have refused to create a level playing field in the energy market or to restrain the dash for gas, in five years' time we will be left not with 19 pits, but with 12 to 14, instead of the present 50. We will also be struggling with a vast over-capacity problem.
  The Government's sole strategy is privatisation. The President of the Board of Trade says that he will intervene to set the industry free by privatising. He says that competitive markets provide the best means of ensuring that the nation has access to secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy in the forms that people and business want and at a competitive price.
  How can the right hon. Gentleman say that? What possible basis does he have for that claim? It was the privatisation of electricity and the model used by the Government that thrust us into the coal crisis. The right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot help coal, because he does not have the power to intervene in the market now when the industry is in the public sector. What will happen if there is a major imbalance in the market, prices begin to escalate or we become over-dependent on foreign energy supplies? As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, we might re-run Britain's energy problems of the 1970s and early 1980s.
  If there was ever a case for it, this is one in respect of which the President of the Board of Trade should act on his own advice. As the right hon. Gentleman wrote in his book, "Challenge of Europe: Heseltine 1989"—
  "responsible Government has a duty to recognise the international circumstances which make a mockery of open competition … intelligent politicians should stop pretending that industrial support is a doctrinal intrusion into the workings of the market place."

  57
  If the coal industry is to be subjected to market forces, it should at least be given a fighting chance in a fair market. There is simply no excuse for privatising without adjusting the current market, which is rigged against coal.
  There is no reason to believe that we will be any better served by coal privatisation, and the frankly absurd way in which the Government have approached the coal sell-off suggests that there will be more chaos on the horizon. One does not need to be a City whiz kid to realise that we do not get a decent price or a decent buyer for an industry that has just received a Government health warning.
  The taxpayer will get a rock-bottom price, possibly below the asset value of the pits. Few buyers can be expected to invest in an industry whose market is declining. There will be a field day for asset strippers. The taxpayer will have to pick up the pieces and the bill for the redundancies, benefit payments and knock-on job losses, while the new pit owners will cream off the coal subsidy.
  Let me remind the House that the Trade and Industry Select Committee is Conservative-dominated. Whatever the vote tonight, the truth is that, when the Committee considered whether a larger market for coal was feasible, whether the Government had powers to create such a market and, crucially, whether the Government should act, the clear and unequivocal answer to those three questions was yes.
  Sadly, hon. Members will not be given the chance to support the Select Committee's recommendations today, because the Government have refused to accept an amendment based on the Committee's recommendations. I can assume only that that means that the Government recognise the rationale and power of our recommendations and fear that they could not win the vote tonight if the House were given the choice between the White Paper and the Select Committee's recommendations.
  Before anyone reminds me, as the right hon. Member for Woking did last week, that I do not own the Select Committee—that is absolutely true—I would like to say that, in speaking today, I did no more than support in the House the report that I signed in the Select Committee. I do no more and no less than that.
  We all understand the desire to back our parties and the pressure that can be placed on us to do that. Despite that, when the Committee members set aside party political interests and honestly considered the issue with an open mind, they backed a package of reforms that would not only secure British Coal's medium to long-term security, but also lay the foundations for an energy strategy that could take us into the next century. There is nothing in the White Paper that lives up to the commitments that the Select Committee members made when they signed the report on 29 January 1992.
  5.47 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me, and I will try to be brief, as I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. I wish to make only a few points.
  I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last Thursday. In particular, I want to say how grateful we were that the views of the Select Committee were taken into account so carefully in all that the White Paper has to say.
  That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade accepted all the
  58
  recommendations, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has just said. However, my right hon. Friend considered all our recommendations and acted on those on which he was able to act, bearing in mind the fact that a Select Committee is a Committee of Back-Bench Members which makes recommendations with the best intentions; different from Government who have to implement practical proposals.
  I have a reservation about the White Paper, and I am pleased to be able to voice it to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is currently at the Dispatch Box. Many members of the Select Committee had hoped that we would be able to get a better deal in respect of the interconnector with France. We have followed everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has done, and we congratulate him on going to France and returning with a deal of sorts. The deal is certainly in the right direction. We will have improved exports to France, and we have an indication that imports from France will probably halve over the next six or seven years. That is certainly a move in the right direction.
  We had hoped that the interconnector would be used once again for the purpose for which it was originally established—to balance demand between the two countries when we have different peak loadings, and bearing in mind the fact that our clocks are set at different times and therefore there is a chance to even up the loading in the two countries. The legal advice which the Government received shows that it would be a breach of the treaty of Rome for France to be prohibited from exporting to the United Kingdom. There are too many one-way streets in the European Community. It is a shame that this is not a two-way street and a two-way interconnector. That is my single reservation.
  Compared with the situation in October, we have come a long way. I am not ashamed to say that I voted against my Government in October because I believed that it was right and proper for us to campaign as far as possible to save as much as we could of the coal mining industry. While we hoped that we might have been able to save more pits than the 12 plus one in development which we will save, at least we have 12, plus six mothballed. That is more than we had in October.
  Let me simply say this to some sections of the coal mining industry: to save the markets for those pits, industry needs to have confidence in the product—coal. To have a strike on Friday will do nothing to generate confidence in the industry or to persuade people that coal is the product of the future. Coal is an important commodity, but that message will not be sent to industry if there is a strike of all the pits on Friday.
  Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend have confidence that the 12 pits will be open for at least two years?
  Dr. Clark: I shall come to that in a moment—I would have done so anyway, so I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to get there. I am trying to be as brief as possible in order to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  Let me refer to the 12 pits in a different sense. Twelve pits will be saved as a result of the White Paper. The Select Committee wanted to find a market for 16 million tonnes of coal. I am happy to join the Chairman of the Select

  59
  Committee in saying that I supported the recommendations of the Select Committee and that I was pleased that we had been able to propose a scheme which showed how an extra 16 million tonnes of coal could be sold.
  Let us accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) did a few moments ago, that Select Committees try to be optimistic in such situations. We would be remiss if we were not optimistic. It is not for a Select Committee to study a situation and propose a pessimistic scenario which will then be beaten by the Government. It was up to us to set out the best possible case for saving the coal industry. Having chosen every optimistic case, we should not be too surprised that the Government's White Paper falls a little short of our wishes. It does not mean that we do not wish for more. We must present an optimistic case, and the Government must find out what can be done in practice. I shall give the House an example.
  Mr. Caborn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for the 16 million tonnes and the transitional financial support was set against the background that we expected legislation? On three occasions, the President of the Board of Trade was asked whether he was prepared to legislate. That was coupled to the franchise market for the regional electricity companies. It would be no good subsidising coal without back-to-back arrangements with regional electricity companies, generators and the Coal Board. We said that the franchise should be extended to five years to bring that stability to the market. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
  Dr. Clark: I do not disagree that that was the debate, and I do not disagree that that was our recommendation. Of course, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disagree with it: he is absolutely right. The Government must examine the ramifications of the recommendation. If they decide that electricity would be more expensive as a result of legislation, they might decide that they do not want to disadvantage British industry or, indeed, householders by giving them more expensive electricity.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Clark: I will not give way, because I am in the middle of comparing the Select Committee report with the White Paper. In table 25, we chose to examine the amount of coal required for electricity generation from a table supplied to us by Southern Electric, which was based on figures supplied by the national grid. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central referred to that a moment ago. We did so because the figures for power generation were good.
  Equally, we could have chosen the figures in table 6, which were supplied by British Coal. If we had done that, we would have found that the amount of coal required for power generation in each of the next four years would have been 4 million tonnes less. If we had chosen that table, we would not have recommended 16 million tonnes of coal: we would have recommended 12 million tonnes, which is close to the figure which the Government decided on in their deliberations. I use that as an example to show that it is right and proper for Select Committees to be optimistic. However, it is not surprising if the Government take a more realistic stance.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that our hope that we might be able to achieve that market depended crucially on matters such as the interconnector? Our central recommendation was that the Government should agree to subsidise coal to the tune of 16 million tonnes, if necessary. The Government accepted that in its entirety.
  Dr. Clark: I accept that entirely.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate of the Select Committee? The Select Committee had three months to debate the matter. Since the President of the Board of Trade sat down, we have heard only from members of the Select Committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for anyone except the hon. Member speaking to decide what he will say.
  Dr. Clark: Perhaps you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the only hon. Members who sought to intervene on me were the Chairman of the Select Committee and one Select Committee member. Since I have given way to the two hon. Members who sought to intervene, I cannot be held responsible.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No, I will not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to the fact that the Select Committee asked for a massive subsidy for coal. That has been agreed to in the White Paper. For some years, British Coal has been saying that, if it could receive support through to 1995, it would be able to mine coal and sell it at world market prices. In 1991, British Coal said that it could survive into the long term if it had three years of support until 1994. In 1992, it said that it could survive into the long term if it had three years of support until 1995, In 1993, it has been given two years of support, so it will survive until 1995. British Coal has got what it sought—it has massive support for two years.
  I am disappointed, therefore, that, over the weekend, some jeremiahs in British Coal talked about the fact that some extra pits will close before Christmas. Such comments have not been made by the chairman of British Coal, but he has not repudiated them, either. I wonder why? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] I have another theory. I think that some of the management in British Coal are seeking to contract the size of the British Coal industry so that, when it is privatised, it will be privatised as a small and profitable industry. Management will then seek a management buy-out. The managers of British Coal will be able to buy into an industry which has a future, and they will make capital gains.
  I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that, as I fear that some of the management of British Coal do not have their hearts in their job and are more interested in contracting than expanding the industry, a statement should be made that a management buy-out of British Coal will not be permitted. If and when British Coal is privatised, let it be privatised through flotation or a trade buy-out, but not through a management buy-out, because the managers of British Coal are far too interested in the future of a

  61
  management buy-out than in running the industry properly now. If we removed the opportunity for a management buy-out, the managers might be a little more interested in protecting their jobs now than in protecting their bank balances in the future.
  My third and final point, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had been looking with my right eye and not with my left. I say to hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, who are opposed to the White Paper that it is incumbent on the Government to do their best to protect jobs in all industries and all energy industries. I believe that the Government have gone about as far as they can to protect jobs in the coal industry without jeopardising jobs in other sectors of the energy world—whether the North sea, the nuclear industry or opencast coal mining.
  Hon. Members—especially Conservative Members—who oppose the White Paper have an obligation to come forward with specific points and specific markets. They must say where those markets are and how they can be obtained, rather than simply saying that they do not agree with the White Paper. They must say why they do not agree with the White Paper.
  The deal that we have now is the only deal on the table.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I am in the middle of my concluding remarks, and I shall not give way.
  The only deal that we have on the table is the deal to save 12 pits, put one pit into development and mothball six others. If we vote against the deal tonight, we shall put ourselves back to precisely where we were last October, with the closure of 31 pits. That is why I shall support the White Paper and vote for it tonight.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker announced a restriction on speeches of 10 minutes between the hours of 6 and 8 pm?
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) would not allow interventions from non-members of the Select Committee on the Opposition Benches. He said that he supported the White Paper, which includes the introduction of more licences for gas-operated stations. Opposition Members have been informed that the hon. Gentleman has been offered a consultancy by British Gas. The consultancy will not be announced until after the debate. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House whether that is the case and whether he has refused the consultancy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is up to any hon. Member to declare an interest, as appropriate. There are proper methods for recording interests.
  Dr. Michael Clark: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is correct to say that I was approached last autumn and asked to be parliamentary adviser to British Gas. I declared that to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee. I also declared to them that I would not take on that position until the Select Committee report was completed. That is declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I offered to step down from the Select
  62
  Committee if the members wished me to do so. They wished me to remain on the Select Committee. I feel that I have done nothing wrong.
  Mr. McCartney: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to that.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I am proud to represent a mining constituency in which it is believed that all the pits will close. Some 100,000 jobs and whole communities are at stake. I have been a Member of Parliament for 43 years and I held the post of Secretary of State for Energy for six of those years. The only reference that I shall make to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade is to say that I have never in my life heard from any Minister such a cynical speech backed up by such disreputable arguments which will convince no one outside the House.
  The solution proposed in the White Paper is intended to motivate the Conservative party to back the privatisation of coal. That is where the money is to go. If the President of the Board of Trade had wanted to save the 31 pits, he could have done so without the Select Committee report. He could have checked coal imports. How can British miners compete with the slave wages of South African miners or with seven-year-olds in Colombia? Have they also to accept slave wages? Must we send children down the pits as they did in the 19th century?
  Much was made of the interconnector. But the President of the Board of Trade declined to quote my answer in the House, which was that the purpose of the interconnector was to sell coal by wire to France. He signed the contract. My belief is that he signed the contract for imported nuclear energy from France as part of the build-up to the miners' strike which the Government were preparing. That was what it was all about. The Government provided the nuclear subsidy in 1989 because they wanted to subsidise the nuclear industry here and the treaty of Rome required them to extend the subsidy to French nuclear generators.
  Of course, on environmental grounds one could justify cutting opencast mining. If local authorities were allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow opencast mining, most of it would not take place. As for gas, of course we stimulated its discovery. But we were also strict about its use. Britain puts fishermen out of work to conserve fish and similar conservation of gas so that it is not wasted in gas-fired power stations is a logical part of energy policy. The nuclear industry is subsidised up to the hilt. As has been said, if the Government moved some of the subsidy from the nuclear industry to coal, they could give away coal costing £50 a tonne to people who burn coal in their grate. The Government's argument is disreputable. It is all about privatisation.
  In 1921 the Sankey commission under Lord Sankey recommended the public ownership or nationalisation of the mining industry. That recommendation was accepted by the coalition Government of which the Conservative party was a part. I have quoted the figures on safety in the privately owned mines in the 1930s, but I do so again because safety is highly relevant. Between 1927 and 1934, 7,839 miners were killed and 1,200,042 were injured, including 199,000 lads aged under 20.

  63
  The record of the pits under private ownership was such that the demand for public ownership was taken up and argued correctly. It was Churchill, of course, who nationalised the coal royalties in 1942. But let us be clear that at the beginning of the last war in 1938 British pits under private ownership had increased output by only 13 per cent. since 1913, compared with 101 per cent. for the Dutch state-owned pits. So do not let us have any nonsense that privatisation is all about creating an efficient mining industry. The privately owned industry was unsafe, inefficient and dangerous. That is what the President of the Board of Trade is all about.
  It is no part of my purpose to go over the record of the Government of which I was a member in self-justification. But, by God, I am proud of what we did. I am proud that we authorised the sinking of the Selby coalfield. I am proud of the Drax B coal-fired power station. I am proud that we brought the unions into every discussion about the future of the industry. I am proud that we reduced the age of retirement for underground miners from 65 to 60. I am proud that we hugely increased the money available for pneumoconiosis grants so that in a few years 64,000 successful claims were made.
  I am proud of that record, and that is not self-justification—at my age, how can anyone care what is said about what they did 15 years ago? But if there is going to be a line-by-line argument, let us consider the figures. In 1979, when Labour left office, British Coal had a subsidy of 50p per tonne, German coal had £2·60 per tonne, French coal had £13 per tonne and Belgian coal had £15 per tonne. Even by narrow financial calculations which disregard human factors, that was a record to be proud of and I am proud that we defended 300 years of coal reserves, or 1,000 years if one includes the Barnsley seam which goes under the North sea and which will one day be brought ashore.
  I am also proud of the fact that I offered a veto on pit closures to the National Union of Mineworkers. The union was prepared to close pits when they were dangerous, if working conditions were bad and when reserves were exhausted. The present pit closures are not about efficiency but about carrying on a long battle with the NUM. Thank God the union is taking action on Friday. If the Government can close pits for ever without any consultation, what is wrong with miners withdrawing their labour for one day to draw attention to the importance of the Government's actions?
  Our oil, coal and gas reserves are of priceless value to this country and they must be publicly owned so that there can be planning. Industrialists in Chesterfield who supply equipment to the gas industry have told me that because of the private ownership of gas there are no long-term investment plans and everything has gone berserk. We want a planned, publicly owned energy policy, which brings unions and representatives of the work force in with the management and the community, to ensure that we do not throw away our most valuable asset. When Labour left office our country was self-sufficient in energy.
  The first industrial revolution was built on coal and the future recovery of this country—which will not come under this Government—will come when we use coal, turn it into oil, use it as a chemical and develop it in every
  64
  possible way. The policies pursued by the Government have destroyed our present and our prospects for future recovery.
  6.12 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I listened to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) with considerable interest, but it is my responsibility to put the White Paper in perspective. Perhaps the right hon. Member will listen.
  In western Europe, the Netherlands closed its coal mines several years ago, Belgium closed its mines in 1992, Germany's production was 72 million tonnes but will shortly be down to 38 million, France produces under 9 million tonnes, and Spain 19 million. Ruhrkohle, the principal producing company in Germany, is going to phase out 20,000 miners' jobs and reduce its production substantially. Germany is running down its production of deep-mined coal not because it wants to, but because other, more competitive fuels are available and, realistically, we should consider that when we study the situation in the United Kingdom.
  Let us glance at the table for United Kingdom coal consumption on page 19 of the White Paper. In 1960, the electricity market took 26 per cent. of our coal, the domestic market took 28 per cent. and transport took 6 per cent. By 1992, electricity had increased its share from 26 per cent. to 79 per cent., and all other markets had decreased their share from a maximum of 28 per cent. to a maximum of 8 per cent. Steel industry coal consumption has dropped from 11 per cent. to 8 per cent. There is virtually no market for coal other than electricity, and we must recognise that.
  I have here a little document from the Trades Union Congress on how we should find additional outlets for our coal. On page 10, it lists about 13 recommendations, which are all at the expense of other industries: we should curb French imports; reduce opencast mining; increase coal sales to the electricity market; extend sales to industrial and domestic markets; curb the dash for gas, and so forth.
  There must come a time when an industry is past its former glories and must be reduced in size. I fully sympathise with many of the miners who will not be in there doing their allotted tasks tomorrow, but it is happening all over the world. The TUC's recommendations would simply transfer unemployment from one industry to another. Does that make sense? Does it make sense to transfer unemployment from coal mining to the gas or nuclear industries? Does that add up?
  May I make a recommendation? In the pits which will be kept operating, the Government are giving the miners a chance. Sterling recently devalued and, as coal is priced in dollars, the world price is rising fast. It is therefore surprising that more coal cannot be exported to foreign markets. A recent issue of Coal UK states:
  "Sterling's continued decline against the US dollar has eliminated the advantage that imported coal holds over British Coal's output in all but the Thamesside power stations."
  In other words, coal is becoming inernationally competitive. If, for the first time, British miners can become aggressive and secure markets, then we might be able to gain an advantage. I am not suggesting that that will be easy—it will be hard. For example, because

  65
  devaluation tends to be in their favour, production in the United States of America may fall in comparison with British production.
  Obviously, it is no good producing coal that cannot be sold, and if it cannot be sold, it simply accumulates. When I visited Drax recently, I found a huge accumulation of coal stocks. Coal stocks now are as much as 45 million tonnes, which is twice the national requirement. I dare say that Opposition Members would recommend that coal stocks be even higher, but do they realise the cost of accumulating coal, and that, once exposed, the coal will begin to deteriorate? It does not make sense. The English public are beginning to recognise that an industry into which we have poured £17 billion of subsidies—we now intend to pour in more money—must limit its share of our national resources. Surely common sense must shortly prevail.
  I mention another matter which will be of concern to the Government. They have their own proposals for VAT, but I do not feel very comfortable in saying that that is one way in which to deal with carbon dioxide emissions. We are now fixed in Europe and if a carbon tax should be extended to the United Kingdom, it will cause further anxiety, because it will make coal even less competitive, here and in all international markets. That would be a great pity, but it should be taken into account.
  The public, who will be the jury in this particular case, will recognise that, of generating costs of new plant in the United Kingdom, Sizewell C will be the cheapest, followed by the gas plants—the CCGT—combined cycle gas turbine—plants, the AGRs and finally large coal-fired power stations. Coal will thus not be competitive with the other fuels.
  The costs of existing plants show that Magnox stations are the most competitive. The nuclear AGR—advanced gas-cooled reactor—is extremely competitive, specially in comparison with large coal-fired power stations, particularly where they have FGD—flue gas desulphurisation —units.
  The public recognise that they must pay such costs through their electricity bills. Do they want to pay higher prices in order to keep people continuously in the mines when we have been told it might be advisable to reduce the numbers to bring a balance to the economy? I simply say that we are not the jury; it is the public who are.
  Mr. Don Dixon: What about a referendum?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not suggesting a referendum. We are here to decide a certain matter, and we can decide it.
  If the industry becomes uncompetitive, it must be adjusted to the right size to meet the right requirements. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that what I have suggested is common sense. Many have a vested interest —of course they have—but surely common sense must prevail in the national interest.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is hardly a reasonable proposition for the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) to condemn the coal industry as he has when he does not recognise the enormous public assistance that the Government have given to the nuclear industry over the years. If we are to argue rationally in Parliament, let us at least start by
  66
  arguing for equal treatment between the different sectors of the energy industry and not retain the distortions, as we have done for so long.
  The question before us today is whether we endorse the White Paper. For the benefit of those few Conservative members of the Select Committee who may not be finally decided—and perhaps some other Tory Back Benchers —I argue that they should withhold their support from the White Paper. They should refuse to endorse the White Paper because it does not provide answers to the questions which the country asked Parliament to deal with when the people said no to British Coal in October last year when it started to break the law by closing pits without going through proper pit closure procedures. At that time the Library of the House produced a research note entitled, "British Coal Pit Closures: A leap in the dark." Five months of consideration by the Government followed. The White Paper was originally meant to be published in January, then February, and we have now seen it only at the end of March. There may have been a leap in the dark in October, but, sadly, there has been a long walk in the dark since then. The Government do not appear to be any less benighted now than they were in October.
  My colleagues and I have put our cards on the table. We submitted evidence to the Government's consultation process—unlike the Labour party—and, unlike Labour, we have produced an alternative White Paper. We have set out our stall in the amendment on the Order Paper today.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been to the Table Office and to the Library to get a copy of the answer to the written question of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about emphysema and bronchitis, but I have been unable to get one. I believe that that hon. Gentleman has shown the reply to one of my hon. Friends. All I can get is a press release from the Minister. I believe that Madam Speaker has made it quite clear that if a question is tabled it should be tabled on behalf of all of us. The press release was issued at 4.10 pm; it is now 6.25 pm but I still cannot get a copy of the written answer despite the fact that I have a vested interest in emphysema and bronchitis, which is important to my old miners.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I recognise the importance of the subject, but I do not know the facts of the case at the moment.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that I am given injury time for that, given that I have only 10 minutes in all.
  We have set out our stall, and the fundamental argument is that if we make decisions tonight, or any other night, about the future of the coal industry, they need to be made in the context of our energy industry as a whole. I would ask the House to say that we cannot do that tonight, because, as I suggested earlier to the President of the Board of Trade, we are being asked to make decisions about coal today when we will be asked to make decisions about the nuclear industry, renewables, opencast mining and orimulsion only later this year. It is a quite unreasonable proposition to argue now that we have to condemn, potentially, 18,000 people to lose their jobs when there could be, if we address this subject in a strategic context, an opportunity for a much more secure coal industry in the years ahead.
  A second fundamental argument is that we really must not continue the presently proposed rundown of the coal

  67
  industry when, at the same time, we have been bailing out its direct competitors in the energy market. The Government and the President of the Board of Trade talked about creating an opportunity for coal—about time too. In the past decade the coal industry has had no such opportunity. The Government took on the job of privatising the electricity industry and gave a protected position to the generators—not real competition at all. They took on the job of privatising the gas industry, and it is only now apparently that the Director General of Ofgas realises, and is prepared to say so, that in the gas industry there is not any real competition at all. We also know that there has been no competition for the nuclear industry because it has been artificially protected all this time and the subsidy will not be removed until 1998.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not. I have got only 10 minutes. The hon. Gentleman was on the Select Committee and his Government have had plenty of time to deal with this issue, but without any White Paper about energy being previously produced from when they came to power in 1979 until they were bounced into producing one by the events of last autumn. It is no good complaining, if they are now asked to help the coal industry, that they cannot do that and be consistent with their market principles. They have been intervening in the market in all the other sectors. Coal is now asking for its fair share of assistance.
  The House was asked whether it would endorse, and what view it took of, the 39 recommendations of the Select Committee. I pay tribute to my party's representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), and to all the work of the Select Committee. The Select Committee report is a compromise document—the House knows that—but it is far better to accept the compromise that united hon. Members across the House as a prospect for the coal industry than the White Paper, which gives no security in terms of contracts above the 40 million tonnes negotiated and signed today, and gives no security in terms of supply when it proposes the reduction of stocks to only 10 million tonnes in the future. What security does that offer the country in the eventuality that stocks from abroad cost more, or that we cannot obtain them, or that we have several hard winters? We cannot base a decision today on these unknowables. The Government make no specific proposals—at least, nothing different from what was on offer in October—in terms of guarantees for the industry.
  I was at the TUC rally in my constituency this afternoon and I know that the country is still behind the miners and the coal industry, and has not changed its view since October. What the country, the coalfield communities and the House want is a long-term energy strategy that guarantees security of supply and diversity of supply. We cannot have either of those things without securing a long-term future for the coal industry.
  It is sometimes argued that a large sector coal industry is incompatible with environmental objectives. That is not true. It would be possible to produce 60 million tonnes a year for the next five years and at the same time adequately meet the best emission targets to which we are internationally committed. I ask colleagues who have not looked carefully at the issue to see how we and others have
  68
  squared the circle—experts and party political figures alike —showing that it is possible to be both environmentally sound and sound in energy terms, as well as sane in employment and economic terms too.
  We are not even debating 10 pits today. If we endorse the White Paper we are condemning them, even though the Boyds report said that two of them were viable and even though it is clearly arguable that Betws pit selling to the domestic market is also viable. We are asked only to debate the 21 pits; and of them the chairman of British Coal and others have now made it clear that the so-called saved 12 of them may also close because they are fighting for the same market as the others whose future is apparently secured. The Government are merely asking us to give them time to get over the next few months, until they can get their privatisation legislation into the House. That is not good enough, because the evidence of the past 13 or 14 years is that the privatisation process itself will, certainly in the short term, make life more difficult for the industry.
  Leaving things to a rigged market while giving no thought to the strategic objectives means condemning the coal industry to an extremely difficult and lesser future. Eighteen thousand jobs are at risk in the House's decision tonight. If we condemn the coal industry tonight we will spend, according to the Select Committee, about £2 billion trying to rehabilitate skilled workers who do not want enterprise zones tomorrow, because they want work today. I ask the House to judge the evidence of the Select Committee, to prefer that evidence to the White Paper, to reject the White Paper and then to enter into a proper debate on a strategic energy future for Britain that guarantees a place for coal.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Barry Porter: I sometimes wonder whether I live on the same planet as some of those who have spoken this afternoon. I will not preface my remarks by saying how brief I intend to be—I will just be brief. And I do not apologise for being a member of the Select Committee either.
  I concede that when I embarked on this investigation I knew little about the energy industry in general and coal mining in particular, and I came out at the other end of the investigation possibly none the wiser but infinitely better informed. I am enthusiastic about voting for the White Paper, however, because it errs on the side of realism.
  We must be realistic about this industry. I remind the Opposition that it is not the only industry to have suffered from reductions in numbers and orders. I come from a shipbuilding town, as does the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). On Saturday I will have to attend a meeting in the town which, a few years ago, employed 25,000 people in the industry. That number has fallen to 1,200 today. So I do not want to hear any lessons from Opposition Members about communities that face these problems.
  The north-east has suffered in this way. The Government certainly have a responsibility in the affected areas—a responsibility to help the north-east and south Wales. One has only to look at the south Wales coalfield to see what should and what will be done.
  We have heard today that 18,000 jobs are in jeopardy —as if the people concerned were suddenly going to be

  69
  thrown on the scrap heap. That is just not true; it is a static view of what has happened in this country in the past 25 or more years.
  I do not understand why other members of the Select Committee are concerned about the White Paper's strategy. The central thrust of that strategy is that there should be a tapered subsidy to allow British Coal to do what it has said it wants to and can do—that is, to reduce the price of deep-mined coal, over time, to world prices. The Government have accepted that central strategy, and it will be put into action.
  One of the reasons why I did not sign the Select Committee report was that one of my hon. Friends said that it was the duty of a Select Committee to be optimistic. I beg to differ. It is the duty of a Select Committee to be as realistic as possible. Hon. Members may be interested to hear how we arrived at the figure of 19 million more tonnes which we decided could be found by British Coal. The answer is: a bit of good, old-fashioned, political horse trading. At 10.30 pm Tory Members were sitting there saying one figure was realistic as an extra tonnage, and Labour Members were saying that they wanted more. We sat gazing at each other, and for the sake of a unanimous report—or at least, one against which no one would vote we picked a figure in the middle, and then added, for good measure, 3 million non-electricity supply industry tonnes. There was not a slide rule in sight, nor a reference to the available evidence.
  We shall see. I happen to believe, on the evidence available to the Committee, that the more likely figure for extra tonnage is in the region of 12 million tones—but I was willing to go a bit higher for the sake of unanimity. I could be wrong; I hope that I am. The Government, however, are giving the industry and the work force the chance to find out whether the figures are feasible.
  Everyone is talking as though the 12 pits being saved will disappear within the next few months. That is possible, certainly, but if British Coal is genuine when it says—I have no evidence to the contrary—that it can bring prices down to world levels in three or four years' time, well and good. But there can be no guarantee. How could we expect the President of the Board of Trade to give a guarantee? I would not believe it even if it were given.
  Even at the levels proposed in October, this industry would be the fourth biggest coal industry in the world. Let us see it in proportion, therefore. Let us give British Coal the chance to see whether it can do what it says it can do, and then we can settle down to a more stable and prosperous future for the industry. Without this White Paper, 5,000 people on Deeside, in the Wirral, on Merseyside and in north Wales would not have the opportunity to work at Connah's Quay. And at least another 3,000 permanent jobs would not have been available to people in that part of the world without this White Paper. That is the compassionate way forward.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: We would not be here today debating these problems if the Government had not privatised the electricity supply and generating industry in the way that they did. I thought, when the privatisation proposals were first made, that there would be a third competitive force against the duopoly of National Power and PowerGen, using coal as a production fuel. Instead,
  70
  the third force inserted by Lord Wakeham was not a body able to build small, coal-fired power stations at the coal fields but one using natural gas.
  I shall deal now with one of the pits in the list of 10 that will not be saved—Betws, which produces anthracite. The Boyds report said that Betws was not economically viable using the long wall method of mining. That poses an interesting question. When considering whether pits can be economically viable, one must take all sorts of factors into account. Betws is not economically viable given that, for 15 years, British Coal has mined one of the main veins—the red vein—by means of the long wall method. There is little coal left there now, but the purpose of the original investment was to amortise, over about 15 years, the cost of the equipment necessary for long wall mining. Now, the coal left in the seam, and underneath it as a result of some developments, cannot be mined economically using the long wall method. There would be no point in doing so.
  Boyds—I make no criticism on that ground—was not asked to look at anything else such as the future, or different methods of mining. Even so, it concluded that Betws could be profitable. I went to see the Minister of State, Welsh Office and I thank him for the reference to Betws in the White Paper. It says that it has reserves which could be exploited and that profits could be made from developing Betws. I know that that is the case.
  A second point of interest, to me and those from the anthracite coalfield area, is the debate, which has been going on for years, about the best way to mine anthracite. There are those who say that the long wall method with the huge equipment that is used by British Coal—it has done a good job and produced a lot of coal in the anthracite coalfield—is the best method. However, as Boyds makes clear, the equipment used in that process costs a great deal, whereas the coal produced, because of the way it is mined, contains at least 30 to 40 per cent. duff—the lowest-priced product on the market. Therefore, British Coal has invested huge sums in the production of anthracite, but the product has been the lowest priced on the market. Many would argue that that is not the sensible way to go about things. Instead, we should reduce the cost of production and produce the higher-priced product—the larger lumps of coal.
  Whatever happens when we vote after the debate, whether or not the Government win, the anthracite coal of west Wales will be mined only by private owners. Even if it were to be done by Britsih Coal—it will not be—it would be a privatised British Coal. Instead, other private companies such as Ryans will try to mine the anthracite.
  I have three further points to make. First, it is no good Tory Members, especially the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), saying that we are being reactionary and antediluvian when we talk about safety. The Government should recognise the history of all this—the tradition, the problems, the awful communal and family history of the failure by private owners to provide proper safety standards in the coal mines. The Government must set people's minds at rest and ensure that, when the industry is privatised, the high safety standards and working conditions which, whatever criticisms we have of British Coal, we must acknowledge it maintained, are continued. That is in everybody's interest, including those who may want to invest in the anthracite coalfield, because without that, people will not work for them and we shall not get the economic benefit of developing our resources.

  71
  My second point may be small, but it is still important. Apart from a few that are surreptitiously in private hands, all the plans and geological surveys lie somewhere in the vaults of British Coal. I do not know where they are— perhaps Nottingham or Derby—and why they should be there I do not know. The plans, which go back to pre-nationalisation days, should be returned to the state, to the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Welsh Development Agency, so that any potential investor can obtain them and have all the available information when deciding whether to invest. There is no reason why British Coal should keep the plans. It has left the anthracite coalfield and has no more to give it.
  Thirdly, as the future of the anthracite coalfield is, I am sorry to say, going to lie with small, private firms, we should set up a marketing co-operative along the lines of the successful French farmers' co-operatives. We cannot look for a large investor in the anthracite coalfields, so we shall have small producers, who will need back-up and help. This may sound ridiculous, but, just as Welsh lamb has been, Welsh anthracite should be marketed as a prime product. It has not been one because much of it has been sold to power stations as duff. I do not know how that will be achieved—perhaps through Government help, although we may not need it—but a co-operative should be set up to enable the producers to produce a quality product and ensure all the safety standards and conditions that go with it.
  I am not romantic about the anthracite coalfield of west Wales, but it can make a contribution to an area which finds it difficult to attract investment because it is on the periphery of both the M4 and Europe. Furthermore, it is an indigenous fuel. A partnership between the smaller producers and the Government will be the best way forward for my community and my constituency.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I have some sympathy with the amendment, partly because of the long history of pit closures in my constituency and partly because of the pretty appalling way in which the original announcement was made. Giving people a few days to redundancy is no way to treat them, especially bearing in mind the massive productivity gains in the coal industry in recent years.
  I also have some sympathy with the argument that nuclear power is unfairly subsidised—a point to which I shall return—and with the opposition to the French link. That is especially so given that a report in 1990 by the general administrator of the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique criticised Electricity de France for building too much generating capacity and pointed out that exports are being priced at a loss.
  The mining industry has, rightly, a unique place in society. There is great respect for the skill that miners show in winning coal, often in difficult conditions, and for the huge productivity gains of recent years. The industry has a heroic quality that is rightly admired by many people. But that admiration should not be debased into sentimentality.
  Britain generates more electricity from coal—70 per cent.—than all our other major competitors. France generates only 8 per cent. from coal, Germany only 53 per
  72
  cent. and even the United States—the land of cheap coal—generates only 55 per cent. We pay more for our coal than almost any other nation in the world. The cost per tonne is £43 in Britain whereas the import price is £33 and the OECD average is £26. The French pay £26 per tonne and the Italians £33. Prices in Australia and the United States are as low as £15 and £18 respectively.
  Much has been said about British Coal being the lowest-cost——
  Mr. John Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I shall not give way. Time is too short. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  It has been said that British Coal is the lowest-cost producer in Europe and much comparison has been made with Germany. If the Germans follow a mistaken policy, why should we follow suit? The costs to Germany are huge. The usually quoted cost of £1 billion must be more than quadrupled to £4·5 billion when the coal penny is taken into account. That is the subsidy that is paid to the industry by users of large amounts of coal.
  Nor is there a cosy consensus in Germany. Indeed, there is a great deal of controversy. This was evidenced by the bankruptcy of a major steel company—Klockner— late in 1992, which was the result of high coal prices. Recently, the Germans announced 20,000 mining redundancies and over the next decade the bulk of the coal industry in what was West Germany will close.
  The French, the Belgians, the Dutch and the Italians have already largely closed their coal industries. They have recognised what many in the United Kingdom have not: that in many instances the thickest and easiest seams were worked out in Europe long ago. Geology is too often against us despite our skills in winning coal in difficult conditions. In the United States and Australia, there is access to huge amounts of easy-to-get opencast coal in areas that are not especially environmentally sensitive. When it comes to deep mining, their seams are often a great deal thicker than those in Europe.
  Why turn what has been an asset to the United Kingdom in the past into a millstone round the rest of industry when cheaper coal is available in world markets? It would be sheer protectionism not to buy cheaper coal. To put it simply, the Government would be putting the interests of one group of workers above those of others by taking that course.
  There have been many calls this evening for an energy strategy to be directed by Government. For most of the period following the war we had a state-directed energy strategy. It had two planks, the first of which was nuclear power. In 1965, advanced gas-cooled reactor technology was ordered because the Government wanted it, despite the fact that pressurised water reactors were less complex, proven and cheaper. That was part of a national energy and industrial strategy to build up an advanced British nuclear power generating capacity.
  By the early 1970s, all the five AGR stations were in deep trouble. In 1974, the Central Electricity Generating Board chairman, Arthur Hawkins, called it
  "a catastrophe which we cannot repeat".
  He urged that we should go with American-designed PWRs. The same year, however, because of Government intervention, we went ahead with another British design,

  73
  the steam-generating heavy water reactor. Three years later the project was abandoned on cost and safety grounds and two more AGRs were ordered.
  The result of Government intervention and the state-directed energy policy was that after 40 years of massive waste of resources and money we had some of the most expensive nuclear generating capacity in the western world. The cost of it was not even known until the electricity generating industry was privatised.
  The other plank of the energy strategy was coal. That was characterised in the decades after the war by cosy guaranteed contracts between the generators and the National Coal Board. No imports of coal were allowed. Similarly, no gas-fired generation was allowed. That puts into perspective the claims that are made now by members of the coal lobby that the market is rigged against coal. The result of the policy was that industrial consumers paid far too much for electricity. That was illustrated by the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1981 on the CEGB. There was a massive and additional ongoing subsidy from the taxpayer to the industry. The system did not help miners, who found themselves working in a high-cost, low-productivity industry. They were relatively low paid until recently.
  Even so, the industry still lost jobs. In Amber Valley, 10,000 mining jobs were lost in the 1960s and 1970s under Labour Governments. The redundancy payments amounted to no more than a pittance. Meanwhile, every job that was preserved in the mines was at the cost of jobs elsewhere in industry. We were left over-dependent on expensive coal while other countries benefited from diversity and cheap imports. So much for a state-directed energy strategy.
  A much-used argument is the one that turns on the need for energy security. We are told that imports are unreliable. It should be rememberd that the bulk of our coal imports come from the United States and Australia, which are hardly unreliable countries. So-called cheap foreign coal from Russia, Poland and the third world is often sneered at by Opposition Members because they say that those countries are unstable. Clearly, those countries will become more unstable if richer countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not allow them to export what they can best produce. No one suggests that we should rely on Russian coal, but it is extraordinary for those who call themselves socialists to refuse to buy coal from poorer countries. That attitude does not sound much like the brotherhood of man to me.
  In any event, to refuse to import energy and to deplete domestic supplies, as is proposed by Opposition Members, would lead to less security, not more. If we cut ourselves off from the huge international energy market, which is competitive and diverse, we shall ultimately penalise our industry and our consumers.
  Those who have argued that some pits must close and that customers must decide which sources of energy they wish to buy have often been told, "You are hard-hearted and you don't care." Surely there is nothing soft-hearted in taking easy, short-term options which mean keeping one group in jobs at the expense of others elsewhere. Thai is an example of short-termism which state-directed energy policies were supposed to avoid. There is nothing soft-hearted in the attitude of a party that led to the closure of a pit every week in the 1960s and 1970s. The same party was responsible for the worst mistakes in nuclear policy during the same period. It has argued
  74
  against the imposition of value added tax on fuel, but has happily sanctioned higher fuel prices for the less well-off if that is the price to pay for protecting the coal industry.
  The Labour party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), had the cheek to say on television yesterday that British Coal was a success story. Yet his party opposed the pit closures in the 1980s, which at least pulled British Coal back from the brink. That is not caring, nor is it big-hearted. Rather, it is the worst type of fraudulent opportunism and should be recognised for what it is.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The debate is reflecting already views and attitudes that perhaps are to be expected. Some of the members of the Select Committee on Energy, who took up primary time, seem to be divided. They seem to wish to move away from the report to which they agreed.
  It was to be expected that Conservative Members would seek to use the phoney formula that the President of the Board of Trade has presented to bring about the death knell or demise of the mining industry as we know it. We on the Opposition Benches seek to protect and preserve what we consider to be a priceless national asset—coal. It will give us hundreds of years of energy security if used wisely, and inexpensively, to produce the type of energy that we need to make available for industry and business generally.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cunliffe: No way.
  Dr. Hampson: The hon. Gentleman should read the Select Committee's report.
  Mr. Cunliffe: I do not want to read the report. I am the self-assigned chairman of the organisation that seeks the abolition of all Select Committees. They are a waste of time and money. I have no problems or scruples about that.
  Opposition Members, along with the mining unions, the industry generally and industrialists, have always argued for a fair and honest playing field, which would enable proper plans to be made for a fuel policy that would bring rewards for all industries.
  The Government have never had an energy policy. On Thursday, the Secretary of State went back 20 years in talking about plans for coal, but I remember what was happening in those days, when I was a young mining apprentice and fitter. I remember the great Schumacher reports, and the days of large subsidies for the coal and steel industries. I remember the days of Mr. Spaak, and others of that character. In those days, there was at least a recognition that the British mining industry had a part to play: it had come up with the goods during the second world war, and—inevitably, at a total loss—had supplied the British steel industry to the tune of £2 a ton. That is an instance of the miners' patriotism; we need no lessons about their contribution from Conservative Members.
  Why do the Government hate intervention? The Secretary of State wears many different hats nowadays: we never know what his view is. At one point, he was the arch-protector of market forces; now he is masquerading as the patron saint of intervention. I have met the right hon. Gentleman on five occasions, three times with the

  75
  miners' parliamentary group and twice with the all-party "10 pits" group. On all those occasions, he said, "I am not doing this; it is British Coal. I cannot intervene: my hands are tied." He says that he has pleaded on bended knees with all the regulators and power generating boards, and that he has done his very best, but no one believes him.
  The House does not believe what the right hon. Gentleman has said today about this phoney formula. Some members of the Conservative coal group do not believe him; obviously, the mining unions do not believe him. Has he any credibility left? The formula is not just a quick fix; indeed, it is not a fix at all. It will not fix the right hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues who will not vote for the White Paper. All that it will fix is the demise of the British mining industry. As the arch-privatiser, the right hon. Gentleman intends to use the bits and pieces that are left of the industry to maximise not productivity, but profits. That is what privatisation is about.
  Time and again, I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that £1,270 million a year goes into the nuclear levy to protect the aging Magnox stations. They are 30 years old, and potentially unsafe; nevertheless, they are eating into subsidies that were never meant to be used for such a purpose. As is clear from the international coal report, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for ensuring that the fossil fuel levy is spent wisely, prudently and fairly, according to the rules. The report
  "blows apart one of the great misconceptions about this levy on fossil fuel which is that it is used to fund the decommissioning of nuclear stations".
  Only the Secretary of State believes that misconception. The report makes it clear that, of the £2·46 billion invested in 1990–91, only £20 million was spent on decommissioning.
  Where has the rest of the money gone? It has gone to privatised nuclear electric companies, which have used it as liquidity. It has been invested in the building of the Sizewell B power station; it has been used in all the ways in which it was never intended to be used. That returns us to the question of fairness and accountability: state money is being poured into an industry that is being deliberately propped up.
  The cash flow will cease. I hope that the next report does not take five months to produce. Everyone will want to know why the miners voted to strike, but the answer is simple: they were told that the report would be forthcoming in a short time. First, we were told that the Secretary of State would issue it in January; then it was February; then it was March. Their impatience is understandable, and it has been manifested democratically in a ballot.
  Let us examine another aspect. Who has ever established the true cost of opencast mining? What about the ravages suffered by the environment? Some years ago, when he was coal Minister, the present Secretary of State for Wales answered an Adjournment debate in which I spoke. As he will recall, the largest opencast mining planning application in western Europe amounted to 4 million tonnes, 15 years' development and five years' reclamation; 15,000 properties were affected by noise, dust, intrusion, transport costs and other environmental problems. It is a disgrace that an area should be blighted for nearly 20 years.
  76
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) will deal with the Parkside issue. I am not hinting, as I know that the list of speakers will already have been compiled, but I think that it is an important issue.
  I believe that this phoney formula is simply an excuse to get the Secretary of State off the hook that he has deliberately created. It is an attempt to pretend that opportunities can be opened up, presenting British Coal with a future. That is not what British Coal believes; this weekend, it made it clear that it considered this a short-term fix. The Secretary of State is in a crisis. Politicians can see through his position, as they have done before. The right hon. Gentleman is blowing the bugles of advance to cover his retreat. He has failed the nation and the mining fraternity by his inability to use the necessary hindsight and insight, and to restore the dignity of the British miners, their families and their industry.
  7.6 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: During the debate on the closure of coal mines, it has become obvious to me that, somewhere along the line, a decision was made that would completely redirect Britain's energy policy. We have heard a lot about the past, but I am not sure that we have put a date on that decision. It may have stemmed from the disastrous and crazy coal strike of 1984–85, but the privatisation of electricity that took place in 1990 has now redirected Britain's energy policy away from coal.
  The White Paper published last week—and, I suggest, my right hon. Friend's insensitive announcement that he had that day given the go-ahead for three more gas-fired power stations—confirms that redirection. Britain's energy supply has been totally distorted by the way in which we privatised the electricity industry and by the incompetence of the industry regulator. By allowing two main power generators to control the market, we left the door open for regional electricity companies to look for alternatives—hence the so-called dash for gas.
  The regulator has failed Britain. He should have demanded a break-up of the power generation duopoly and its control of the market; he should also have recognised that, although nuclear electricity may have the lowest marginal cost, it has the highest true cost. Unforgiveably, the regulator and the Government have failed to notice that we do not just have a dash for gas on our hands. I believe that the gas has already escaped and almost blown away coal altogether.
  Unless we take immediate, positive action, we will not need the coal industry at all after 2005. That was confirmed by the list of gas-fired power station capacity given in last week's White Paper, to which we have now added three more stations. Perhaps I could digress for a few moments and ask who in his right mind would allow the development of a power station in the beautiful Vale of Pickering when we could continue coaling in areas such as south Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, where industry and coal mining have always lived side by side. They have existed together for a long time in those areas.
  I am one of those hon. Members who, as a small child many years ago—I shall not say how many—saw coal coming along the canal in barges to the mills. That was the foundation of our industrial heritage. Without that supply of coal, we should not have had our industrial revolution.
  The premise of the White Paper is that we have lost the battle for coal and that we should organise an orderly

  77
  retreat and a dignified and respectable burial, albeit with massive subsidies on offer. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Minister for Energy on having made some progress in the last few months. Some of my colleagues think it outrageous that these massive subsidies should be on offer, as they have not been offered to other industries. I suspect, however, that many of those subsidies will never be used. Many parts of the coal industry do not need a subsidy. Very cheap coal is being produced. All that the coal industry needs is a fair crack at an equal opportunities market. We hear a great deal nowadays about equal opportunities, although they are not usually directed towards the coal industry.
  What we have heard today of who did what, and when, in the past does not matter to me, if we are serious about the future. That is what we are here to talk about. The only way to organise an orderly retreat, if British Coal cannot and does not want to run some of these pits, it to privatise them quickly and efficiently, but—and this is a big "but"—with a very careful eye on health and safety. That is most important.
  The industry will have to be split up into competing companies. I do not want British Coal under just another name; that would not do. Privatisation would get rid of regional offices, Hobart house, excessive administration costs and, I hope, the chairman as well. As the Ernst and Young report said, that would immediately wipe over £50 million off the cost of the coal industry, which in itself would considerably reduce the cost of coal.
  The miners have already shown that they could improve their productivity. They can improve it still further. As has happened in many of our other industries, many of the miners listened to what was said and fulfilled their commitments. Productivity can be further increased by changes in working practices and technology. Pithead coal can be cheap and, as I have already said, in some cases it is already cheap. The decentralisation of marketing and administration will ensure that even cheaper coal is delivered to the user.
  We should ensure that any pits that are closed can be licensed for private operation. It will create true competition and, I hope, will help to fill the niche markets for coal. That might prevent a crazy situation. The closure of Grimethorpe colliery might lead to the Monckton Coke and Chemical Company in Royston, some five miles from Grimethorpe, having to import its coal from Poland. British Coal says that it cannot supply coal, other than from Grimethorpe, so would this company please import coal from Poland. That is outrageous. By the time the Polish coal arrives, it will not be very much cheaper than something from down the road.
  Any industrial reorganisation takes time and costs money. Time must be provided for that to happen before closures take place. The White Paper provides money, in the form of a subsidy, but I have already said that I do not believe that much of that money will be used for this purpose. There must be some changes in working practices. Many of our textile mills and engineering industries have experienced changes. They have had to change in order to compete in the world market. I do not suggest for one moment that we should not expect the coal industry to do the same.
  We are always complaining about the fact that a level playing field does not exist in Europe for our manufactured goods, but in this country we have a very uneven playing field. I am sure that we should like to do
  78
  something about that. The Caminus report suggested that more coal will be used in 1997 and 1998. That is marvellous. We welcome it. If, however, we are talking about some pits closing by the end of this year, there will be a gap before there is a demand for that coal. British coal will not then be available and we shall probably have to import even more coal.
  The dash for gas has not slowed down; it has accelerated. Steps should be taken to prevent the future development of excess gas-fired capacity. I would never suggest that we should save jobs in one British industry at the expense of another. I have suggested all along that we should help to preserve British jobs and our own energy requirements. I am not too concerned about jobs in Europe. I am quite sure that Europe is not concerned about jobs in my part of Yorkshire.
  As for the French interconnector, it should be two-way. It is absolutely nonsensical to have this one-way track. I welcome the fact that moves are to be made to try to make it two-way. As the new French Government may be protectionist, we shall have to insist upon it being two-way. Alternatively, perhaps we should hold up the Maastricht treaty until we get some sense out of the French. If we cannot obtain agreement on basic issues, I am not so sure that there will be agreement on more important issues.
  I realise that I cannot possibly say all that I wanted to say in the time allowed to me. When I came to this House, almost 10 years ago, I was a committed Conservative. I remain a committed Conservative. However, I have always had an overriding problem. I see my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench nodding and saying, yes, they know that. I am an independent-minded Yorkshire woman. My constituents expect me to be an independent-minded Yorkshire woman; they would be very disappointed if I were not. That inevitably guides my star and my decision-making. Consequently, I cannot support the motion on the Order Paper.
  I am willing to be converted on the road to Damascus, even up to the last minute when the Minister winds up, but the small print—I spent most of yesterday going through it—does not lead me to believe that it addresses the problem of equality in the market. I accept that some conditions may not be easy to change, but when we had our debate last October I hoped that we could look forward to some help. I welcome what has been done, but I am not sure that there is enough political will to move far enough along the way.
  We need a future market for coal. All our other industries—textiles, engineering and so on—have had to change and the coal industry is no exception. To go on strike does not help the industry. To do so would push to one side all our arguments about the industry being reliable in the future. Strike action, therefore, would not help to secure the industry's future.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John Evans: The President of the Board of Trade ranted on for an hour. Apart from giving us a lesson in what the Labour Government did or did not do 20 or 25 years ago, he told us nothing. Back Benchers have only 10 minutes in which to put their case. I am very proud of the fact that I have this opportunity to speak on behalf of miners and their families at Parkside

  79
  colliery in my constituency—one of the 10 pits which has been on the hit list since October of last year. Sadly, it appears that it has now been joined by two others.
  If Parkside colliery closes, 850 miners will lose their jobs. At least twice that number of jobs will be lost in related industry and commerce in the St. Helens area. It is a grievous blow to Newton-le-Willows and St. Helens because male unemployment in my constituency is of the order of 17 per cent.
  That figure masks two even more important figures. The first is long-term male unemployment. I remind the House that miners will join a group of men who have been unemployed for a very long time—men who were employed in the glass industry and who lost their jobs seven or eight years ago after the modernisation of the industry. Long-term male unemployment in St. Helens stands at 37 per cent.
  Another equally important figure concerns unemployment among males under the age of 25, which is more than 34 per cent. One of the few industries in which young people in my area had any opportunity of finding a job was the mining industry. Sadly, another door is about to be closed in their face. I met the union representatives at Parkside colliery yesterday. The trade union committee expressed its outrage at the short time which has elapsed between the introduction of the White Paper and this debate. Its members feel that it is a disgrace that they had no opportunity to see the White Paper, read it and, much more important, consult their members about its contents.
  The Secretary of State talks about consultation. Surely the trade union officers should have had the opportunity to consult their members. They believe that the White Paper and its presentation by the President of the Board of Trade is simply a cynical attempt to confuse the British people who are still angered by the original proposition to close 31 collieries and throw 32,000 miners out of work. They maintained to me that they saw it as a cynical bribe on the part of the Secretary of State to buy off his Back Benchers.
  Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), because it appears that she at least has the bottle to carry through her original intention. I wonder how many of her hon. Friends will join her in the Opposition Lobby tonight.
  While I am on the subject of consultation, I will remind the House of what the Secretary of State said to me last week when I asked him about consultation, about the 10 pits and why he had not mentioned them:
  "He will also be aware that the reason why I did not mention the 10 collieries in my statement is that they are subject to the procedures of consultation and it would be wholly inappropriate for me to refer to them".
  Let me make it clear to the President of the Board of Trade that, while there have been three or four meetings with various union representatives at national and regional level, the meetings have taken the form of British Coal telling them why it intended to close the pits. There has been no meaningful consultation whatever about any aspect of the closure or the viability of Parkside colliery. As an example of the attitude of the employers towards consultation, notice of one meeting was not even sent to the union representatives; it was posted up in the pit lamp room. The subject of that meeting was the filling of the
  80
  colliery's shafts—a subject which was hardly likely to breed confidence in the miners that they would have meaningful consultations.
  In the same answer, the President of the Board of Trade said,
  "The hon. Member will be aware that 30 per cent. of the miners from Parkside have already accepted since last October the redundancy terms that we have made available to them."—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1245.]
  It was as if he was suggesting that the miners were deserting their colliery. When one considers the psychological pressure that the miners have been subject to since October last year when the colliery was taken out of production, when one recalls the fact that the vast majority of these men have lost at least 50 per cent. of their wages during that time, and when one appreciates that only a few months ago the nearby Parsonage colliery had its shafts filled and sealed within 72 hours, it is hardly surprising that some miners have left the colliery. Indeed, the only surprising thing is that 70 per cent. of the miners have actually stayed on the books of British Coal.
  I want to reiterate the statement that I made in the debate on 21 October last year. Parkside colliery, which is the last colliery in Lancashire and which was sunk in 1964, is a profitable colliery. It is an outrage that British Coal should seek to close it because of a loss in the first six months of the financial year 1992–93, when the colliery made substantial profits in the preceding five years. The colliery lost money last year because it had embarked on development work and the opening of a new seam which has never gone into full production; yet the miners themselves have said that if that seam was put into full production it would make Parkside colliery a highly profitable enterprise.
  The point to bear in mind about Parkside is that its market was, and would still be, assured. Fiddlers Ferry power station, only six miles from the colliery, took 700,000 tonnes, 80 per cent., of Parkside's annual production of high quality, low sulphur and low ash content coal, by a direct rail link. The remaining 20 per cent. went to other domestic market customers. There is no stockpile of coal at Parkside. The colliery also has more than 24 million tonnes of classified and unclassified reserves which will be lost if the pit closes.
  Fiddlers Ferry still requires coal. Where is it to come from? PowerGen plans to expand the South Gladstone terminal at Liverpool. Obviously it is not proposing to export coal. It will import even more coal through that terminal, and much of the imported coal will replace what should have come from Parkside. The docks are more than 30 miles further from the power station than Parkside is, so there will be increased road transport costs as well. There will be exchange rate fluctuations. There will be the capital cost of the dock expansion scheme, and the local authority is rightly imposing planning demands to reduce pollution.
  That is why the miners of this country say that there is no such thing as a level playing field, because no one has taken into account costs such as I have described. The miners of Parkside ask for that level playing field and a chance to compete fairly which they have never been given. The Government say that it is a question of market forces and that they cannot regulate or interfere with those mythical market forces, but the miners of Parkside pointed out to me the double standards that operate. Last week they learned from The Guardian, via a question asked by

  81
  Lord Spens in another place, that in 1991 the Bank of England had established a lifeboat fund to bale out banks and financial institutions faced with collapse in the wake of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal. It is suggested that the operation cost over £1 billion. There was no problem about subsidies or taxpayers' money being spent in this way, and Parliament was not even informed of the situation.
  If the miners of Parkside, like the rest of the miners of this country, are given an equal chance to compete fairly, there will be a great chance for the coal industry. That is what the miners have been denied. It is time the House gave them that opportunity.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: The White Paper is undoubtedly the most fundamental and authoritative study of the British coal scene by Government for many years. I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends the President and the Minister of State for their hard work and commitment. They have been available to colleagues at all times to explain and argue the contents of their White Paper and I very much appreciate that opportunity. I also pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for their work. Their study is also a fundamental one and, because it is backed by expertise on which Select Committees can call—expertise at the highest level—it is equally authoritative.
  The real question for the House today is how far the Government have taken or should have taken on board the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee. Certainly, we have moved a long way from last October when it was announced that there was no alternative to shutting down half of what was then our coal production. If the House had agreed to that, our largest indigenous energy resource would have been all but destroyed, with horrendous results for the national economy, for the balance of payments, for unemployment in mining communities in a time of deep recession, and for a fine and proud industry.
  We now have the review and the Select Committee study and both documents confirm that the electricity market is rigged against coal, with privileged access to it granted to other sources of supply.
  At last we have a White Paper that recognises that the private sector has a major part to play in the development of the coal industry. That should have been recognised before and coal privatisation should have taken place before electricity privatisation. I do not believe that a private sector coal industry would have got us into the position we were in last October or would have handled the closure programme or the mothballing announcements in the way that we have heard about today. There is an enormous amount of expertise in the private sector which is efficient and not top heavy with administrators as nationalised industries are bound to be. The private sector is keen to get on and develop markets.
  The belated decision to allow the private sector to take on closing or mothballed pits may be too late to save those pits, including Bevercotes colliery in my constituency. To imagine that seams will continue to be worked and that new seams will be developed as necessary with roughly the same work force in the several months that it will take to get the private sector running those mines is not realistic.
  82
  Current legislation would prevent that through restrictions on the numbers who may be employed. Perhaps relevant legislation is in progress, or perhaps my right hon. Friend plans some, but I must tell the House, if it does not already know, that the shenanigans of the Maastricht rebels make it highly unlikely that we shall have any new legislation in time to save some of the pits.
  Some of the privatisation prospects seem a little more apparent than real to members of mining communities. Today I saw the chairman of British Coal's statement about privatisation. He said that British coal is committed to offering collieries that it does not intend to keep in production to suitable private sector operators, but he added that that must not be allowed to result in better long-life collieries being put at risk and must not jeopardise the viability of the core business. He may have a point, but that is not allowing the private sector to compete in the coal industry.
  Even if pits are to be sold to the private sector, what guarantee is there that British Coal, which will be the vendor—the Government will not be selling the pits—will sell the pits at a fair and reasonable price and will be selling them in such a state that work can be carried on from day one without huge further investment? There is enormous scope for British Coal to stifle the private industry. I seek an assurance about the operation of the private sector and the restrictions that may be imposed on it.
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): May I help my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Alexander: I am sorry. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way, but I am subject to a very strict time limit. I hope that he can speak to me later or, if I conclude my remarks early, perhaps he can intervene.
  Much has been said about the French connection and I support what has been said. I am no longer a practising lawyer and was never an international lawyer, but I cannot believe that, because the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) arranged a deal in 1978, we are stuck with it for ever. If it had been a deal to sell this country baked beans, could it seriously be argued that we had to take French baked beans for ever, despite the consequences for our own baked bean industry and its employees? I do not believe that article 30 of the treaty of Rome would apply had this involved anything other than coal. Therefore, the passage on the French connection is deeply disappointing. Six pits would have been saved. I urge my right hon. Friend to get the issue unscrambled, even at this late hour.
  Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend said that, in any event, a restriction on imports of electricity would put the Government in breach of the indemnity given to the National Grid Company at the time of electricity privatisation. I know that he was not the Minister responsible for energy at the time and that many nasties have slipped by the House under the guise of legislation doing something else, but the undertaking should never have been given. If it had to be given, it should have been made absolutely clear to the House that it was being given and what the effect would be.
  With hindsight, it is the lack of competition due to the privatisation of the electricity industry which has brought us to this pass. We have two generators and a subsidised Nuclear Electric, which were brought about through a

  83
  change in the law. I was looking to the White Paper to state that we can unscramble the problem by changing the law, but no such course is proposed.
  We have excess capacity in power stations, but a raft of gas-fired plants is proposed and in the pipeline. They are being built not because they offer cheaper electricity or because they are needed but because the market is rigged to ensure that higher cost electricity is being sold while lower-cost coal-fired power states are likely to close. I regret that, in his statement to the House on Thursday, my right hon. Friend declined to exercise his powers to withhold further planning consents. If, as he says, it is a commercial matter—and it may be—why does application have to be made to him in the first place? Let the applicants get on with it. If he has a say, I ask him to exercise his power most urgently. He should realise the consequences of his decision for employment in the coal industry.
  I conclude that, in the White Paper, the Government have not been able to do all that they could or should have done to provide the wider market for coal, which the Select Committee and those in the industry urged. I spent the morning at Bevercotes colliery in my constituency. I could not say to the people there that, because the market is rigged against them, I must go to the House of Commons and vote for the White Paper which will throw hundreds of them out of work. I could not do that because the heartbreak and uncertainty in north Nottinghamshire is too much. I cannot vote for that, so I fear that I cannot support my right hon. Friend.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Many hon. Members have been going down memory lane, which has caused me to reflect on the six years that I spent as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on energy. It was an interesting time for me in personal terms. The six years left me with an abiding impression of the way in which our energy debates were determined by the modern day equivalent of a bunch of barons. There was Baron Rooke of British Gas versus Baron BP or Baron Shell. There was Baron Marshall of the nuclear power industry and the Central Electricity Generating Board versus Baron Coal.
  One thing that all the barons had in common was the fact that they controlled the information given to the House and, I suspect, to the Government. I certainly saw the manipulation of information to the Opposition when it suited Baron Rooke to oppose the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982 or, when it suited him, he did an about-turn and choked off any information when he had done a deal with Lord Walker to privatise British Gas. That has been repeated in energy matters for decades.
  I therefore approach all White Papers with enormous scepticism. I recall vividly the meetings with Baron Marshall when he ran the CEGB. When we asked about the decommissioning costs, he would tell us that they appeared in the annual accounts. That was until he had to sign a potential balance sheet when, suddenly, the real books were revealed and we ended up with a £1·2 billion levy for the nuclear industry. We have good reason to be profoundly sceptical of all the figures and projections.
  All that the privatisation of energy has done is to multiply the barons. We now have a group of lesser barons
  84
  who run the regional electricity companies. The Secretary of State does not know about people's feelings. Hon. Members should imagine the feelings in communities such as mine. The jobs of thousands of valley customers of the South Wales electricity company may be destroyed because the South Wales electricity company is investing in a new gas-fired plant on Teesside. Will those captive customers be allowed to use the one power source that they should have? Will they be allowed to get an alternative source of electricity to light their homes? They will not be able to do so. They are captive customers to a new group of barons who already show all the symptoms of the larger barons in jostling for power and position.
  I recall sitting in the House in the 1966 Parliament when the Labour Government published a White Paper on fuel. Its simple, basic, unchallenged assumption was that we should create electricity mostly by burning oil which would cost only a few cents a barrel for ever and a day. Dozens of pits were closed on the basis that such economic and financial assumptions were accurate. We now know that, as a result of one week's skirmish in the middle east in 1973, all those assumptions were destroyed.
  The lesson to learn is that we should not become dependent on imported supplies which are supported at cheap prices. We must be aware of the speed at which we forget the lessons that we should have learnt. We are already forgetting the lesson that we should not become dependent on imports of coal or on any other imported form of energy wherever possible. We should maintain flexibility and diversity. We shall not do that by closing the reserves of coal for ever and a day.
  I now make the case on behalf of my pit, Taff Merthyr. Other hon. Members have asked where the markets are. The only market for Taff Merthyr pit is the collection of power stations at Aberthaw and Uskmouth, 15 miles down the road. The coal goes by rail from Taff Merthyr 15 or 16 miles straight into the power stations of south Wales. Welsh coal supplies Welsh power stations to provide Welsh electricity. At the moment, demand is down. If the Aberthaw-Uskmouth combination of power stations get back to their normal consumption—we hope that that will happen when we have a viable economy—they will require about 4 million tonnes. That could come from the Tower colliery, from private licensed mining in south Wales or from opencast mining. It should come from Taff Merthyr.
  If the market picks up, the unbelievable alternative—the power stations are designed to take low volatile coal—is either Vietnamese or Russian coal. Such coal would be imported at Bristol Avonmouth and carted across the estuary to a power station 15 miles away from pits that had been closed. When there are doubts and worries, and when we are talking about long-term trends, why would anyone make such a crazy decision which will destroy opportunities and jobs? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government would."'] Let us hope and pray that the Government will not make such a decision and that, at the last minute, they will decide to see sense. I say that especially to the Secretary of State for Wales.
  At various times, the Secretary of State and I have collaborated to promote what his Department calls the "Source Wales Initiative", which is a major effort to encourage people to buy Welsh products so that by a form of import substitution we can create new jobs in Wales. What a joke it is for us to spend all our time promoting the "Source Wales Initiative" while the Secretary of State is

  85
  party to the closure of the one source of energy available at present, which is next door to a Welsh power station which needs the coal to produce electricity for Wales.
  I beg the Secretary of State not to stand behind the fig leaf of consultation or of privatisation. It is a cruel hoax to tell people at Taff Merthyr that a private investor will come to take over. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said forcefully, that is a possibility for Betws. However, he and I know that the future of Taff Merthyr is tied into the power station argument and into the contracts between the present barons. I hope that the Secretary of State will not try to pretend that that is a future option for Taff Merthyr.
  Unless the Secretary of State for Wales gets better assurances, he should not pretend that there will be real consultation. We do not know about that, although I have asked him repeatedly, including personally last Thursday, what consultation will take place. The Taff Merthyr lodge has asked only for professional mining engineering advice to be taken. Such mining engineers know the seams, the industry and the area well and they believe that future reserves can be mined economically. All that we have asked is that our case be heard before an independent review inquiry, which is part and parcel of the industry's rights. That has been denied us from day one.
  The Secretary of State says that Taff Merthyr was saved from closure last August. The workers there did not concede closure, although there was a sense of resignation and disbelief. People have not left the pits. Since October, they have clung to the belief that some common sense would prevail with British Coal, with the Government and with the Secretary of State.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I have had the privilege of speaking in most of the coal debates since I was elected in 1983. I am delighted to have the opportunity of doing the same today. My constituency had three pits in 1983; it has none now. However, it has the headquarters of the Selby coalfield and the headquarters of Yorkshire Electricity. I declare an interest in that my law firm acts for many companies involved in energy, and for their customers and their suppliers. In common with all hon. Members, I have the ultimate interest that all constituents are consumers of electricity.
  I have always argued that there must be a balanced and diverse energy policy. The precise mix of fuels must be a decision for the marketplace. It has to be determined ultimately by customer choice and by competition. The first dividend of that policy after privatisation is the cuts in charges by the electricity companies, which are being announced.
  I have no doubt that coal can compete effectively in that environment, provided it plays on a level playing field. Unfortunately for coal, it has not had and does not have a level playing field. Everyone else in the energy sector is out in the private sector, with the freedoms that that involves and with the additional opportunities for marketing. Coal alone is still stuck with the constraints of public ownership.
  If coal had been privatised in the 1980s along with electricity generation, as I believe it should have been, there would have been a different shape to privatisation, with coalfields and coal-fired power stations being put together to sell electricity directly to consumers. Instead,
  86
  coal was left with the problem of being able to sell insignificant quantities only through the generators. That is the root of the current problems. I hope that the privatisation process announced in the White Paper will give the opportunity for restructuring in the industry which will be the best guarantee of the long-term success of the coal industry.
  If the coal industry was a competitor with the generators for selling electricity, their attitude to buying coal would be very different. Unfortunately, that could not happen in the 1980s, because of the militancy of the National Union of Mineworkers. It was obvious that the privatisation of coal in the 1980s would have run into severe difficulties. In a very real sense, the NUM was the creator of the myths about closure in the 1980s, and was the author of its own misfortunes, because it prevented the coal industry from being privatised alongside electricity generation.
  I still believe that coal can catch up on lost opportunities. I was not prepared to accept the statement last October, for a number of specific reasons. I could not accept the arbitrary closure of viable pits. Most people in the industry to whom I spoke and whose advice I trusted suggested that there were between 10 and 15 viable pits in the industry.
  There was no independent review of pits or of their prospects. There was no opportunity for private sector involvement. Pits were to be closed without the opportunity being provided for others to purchase them. The timetable given in October was that dictated by the generation contracts due for the end of this month. This meant that there was no linkage between those decisions and the nuclear review, or the question of import substitution, or the review of mineral planning guidance for opencasting, or the question whether orimulsion was desirable, or the question of the French link.
  Those issues have been addressed in the White Paper. Of the 10 to 15 viable pits, 12 are to be retained. In addition, Maltby is to be put into development and Betws will clearly find an acceptable buyer in the free market. The opportunity for private sector involvement will be very substantial indeed. Already, many companies are expressing an interest in buying pits. They will now be given the opportunity to do so, because it is quite clear that no pit can be shut down without an opportunity being provided for others to buy it and operate it successfully.
  The Boyds report and the Select Committee report have given us a valuable basis of information for decision making which was not available last October. Above all, the provision of the subsidy has given——
  Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in "Erskine May" that can reduce the amount of rubbish that is being talked by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order.
  Mr. Batiste: I hope that I will be given injury time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition really do not like listening to reality. They prefer to live in a world of their own mythology.
  The £700 million-worth of subsidy—the range of subsidy spoken of in the Select Committee report—will give us the opportunity to keep open the viable pits while the nuclear review takes place. It will give the opportunity for import substitution. There is already a welcome change

  87
  in the weighing of the priorities under the mineral planning guidance, so that opencasting in green belt sites is unlikely to be granted planning consent in future. Orimulsion is being cut.
  Moreover, I am quite sure that we shall find ways of redressing the balance on the French link, although all the information that I have suggests that, if the French link were closed down, a large part of the saving would not come to coal, because the southern electricity companies would want to reopen oil-fired power stations in the south.
  I have already said that those issues have been addressed in the White Paper, and the White Paper now deserves support in a way that the October statement did not. Nevertheless, there will be forces in British Coal that will do their best, in the weeks to come as last weekend, to undermine the process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) suggested that those elements wanted to buy the industry themselves on the best terms available. I suggest that there is a simpler explanation—that many people in British Coal simply do not want to face up to a competitive environment. Marketing has hardly been a conspicuous success of British Coal, and I believe that many independent companies, given an opportunity to mine coal on a much larger scale, will find markets that British Coal has been quite unable to find for itself.
  I would not support indefinite subsidy. I have never believed that we should swap jobs from one industry to another, which is what indefinite subsidies amount to. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a valid case for providing the funds to enable British Coal to make the transition to the private sector and to give it the opportunity, which I believe it can grasp, to survive and prosper in the private sector.
  The NUM militancy this weekend—in the form of the announcement of the strike on Friday—is a gesture, and I hope that it will be seen as nothing more than that. It should nevertheless act as a considerable warning to those who work in the industry that, henceforth, they have to look to their customers rather than to the entrenched attitudes of the past. If the coal industry is to have a future, as I believe it will, that future will depend not on silly gestures but on its satisfying its customers that it will be a reliable supplier.
  The Government have looked at all the options. They have adopted many of the Select Committee's recommendations. I commend the recommendations in the White Paper to the House, and congratulate the Government on having moved so far since their statement in October.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute restriction ends at 8 pm, but may I make a plea to all hon. Members to restrict their speeches to 10 minutes thereafter?
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: The crisis in the coal industry relates to the botched privatisation of electricity, the architects of which—Lords Parkinson and Wakeham—are in the other place. That privatisation left a ticking timebomb, which exploded in the face of the President of the Board of Trade on 13
  88
  October last. Instead of doing something radical about it, the right hon. Gentleman stood there like a cartoon character, blackened by the blast.
  Our coal industry is a world-beating industry. It is the most sophisticated and safest deep coal mining industry in the world and produces the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe. Nevertheless, the White Paper does nothing whatever for the industry. It takes us no further than the statement of 13 October. If anything can be said about the White Paper, it is that it is a masterly deception. I remind the House that, in paragraph 23 of its report, the Select Committee observed:
  "Classifying pits in this way is far from easy. Not only does the performance of individual pits vary, but British Coal has a very flat supply curve … Thus a small change in production costs or price can transfer a large number of deep mines from profit to loss or vice versa."
  In other words, a slight change could alter the fortunes of all the 31 collieries now scheduled for closure within one to two years.
  I would also refer the House to paragraph 266 of the Select Committee report, which contains a menu of options that could have widened the market significantly. It is sad that the Secretary of State has not taken any of them on board. We refer to the displacement of imported coal or oil subsidies. We talk of removing the non-leviable status of electricity imported from France; we talk of requiring flue gas desulphurisation for stations burning orimulsion, proposing that that could be provided by moneys from the nuclear levy; we talk of restricting combined cycle gas turbine stations from operating permanently on baseload and of how higher stock levels could be controlled; we talk of reducing opencast mining.
  That menu adds up to 36·5 million tonnes of coal on top of the contracts that have already been signed involving 40 million tonnes and subsequently 30 million tonnes per year. In other words, there is a substantial market for coal. I find it sad that Conservative Members who put their names to the Select Committee report now seek to distance themselves from it. I have heard hon. Members say today that the form of words in the report gave the drift of the Committee's conclusions, but, because of the lateness of the hour, did not express very clearly what its members thought. Yet our conclusion was clear. We said that many of our recommendations would provide opportunities for a larger market for coal beyond that which we were advocating for subsidy and we advocated that price support should be given to 19 million tonnes of coal within that much larger market.
  At the same time, however, we said that that price support should be tapered so that, as British coal prices came nearer to world market prices, the subsidy would taper and eventually disappear. The evidence to the Select Committee showed clearly that British Coal was on course to becoming fully competitive within two or three years. It showed also that once British Coal reached full competitiveness, the price support would disappear.
  Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clapham: No, I am sorry. There is a strict time limit and I want to be brief.
  Let us consider what the White Paper does not do. It rejects the reform of the nuclear levy, curbing French imports and restrictions on the use of orimulsion. It also rejects the reduction in the output of opencast coal. It also rejects increased coal subsidies to the electricity market for

  89
  retaining the regional electricity companies' franchise. Conservative Members must accept that we are talking in terms of subsidising 16 million tonnes of coal for the electricity supply industry within the context of the franchise market.
  The franchise market is extremely important. The regional electricity companies will agree to back-to-back contracts. We suggested that the franchise should be extended until 1998. That would have given the coal industry great stability during the period of change as it moved to full competitiveness.
  We also referred to removing market discrimination against coal. That proposal was also rejected by the White Paper. Similarly, the White Paper rejects curbing the dash for gas. That is intriguing because there are two references in the White Paper to gas being more expensive than coal. However, the President claims that he cannot intervene in the market to ensure that we restrict gas in the way suggested by the Select Committee.
  The Select Committee suggested that priority should be given to sour gas projects. We also suggested that the next priority should be combined heat and power projects. We also suggested that gas should be restricted from baseload generation. No other country in the world uses gas for baseload generation. That is extremely important because gas is much more flexible for follow loading than baseload.
  The menu of options amounted to a total market of 62 million tonnes. However, the President has not entered into the market that we provided. He has rejected all our proposals. As a result, the collieries that he talks about surviving for two years or so will disappear because there is no market for their coal. The right hon. Gentleman has provided no opportunity in the market for the 12 collieries that are to be given market testing.
  What did the President mean when he referred to development status for Maltby? Will Maltby's work force be made redundant? Will the drivages be handed over to contractors? At the end of the day, when Maltby is ready to produce coal, will the work force be brought back to mine the mineral, or will the contractors receive the contracts to mine the coal? If the latter is the case, the right hon. Gentleman should come clean and say that that is what he intends.
  Clearly, the White Paper does not, in any way, meet any of the Select Committee's recommendations. As I have said, it takes us only a very little way from the position at 13 October last year. Anyone who has had any connection with the mining industry will be aware that its privatisation will do nothing for the industry except return it to the bad old days. The Opposition oppose that rigorously. Privatisation will not help coal mining.
  We can understand how the miners feel when we consider the day of action on Friday. Over the past five months, the delay has been orchestrated deliberately to spin miners off into redundancy. There is no doubt that the extension of the redundancy terms to 13 December is also designed to spin miners away from the 12 collieries for whose coal there is no market. We know that those collieries will eventually close in a year or so.
  I support the miners' day of action and I understand how they feel. They feel that they have been badly treated, left with no hope for five months and, at the end of the day, that the White Paper simply proposes the closure of the industry.
  8.5 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: It is a privilege to take part, very briefly I trust, in another debate on the coal industry as I have taken part in and and responded to such debates in the past.
  Whenever there is a discussion about the coal industry, no matter on what side of the House one sits, there is an anxiety about the fact that we are dealing with an industry which is changing. Indeed, for many years that change has meant decline. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) said earlier, two charts in the White Paper sum up that change most vividly.
  The chart on page 19 of the White Paper reveals that there was a take-up of 200 million tonnes of coal in 1960. Electricity generation took 26 per cent. of that; industrial consumption accounted for about 21 per cent. and the domestic fuel market took up 28 per cent. When that chart is contrasted with the one directly below it on page 19, it is clear that today the industrial and domestic markets have shrunk to 7 per cent. or less while the percentage dependent on generation has increased to about 80 per cent. The volume of take-up in 1992 was 101 million tonnes.
  That is the base problem. Although enormous environmental and security of supply pressures have undoubtedly played their part in the reduction of the industrial use of coal, the main changes have probably arisen as a result of offers of other energy sources. They include oil and subsequently gas from the North sea and the development of nuclear power which now comprises 18 or 19 per cent. of generating energy. Those sources have entered a field where none existed before.
  That has occurred although amazing efforts have been made to sustain and develop the coal industry. There has been huge investment causing great productivity. Volumes are now approaching 100 million tonnes from some 20 pits. Although there has been a massive reduction in manpower and consumption, the efficiency of British Coal-produced products at the pithead has steadily improved.
  How can we react to the present situation and the calls in October for further immediate closures? I am bound to say that I have some sympathy with those who believe that the privatisation of electricity is part of the problem. I suspect that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is on the Front Bench now, had had something to do with it, it would have turned into rather a different animal. However, there is a huge duopoly in electricity generation, and there is no doubt that a duopoly is no substitute for a competitive market.
  I was puzzled by paragraph 10.44 of the White Paper, which reads:
  "The DGES made a further report on 23 February. Although the Director General sees possible scope for future improvements in RECs' purchasing practices and in the regulatory regime, this report confirmed that he found no basis for concluding that the RECs had breached their economic purchasing conditions."
  Of course, the economic purchasing conditions require them to buy their fuel at the cheapest possible price. However, paragraph 10.45 states:
  "The Director General did, however, record that he was not convinced that the costs associated with producing electricity from coal fired plant were sufficient to justify contract prices as high as those offered to the RECs by National Power and PowerGen."

  91
  It is not good enough to allow a duopoly of this sort to produce prices which are extremely doubtful as far as the director general is concerned. I sometimes wonder why the director general cannot take to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission earlier than 1995 a reference to the generators, which is included in paragraph 10.48 of the White Paper. Pressures should be placed on the market for the generation and supply of electricity which would even out the problem which, I suspect, was created with the privatisation of electricity.
  With the present position, and with the arrangements which are contained in the White Paper, at least there are two or three encouraging prospects. The first must be that the President of the Board of Trade has recommended bringing forward the nuclear review to start in 1993. In that review, the need for a levy may well be discounted. I should like to see the nuclear levy removed as soon as possible, in so far as it affects the costs of decommissioning. There is no reason why it should be lumbered on top of present coal industry costs.
  There is the prospect—amazingly, from the Government—of a subsidy on the tonnes of coal to try to close the inevitable gap between the world price for coal and the price for domestically produced coal. That has been a difficult problem for the coal industry to crack in the past 10, 15 or 20 years, but there is an opportunity for it to be done. The closer the gap becomes between the domestic price and the world price—which is the imported price—the better the chance of turning some of the 6 million tonnes which are imported for steam-produced electricity into a United Kingdom coal-produced product. That is an encouragement.
  The second encouragement is that I suspect that there will be a measure which will get more interest into British Coal in terms of marketing the product in markets other than simply the domestic one. If coal which is produced in the United Kingdom reaches the world price, there is no reason whatever why the product cannot be marketed in Germany, even at the transported price, and undercut German electricity generation.
  Over the years, I suspect that British Coal has lacked a management thrust which is market oriented. When Mr. Malcolm Edwards worked for British Coal, we certainly got a real thrust on selling more coal for more uses within the United Kingdom. I am surprised that British Coal is less evidently a marketing company than it should be in the present circumstances.
  There is a call for an energy strategy to be published. I note from the White Paper that there is to be an annual energy statement. I should like to know whether it will be a genuine audit or simply a state-of-play report. If there is to be a case for taking energy from all sources into the position of being able to influence how the market develops, it should be a proper strategy document. It should be able to deal with all energy resources, it should be updated yearly, and it should become a benchmark for the development of what I hope will be a competitive industry—although on a different basis. With all that, I suspect that there is a chance that the decline will not continue as it has in the past. Equally, I have no doubt that the ultimate decision on whether the industry survives depends on the price of coal which is delivered to consumers.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I speak with 39 years of experience in the industry before I became a Member of Parliament. I sometimes find it amusing when people ask me what I did when I worked. When I worked, I was a miner.
  If the ill-considered statement made by the Board of Trade in October announcing the list of 39 pits threatened with closure did anything at all to advance the interests of the nation as a whole and the coal industry in particular, it can be seen only in the flurry of interest in energy issues and the embarrassing decision, after universal public pressure, for the Government to back off from the original recommendations and try to salvage the reputation of the President of the Board of Trade by producing a White Paper which reads like a less reputable second-hand car salesman's handbook—promising much but delivering little.
  I was intrigued by the British Coal press release dated 25 March:
  "British Coal has discussed with Government the conclusions reached in its Coal Review White Paper on the market for coal and considered the consequences for the size and structure of the business. It welcomes the decision to make available transitional financial assistance, with the objective of enabling the electricity generators to buy additional quantities of British coal, and the opportunity this can provide to secure the future for a larger number of collieries."
  That is an intriguing press release when one refers back to the British Coal press release dated 21 January 1993—this is 18 press releases before the one which I have just quoted.
  On 21 January 1993, the chairman of British Coal, Mr. Neil Clarke, said:
  "We hear and read a lot about possible solutions to the public demand for a fair deal for coal. What would clearly be no solution would be some kind of fudge. What counts in the end is the amount of coal which is burned as part of the energy mix in our power stations. And for us, of course, how much of that is British Coal.
  It has been suggested that our coal needs a massive subsidy to stay in the market. That is nonsense. We have not sought a subsidy and it is mischievous to plant the notion that very large amounts of electricity users' or taxpayers' money is needed to featherbed our minds."
  Who can trust British Coal when it makes two different comments publicly?
  I would prefer to trust what was said by the British Association of Colliery Management:
  "Mere tampering is insufficient. Without radical changes in the commercial environment in which the UK coal industry has to operate, there can be no radical change in the number of collieries originally scheduled for closure."
  That is nearer the truth than the comments made by British Coal today.
  The White Paper highlights the record of the Government's attempts to use mining industry issues to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers, betray their erstwhile friends in the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and, ultimately, create conditions for the remnants of the coal industry to be sold off to their friends for a pittance.
  Privatisation, as the ultimate aim, has overshadowed all of the events of the past few months. Although the general impression is that the introduction of legislation some time in the future—the President of the Board of Trade mentioned two years—will dispose of a vital industry which has been owned by the British people for 46 years, the truth is that action has already been taken in introducing private contractors into the mining operations

  93
  of British Coal, and is a major step towards privatisation. A Bill to denationalise the industry will only finalise the process which has been taking place for some time.
  Ellington colliery in Northumberland, where many of my constituents are employed, is an example. Development work and surface installations are already in the hands of private contractors. The coal production section of the mine is to be handed over to private operators. I understand that it is probably the first time that that has been done in the United Kingdom. Such back-door privatisation is taking place up and down the coalfields, and the White Paper is the next progression towards the final disposal of a valuable national asset.
  How does the White Paper respond to public and political demand for a viable coal industry which is fully equipped to produce coal at dramatically improved output levels and rapidly reducing costs, able to take its place as an important primary source of energy, allowing Britain to be less reliant on foreign sources of energy and potentially able to be the bedrock for an expanding manufacturing industry—which is in decline at present, sadly, because of the Government's policies—with the possibility of recovery with proper Government support?
  The White Paper produces no answers whatever to those problems. The distorted market remains. The private electricity industry operates a cosy monopoly in its part of the market. In a press report dated November 1992, an inspector suggested that five of the ancient Magnox stations in the heavily subsidised nuclear generating industry are at risk and should probably be closed down. If the stations are closed down, what will replace nuclear generation? It must be coal.
  It has been maintained that the famous French link is a quid pro quo arrangement, whereby France tops up Britain's energy supply at peak times and Britain supplies France at peak times. However, the system has never worked as intended. When I inquired last year in a written question, I discovered that the flow was heavily in one direction. That has apparently been going for some years. The figures showed that, in 1990, the ratio of electricity supplied to France to that supplied from Britain was 255:1. In 1991, it was 1,091:1.
  The President of the Board of Trade said today that a programme was under way to halve the ratio in eight years. So in eight years, the figures for delivery from France to Britain will be down to 500:1. That is not a bad target. In 16 years, we might have electricity flowing both ways. That is yet another case of clear commercial interests superseding national interests.
  If the ratio had been balanced the other way, the French Government, whatever their political complexion —there has just been a change of Government—would have taken action. They would not simply offer vague promises for the future. I have been a member of the Council of Europe for four years, so I have some experience of dealing with the French, as have some of my colleagues. In dealing with the French, we should never trust them as far as we could throw the whole French nation.
  We must consider another aspect of the issue. We talk about the generating industry as the main consumer of coal, but there are other consumers to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about the gas reserves. He said that they were finite and likely to run out fairly soon. How long fairly soon might
  94
  be remains to be seen, because we do not know how much gas we have. He also said that, when it runs out, we may need to import gas. Then someone else would fix the price.
  I have been here for the whole debate tonight, but no one has mentioned the production of gas from coal. The technology has been developed and used in Britain. I visited a plant in Scotland some years ago. The technology has progressed fairly well. However, I have recently read a document form Texaco in which it says that it has produced gas from coal for 30 years. Four plants around the world have produced gas efficiently and economically for 30 years. If we close down coal mines and decimate our coal industry, where will we obtain coal if we need to produce gas from coal at some time in the future? The mines will be closed. I look particularly at the north-east of England.
  As the House will know, I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. My section of the union, the colliery officials and staffs association, has members at every colliery in Britain. That gives me an interest in the future of each and every mine. The members of my section are specialists, and their morale has not been improved by the content of the statement on Thursday or the White Paper.
  The White Paper merely produces some limited short-term answers to long-term problems. Too many questions are left unanswered not by the disastrous proposal to write off huge coal reserves in the pits which are to close—for which future generations will condemn us —but by the proposal to mothball six mines. Two of the pits to be mothballed are Westoe and Easington in the north-east. They are both working reserves under the North sea.
  My long experience in the coal mining industry has shown me clearly that it is possible to mothball mines in the short term—for perhaps one or two months—but that beyond that there are tremendous difficulties. I have practical experience of the deterioration of mines. One can go into a mine on Monday morning and find that, over the weekend, some of the equipment has become unworkable. The roof has pressed on the mechanical chocks which support the roof, and it is necessary to detonate explosives to blow them out. That is merely after a weekend.
  After a long weekend or a holiday weekend, the problem is exaggerated. After a fortnight or three weeks' holiday, it is exaggerated even more. I have experience of circumstances in which three days of production have been lost in getting the mine working again after a holiday. What will happen when the mine is not worked for perhaps months or a year? The mines will not be mothballed for that period: they will be closed.
  Westoe and Easington mines in my region are both under the North sea. They are both prone to water ingress. I have had experience of the North sea coming into the mine. One cannot keep that back unless one is King Canute. Those are the problems which arise from mothballing. So it is with some pessimism that I say to anyone who is involved in the pits which are to be mothballed, "Forget about them ever opening again. They are gone." Not only the mines which are on the list to be closed, but those which are to be mothballed will be lost. That is a sad thing to say to anyone with whom I have been associated in the mining industry.
  Anyone with practical experience of deep mining operations will know that the high cost of maintaining roadways, roof conditions, water pumping operations,

  95
  ventilation and machinery is prohibitive if there is not production to pay for it. The Minister might like to respond to a question put to me by a miner: what arrangements are to be made to cover redundancy payments after December 1993 to miners involved in maintaining the mothballed mines if a decision is made to close them in 1994 or 1995?
  The Government should understand that, if they abandon a significant proportion of our coal reserves, the country will see it as a largely irreversible decision of historic significance to the United Kingdom. The Government will not be forgiven for their folly.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I am pleased to speak in the debate as a Member for a Nottingham constituency and someone who has lived the whole of his life in Nottinghamshire. From sheer contact, I have a great respect for the mining industry, the key industry in our country, and, indeed, for the contribution that it makes, has made and hopefully will make in the future to meeting Britain's energy requirements.
  I have always believed, largely for the reason given by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), in a four-fuel policy for Britain. I also lived through the time when we decided that oil would be the fuel and closed many coal mines in Nottinghamshire. I was serving in local government at that time, as chairman of the finance committee of Nottinghamshire county council. We combined with Derbyshire to redevelop the Erewash valley to replace mining jobs. I thought then that we had learned the lesson that a Government of any persuasion should be wary of going for a particular fuel
  Therefore, I believe that we should have a four-fuel policy, and that deep-mined coal should play an important part as that fourth fuel. I also feel that, in Nottinghamshire, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has proved itself again and again. It is supportive and has much higher productivity figures than other coalfields, pit for pit and seam for seam. It deserves the support of the Government.
  I agree with both Conservative and Opposition Members who have suggested that the current problem has occurred as a result of the way in which electricity was privatised. There are those—we have heard them speak from the Conservative Benches—who believe that the market is the master and should be the ultimate arbiter of everything. I happen to be a different sort of Tory. I believe that the market should be an important mechanism by which judgments should be made, but that it should not be the master and the arbiter.
  I disagreed with some of the remarks by Opposition Members about the market. One must accept that the way in which electricity has been privatised means that the market is currently the master of our energy policy. It was not certain that the core contracts, however much Opposition Members may deride them, would be signed. There was no reason why the generators should have signed the core contracts. They have every ability to sit on their coal stocks.
  There is almost one year's coal burn on the ground. The generators could use that £1 billion-worth of stock and import coal at a lower price than that produced in Britain.
  96
  So it was not a certainty that the core contracts would be signed. I am glad that they have been signed, because that enables us to continue to the next stage.
  My concern all along has been what will happen in five years. The original core contract of 30 million tonnes in five years' time does not represent the production of the deep-mined coal industry in Britain. At worst, 30 million tonnes from all sources could mean about 20 million tonnes of deep-mined coal and between 10 million and 15 million tonnes of opencast coal and that does not represent a core industry—an industry of a size that can be regarded as an industry. That has been my concern and I have submitted that evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee and to the inquiry.
  As far as the White Paper is concerned, if we accept that the Secretary of State has certain powers, he has done everything that he possibly could within them. He has persuaded the Government to agree to a £500 million subsidy and has got a couple of hundred million pounds for the redevelopment of certain sectors. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is present and he knows what happened in Mansfield and other areas when the last group of pits was closed. Additional money is helpful. As it happens, Nottinghamshire is fortunate, as it is on the M1, it is a centralised area and it has an adaptable work force. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has also done many other things which, in the interests of time, I do not intend to list.
  The White Paper and the vote tonight are not the end of the story. It is not a case of either-or, and when the vote is taken it will not be the end of the Government's commitment or involvement, nor will it be the end of what they need to do.
  It has already been said that we have already made a move in the right direction on opencast mining. I agree with Opposition Members who mentioned the true cost of opencast, which is very high indeed for people who often have to suffer 10 or 15 years of blight. More needs to be done, based on the statement from the Department of the Environment. In particular, more needs to be done to protect green-field sites, wherever they may be, from opencast mining. I am not convinced that we have finished with opencast and I see no reason why the amount should not be reduced.
  Secondly, I am pleased that the nuclear review has been brought forward as there is a lot to play for and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) about the nuclear levy. The nuclear industry also wants to play its part in supplying Britain's energy requirements and one can visualise that there could be a trade-off between closing Magnox stations and opening another pressurised water reactor. All those who have been interested in the energy scene recognise that PWRs are the only way to generate nuclear energy competitively and there could be a trade-off by closing Magnox stations, to increase the coal burn in that way.
  In my judgment, it boils down to how can we increase the market for coal, as recommended by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and accepted by the Government, with the help of the subsidy which is to be made available. Power stations are the market for coal. When the electricity generating industry was privatised, 32 coal-fired power stations were handed over to the generators on 1 December 1992. In terms of modernity and wearing out, they range from power stations built in 1957 to those finished in 1974. The same applies to power

  97
  stations run by National Power and PowerGen, except that PowerGen's latest power station, Fiddler's Ferry, was completed in 1971.
  First, we must realise that many old power stations are mothballed and are not being used. The House and the Government should seek to ensure that we concentrate on the power stations that are desperately necessary to maintain coal production from deep-mined pits at about 30 million tonnes in the long term. I understand that only eight of the 32 are essential, and those are large, long-life power stations located close to long-life, low-cost mines. The list includes West Burton, Eggborough, Aberthaw B, Rugeley B, Drax, Ferrybridge C, Ratcliffe on Soar—the closest to my constituency—and Cottam. Another seven coal-fired power stations need to be retained if we are to encourage and to find the contracts necessary, over and above the core contract. They include: Thorpe Marsh, Ironbridge, Didcot, High Marnham, Drakelow C, Kingsnorth and Fiddler's Ferry.
  I suggest to my colleagues that to encourage, support and assist British Coal, it is surely possible to negotiate one of the special contracts mentioned in the Select Committee report, which states that
  "British Coal and the generators should explore alternative forms of contract of the types suggested by our witnesses and British Coal should seek to obtain contracts for part of its output extending beyond ten years."
  It does not seem to me to be beyond the wit of man to negotiate for one of the power stations in the first or second list and to refit it with the sort of technology that the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) mentioned—combined heat and power from coal in which one uses a gas burn as well as coal to increase efficiency, which is environmentally clean—and to fix a contract with subsidised coal. That would seem to be a useful way to use the subsidies that the Government are providing for an additional contract—over and above the core contract— for one of those power stations. In return the station would be brought up to standard and up to date with one of the new technologies which was invented in this country. The countries that we exported it to are now offering it back.
  Mr. Jack Thompson rose——
  Mr. Lester: I am sorry but we are under the 10-minute rule and I am trying to ensure that other hon. Members can speak.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: No, the 10-minute rule has finished.
  Mr. Lester: I am under a voluntary 10-minute rule.
  Tonight's vote is not the end of the story and there will be other opportunities which we must utilise. We must go in the direction of new technology.
  If we are not able to protect the coal burn and coal-fired power stations, it will not matter what price we mine coal at as there will be no market for it. Because of my background and my commitment to my county, my heart is very much with the miners and I understand their problems, but my head is concerned with how we can best ensure the long-term future of Britain's energy supplies and, the deep-mined coal industry, and the part that it should play within that future.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: Earlier in the debate, there was some criticism of the miners and it was said that they should not contemplate strike action. It is a sign of miners' anxieties and their deep concern that even the traditionally moderate Nottinghamshire miners are balloting for strike action on Friday. It has also been said that the problems of the deep coal industry are the fault of the miners, who have not been flexible enough.
  It is important to stress that miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country have done everything asked of them and more. During the past five years, they have increased productivity by 150 per cent. and they are producing coal at half the cost of German coal. The price of coal from pitheads throughout the country is the same as it was six years ago, yet our electricity bills have increased by 65 per cent. The British coal industry is the best and the most productive in Europe and, given their productivity record during the past five years, miners are entitled to ask what the President of the Board of Trade has been doing during the past five months.
  Miners say—and they are right—that the White Paper has not produced one extra tonne of coal. It is a mouse of a White Paper and not a lion and it contains no energy policy for the nation, save that that policy will be dependent on market forces. It is important to define clearly the terms and consequences of the White Paper, because some hon. Members have said that it will save pits. As a result of it, however, 12 pits will close immediately and six will be mothballed. There is a strong feeling among the managers and workers in the industry that those pits will never reopen. There is also much scepticism about whether the 12 pits, the market testers, will survive for long.
  The debate is about the market, but the Government have said exactly what they said in October. The only job that is saved by the White Paper is that of the President of the Board of Trade. Today, he has said, "I told you so" and been keen to justify his actions.
  The core contract offered by the White Paper is for 40 million tonnes of coal next year and 30 million tonnes for the year after. I view the notion of the supplementary contract with suspicion, because, even this afternoon, the President of the Board of Trade was most unclear about its origin. The idea is that those contracts will force out imports, so that the price of British-produced coal falls below that of imported coal. Today, it has already been admitted, however, that only 8 million tonnes of imported coal is bought each year and only 6 million tonnes of that is steam coal for electricity.
  It does not take 12 pits to produce 6 million tonnes of coal. When one considers that we have 45 million tonnes of stockpiled coal, the supplementary contract, however it is subsidised, will not work. The 12 pits, the market testers, will therefore not last long. There is great concern in the industry that market testing may last only while the present redundancy terms are on offer—to December this year. People in the coal industry, who have done so much for the country, are keen to know what reassurances the Government can give about that, but I suspect that none will be forthcoming.
  As a consequence of the White Paper, the current number of pits will be reduced from 50 to 20, perhaps by

  99
  Christmas. That is the real issue behind the White Paper and for that reason coal miners are being forced, in desperation, to look to strike action.
  We have been told that the Government have been anxious about this matter and that a great deal of thought has been devoted to it. As a result of that concern, an extra £200 million will be made available to regenerate the coalfield communities. I challenge anyone to deny that the White Paper means that a further 4,000 miners' jobs will be lost in Nottinghamshire in the next two years. The knock-on effect of that will mean the loss of another 4,000 jobs. The effect on the local economy will be extremely severe, because £225 million will no longer flow into it. The loss of such spending power will hit north Nottinghamshire. In the past two years unemployment has gone up 70 per cent., but as a result of the White Paper, it will go up by another 100 per cent. What are the Government offering? Just £200 million nationally against a loss of £225 million in Nottinghamshire alone. The Government money will be spread over five years, so we are talking about £40 million against an instant loss of £225 million.
  The people of Nottingham do not want the palliatives that are appended to the White Paper. The talk of a regional development agency based in Nottingham is fine. I was involved in discussions with the private sector five years ago to get such an agency off the ground. The idea for that agency developed in the east midlands; the only announcement that the Government have made about it, just last week, was about whether it should be based in Nottingham or Leicester. Such is the size of the prize offered to our area.
  There is also talk of a major business park. I hope that it will be developed and I know where it will be located. The planning for it has come from the local authorities, although I accept that the finance may be raised in association with the private sector. What is on offer, however, is of little help to Nottinghamshire in its quest for a new future and a new vision.
  In his peroration, the President of the Board of Trade spoke of looking to the future and our children. We want a new future in Nottinghamshire, one in which there is investment in infrastructure, training, people and jobs. We want investment in our future. The White Paper sells us out.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Winston Churchill: The context of the debate is that the House is being invited to confirm the closure of 18 pits with the loss of 20,000 mining jobs and 50,000 jobs overall. By any yardstick that is a grave matter.
  I begin by congratulating the Chairman and members of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on their excellent report and the wealth of detail that it contains. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his hard work and the way in which he has always made himself available to colleagues, often at short notice, for consultation. That has been greatly appreciated.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has accepted the principal recommendation of the Select Committee, the short-term subsidy to displace immediately the volume of imports. That has been agreed in the clear
  100
  hope that it will enable our pits to produce coal at world market prices, at which point they will have a viable future, because they will continue to be able to displace at least the anticipated volume of imported coal.
  I appreciate the other important steps that my right hon. Friend is proposing. I particularly welcome the decision that the closed and mothballed pits will be made available to the private sector. For some pits that will change nothing, for others it will mean a brief lifespan, but for yet others I believe that it will mean that they will continue large-scale coaling. That I welcome most warmly.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has agreed to bring forward the nuclear review and that he has also agreed to high-level negotiations with the Government of France about the imbalance on the interconnector. I especially appreciate the prompt way in which he responded to my request for a meeting, just a week ago, on behalf of our major energy users, including such companies as ICI, Allied Steel and Pilkington. That meeting was held on Monday and, by Thursday, as a consequence, my right hon. Friend had included a relevant passage in the White Paper. I was delighted to hear just this morning from those involved that they expect to place a contract for seven years or more for the supply of 5 million tonnes of British coal a year. They will obtain power at a more favourable rate, by bypassing the pool, as a consequence of the arrangements that my right hon. Friend has made for them.
  I very much regret, however, that by no stretch of the imagination can this White Paper be called an energy strategy; nor does it represent any meaningful levelling of the playing field. The market is heavily stacked against coal in the years ahead.
  I recognise the restrictions under which my right hon. Friend had to operate. They also affected the Minister of State, who has played an important role. The shape of the energy market for the mid to late 1990s was decided in the late 1980s. Conscious decisions were taken then by industry and Government in the wake of the miners' strike of 1984–85 to turn away from coal. If there is one person more responsible than any other for the fact that significant numbers of pits are closing in the 1990s, he is none other than Arthur Scargill. No single factor more directly propelled the Government towards the dash for gas than the conviction that British coal and British mines could no longer be relied on. That was tragic.
  While Sizewell B will displace about 3 million tonnes of coal when it comes on stream in the next 18 months, the new gas stations that are in the pipeline will displace 30 million tonnes. Between them, that equates to 31 pits—hence the logic behind the infamous announcement of 13 October.
  As a result, base contracts are falling between now and 1 April next year from 65 million to 30 million tonnes. No wonder British Coal doubts whether new markets can be found, apart from on the margins. I accept that this is not of my right hon. Friend's making; he inherited the situation. His room for manoeuvre has been severely limited and I do not doubt that he has strenuously exerted himself.
  My right hon. Friend speaks of competition in the energy market, but he knows very well that the future of that market is heavily rigged against coal. If the miners produced coal at the pithead and gave it away for free, the

  101
  market for coal would still inevitably and drastically contract. If that is not a rigged market, I do not know what is.
  Nuclear energy has guaranteed access to the market for every kilowatt that it produces. Gas has privileged access, given the cosy relationship between the independent power producers and the regional electricity companies. So does EDF, through the French interconnector. The contract with EDF is an enormous scandal. We are exempting the French from the fossil fuel levy, even though much of the electricity that they send us is produced by fossil fuel. Furthermore, we credit the French back with that levy, in effect giving them a subsidy for their coal and nuclear industries. For that privilege, we are accepting the highest-cost electricity on the United Kingdom market —the Select Committee identified the cost as 3·4p per kilowatt—and we are closing down six pits. That is entirely unacceptable to me and, I venture to think, to the country. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has undertaken that this will be considered at the highest level of Government with the new Government of France.
  My right hon. Friend makes great play of the scale of the subsidy—yesterday he referred to £300 million or £400 million. Given that one third of the 31,000 jobs threatened last October are to be saved, however, this is precisely the sum that will be saved from the £1·2 billion package of redundancy pay offered by the Secretary of State last October. So the net cost to the taxpayer of this subsidy, taking account of what is saved in redundancy money, is nil.
  The subsidy, without a market, equals stockpiles. We already have stockpiles of 45 million tonnes. What is needed much more than subsidy is markets. I absolutely acknowledge my right hon. Friend's sincerity in saying that the purpose of the subsidy is to give the 12 reprieved pits prospects for future viability——
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose——
  Mr. Churchill: I am sorry, no.
  I have grave doubts about whether the measures announced will be enough to provide a market to sustain the reprieved pits and to stave off further major closures, even in the next two years. If the market for coal is not to collapse, the Government must deal with the two factors that impinge on it most directly—the EDF link, which they have already agreed to deal with, and, principally, the gas stations.
  The greatest weakness of the White Paper is that it fails to cover what will happen in the next three years, when there will be a 40 per cent. surplus in generating capacity. It is clearly impossible for all the stations to operate on baseload continuously. A nuclear station can operate in no other way and coal cannot operate economically in any other way. Gas can be switched on and off and is therefore ideally suited to load following. Nuclear power not only enjoys a £1·2 billion subsidy, but it has guaranteed access to the market, and gas has privileged access. Coal has neither.
  Left to market forces in this heavily rigged market, the large coal stations will inevitably go to the wall. Meanwhile, electricity consumers will be invited to pay the full capital and operating costs of the new gas stations, a burden that is as undesirable as it is unnecessary.
  In consequence of this policy, the Government will be adding to the burden on the consumer; they will decimate
  102
  the market for coal and with it the mining industry. They will burn gas reserves 50 per cent. more quickly than before. The United Kingdom is already a net importer of energy and within a generation we are likely to be running short of natural gas. The impact on the balance of payments could be devastating.
  I must ask the Government to look again at this whole issue. The President says that he cannot break contracts and with that I agree. But I believe that he can restrict the gas stations to operating at 70 or 75 per cent. and offer the regional electricity companies the sweetener of an extension of their franchise, by way of compensation, at the 500 kW level. The consequence of that would be to provide an additional market for coal of 10 million tonnes on top of the 6 million tonnes that will result if a neutral flow is established across the interconnector. That, more than any other action, would positively underpin the hopes of my right hon. Friend for the future of the 12 pits. If he can agree to do that, I shall willingly support the Government in the Lobby tonight. Without such an assurance, I shall be unable to do so, as I would not wish to lend my support to a policy that could lead to the closure of some of the 12 pits within two years and, for some of them, even before Christmas.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I represent a constituency containing two of the pits that are threatened with closure and an area where four are under threat. I was beginning to wonder whether I had become invisible, as I was not called in the last debate and have only just managed to get in in this one.
  On two occasions I have sat through the rantings and ravings of the President of the Board of Trade. I have heard nothing new—he has just got louder and louder. Since the announcement of the Government's pit closures on 13 October last year, endless technical issues have been fought over. Reports have been made and plans have been drawn up. Today, we are debating what amounts to a sham introduced to buy off the Tory Back-Bench rebels. Since last Thursday, we have seen them fall one by one, save for a few hard liners, who may even vote with the Opposition tonight.
  We have debated the future of the gas, coal and nuclear electricity industries and yet we still seem to be no further on than we were five months ago. In spite of the Government's grudging and temporary concessions over the future of some of the threatened pits, they have yet to address the concerns that lie at the heart of the problem or recognise that cost has more meaning than a profit and loss account. The cost of their programme of closures goes far beyond the industry and affects the wider local and national economy and society as a whole. They have yet to recognise that the cost of throwing 30,000 miners on the dole will be greater than keeping open the pits, many of which are profitable, and many more of which could be viable if only the Government would show a little common sense.
  The Government have failed to recognise the true economics of the situation. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry has said that closure of the pits will cost £1·3 billion in 1993–94 and over £500 million in

  103
  1994–95. The TUC has estimated that the cost of closing the pits will put £10 million per pit on the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The future of Hatfield and Bentley collieries in my constituency still hangs in the balance and Doncaster as a whole will lose Rossington and Markham Main, which lie in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). The overall cost to the region and to the Exchequer will be massive. Unemployment in Yorkshire and on Humberside is already costing £2·3 billion a year.
  The President of the Board of Trade has told us that the case for closure is unanswerable. I believe, as do many right-thinking people and Members of Parliament, that the only unanswerable case is the one that argues for a strong and productive mining industry, with the 31 pits being kept open, mining coal for Britain's power. Let us take the examples of Hatfield and Bentley collieries in my constituency. Between them, they employ more than 1,200 people. Last year, they both proved profitable. Bentley made £6 million and Hatfield made £2 million. In an area where unemployment is well above the national average of 10·7 per cent., at 13·8 per cent., any news of further job cuts is devastating.
  The Government clearly do not understand how difficult it is to create jobs in coalfield communities such as Doncaster. The industrial base of the area is narrow, which means that mining is central to the local economy, being one of the most important employers as well as an important buyer of services in local firms. The existing service jobs generally depend on the mining and manufacturing industries, both of which have been decimated in the past 14 years. The economy has remained substantially tied to the coal mining industry, in spite of heavy redundancies in the 1980s.
  Businesses locally will be affected by the economic squeeze that the closures will undoubtedly bring. A survey conducted by the Doncaster chamber of commerce has suggested that the knock-on effect to local companies could be 4:1 and that 220 local businesses could be affected. I have already been contacted by the local market traders association and federations representing small businesses. Many of them can remember the difficulties that they faced during the 1984 strike and the debts and hardships that they experienced. They do not want to return to those lean times. They know that that would be a disaster for them and for the Doncaster economy.
  Almost 3,000 jobs will be lost at the four collieries in the Doncaster area. In the past, miners have had the option of taking jobs outside that area, but that is no longer the position. Many miners will be made compulsorily redundant. Many other members of the British Coal staff will lose their jobs. There will be job losses in Doncaster, where several administrative functions have been centred.
  Jobs may also be lost at the Thorpe Marsh power station, which is in my constituency. It takes coal from local pits. When those pits have been closed, how long will it be before the power station is closed?
  Unemployment problems in the area will be especially difficult because all four local collieries that are under threat are in self-contained communities. In each of those communities the colliery is the principal employer. That
  104
  makes retraining even more difficult, but it is necessary to give people the chance of a new career. Every effort must be made to create new jobs. There are fewer firms in new industries that are capable of absorbing those who have been made redundant.
  Since 1984, nearly 10,000 men have lost their mining jobs in Doncaster. The measures that the Government have proposed to ease the impact of closures in Doncaster were much needed even before the new job cuts were announced. Doncaster has been attempting to gain development area status for some time. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will now see its way clear to implementing the pledge that was made on 13 October, and again today by the President of the Board of Trade, to upgrade Doncaster so that it secures development area status.
  Estimates of the potential consequences of the closures on employment are worrying. Between 5,000 and 10,000 people are expected to lose their jobs if all the pits close. Even more people will be pushed into poverty. Unemployment in the Doncaster travel-to-work area now stands at about 14 per cent. It is expected to rise to 20 per cent. if the pits close. In some parts of Doncaster the unemployment figure is even higher.
  The closure of collieries is already ripping the heart out of many local communities. Unemployment, financial hardship, poverty and disadvantage are putting a strain on welfare, housing, and social and health services. Lack of opportunity will turn young people away from their homes and community vitality will be hit. Youth unemployment in Doncaster is already about 3 per cent. higher than the national average.
  Unemployment causes stress, social isolation and the loss of a sense of purpose and dignity. The cost can be measured in concrete financial terms as well as in social terms. The costs of closures have been massive, and the costs of the proposed closures will be devastating. People feel undervalued as decisions are taken above their head. There is a callous writing-off of their skills, resources and investment. Human costs are immense.
  The President of the Board of Trade likes to suggest that there is no alternative to the closures. He takes the view that if an undertaking does not make a profit, it must go. However, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry proved in its report that options exist. We need a Government who are far-sighted enough to examine the options, act on them and keep the pits open. In the long run, that will save money. Such an approach will also save hardship, suffering and an unnecessary waste and decline in both human and material terms. There are options and we must address them rather than dismiss them as the Government have chosen to do.
  Many of the threatened pits do make money; many more could be viable if the Government had a sensible and economical energy policy that looked to the future rather than just to the next balance sheet. If the Government really cared about the communities that will be affected, they would have to invest only a part of those millions in making the coal industry a more viable prospect for the future, thus ensuring the future of the industry, the jobs of its workers, the integrity of the coal communities and the future of all those within them.
  The Government had a chance to be positive in the White Paper; instead, they have remained negative. They had a chance to do something, but they chose to do nothing.
  9.10 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the Hatfield colliery. That leads me directly to one of the two aspects of the White Paper that has disappointed me; I endorse all its other aspects, in the context of the Select Committee's suggestions.
  First, I understand that the Hatfield colliery no longer produces coal for the electricity generation market. In my view, the White Paper dismisses the potential of the industrial market in too cavalier a manner. There are huge difficulties, especially in terms of the sulphur control limits on British industry; however, it is clear from the ICI plant in Huddersfield, which uses low-cost technology to clean sulphur, that a breathing space is needed to assist the non-electricity market, just as much as a breathing space is needed in the electricity market, as we have argued both in the White Paper and in the Select Committee.
  It is possible that not much tonnage will be involved, but even so a couple of million extra tonnes are important. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is worth extending the subsidy provisions beyond the electricity market and into the industrial market, to allow the new technology to come in and to help British Steel to use our coal—poor as it is—not coking, but for a direct injection into blast furnaces, which involves new technology.
  My second disappointment relates to a matter that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. I am disappointed by the nature of the electricity privatisation with respect to the regulator's inability to do other than moan about the profit margins of the two main generators. The Select Committee recommended that the regulator be given powers not to control profit—which is discussed in the White Paper—but to control prices. If we could use the same approach to generators' prices as we have used in other cases, the position would be very different. As the price of coal has significantly fallen, the price of electricity has not begun to match it, but the generators' profits have shot through the roof. Something must be done about that.
  It is simply not true that—as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) suggested —the Government have ignored the main recommendations of the Select Committee. It is also not true that, if the Committee's proposals had been adopted, there would be a huge extra tonnage. He talked of another 36 million tonnes on top of the 40 million, but our report's main table makes it clear that by 1996 the present figure of 65 million will be down to 46 million.
  The Government are reducing orimulsion levels and are reducing opencast mining to almost exactly the levels that we recommended in our report. We also need to make different assumptions from those made by the Committee on the French connector and the fact that, for no particular reason, we threw an extra 5 million tonnes into the second year. If those assumptions—for which there was no evidence—are changed, the figures for extra tonnage in the electricity market, which the Select Committee was discussing, if we are realistic, are about 10 to 12 million.
  We decided collectively to go for the maximum. We decided that, if everything was stretched, a figure of 16 million tonnes was possible. Opposition Members—including the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), a previous chairman of the Labour party, and the
  106
  hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone—signed up to the basic truism that there is a severe limit to how much extra coal could be taken into the electricity market.
  Clearly, the major short-term problem has been imports. We cannot duck the fact that, if British Coal had achieved earlier the levels of productivity improvement that it has had in the past five years, and if it had not had the history of militancy of the 1970s and 1980s, two things would have happened. First, the price would already be lower than that on offer. Therefore, the generators would be more ready to buy coal. Secondly, the generating companies and the regional companies would have been less willing to go for gas had there not been disruption on account of the over-domination of coal in the electricity market. Militancy encouraged the dash for gas, as well as the new turbine technology.
  Opposition Members cannot duck two harsh facts. First, the price of gas-generated electricity is cheaper than the price of coal-generated power. That is what the Select Committee says. Secondly, there is a world glut of coal. The oil crisis led to the opening of opencast pits all over the world. They will continue to be opened all over the world, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
  The market has always been rigged on behalf of coal. When we privatised the electricity industry, coal was protected for three years. The electricity industry took high tonnages of coal—70 million tonnes to 65 million tonnes—at very high prices: 1·86p per gigajoule. Three years later, it is 1·51p—a tremendous improvement. If that had been the price earlier, there would have been less of an incentive to go for coal imports and for gas.
  The price will come down even further. The price of coal imports from all these vast, opencast pits and from eastern Europe—not subsidised and not mined with slave labour, as the Opposition claim, and mostly from the United States of America—is between 1·15p and 1·30p at the power stations. That is the harsh reality which British Coal has to face.
  What the Select Committee tried to do, and what the Government have tried to do in the White Paper, was to offer subsidies. The Government are offering huge subsidies so that there will be cheap power. There is headroom in the market. I suggest that the regional electricity companies probably need about 10 per cent. more than they have already signed up for. There is the prospect that during the transitional period, with the subsidies providing a breathing space, British Coal will be able to improve productivity, through improved working practices, to the point at which costs will come down. It will then have a chance to sink or to swim in the open market. Most of the 12 pits will, I believe, swim. Most of them will improve their productivity. There is a market for coal, but we have to be realistic about the scale of that market.
  I come from the heart of the south-west Durham coalfields. Too many Opposition Members are disparaging of the Government's efforts to bring new types of jobs to coalfield areas. When five pits closed around my town after the war, Hugh Dalton created new trading estates. When the railway wagon works closed down, new, diversified industries came to the area. A huge responsibility will fall on Lord Walker and the Government to ensure that those mining areas which face pit closures get all the help that they need to create new jobs in the years to come.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said that coal is cheap, but for the last 10 years, unfortunately, this country has lurched from economic crisis to economic crisis. The fundamental weakness of the British economy is our balance of payments deficit. Nevertheless, the Government would wipe away the coal industry and make us absolutely dependent upon imported coal, at a cost that the country would be unable to afford.
  During the past few months the Secretary of State has been repeatedly interviewed. I heard him refer to a £1 billion subsidy. What he meant was that if the electricity industry had gone on to the open market and bought at the Rotterdam spot price, the lowest possible price that might be available, the price of British coal would have been substantially undercut. What he never took into account was that if we had gone on the world market with £1 billion with which to buy coal, the inevitable effect upon international coal prices would have been substantial.
  The main purpose of my brief intervention is to press the Secretary of State a little further regarding his assurance this afternoon about mine safety. He gave me what was almost a categoric assurance about mine safety. I have already heard in this debate three or four hon. Members on the Government Benches demanding changes in statutory regulation and working practice. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They cannot deregulate mining safety, and give Opposition Members assurances such as the Secretary of State sought to give this afternoon, and as he has given to some extent in the White Paper.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will wind up the debate. British Coal has for the past three years sought to abolish the role of the colliery deputy and replace the deputy with an underground supervisor with no statutory responsibility for safety. In the new set-up that some people in Hobart house want to develop, there would be a foreman underground, and if he saw something that was hazardous his job would be to find someone to whom he could eventually report it.
  By all means let us see the enormous improvement in productivity maintained, but I trust that the Secretary of State means what he said to the House in giving his assurance this afternoon and will not abolish the statutory responsibility which has been exercised by friends of mine very effectively in my association in contributing to maintaining Britain's mining industry, which is not only highly productive but is the safest mining industry in the world.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want briefly to intervene in this debate because, although my constituency has no specific and direct relation to the mining industry, it has a direct—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not been able to hear the hon. Gentleman because of the noise. Will the House please be much quieter?
  Mr. Coombs: The mining industry certainly has an important role to play in the mining equipment industry, and no fewer than 250 jobs in my constituency depend on
  108
  the industry. I saw these people last week, together with management and union representatives, and they asked me to make one or two points in the debate.
  There is no doubt that the mining equipment industry, employing 22,000 people, 250 of them in my constituency, is in the forefront of the world in providing this kind of equipment and has export achievements of which we should be proud. No fewer than £400 million worth of exports every year are achieved by the mining equipment industry out of a total turnover of £900 million.
  To give an indication of the effect of this on foreign markets, I point out that no less than half the roof supports and face conveyer equipment in the United States market are made by British mining equipment companies; 80 per cent. of the Mexican market is provided for in that way, together with 80 per cent. of the South African market and 90 per cent. of the Australian market. It means that those markets have been able, with British mining equipment, to reach very high levels of productivity—in Australia in the region of 2 million tonnes per face, against an average of 1 million tonnes per face in the United Kingdom.
  The Association of British Mining Equipment Companies and a company in my constituency, Parsons Chain, anticipate and have experienced a loss of jobs in the past few years as a result of the inevitable contraction of the coal industry. Although I think that their projections for further reductions are over-pessimistic, because I believe that the newly privatised area of the coal industry will wish to invest in mining equipment, it is important that the Government give the mining equipment industry the kind of transitional help that they anticipate giving to the mining industry as a whole.
  Although I am delighted that, over the five years or the appropriate period, there will be special transitional measures for the mining industry, and although I am pleased that some areas will be given enterprise zone status, I do not necessarily think that that will apply to the mining equipment industry, although certain companies in the industry may be heavily affected. Therefore, I would like to put three points briefly to the Government, particularly given the important effect on mining equipment exports.
  First, export credit guarantees ought to be improved, particularly given the fact that, in many of the countries they export to, those areas are particularly important. Mexico, Poland, the Ukraine, China and India are all important.
  Secondly, some of the benefits of enterprise zone status, which we award to geographical areas, should be given to mining equipment companies. That would include allowances on rates and capital allowances for five years.
  Thirdly, as ABMEC has made clear, there should be some changes in the United Kingdom's coal mining support regulations to improve the market into which mining equipment is sold, thus improving productivity in the mining industry here and abroad and creating a larger market at home for mining equipment.
  Those measures would have an important effect on an industry that employs 22,000 people, 250 of them in my constituency at Parsons Chain. I urge the Government to accept them.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I am grateful for being called. I had intended——
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Barron: I had intended——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. A point of order has been raised, and I must hear it.
  Mr. Cormack: On a brief point of order. Is it usual for hon. Members to be called if they have not been here for the debate?
  Mr. Barron: I had intended to speak for only five minutes, and I shall be brief and to the point.
  Last October, 2,000 miners in my constituency were put on notice that their jobs would end this week, at the end of March. They have been waiting for the White Paper and probably had the worst Christmas that anyone could have had. They and I believed that the Government had listened to what the country said last October and had gone away to find for British coal a larger market than that which led to the announcement of the closure or mothballing of 31 pits.
  After last Thursday's statement, I returned to my constituency and visited Kiverton colliery, my interest in which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). That colliery is one of the 12. I had a meeting, which had been pre-arranged on another matter, with the senior management arid the workers' representative. Listening to the screams and howls of delight in the House last Thursday, one would have thought that the people at the colliery would be delighted by the announcement, but they were not.
  The reason is simple. They know that, without contracts with the electricity generators and without the generators having contracts with regional companies, it means nothing for the Government to say that they will subsidise additional tonnes of coal, especially when there are already 45 million tonnes of coal in stock and the generators have made it plain that they do not want to add to that stock. The people know that and they have been waiting apprehensively, with only one timetable in mind —December of this year when the redundancy payments run out. They know that there will be pressure to leave before December. If they do not leave, it will cost individual families thousands of pounds.
  I also visited Maltby colliery, my old colliery, which I left to come to the House in 1983. It is a super pit, which is receiving £200 million of investment under the Labour party "Plan for Coal" to which the Government have added. Having spoken to senior management and workers' representatives there on Friday, I last night faxed a letter to the President of the Board of Trade, asking him if he would make it clear today what last Thursday's announcement meant.
  The Government announced last Thursday that they were giving that pit development status. Coal News, which was printed overnight, said that retreat mining would be used at the new Parkgate seam. The people at the colliery said that it was likely that between 700 and 800 men would be finished and that production would cease within four
  110
  weeks. Many of those people moved to Maltby from neighbouring pits in the belief that they had some long-term security in a shrinking industry.
  At last Tuesday's consultative meeting, the management showed the work force's representative a slide illustrating that in the previous week 38,000 tonnes of coal had been mined at a cost of £1·1 a gigajoule. Do people realise that if we brought foreign coal into the power stations for which Maltby now produces coal, it would cost between 20 and 25 per cent. more than Maltby's coal?
  The plan to develop retreat mining for the new seams is well in hand. The first retreat mine in the new Parkgate seam should start this October. I put it to the Government and to British Coal that that is not only sabotage of a workplace; it is a national disgrace that our taxpayers' money has gone into such a pit with a threat to the jobs of 700 or 800 people. It does not make sense to cease production at that colliery.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will answer at some stage the letter that I faxed to him yesterday and that he will clarify why hundreds of people will go on the dole when they produce not only the cheapest coal in Britain but some of the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) speaks with great and personal authority on these matters and I know that his remarks strike a chord with all of us who have mining interests in our constituencies.
  It is a matter of personal regret that many of my hon. Friends have been unable to get into the debate this evening. It is a sad reflection on the Government's commitment to open government and to full debate that they have failed to table the motion that would have allowed us to have a full debate and would have allowed all hon. Members to be called. They are also not allowing the amendment tabled by the Select Committee to be voted on. It is a shame that the Government did not allow that amendment.
  There is no spectacle more nauseating than politicians who have trumpeted their principles and paraded their consciences suddenly deciding that it is inconvenient to hold those principles any longer. That is precisely what we see today. Last October, a chorus of Tory Members told us how unacceptable it was that the British coal industry should be destroyed. Despite all the bluster and histrionics from the President of the Board of Trade earlier today, the White Paper would destroy our coal industry just as surely as his statement of 19 October would have done. The men and women who defied his logic last autumn have no reason other than the imperative of party politics to change their minds today. However, they have changed their minds and when the House divides tonight, there can be no doubt or uncertainty: a vote for the White Paper is a vote for a short-term political fix.
  The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is apparently still undecided. She has said that she cannot support the White Paper. She referred to herself as an independent-minded Yorkshire woman. It is no good being independent minded if one is not strong willed. Abstention tonight is no option. No credit will be gained tonight by those who settle for unprincipled abstention or for those——
  Mrs. Peacock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Much as I should like to give way, time does not allow it. At least the hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Rochford (Dr. Clark) have implied that they have been bought and that they will stay bought. Their votes will now be secured in the Government Lobby.
  Last October, when the President of the Board of Trade described the case for closure, he said that the case "in economic terms" was unanswerable. Nothing in the White Paper shows that his thinking has changed. The basic assumption remains. If the coal industry is to survive, it must live in the rigged market conditions created by the Government. Those rigged market conditions remain. Despite last Thursday's short-lived euphoria in the entourage of the President of the Board of Trade, everyone understands that the closure programme will continue with, at best, 12 pits being given a short-term stay of execution, perhaps for 12 months, but certainly for no more than two years.
  John Meadse, the general secretary of the British Association of Colliery Management, has added his authoritative voice, even in the short time that the Government have allowed for evaluation:
  "Despite claims that it has saved 12 of the 31 collieries previously scheduled for closure, no meaningful action has been taken by the Government to obtain markets for their output. At present, British coal is frozen out of more than half the elecricity generation market, whatever its cost or price. The truth is that a few pits may continue for the next 12–18 months; but beyond that, the future is bleak."
  The whole House knows and understands that the crisis now facing our coal industry is of the Government's own creation. Last Thursday, the President of the Board of Trade said of his White Paper:
  "I have done all that I reasonably could, consistent with economic realities and legal constraints"—[Official Report, 25 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 1231.]
  Those economic realities and legal constraints are a direct consequence of the way in which the Government's own policies rigged the markets at the time of the electricity privatisation. They cannot now disclaim responsibility for the job losses and social and economic dislocation that will follow the implementation of what is proposed in the White Paper as surely as night follows day. Why will not they acknowledge the central fact that the energy market as currently organised does not allow fair and free competition?
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Get back to the bar.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry, in its excellent report—I add my congratulations to those already given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—made it perfectly clear that that is the central question to be addressed. What the Government have done—and support for the White Paper will endorse their approach—is to offer no way forward.
  Mrs. Peacock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Time prevents me.
  Mrs. Peacock: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are here to protect the interests of Back Benchers. I seek your advice. If an hon. Member speaks about another hon. Member, is it not usual for him to give way to that hon. Member?
  Madam Speaker: It is usual for the hon. Member who is speaking to give way, but that is entirely a matter for him; it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Davies rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Davies: I hope that, given the hooligan behaviour that we are witnessing tonight, you, Madam Speaker, will consider your responsibility to protect the interests of Front Benchers as well as Back Benchers.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I need no reminding by any hon. Member of my responsibilities: understand that.
  Mr. Davies rose——
  Mr. Heseltine rose—
  Mr. Davies: One of my responsibilities is to reply to the debate. There were some 20 speeches and I hope to reply to many of the points that have been raised. It clearly would not be possible to give way to all those to whom I wish to refer. Nevertheless, I shall give way to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and has been extremely rude about her performance. I should have thought that he could at least do her the courtesy of allowing her to make a response. Will the hon. Gentleman give way to my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Davies: I will offer the hon. Lady a deal. If she has the courage of her convictions and votes with us tonight, I will discuss the matter with her in the No Lobby.
  Mrs. Peacock rose——
  Mr. Davies: The Government have admitted that there is a problem, but they offer no solutions. The energy market is riddled with inconsistencies. The dash for gas continues with competing generators building gas-fired stations despite the fact that the electricity that they produce is more expensive.
  Gas is a more limited resource and it will be exhausted in less than a lifetime. As the Select Committee pointed out, it is also more expensive. We already have the coal-fired capacity to meet our needs. Government subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I need no lessons from any part of the House.
  Mr. Davies: The Government subsidise nuclear fuel to sell electricity which is not only uneconomic, but environmentally unsound. How can that possibly be justified when the principal argument for pit closures is that coal is uneconomic and has to compete on the open market? What can be the sense in closing viable British pits because they cannot compete with illegally subsidised French electricity via the interconnector?
  The British Association of Colliery Management hinted at the answer when it claimed:
  "For both miners and management the hallmark of the Government's lack of courage is its abject failure to address these problems."
  The Select Committee specifically referred to that matter, but we will still allow that overpriced electricity to displace 6·5 million tonnes of British coal.

  113
  Major environmental concerns exist about orimulsion, heavy fuel oil and the extension of opencast mining. However, because we do not have a coherent energy policy, they will continue while the colliery closure programme goes ahead. None of those central questions has been faced.
  Of course, if one denies that the Government have a role and the need for a national energy policy, one must ignore those questions. The President says that the market must decide. Secure energy supply cannot be left to the short-term vagaries of the markets. Governments do intervene and plan when they choose so to do. It is a matter of political will. This Government lack the political will to give us a national energy policy. The cost of that failure will be the colliery closure programme——
  Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: In the Lobby.
  The Trade and Industry Select Committee estimates a financial cost of nearly £2 billion over two years while the Employment Select Committee concluded that
  "the financial cost of resulting unemployment should have been a significant part of the equation when deciding the future of the pits".
  However, it was not and nor was the annual £1·3 billion cost of our non-oil energy trade deficit.
  On 21 October, the Secretary of State for Wales told us that
  "we must look to the future."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 524.]
  Under this policy, we have a future without a £2 billion industry, with a national asset irrevocably lost, dependent on expensive fuel imports, with higher costs to industry and the domestic consumer and, above all, with communities with large-scale unemployment.
  After all the sacrifices, commitments and collective effort of British miners, they and their industry. Their families and communities are now to be betrayed. As a result of their efforts, British miners have made British Coal the most efficient and cost-effective coal industry in Europe. Figures from the Trade and Industry Select Committee show just how well they have performed. Between 1985 and 1990, productivity increased by nearly 88 per cent. in British pits. That is nearly twice as high as Australia which has 45 per cent. Canada managed 32 per cent. and South Africa had 29 per cent., with 2 per cent. for the rest of Europe.
  The 1992 Conservative party manifesto promised:
  "We will support the efforts of British Coal and its work force to improve the industry's performance."
  That manifesto promise is betrayed by this White Paper. It is betrayed like the men, the families and the communities who will pay the price in direct and personal terms for the Government's failures. I do not think that they can comprehend the savagery of the social and economic costs of the proposed closures.
  In Taff Merthyr on the edge of my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), nearly 500 men will be put out of work. The loss of their wages alone will cost the local economy more than £8 million. Independent estimates put total job losses at 1,400, once indirect job losses have been taken into account—[Interruption.] This is injury time. British Coal estimates that a further £4 million will be lost to local contractors.
  At the last count, male unemployment in the Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work area was more than 23 per
  114
  cent. South Tyneside, which is facing the loss of Westoe colliery, has more than 28 per cent. male unemployment. Doncaster, which is facing the loss of Bentley and Hatfield, Markham Main and Rossington, has male unemployment of more than 18 per cent. Mansfield, which is facing the loss of Bilsthorpe, Clipstone, Rufford and Shirebrook, has nearly 18 per cent. male unemployment.
  I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Wales will tell us about all the jobs which he has created. He will tell us about his predecessor, now Lord Walker, and his valleys initiative. During that initiative, we lost 22,000 jobs in Wales and only 2,000 jobs were created. Throughout the length and breadth of Britain, people know the value of Tory promises.
  We have a Government who were elected on deceit. Ministers are more concerned about their public image than about the national interest. The Select Committee on Employment urged that the true national cost should be taken fully into account. The Government have not done that and they do not deserve the support of the House for the White Paper.
  9.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): That was a disgraceful and discourteous speech. Towards the end of his speech the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) asked for injury time. The injury time that he should have given was to give way to my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), whom he abused, and for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). In this debate, both my hon. Friends expressed serious concern and reservations about import issues, yet the hon. Gentleman chose in an arrogant way not to give way and not to give them an opportunity to intervene. All I can say for the Labour party is that the hon. Gentleman should have seen the stony faces on his Front Bench, because I am sure that the majority of hon. Members deprecated the way in which he conducted his speech.
  I have been present, as has the hon. Gentleman, for all the 29 speeches in the debate, just as I was present for all the 28 speeches in the previous debate on this subject. Many years ago I was one of those who were instrumental in setting up the departmental Select Committee system. This debate has been a great testimony to the wisdom of that Conservative innovation.
  We have heard several speeches from members of the Select Committee. Although I reckon that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), was perhaps guided a little too far by party politics, the Select Committee has been a model for the way in which Select Committees should respond to situations of this nature.
  Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When is the Secretary of State going to stop waffling about the subject and start answering——
  Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. These interruptions waste valuable time. That is not a point of order for the Chair and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Hunt: I continue my tribute to the Select Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) was right in saying that Select Committees do not expect the whole House to accept every recommendation

  115
  in the reports that they present to the House. As he said, the 39 recommendations are not 39 articles of faith. They have been a helpful background to the debate.
  Mr. Caborn: I fully accept what the Secretary of State says, but would it not have been right for the House to have the opportunity to vote on the amendment which several members of the Select Committee tabled? If he genuinely believes that Select Committees have a role to play in our parliamentary system, the House ought to have the opportunity at least to vote on the 39 recommendations.
  Mr. Hunt: It was perfectly open to the Labour party to table an amendment in those terms. Instead it tabled an amendment which negatived several of the recommendations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) had it right. The Government have produced a White Paper after carefully considering many of the recommendations. The White Paper sought to respond to the two central questions asked by the Select Committee: first, can there be a market for coal over and above the base contracts with the electricity generation industry; secondly, can assistance be given to British Coal for only a transitional period to make a larger proportion of its output competitive? The Chairman of the Select Committee will agree that those were the two central questions posed by the Committee.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford said, the Government have said five things: first, British pits should have the opportunity to sell as much coal as the market will take, with extra tonnage subsidised to world prices; secondly, no pit will be closed without first being offered a chance to find a future in the private sector; thirdly, there will be no changes to the gas and nuclear electricity sectors; fourthly, coal will remain the main fuel for electricity generation; fifthly, there will be a regeneration package for mining areas. That has been increased to £200 million.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Agreement has to be made on the potential subsidies with the European Economic Community under article 95 of the treaty of Rome. Will agreement be reached or not? At the end of 1993 the current agreements run out and negotiations will have to take place. The House has not yet discussed the possibility that the European Community will not accept what is in the White Paper.
  Mr. Hunt: I want to give way to hon. Members, so I shall endeavour to write to every hon. Member—there were 29 speeches—who raised a point which I do not have time to cover.
  To answer the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), proposals have been submitted to the European Commission, preliminary discussions have taken place, and we are optimistic that the Commission will grant approval.
  Mr. Redmond: Can the Minister explain precisely what is meant by mothballing? Rossington pit in my constituency will close if it is mothballed because the faces must be operated to keep them active.
  Mr. Hunt: In my experience, the hon. Member is a fair gentleman and I hope that he will acknowledge that I have been underground in many more pits than most hon. Members and I know what mothballing means; it means care and maintenance to keep the capacity until the market expands to allow the pit to resume coaling. It is a well-known expression, and I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what it means.
  The White Paper gives an opportunity for the coal industry to expand its markets—in response to the Select Committee, which asked for that opportunity to be provided—and a subsidy of hundreds of millions of pounds to ensure that it can do so.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wriggled and wiggled and avoided answering an important question: does the Labour Front Bench support the strike action called for by Arthur Scargill on Friday? My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) pointed out that a strike will damage the coal industry, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said during the debate, "Thank God they are going to strike on Friday." What is the answer from the Labour party?
  I am stunned by the complacency on the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members still think that they can criticise the Government without suggesting any realistic proposals of their own. They have become so used to being in opposition that they do not know what taking decisions means.
  The poor hon. Member for Livingston said that France had a Government who are standing up for the French people—he meant the socialist Government. The message from France is that they have got rid of socialism.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may have heard my contribution, in which I reminded the House that, unlike the Labour party, we submitted evidence to the Government review and we have published an alternative White Paper. After tonight, if people outside this House support the miners on Friday or any other day, does the Secretary of State accept that they will do so because they perceive that whereas the Government artificially protect other energy sectors, such as electricity, gas and nuclear, the coal industry does not receive the same support?
  Mr. Hunt: First, coal has received a subsidy and support of £18,000 million since 1979. Secondly, would the hon. Gentleman have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who is sitting beside him, and ask him to explain why he signed the Select Committee amendment as well as a totally opposite amendment tabled by the Liberal party?
  The story of this debate is that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has eaten the Labour party for breakfast, for tea, for lunch and for dinner. I reckon that he will get up tomorrow and do it all over again.
  In Wales, the post-coal revolution has taken place. We have provided new jobs for mining communities, but the message of the White Paper is that there is life for coal in prosperous times and recession. Industry is always changing. It must change with the times and circumstances to survive. I believe that the White Paper is giving the industry a chance, an opportunity and a head start in winning for itself a similar position in the future.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 320.

  Division No. 214]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainger, Nick

  Denham, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Alexander, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashton, Joe

  Eastham, Ken

  Austin-Walker, John

  Enright, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Etherington, Bill

  Barnes, Harry

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Battle, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bayley, Hugh

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, John

  Boyce, Jimmy

  George, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Gerrard, Nell

  Bradley, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Burden, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Byers, Stephen

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hall, Mike

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hanson, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hardy, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham. Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hume, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  118

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Radice, Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Randall, Stuart

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Richardson, Jo

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Terry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooker, Jeff

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooney, Terry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAllion, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Salmond, Alex

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Simpson, Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Alice

  Snape, Peter

  Mallon, Seamus

  Soley, Clive

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Milburn, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Miller, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Vaz, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wallace, James

  Morley, Elliot

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mudie, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mullin, Chris

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Winnick, David

  Olner, William

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Pope, Greg

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arbuthnot, James

  119

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Evennett, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Peter

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, M. (Brlgg & Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butterfiil, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hendry, Charles

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

  Hicks, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

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

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dykes, Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Elletson, Harold

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  120

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Shersby, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Luff, Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maclean, David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Steen, Anthony

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stephen, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

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

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trimble, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilshire, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Redwood, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Richards, Rod

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 297.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  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)

  Eggar, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bates, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beggs, Roy

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowis, John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garnier, Edward

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth. N)

  Butcher, John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butterfill, John

  Hague. William

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  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)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Cran, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

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

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Horam, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

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

  122

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Page, Richard

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pawsey, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pickles, Eric

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maginnis, Ken

  Stern, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Milligan, Stephen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trimble, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Moss, Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  123

  Wells, Bowen

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainger, Nick

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Alexander, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Alton, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Denham, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Eastham, Ken

  Bell, Stuart

  Enright, Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Etherington, Bill

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Benton, Joe

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Faulds, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Blunkett, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boyes, Roland

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith

  Fraser, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Galbraith, Sam

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

  Galloway, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Garrett, John

  Byers, Stephen

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gould, Bryan

  Canavan, Dennis

  Graham, Thomas

  Cann, Jamie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Cohen, Harry

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cummings, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  124

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, William

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hume, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hutton, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Adam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Prescott, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Richardson, Jo

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lewis, Terry

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Salmond, Alex

  McAllion, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCrea, Rev William

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mahon, Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallon, Seamus

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Straw, Jack

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Meale, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michael, Alun

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Vaz, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Miller, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Walley, Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Worthington, Tony

  125

  Wray, Jimmy

  Tellars for the Noes:

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the White Paper 'The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review' (Cm 2235).

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  SHEEP AND GOAT FARMING
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4307/93, relating to sheep and goat farming; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring a successful transition to a fully harmonised European Community sheepmeat regime which is in the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, whilst recognising the difficulties faced by certain Community producers in the 1992 marketing year.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  COHESION FUND
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4436/93, relating to the establishment of a Cohesion Fund; and agrees that the draft regulation proposing a cohesion fund instrument should be adopted before 1st April 1993, in accordance with the conclusions of the Lisbon and Edinburgh European Councils.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 66.

  Division No. 216]

  [10.29 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M. (Brlgg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ashby, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Conway, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Booth, Hartley

  Couchman, James

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Curry, David (Skipton &Ripon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bowden, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bowis, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bright, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  126

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Eggar, Tim

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

  Elletson, Harold

  Knox, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lightbown, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hague, William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Hicks, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wlrral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wlrral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rath bone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  127

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Trend, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tyler, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Viggers, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Ward, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Watts, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sproat, Iain

  Welsh, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Stewart, Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sykes, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Carttiss, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Cash, William

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Cohen, Harry

  Body, Sir Richard

  Connarty, Michael

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Cummings, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Davidson, Ian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  128

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mallon, Seamus

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Marlow, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gill, Christopher

  O'Hara, Edward

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Parry, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Graham, Thomas

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hain, Peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hall, Mike

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hume, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jessel, Toby

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Trimble, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wilkinson, John

  McCrea, Rev William

  Winnick, David

  Macdonald, Calum

  Wray, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Madden, Max

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maginnis, Ken

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Bill Michie

  Mahon, Alice

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nigel Forman be added to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Royal Assent
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1993.

  2. Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.

  3. Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

  4. Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Act 1993.

  5. British Railways Act 1993.

PETITIONS

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The petition contains the names of 12,000 people of Swansea and south-west Wales. It has been compiled by trade unionists, by traders and by the general citizenry of the area. Effectively, it has been signed by those who are concerned about the threat to 3,000-plus jobs at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Morriston in my constituency. The petition is fully supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), by my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and for Neath (Mr. Hain), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  The petition states that, if the Government proceed, as was threatened in a report prepared by the chief executive of the agency last October, to put the work now carried out at the agency out to contract as part of their privatisation programme, that will inevitably lead to the loss of those much-valued jobs in an area of high unemployment, will devastate employment prospects in the city and the area in the longer term, and will seriously reduce the quality of service now provided by the agency to the motor trade and to the public.
  The petition ends with the prayer:
  Wherefore your petitioners Pray that any proposals to contractorise the work of the Agency be withdrawn or rejected.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Douglas French: I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 7,000 people on behalf of the Oxstalls Action Group in Gloucester and the Park Area Residents Campaign in Cheltenham. The petition
  sheweth
  That the imminent sale by the Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, for commercial and housing redevelopment, of the Oxtalls campus, its only site in Gloucester, will materially reduce educational services in the City, and their availability for parts of the county. The College's policy of concentrating its students and resources in Cheltenham will be to the great detriment of both towns, especially in the residential neighbourhoods most immediately affected. A unique conservation area in Cheltenham is already experiencing problems for that reason and is threatened by their intensification through building development, while the destruction of a prominent park-like site will be a serious loss for Gloucester.
  The petition has the support of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). The prayer contained in it reads:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House initiate an immediate and independent appraisal of the Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education's financial and educational strategy to determine the justification for the demolition of accessible, sound and purpose-built premises (1958 onwards) with residential accommodation for 240 students, and require the College to reconsider and amend its plans in the light of current government expectations that the new universities and colleges of higher education will deliver courses as near as possible to the increasing numbers of day students in their regions.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Security Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.46 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Let me say at once that I am campaigning for effective parliamentary scrutiny of the security services—mainly MI5—and am not questioning the need for such organisations. I accept entirely the necessity for a security service, and that would remain my position even if we were not plagued by the curse of terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, all democracies have some such service, for the same reason as this country does—to protect the security and safety of the state and its citizens.
  As we know, the Security Service—that is to say, MI5—has recently been placed on a statutory footing, and I was involved in the proceedings in Committee on the Security Service Act 1989. The Security Service Commissioner makes an annual report to Parliament, to which I am sure the Minister will refer in his reply. I have looked at two of the commissioner's reports, and he states in both that neither he nor the Security Service Tribunal has yet found in favour of a complainant.
  The Home Secretary has stated that a Bill will be introduced this Session to place the Secret Intelligence Service—MI6—which is answerable to the Foreign Secretary, on to a statutory basis. However, the Government continue to resist strongly all proposals for making the security services subject to parliamentary scrutiny—hence my Adjournment debate.
  Since the matter was last debated in the Chamber, MI5 has taken on a wider remit. As we know, that organisation—instead of the police—now has the lead role in intelligence gathering and related matters regarding the Provisional IRA and, I assume, other terrorist groups. The ending of the cold war was bound to change the role of the security services both in Britain and in other democracies in western Europe.
  The other change that has occurred since the subject was last debated in the Chamber is the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which, as the Minister is aware, recommended that MI5 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome that, and I hope that many hon. Members welcome it as well, although it is not the Government's position, as we shall learn shortly, that the recommendations should be implemented.
  The Select Committee refers to the practice in other countries, where the security services have some accountability to their national Parliaments. They include Canada, Australia, Germany and the United States. Although the Home Secretary gave the impression, in so many words, in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that the efficiency of those services had been harmed—although he did not perhaps use that word—I do not suppose that the Governments of the countries to which I have just referred take that view. I imagine that they are perfectly satisfied that the security services are carrying out their rightful functions, but have a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that is lacking in this country.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend referred to the comments of the Home Secretary when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. In his comments, the Home Secretary
  132
  said that it was difficult to distinguish between policy and operational control. Will my hon. Friend comment on the position of the police authority for London? At the moment, the Home Secretary is the police authority and he organises policy control, but operational control lies in the hands of the commissioner and the police. That is an exact analogy with the kind of scrutiny proposed by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I studied the evidence to the Select Committee and its conclusions very carefully. The emphasis is that a Committee, be it the Home Affairs Select Committee or any other Select Committee, would not examine the day-to-day operations. No one would expect such a Committee to do that. However, the overall policy matters and financial aspects would rightly be subject to question.
  I do not want to go over the ground of previous debates on this subject. However, it is necessary to remind the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is standing in for the Home Secretary tonight, of the serious concern that has been expressed over various happenings in recent years.
  The response of the Minister tonight, or of other Ministers, may be that everything that I am going to mention in passing occurred before MI5 was placed on a statutory basis. That is undoubtedly the case, but it does not alter the fact that these incidents occurred, and not so many years ago.
  If a quarter of what Mr. Wright said was true—much more may have been true, for all I know—that shows that, instead of combating subversion, senior officials of MI5 were actually engaged in it against an elected Government who did not meet with their approval. That was unforgivable. As I have said, that organisation has a job of work to do to combat subversion, but all the stories seem to confirm, to a certain extent, much of what Mr. Wright said. Senior officials, although we do not know how many or at what level except that they were certainly senior officials, were involved in what can only be described as subversive action against a Government whom they did not happen to like politically.
  There were also investigations by the F branches—F1, F2, F3 and sub-branches of MI5—and allegations by former MI5 employees such as Cathy Massiter. As I have said before, that person who worked in MI5 is to be congratulated. No prosecution has been brought against her, and rightly so. No one has really disputed what she said. She worked in MI5 and concluded that some of the activities were not in any way necessary, but were against the spirit of what should be the work of the security services.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Cathy Massiter's allegations about telephone tapping were investigated by the independent judge and rejected? While recognising that specific decisions by the judge, does he recognise that there is a failure in the 1989 Act—that is, the inability of the tribunal or the commissioner to investigate complaints which originate before December 1989?
  Mr. Winnick: I shall come to the first point in a moment. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said—he was part of the controversy which occurred during the passage of

  133
  the legislation—anything which happened before 1989 cannot be investigated. The commissioner also makes that point in both of his reports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Patricia Hewitt were subject to investigation—this is not disputed—and they took their case to the European Court. At the time, they were the leading paid officials of the National Council for Civil Liberties. Have any hon. Members suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham is some sort of subversive? What nonsense! What lunacy could have occurred that she should be the subject of such investigation, together with Patricia Hewitt, whose name is well known in the House?
  Cathy Massiter said:
  "Anyone who was on the Executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties, who worked for the organisation, was an active member to the degree of being, say, a branch secretary of the organisation, would be placed on permanent record and routine inquiries were instituted to identify such people and police inquiries were sought."
  Can that be justified? It is nonsense. That is why there is understandable concern about some of the work clone in the past against perfectly bona fide organisations and people who are no more subversive than any hon. Members in the House.
  Recently—to bring the matter up to date—the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress complained that his communications were being intercepted by the intelligence authorities. I understand that Campbell Christie has made a complaint to the commissioner of the Security Service. The complaint was not upheld, so the press said, and he is taking his case to the European Court. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that compensation will be paid by the Government in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and of Patricia Hewitt.
  Parliamentary scrutiny in itself will not prevent abuses. No one has suggested anything of the sort. If MI5 was subject to some accountability other than simply to the Home Secretary, the tribunal and the commissioner, there would at least be the feeling that their activities would need to be justified. It is interesting to note that, in paragraph 13 of his second report, the commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, said:
  "There can be no doubt that the very existence of the Tribunal as a body empowered to investigate complaints provides the Security Service with a strong additional incentive to ensure that its procedures are designed to eliminate the chance of a complaint being found justified."
  Effectively, he is saying that his existence and that of his tribunal are some sort of deterrent against abuses of the sort which I have mentioned. How much more a deterrent would there be if the Security Service knew that a parliamentary committee existed which monitored its activities but not its day-to-day operations?
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why scrutiny by a Committee of the House is likely to be more effective than scrutiny by the independent tribunal?
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer. Effectively, to say that the House and its Select Committee—be it the Select Committee on Home Affairs or any other Select Committee—would be no more effective than a commissioner is to say that parliamentary scrutiny does not add up to much. If one takes all the subjects which are being investigated by Select Committees, one might as well
  134
  use the hon. Gentleman's argument and say, "If there was a commissioner or a tribunal investigating social services or the Treasury, it would be no less effective than a Select Committee". The hon. Gentleman knows full well the answer to that question.
  It is rather important to have the parliamentary scrutiny which exists in other democracies. Why should Britain be an exception? There have been various rumours, true or otherwise—who knows?—that the Government will concede at some stage in the near future, perhaps when the next measure comes along, that there should be parliamentary scrutiny, but that there will be no question of the Home Affairs Select Committee or any other being given the remit. A small committee of perhaps four or five members will be set up consisting entirely of Privy Councillors. I have seen reports somewhere that they would report to the Cabinet Office. That would not be acceptable. If the Government insist, they will get their majority, but the controversy will continue.
  The idea that Members of Parliament who do not happen to be Privy Councillors are not trustworthy is sheer nonsense. I would find it surprising if such a measure was accepted on a free vote. The Home Affairs Select Committee discussed that option and rightly rejected it.
  I conclude by quoting the final paragraph of the Home Affairs Select Committee report:
  "The Home Secretary raised the bogey of a secret service that was not secret. The Committee wants no such thing. The work done by the Security Service is delicate, and much of it is necessarily of the highest confidentiality. We do not believe that there is any general right or need to know what the service does on a day to day basis. But we do believe that establishing a form of parliamentary scrutiny of the service would meet an important public interest and help to protect against any possible future abuse of power."
  That is certainly my view. I have held it for a long time. I am pleased that, after all these years, the Home Affairs Select Committee, albeit with a Conservative majority, has made the point powerfully.
  Although I know that the Minister has no authority—I am not being patronising—to change policy which has been laid down by the Home Secretary, I hope that the campaign will continue. I hope that, however long it takes—I hope that it will not take too long—we will establish that degree of democratic control and parliamentary accountability of the Security Service which is practised elsewhere and is much needed in Britain.
  11.1 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on raising the important question of the accountability of the Security Service. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the need for oversight of the work of the Security Service. The Government entirely agree with him. In a parliamentary democracy, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the agency which is given responsibility for protecting national security is subject to proper oversight in carrying out its necessarily secret work. The Government differ with the hon. Gentleman in his analysis of the reasons why such oversight is needed, as I shall seek to develop in a moment.
  The hon. Gentleman anticipated what I might or might not say. I shall deal with some of the subjects that he raised, but I hope that he will understand that I cannot

  135
  comment on individual cases, as he perhaps rightly anticipated. Nevertheless. I commend him on the interest that he has consistently maintained in this important subject.
  As the House will recall, the nature and extent of the arrangements which were required for ensuring that the Security Service was properly accountable for its work were fully debated in the House a few years ago during the passage of the Security Service Bill. At that time, the House spent a full day in Committee debating the nature of the arrangements which needed to be put in place to secure the right balance.
  The Opposition, no doubt including the hon. Gentleman, argued then that it would be right to place the Security Service under the scrutiny of a Select Committee of the House in the same way as ordinary Government Departments. Other hon. Members argued that, because the task of overseeing the work of the Security Service would not simply be akin to that performed by Select Committees in scrutinising other Whitehall Departments, a specially constructed Security Service review committee was needed. That suggestion, I suspect, drew heavily on the experience of the Canadians, as the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago.
  The Government took the view that, even though such a system might well suit conditions in Canada, this House needed to decide on a system of oversight which was right for this country and which reflected the responsibilities of the Security Service, the threats to our citizens from which it is the duty of the Security Service to provide protection, and the duties of Ministers in the House.
  After a full debate, Parliament agreed with the view of the Government that the difficulties of principle and practice in the way of establishing an effective mechanism of direct parliamentary oversight were such that the better course was to rest on the approach which had previously been followed, by which the Security Service was accountable to Ministers for its work and Ministers were in turn accountable to Parliament. That is not to say that the Security Service Act 1989 denies any role to Parliament.
  In passing the 1989 Act, Parliament set out the framework within which the Security Service operates, established the functions of the service and provided for safeguards against any abuse, whether by members of the service or by Ministers. I remind the House that Parliament also receives the annual report made to the Prime Minister by the commissioner appointed under the Act. In general, however, the House agreed in 1989 that ministerial accountability for the work of the Security Service was the right model for this country.
  More recently, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North has reminded us, the question of the accountability of the service has been raised in a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I notice the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in her place, and I know that she is a member of that Committee. In preparing its report, the Select Committee once again carefully reviewed all the arguments about accountability. It acknowledged the significant moves which have been made in recent years towards removing unnecessary secrecy surrounding the work of the Security Service.
  136
  The passage of the Security Service Act was an important step in that direction, and has been followed by: the announcement of the appointment of Mrs. Stella Rimington as director-general of the service; the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on 8 May last year concerning the transfer to the service of the lead responsibility for intelligence-gathering in Great Britain in respect of Irish Republican terrorism; and the acknowledgement that Thames house, on the Embankment, was to be the service's new headquarters. I am pleased to acknowledge the Select Committee's recognition of those very positive steps.
  The Select Committee also recognised, quite rightly, that, whatever arrangements may be put in place for ensuring the proper accountability of the service, they must be such as to avoid damaging in any way the effectiveness of the service, or putting lives unnecessarily at risk—the very point that the hon. Gentleman made early in his speech. However, the Select Committee went on to conclude that the work of the Security Service should be suject to parliamentary oversight in just the same way as any other aspect of the working of government, and that the Home Affairs Select Committee itself, perhaps unsurprisingly, should undertake that task.
  It would not be right for me now to anticipate what the Government will say in their response to the Select Committee's report. To do so would be discourteous to the Select Committee, or to the other members of it who are not in their places. But this brief debate tonight will be of assistance to the Government as we consider the terms of our response to the report, which we hope to publish shortly after Easter.
  There will, of course, be a further opportunity to debate all this when the Bill which the Government have promised to bring forward in due course, to place the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters on a statutory basis, is presented to the House. That Bill will, as the Government have already said, be introduced in the lifetime of the present Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said that he expected that to be in the current Session, and I think that the Select Committee understood the same thing, but the Government have not said that. The Bill will be introduced as soon as the necessary parliamentary time can be made available, but I cannot promise when that will be, other than that it will be during this Parliament.
  Often, it is the implicit theme in the claims made by those who criticise the Security Service that it is not subject to any form of effective oversight of the way in which it carries out its work. I have already referred to the system of safeguards established under the Security Service Act 1989. Similar safeguards exist in respect of other intrusive methods of investigation under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Between them, those Acts create an effective system of judicial oversight of the work of the service, as partially described by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Allason: In regard to the safeguards within the 1989 Act, while I welcome the existence of a commissioner and people's ability to make complaints, can my hon. Friend tell the House why it is apparently undesirable to disclose to the public or the House how many complaints have been received annually by the commissioner?
  Mr. Wardle: That is information that should be imparted not directly but to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is accountable to the House.
  Under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Interception of Communications Act 1985 there is a commissioner with power to review the use made by the service of the most intrusive methods of investigation, and a tribunal with powers to investigate or refer to the commissioner complaints made by members of the public who believe that their rights have been infringed. Both commissioners and tribunals take their responsibilities very seriously, and I know that the Security Service takes equally seriously the need to ensure that the commissioners and tribunals have total freedom of access to the records of the service and its staff so that they may satisfy themselves that the work of the service has properly been carried out.
  Furthermore, as Minister with authority over the Security Service, as given to him by the 1989 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the work of the service. Of course, in matters relating to national security, the Government have a particular duty to safeguard information which, if divulged, could help those who are ill disposed towards this country. Thus, while Parliament may wish to question the Home Secretary on this as in other areas, there are bound to be limits to what he can safely say.
  This limitation was recognised by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its conclusion that nothing should be done to damage the effectiveness of the Security Service and that operational matters affecting the service would not be revealed publicly, however great the interest there may be in seeing these affairs discussed openly in the House and in the media. There is a distinction to be drawn between what would be of interest to the public and what is in the public interest, but the fact that essential considerations of secrecy may place limitations on what can be said on the Floor of the House about the service and its work does not in any way alter the principle of ministerial accountability to Parliament.
  Nevertheless, the Government recognise that there is genuine interest in the House in the question whether the existing approach to oversight, as reflected in the terms of the 1989 Act and which I have just outlined, is the right one. Against the background of the Government's commitment to greater openness, there is a need for us to consider again whether there may be a case for looking afresh at those arrangements.
  As I have said, I will not anticipate the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations, but I want to make it clear that the Government have no sympathy whatever with the argument—not made by the Home Affairs Committee, and certainly not by the hon. Member for Walsall, North, but often made by critics of the service—that a system involving more direct and intrusive oversight of the service is needed in order to prevent it from acting in a fundamentally undemocratic way and infringing the civil liberties of individuals to no good purpose.
  No effective security service can ever routinely deny the many wild and inaccurate stories which are almost bound to circulate in the media from time to time about what it is alleged to have done. If it, or Ministers speaking for it, were to deny such stories on some occasions or outline
  138
  cases on any occasion on which it was judged not right to issue such a denial, the very fact of silence would be taken by some as confirming the truth of the allegation. Even where subsequent events prove that the allegation was ill founded, what would remain in the minds of the public would be the allegation, not the fact that it had turned out to be unfounded.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not disagree with much that the Minister has said about day-to-day operation, but in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Patricia Hewitt, surely the Government conceded the point by what they said before the European Court and by the compensation paid. I did ask the Minister whether he would confirm that.
  Mr. Wardle: I said at the outset that I would not comment on individual cases, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman heard that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned "Spycatcher", or at least Peter Wright. Many people recall the allegation contained in "Spycatcher", to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, that the Security Service had engaged in a plot against the Labour Government of the day. Mr. Wright subsequently retracted that allegation on television, but that received far less publicity than his initial claims.
  The idea that, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary put it during the debates on the Security Service Act, the Security Service is rather akin to an untamed and possibly dangerous animal which has to be placed in a cage with a bright light shone upon it, and that a keeper has to be employed to go into the cage and announce to the world at every stage what the animal is doing, is quite simply not a view of the Security Service that the Government accept. Nor is it a view that we would be willing to have play any significant part in influencing the shape of any oversight mechanism in respect of the service.
  If the House decides, in due course, that it is right to establish a different framework for the oversight of the service from that which has existed up till now, it is vital that the change should be made for the right reasons. Any change would have to strike the right balance. On the one hand, there is the need to ensure that the work of the service, with its undoubted potential for infringing on the civil liberties of individual people, should be carried out in a way which ensures that the service is properly accountable for all that it does; on the other, there is the need to ensure that the vital work which the service carries out in the national interest should not be rendered more difficult or impossible by the public disclosure of its operations or other matters which must remain secret if the service itself is to remain effective. There is always a balance to be struck between those two competing aspects.
  It will not surprise the hon. Member for Walsall, North that I cannot say tonight whether the Government will, in due course, decide that, with the passage of time since 1989, it is appropriate to propose a change to the current arrangements. But we do recognise that this is a matter of quite proper concern to many members of the public and to hon. Members. I can assure the House that whatever view we reach on this most important matter will not be reached without the most careful consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock

TRANSPORT

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subjected to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Norris
  The details of the Department's market testing programme were published in the citizens charter —first report 1992. This programme is being carried forward by the Department and tendering is to commence shortly within the programme's current timetable.

  The programme for the 12 months commencing in September 1993 will be announced within the time scales established with the Office of Public Services and Science; this is in common with other Departments.

  The current market testing programme does not draw a distinction between professional services or otherwise.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the new underground stations for the crossrail project will conform with the most recent safety standards for the Underground; what assessment he has made of the amount of land required to meet these standards other than that specified in the Bill as deposited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I am assured by the promoters that the new crossrail stations will all conform with up-to-date safety standards, and that the Bill specifies all land that is required to enable those standards to be met at those stations.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the original and subsequent forecasts used to evaluate the crossrail project were last updated; what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the project using the latest figures; and if they will be made public.

  Mr. Norris
  The most recently completed reappraisal of the original and subsequent analyses was that carried out in 1991. I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on 19 October 1992,Official Report, columns 210–11. A further reappraisal is in hand, and this will take into account the re-examination announced in the Budget on 16 March 1993.

  Bus Deregulation (London)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the extension, the improvement and the reduction in price of bus services in 2
  London that would be gained by deregulation over and beyond the benefits of tendering and of the introduction of new services by London Buses.

  Mr. Norris
  We shall be setting out our views on the benefits of deregulating London's bus services compared with further route tendering in our memorandum to the Transport Select Committee, which will be submitted shortly.

  Red Routes
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in implementing the red route network in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Following public consultation, the traffic director for London has today published his network plan, which provides the framework for the design and operation of the 315-mile priority red route network. Copies of the network plan have been placed in the Library.

  Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his objectives for the privatisation of the DVOIT executive agency.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The key objectives for this sale are:"1 To sell DVOIT as soon as is reasonably practicable.
  2 To maximise the net receipts from the sale, subject to the achievement of the following other objectives:
  (i) ensure that DOT and its agencies obtain, as part of the sale, contracts for the privision of IS/IT services appropriate to their business requirements, including vfm, quality, flexibil-ity and security, at the lowest market price; and
  (ii) to obtain reassurance that the purchaser should have the capacity to meet transferred liabilities and obligations."

  Transport Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), of 18 March,Official Report, columns 339–40, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the European Community Transport Council held on 15 March.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No formal votes were taken.

  British Rail Pensions
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that full pension obligations are guaranteed by British Rail and any successors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As I informed Standing Committee B on 23 March, I intend to introduce a new clause and schedule to the Railways Bill to cover pension arrangements after the privatisation of British Rail. This will provide the required security of pension rights for the members of British Rail's pension schemes.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding British
  3
  Rail pension funds from (a) pensioners, (b) rail unions, (c) British Rail management and (d) prospective franchisees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As I informed Standing Committee B on 23 March, we have received representations from many persons and bodies. We are still consulting on these issues, and we will announce the outcome once decisions have been taken.

  Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to seek tenders for the sale of Red Star Parcels.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board is handling the sale of Red Star Parcels. The sale will be advertised as soon as the relevant documentation has been completed.

  British Rail
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since 2 February concerning(a) the proposal for Railtrack to be independent of British Rail, (b) the principle of equal access by train operators to the rail infrastructure and (c) the numbers of different organisations working on the rail network under the privatisation proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on these matters.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he is considering concerning the lease or sale of rolling stock maintenance depots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The options are still being considered and final conclusions have not yet been reached. The type of maintenance being carried out and the location of depots are important factors. Options under consideration include: independent sale; transfer of depots to franchisees; transfer to rolling stock companies.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the results to date of British Rail's "organising for quality" initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that "organising for quality" has been valuable in establishing clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the larger BR organisation.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) passengers' groups, (b) passenger transport authorities and (c) consumer groups since 2 February about the Railways Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations from various bodies, mainly in response to the consultation documents prepared by the Department. In addition, officials of my Department are engaged in a programme of meetings with representatives from the PTAs and PTEs in order to examine issues arising from the franchising of PTE-supported services.
  4
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from potential franchisees concerning proposals to allow Railtrack to own and control the railway network; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the future commercial development of rail stations; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the likely length of franchises from (a) rolling stock companies and (b) potential operators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received various representations on these points, mainly in response to the consultation documents on franchising and on rolling stock which were issued to elicit views.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Mercer report concerning British Rail's freight operations will be published.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report contains much commercially sensitive information and will not be published, but the Government's conclusions based on Mercer's work, and incorporating its findings as appropriate, will be published as soon as the decisions have been taken.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to establish public sector leasing companies for rolling stock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 27 January, the Government issued a consultation document on the provision of rolling stock after privatisation. The document outlined a number of options, including the creation of public sector leasing companies which, in due course, would be offered for sale. These options are currently being discussed with the industry, financiers and other interested parties. I intend to make a policy statement after Easter in the light of these dicussions.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Railtrack will still retain ownership of operational land if a rail station is sold or leased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack will retain ownership of the freehold of stations. Stations may be leased by Railtrack to franchises or independent station operators.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for research and development, pursuant to his proposals in the Railways Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to make an announcement after the Easter recess.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to protect land currently owned by British Rail and has potential for railway development, pursuant to his proposals in the Railways Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Land with a current or potential operational use will generally be transferred, on a freehold basis, to Railtrack. It is intended that non-operational land should remain with the Brtish Railways Board.
  5
  As at present, before any land is offered for disposal its potential future use for railway development will be fully explored.

  Infrastructure Developments
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to secure private sector investment for major infrastructure developments in(a) the railway network and (b) roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We wish to open up new ways to make the best use of private sector skills, initiative and funds in the provision of transport infrastructure.

  British Rail and the British Airports Authority have agreed in principle a joint venture to build a new rail express link between Paddington and Heathrow airport. The Department of Transport, with Samuel Montagu and Co and Union Railways, will be discussing with the private sector their participation in a joint venture on the channel tunnel rail link. In the case of crossrail, we are appointing consultants to advise us how best to ensure maximum private sector involvement.

  The new Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford, which opened in 1991 was privately financed. Construction of a privately financed second Severn bridge is under way and a concession agreement has been signed for the construction, using private finance, of the Birmingham northern relief road. My right hon. Friend plans to publish a Green Paper on the basis of charging for inter-urban roads and the scope for more private sector investment in their construction and operation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what recent representations he has received about eligibility for legal aid under his proposed changes to those just above income support level; and if he will make a statement.

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for all offences by commission of the peace area and type of offence 1989 (quarter 4)

  Commission of the peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Avon

  2,152

  2,574

  4,044

  8,770

  Bedfordshire

  1,073

  1,758

  2,058

  4,889

  Berkshire

  900

  1,523

  2,298

  4,621

  Buckinghamshire

  931

  1,205

  2,549

  4,685

  Cambridgeshire

  1,311

  1,367

  2,390

  5,068

  Cheshire

  2,004

  1,946

  4,241

  8,191

  Cleveland

  1,464

  2,093

  1,783

  5,340

  Cornwall

  568

  362

  1,121

  2,051

  Cumbria

  1,126

  1,791

  2,497

  5,414

  Derbyshire

  1,909

  2,085

  3,814

  7,808

  Devon

  1,700

  1,670

  3,550

  6,920

  Dorset

  1,198

  967

  2,493

  4,658

  Durham

  1,389

  1,765

  2,369

  5,523

  Essex

  2,700

  3,801

  6,313

  12,814

  Gloucestershire

  1,093

  1,247

  2,376

  4,716

  Greater Manchester

  7,053

  7,945

  11,914

  26,912

  Hampshire

  3,148

  3,104

  5,981

  12,233

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,220

  945

  3,589

  5,754

  Hertfordshire

  1,657

  1,882

  3,586

  7,125

  Humberside

  1,872

  2,809

  2,793

  7,474

  6
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received a number of representations about various aspects of the changes to legal aid eligibility, including the position of those whose incomes are just above income support level. Assessments are based on disposable income and a generous range of allowances are offset against gross earnings.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest timetable for introduction of his proposed changes in eligibility for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The regulations to introduce the changes have been laid before Parliament, and are due to come into effect on 12 April.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the cost to the legal aid fund of providing assistance and representation in the four trials relating to alleged criminal activities concerning Guinness plc.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal aid cost to date of the Guinness trials is £.1·7 million. The majority of this relates to the first trial, the costs of which are currently the subject of an appeal. The remainder consists of costs paid in respect of part of the second trial. The full costs of the second trial and the costs of the third and fourth trials have yet to be determined.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been brought before each convenient area of magistrates courts in the last available quarter, and for an equivalent period one and two years earlier.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information available centrally on persons prosecuted in magistrates courts during the last quarters of 1989 to 1991 by commission of the peace area and type of offence is given in the tables. Data for 1992 will not be available until autumn 1993.
  7

  Commission of the peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Isle of Wight

  190

  158

  355

  703

  Kent

  1,604

  2,310

  4,236

  8,150

  Lancashire

  3,278

  3,808

  6,139

  13,225

  Leicestershire

  1,351

  2,284

  3,569

  7,204

  Lincolnshire

  1,197

  1,282

  2,450

  4,929

  Inner London and City

  7,713

  12,310

  11,241

  31,264

  London, North East

  1,701

  2,215

  2,224

  6,060

  London, South East

  636

  1,119

  1,312

  3,067

  London, South West

  919

  1,087

  1,139

  3,145

  London, Middlesex

  2,510

  4,113

  4,262

  10,885

  Merseyside

  4,470

  5,638

  5,284

  15,392

  Norfolk

  1,172

  1,318

  3,405

  5,895

  Northamptonshire

  1,103

  2,114

  2,615

  5,832

  Northumberland

  493

  607

  1,454

  2,554

  North Yorkshire

  1,324

  1,528

  2,485

  5,337

  Nottinghamshire

  3,184

  2,847

  3,158

  9,189

  Oxfordshire

  757

  883

  1,984

  3,624

  Shropshire

  688

  971

  1,287

  2,946

  Somerset

  716

  988

  2,164

  3,868

  South Yorkshire

  3,154

  3,803

  4,615

  11,572

  Staffordshire

  2,146

  3,000

  5,051

  10,197

  Suffolk

  1,111

  1,310

  2,565

  4,986

  Surrey

  1,411

  1,356

  4,335

  7,102

  East Sussex

  1,401

  2,006

  3,205

  6,612

  West Sussex

  1,247

  1,711

  3,667

  6,625

  Tyne and Wear

  3,212

  4,339

  2,873

  10,424

  Warwickshire

  780

  750

  2,446

  3,976

  West Midlands

  7,414

  7,080

  10,219

  24,713

  West Yorkshire

  5,147

  6,826

  8,945

  20,918

  Wiltshire

  875

  1,359

  2,437

  4,671

  England

  99,372

  123,779

  182,880

  406,031

  Clwyd

  970

  902

  2,044

  3,916

  Dyfed

  588

  1,072

  1,181

  2,841

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,405

  1,810

  2,038

  5,253

  South Glamorgan

  1,516

  1,790

  1,380

  4,686

  West Glamorgan

  1,064

  1,592

  1,696

  4,352

  Gwent

  1,369

  2,245

  1,948

  5,562

  Gwynedd

  590

  490

  1,124

  2,204

  Powys

  209

  305

  534

  1,048

  Wales

  7,711

  10,206

  11,945

  29,862

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  107,083

  133,985

  194,825

  435,893

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for all offences by commission of the peace area and type of offence 1990 (quarter 4)

  Commission of the peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Avon

  2,103

  2,890

  4,174

  9,167

  Bedfordshire

  1,182

  1,740

  2,565

  5,487

  Berkshire

  1,454

  1,614

  2,940

  6,008

  Buckinghamshire

  1,218

  1,237

  3,334

  5,789

  Cambridgeshire

  1,429

  1,789

  2,684

  5,902

  Cheshire

  1,950

  1,924

  4,387

  8,261

  Cleveland

  1,509

  1,959

  1,977

  5,445

  Cornwall

  562

  485

  1,353

  2,400

  Cumbria

  1,172

  1,603

  2,616

  5,391

  Derbyshire

  1,923

  1,877

  3,901

  7,701

  Devon

  1,636

  2,124

  5,336

  9,096

  Dorset

  1,255

  1,025

  2,537

  4,817

  Durham

  1,474

  1,789

  2,030

  5,293

  Essex

  2,926

  3,312

  7,133

  13,371

  Gloucestershire

  1,006

  1,133

  2,477

  4,616

  Greater Manchester

  6,887

  8,173

  12,902

  27,962

  Hampshire

  3,170

  3,216

  7,504

  13,890

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,298

  1,292

  3,054

  5,644

  Hertfordshire

  1,530

  2,022

  3,467

  7,019

  Humberside

  1,930

  2,467

  2,730

  7,127

  Isle of Wight

  222

  263

  259

  744

  Kent

  1,706

  1,683

  4,569

  7,958

  89

  Commission of te peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Lancashire

  3,527

  3,984

  8,429

  15,940

  Leicestershire

  1,759

  3,025

  6,169

  10,953

  Lincolnshire

  1,258

  1,162

  2,743

  5,163

  Inner London and City

  7,961

  11,005

  12,053

  31,019

  London, North East

  1,737

  2,344

  2,289

  6,370

  London, South East

  777

  677

  1,164

  2,618

  London, South West

  884

  1,245

  1,339

  3,468

  London, Middlesex

  3,092

  4,259

  4,120

  11,471

  Merseyside

  5,114

  5,589

  5,503

  16,206

  Norfolk

  1,344

  1,280

  3,238

  5,862

  Northamptonshire

  1,194

  1,728

  2,929

  5,851

  Northumberland

  447

  694

  1,724

  2,865

  North Yorkshire

  1,496

  1,716

  2,451

  5,663

  Nottinghamshire

  3,399

  3,522

  3,406

  10,327

  Oxfordshire

  862

  1,060

  2,722

  4,644

  Shropshire

  784

  1,144

  1,175

  3,103

  Somerset

  749

  1,051

  2,289

  4,089

  South Yorkshire

  3,165

  4,238

  4,761

  12,164

  Staffordshire

  2,517

  2,704

  4,974

  10,195

  Suffolk

  1,206

  1,285

  2,482

  4,973

  Surrey

  1,564

  1,404

  4,137

  7,105

  East Sussex

  1,447

  1,642

  2,645

  5,734

  West Sussex

  1,359

  1,572

  3,152

  6,083

  Tyne and Wear

  3,060

  4,485

  3,236

  10,781

  Warwickshire

  786

  693

  2,092

  3,571

  West Midlands

  8,241

  7,392

  11,912

  27,545

  West Yorkshire

  5,304

  6,554

  9,290

  21,148

  Wiltshire

  1,073

  1,632

  4,189

  6,894

  England

  105,648

  124,703

  200,542

  430,893

  Clwyd

  994

  1,016

  2,108

  4,118

  Dyfed

  769

  1,037

  1,205

  3,011

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,642

  1,896

  2,318

  5,856

  South Glamorgan

  1,701

  2,443

  1,583

  5,727

  West Glamorgan

  1,093

  1,487

  1,655

  4,245

  Gwent

  1,467

  2,699

  1,950

  6,116

  Gwynedd

  596

  445

  1,270

  2,311

  Powys

  240

  325

  511

  1,076

  Wales

  8,502

  11,348

  12,610

  32,460

  Other (not recorded)

  7

  223

  382

  612

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  114,157

  136,274

  213,534

  463,965

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for all offences by commission of the peace area and type of offence 1991 (quarter 4)

  Commission of the peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Avon

  2,049

  2,776

  4,733

  9,558

  Bedfordshire

  1,043

  1,769

  2,242

  5,054

  Berkshire

  1,576

  1,724

  2,953

  6,253

  Buckinghamshire

  1,083

  1,119

  2,797

  4,999

  Cambridgeshire

  1,354

  1,496

  2,008

  4,858

  Cheshire

  2,007

  1,934

  3,079

  7,020

  Cleveland

  1,675

  2,428

  2,189

  6,292

  Cornwall

  553

  574

  1,287

  2,414

  Cumbria

  1,327

  1,814

  3,130

  6,271

  Derbyshire

  1,903

  2,310

  3,684

  7,897

  Devon

  1,869

  2,359

  5,178

  9,406

  Dorset

  1,342

  889

  2,633

  4,864

  Durham

  1,395

  1,801

  2,000

  5,196

  Essex

  3,165

  3,840

  8,900

  15,905

  Gloucestershire

  1,102

  1,311

  3,643

  6,056

  Greater Manchester

  7,365

  7,778

  12,790

  27,933

  Hampshire

  3,328

  3,747

  6,830

  13,905

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,228

  1,142

  2,710

  5,080

  Hertfordshire

  1,658

  1,757

  3,519

  6,934

  Humberside

  2,000

  2,690

  2,632

  7,322

  Isle of Wight

  252

  168

  323

  743

  Kent

  1,101

  461

  4,045

  5,607

  Lancashire

  3,253

  3,229

  6,866

  13,348

  10 11

  Commission of te peace area

  Indictable

  Summary non-motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  Leicestershire

  1,766

  2,948

  4,731

  9,445

  Lincolnshire

  1,181

  927

  2,535

  4,643

  Inner London and City

  8,121

  12,599

  18,581

  39,301

  London, North East

  1,870

  2,021

  3,372

  7,263

  London, South East

  574

  172

  1,510

  2,256

  London, South West

  809

  1,294

  1,942

  4,045

  London, Middlesex

  3,474

  5,255

  8,107

  16,836

  Merseyside

  5,555

  6,321

  5,595

  17,471

  Norfolk

  1,499

  1,508

  2,887

  5,894

  Northamptonshire

  1,345

  1,949

  3,042

  6,336

  Northumberland

  575

  633

  1,489

  2,697

  North Yorkshire

  1,642

  1,730

  2,884

  6,256

  Nottinghamshire

  3,428

  4,632

  2,819

  10,879

  Oxfordshire

  860

  1,070

  2,504

  4,434

  Shropshire

  752

  1,300

  1,404

  3,456

  Somerset

  755

  1,274

  2,465

  4,494

  South Yorkshire

  3,381

  3,920

  4,188

  11,489

  Staffordshire

  2,553

  2,791

  5,208

  10,552

  Suffolk

  1,328

  1,326

  2,814

  5,468

  Surrey

  1,510

  1,471

  4,490

  7,471

  East Sussex

  1,757

  2,239

  2,339

  6,335

  West Sussex

  1,272

  2,115

  2,894

  6,281

  Tyne and Wear

  3,559

  4,537

  3,184

  11,280

  Warwickshire

  761

  696

  2,218

  3,675

  West Midlands

  7,646

  7,351

  12,019

  27,016

  West Yorkshire

  6,002

  6,792

  9,529

  22,323

  Wiltshire

  1,168

  1,475

  2,547

  5,190

  England

  108,771

  129,462

  207,468

  445,701

  Clwyd

  1,030

  1,096

  2,083

  4,209

  Dyfed

  809

  1,178

  1,436

  3,423

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,663

  1,610

  1,674

  4,947

  South Glamorgan

  1,822

  2,126

  1,850

  5,798

  West Glamorgan

  1,214

  1,782

  1,846

  4,842

  Gwent

  1,240

  2,395

  1,512

  5,147

  Gwynedd

  385

  227

  1,185

  1,797

  Powys

  194

  346

  524

  1,064

  Wales

  8,357

  10,760

  12,110

  31,227

  Other (not recorded)

  7

  291

  317

  615

  ENGLAND AND WALES

  117,135

  140,513

  219,895

  477,543

DEFENCE

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence over which areas of his Department's land the Surrey Union hunt has a licence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Surrey Union hunt has a licence to hunt over the Aldershot military lands and Surrey commons training areas.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total receipts in 1991–92 from licences for fox hunts to hunt on his Department's land.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Total receipts in 1991–92 from annual fox hunting licences were £729·85.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent Army personnel from mounted units are permitted to use Army horses and equipment to participate in(a) deer or stag hunting and (b) cub hunting in off-duty hours; whether a charge is made; and who is responsible for veterinary fees following an injury to a horse owned by his Department used for hunting by personnel in mounted units hunting in off-duty hours.
  12
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from mounted units are not permitted to use Army horses or equipment to hunt in off-duty hours.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances personnel from non-mounted units are permitted to hunt in duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from non-mounted units are not normally permitted to hunt in duty hours. In exceptional circumstances, however, and at the commanding officer's discretion, it may be permitted provided there is no detriment to military tasks.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Army personnel from the Royal Military College of Science are permitted to use his Department's equipment when hunting in duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is only one MOD horse stabled in the saddle club at the Royal Military College of Science and it is not used for hunting. No other MOD equipment is held by the saddle club.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for members of the armed forces from non-mounted units to use Army horses and equipment for fox hunting during duty or non-duty hours.
  13
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. When using Army horses, off-duty personnel from non-mounted units are required to pay for the hire of the horse, which covers the cost of veterinary services, and to take out comprehensive insurance. They would normally provide their own equipment.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details and dates of when the Household Cavalry participated in fox hunting, with which hunts and on how many occasions, since January 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information for the period October 1992 to February 1993 is set out in the table. No additional costs to public funds were incurred as a result of this activity.

  Date

  Number

  The Belvoir Hunt

  28 October 1992

  1

  31 October 1992

  1

  11 November 1992

  1

  14 November 1992

  4

  18 November 1992

  1

  21 November 1992

  4

  25 November 1992

  4

  2 December 1992

  4

  9 December 1992

  3

  12 December 1992

  4

  15 December 1992

  2

  19 December 1992

  4

  6 January 1993

  1

  9 January 1993

  4

  13 January 1993

  3

  16 January 1993

  3

  20 January 1993

  3

  23 January 1993

  4

  27 January 1993

  3

  30 January 1993

  2

  3 February 1993

  2

  6 February 1993

  4

  10 February 1993

  3

  13 February 1993

  3

  20 February 1993

  4

  24 February 1993

  3

  6 March 1993

  4

  The Quorn Hunt

  16 November 1992

  4

  20 November 1992

  4

  23 November 1992

  4

  27 November 1992

  2

  30 November 1992

  3

  4 December 1992

  2

  7 December 1992

  4

  11 December 1992

  4

  14 December 1992

  4

  18 December 1992

  4

  21 December 1992

  4

  28 December 1992

  2

  8 January 1993

  3

  11 January 1993

  4

  15 January 1993

  3

  18 January 1993

  3

  22 January 1993

  4

  25 January 1993

  2

  29 January 1993

  4

  1 February 1993

  3

  5 February 1993

  3

  8 February 1993

  2

  12 February 1993

  3

  15 February 1993

  4

  19 February 1993

  2

  22 February 1993

  3

  26 February 1993

  1

  5 March 1993

  4

  8 March 1993

  2

  14

  Date

  Number

  The Cottesmore Hunt

  17 November 1992

  1

  24 November 1992

  1

  8 December 1992

  1

  15 December 1992

  2

  22 December 1992

  2

  29 December 1992

  1

  12 January 1993

  2

  19 January 1993

  2

  9 February 1993

  2

  23 February 1993

  1

  The remainder of the information requested is not immediately available, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who meets the costs of the Army personnel attending the horses and driving horse boxes when the Household Cavalry attend hunts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The salary costs of the Army personnel attending horses and driving horse boxes when the Household Cavalry attends hunts are met from public funds; however, they reflect the cost of maintaining mounted units in the Army and arise irrespective of whether soldiers and army horses take part in hunting. No additional costs to public funds are incurred.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in 1991 and 1992 the Royal Military Police have hunted; and with which hunts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal Military Police do not hunt; but on three occasions in 1991 and three occasions in 1992, two non-commissioned officers and horses from the Royal Military Police mounted troop were deployed on duty at the request of and in support of the Surrey constabulary, who were policing hunts in Surrey which could have crossed Ministry of Defence land.

  Shooting Rights
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual income received for the shooting seasons 1991–92 and 1992–93 from the sale of shooting days at the Bulford and Tidworth garrison shoot in Salisbury in Wiltshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has granted a licence to the Bulford and Tidworth garrison shoot to shoot over land in Salisbury in Wiltshire, and does not sell individual shooting days.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what areas of his Department's land the HMS Heron sporting gun club has sport shooting rights; what charge is made for shooting rights; and which birds and mammals it is authorised to shoot.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The HMS Heron sporting gun club has licences to shoot over my Department's land at Merryfield airfield and Langport ranges. These licences authorise its members to shoot all unprotected birds and animals, including ground game, but excluding deer. The assessed charge is a matter of commercial confidentiality between my Department and the club.
  15
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men, and of what rank, took part in sport shooting at the Bulford and Tidworth garrison shoot in the 1991–92 and 1992–93 shooting season; and what was the total number of birds shot during these seasons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ninety-one officers and 32 service men took part in the 1991–92 shoot, and 93 officers and 33 service men took part in the 1992–93 shoot. A breakdown of their ranks could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total numbers of birds shot during these seasons were 3,223 and 2,871 respectively.

  Belize
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom armed forces personnel are currently stationed in Belize; and what is the planned future level of deployment there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of force levels in Belize were given in the House of Commons Defence Committee Eighth report, Session 1987–88. There have been no substantive changes since then. We keep all our commitments, and the associated force levels, under review.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel are based in or seconded to the United Arab Emirates.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of personnel from Her Majesty's armed forces are currently providing military assistance to the United Arab Emirates. Details of the assistance provided and the number of personnel involved, are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether military personnel from the United Arab Emirates have undergone training in the United Kingdom in 1992 or 1993.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nationals from the United Arab Emirates are attending and have attended a range of developmental and technical training courses in British military establishments. Details of the training, including numbers involved, are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

  Falkland War (Troops' Behaviour)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on discussions he has had during his visit to the Falkland Islands on alleged misbehaviour of British troops in 1982.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend did not enter into any discussions on this subject during his recent trip to the Falkland Islands. He has referred the matter to the Attorney-General, and the allegations are currently being investigated by the Metropolitan police.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to publish the amount of payments which have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the United States Government in respect of each British nuclear weapons test since 1979.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. In accordance with the policy of successive Governments, it is not in the national interest to publish costs associated with the testing of British nuclear weapons.

  Amphibious Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the landing platform helicopter.

  Mr. Aitken
  The amphibious helicopter carrier (LPH) remains in the defence programme. We have now invited the tenderers to clarify their bids, which we will evaluate against our normal technical and value for money criteria. We expect to place an order later this year, subject to the results of the competition.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General what further progress he has made towards establishing executive agencies in his Department under the Government's next steps initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  On 18 February 1992, my predecessor informed the House,Official Report, columns 71–72, that the Treasury Solicitor's department property division had been selected as a candidate for executive agency status. I am pleased to announce that I shall be establishing the Government property lawyers as an Executive Agency on 1 April, as envisaged by my predecessor. I will ensure that the chief executive has clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. These responsibilities will be set out in the agency's framework document, which will be published and copies placed in the Library.

  Targets are set out in the agency's strategic plan and will form part of its annual business plans. An annual report and accounts will be produced, and copies also put in the Library.

  The Government Property Lawyers Agency is at present the property division of the Treasury Solicitor's department. It has about 130 staff based in Taunton. The agency will continue to provide conveyancing and lands advisory services to Government Departments and other publicly funded bodies but on a more commercial basis. It will have to compete with private firms of solicitors for the services it provides. The establishment of the Government property lawyers as an executive agency will provide the appropriate structure and discipline to enhance its ability to supply a more efficient, economic and effective delivery of conveyancing and lands advisory services to its clients. I have approved the appointment of Mr. Anthony Osborne, the present head of the property division, to be the agency's first chief executive.

  The key performance targets are as follows:

  17
  For 1993–94: to recover the full operating cost of the agency; to achieve 6,000 new instructions from its clients; to increase the number of completions effected to 5,910; to maintain and improve the quality of service, in particular by keeping the proportions of cases completed satisfactorily (ie without requiring rectification by reason of any fault of the agency) on or before the target date at or above the current rate of 99·5 per cent.
  Over the three-year period of the strategic plan: to achieve a steady reduction in operating costs of an average of 2 per cent. per year in real terms.
  I wish the chief executive and his staff every success for the future.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  National Debt
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the outstanding aggregate national debt in 1979 and its lowest level between then and the present day, together with the current level and that envisaged at the end of the 1997–98 financial year under the estimates of table 1 of his leaflet, "The Budget in Brief".

  Mr. Lamont
  Chart 2·5 in the 1993–94 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" shows data and projections up to end 1997–98 for the ratio of net public sector debit to GDP. This ratio fell from 49½ per cent. at end 1978–79 to 27¼ per cent. at end 1990–91, but has since risen to an estimated 33½ per cent. at end 1992–93. The PSBR projections in table 1 of "The Budget in Brief' imply a ratio of 49i per cent. at end 1997–98.

  Domestic Fuel
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 767, if he will publish figures on the same basis showing expenditure on domestic fuel by region.

  Mr. Nelson
  The sample size used to derive the information given in my answer of 26 February in column 767 is not large enough to provide reliable regional estimates.

  Departmental Courses
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Departments to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Nelson
  I regret that this information is not held in the form requested and could be made available for a five-year period only at disproportionate expense.

  Personal Tax Allowances
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of additional taxpayers in 1993–94 as a result of the freeze in personal tax allowances.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people in each region brought into paying income tax as a consequence of the freeze in personal allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest estimates show that about 300,000 more people will pay tax in 1993–94 under Budget 18
  proposals compared with indexation of personal allowances. I regret that information is not available on a regional basis.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were interviewed in his Department's current family expenditure survey; and if he will break down the figures by social class.

  Mr. Nelson
  Processing of the second half of the current (1992) family expenditure survey is not yet complete. In the first half of 1992, 7,160 people were interviewed in 3,761 households. In 1991, 13,329 people were interviewed in 7,056 households. Figures of the social class of the head of these households are as follows:

  1992 Quarters 1 and 2

  1991

  Numbers of households interviewed

  3,761

  7,056

  Social Class I (Professional, etc. occupations)

  190

  375

  Social Class II (Managerial and Technical occupations)

  657

  1,309

  Social Class III N (Skilled occupations—non-manual)

  297

  562

  Social Class III M (Skilled occupations—manual)

  676

  1,296

  Social Class IV (Partly skilled occupations)

  335

  567

  Social Class V (Unskilled occupations)

  117

  189

  Other Heads of Household (e.g. Armed Forces)

  17

  38

  Unallocated (e.g. retired, unoccupied)

  1,472

  2,720

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions have been reached by the investigations to date into the collapse of BCCI on local authority investment practice.

  Mr. Portillo
  The scrutiny of local authorities' financial practices is the responsibility of statutory independent auditors appointed by the Audit Commission in England and Wales and the Accounts Commission in Scotland. The Government keep under review the general controls that they have upon local authorities' borrowing and investment activities.

  Tax Havens
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Finance Act 1981 to prevent the use of company ownership transfers from the United Kingdom to tax havens as a means of avoiding liability for capital gains tax and maintaining the possibility of recovering outstanding tax on United Kingdom dividends at a later stage.
  19
  Mr. Dorrell
  I have noted this suggestion. There are existing provisions in this area, which were strengthened in 1991, but I will be glad to review their effectiveness in the light of any particular transaction which the hon. Member has in mind.

  Tax-immune Foreigners
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the estimated numbers of tax-immune foreigners in the United Kingdom for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On the assumption that this refers to individuals who are liable for tax in this country only on their overseas income and gains to the extent that they are remitted here, I am afraid that information is not available on which to base an estimate.

  VAT
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he makes of the numbers of businesses in East Anglia which will be helped by the value added tax administrative changes he announced in the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The VAT administrative changes announced in the Budget are generally beneficial to businesses, especially small businesses, which have welcomed them warmly. They can be expected to help many of the 80,000 businesses registered for VAT in East Anglia.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he expects his changes to petroleum revenue tax announced in the Budget to have on the gas and oil industries both onshore and offshore in the southern North sea sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  To the extent that existing production in the southern basin is within the charge to petroleum revenue tax, doubling the investors' marginal share of profit should encourage investment in, and extend the life of, fields. Removing the burden of PRT from fields currently without development consent will both increase after-tax costs and increase after-tax profits that would have been subject to PRT, so companies will have greater incentives to undertake commercially-viable investment.

  The measure involving a small change to PRT, but principally ending liability to gas levy in certain circumstances, is a direct response to an industry request and should remove a disincentive to significant further production. Taken together, those measures clearly improve incentives for development investment, which should prove beneficial to the offshore industry and its onshore support.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford of 18 March,Official Report, columns 327–8, what were the voting figures for each member state recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council held on 15 March.

  Sir John Cope
  No formal votes were taken at the meeting of the European Community's Economic and 20
  Finance Council on 15 March. There was no opposition to the agreements reported in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 18 March at column 327–8.

  Paymaster General's Office
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future of the Paymaster General's Office; and what key targets have been set for 1993–94.

  Sir John Cope
  The Paymaster General's Office will become a next steps agency with effect from 1 April 1993. Copies of the Paymaster General's office framework document and abridged versions of the corporate and business plans have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have set the Paymaster General's Office the following key targets for 1993–94:
  1. Meeting customers' requirements
  1.1 Respond to 85 per cent. of pensions correspondence and process associated amendments within five working days of receipt and the remainder within 20 working days of receipt.
  1.2 Process 98 per cent. of pensions amendments without error.
  1.3 Meet the banking transaction timetable, agreed with customers, 95 per cent. of the time and never exceed the timetable by more than one day.
  1.4 Develop a quality indicator for the banking service by 31 March 1994.
  1.5 Meet the agreed timetable, for sending financial information to the Treasury, 95 per cent. of the time and never exceed the timetable by more than one day.
  2. Recovery of full costs
  Recover the full costs of running the agency, except for banking and allied services.
  3. Reduction in unit costs
  3.1 Reduce by 1 per cent., over the year, the average unit cost (in real terms) of paying a pension.
  3.2 Obtain a 1 per cent. improvement, over the year, in the average unit costs index for processing banking transactions.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many changes to council tax banding valuations have so far been allowed by the Valuation Agency in advance of the general appeals period of 1 April to 30 November; what is the total number of such changes expected to have been processed by 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 March 1993]: The total number of changes to the draft valuation lists since they were deposited with billing authorities in early December 1992 to the end of February 1993 is 174,236 in England and Wales. It is estimated that some 200,000 changes may have been made by 1 April 1993.

  Amendments to the draft valuation lists result from both notification of the listing officers by the billing authorities of changes to existing, new or demolished dwellings, and from inquiries from the public following the publication of the draft valuation list.

  No statistics are available to distinguish between the number of changes made following notification from billing authorities and inquiries from the public.

  GDP
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a table showing the gross domestic product of each region since 1987–88(a) in cash terms and (b) in 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The latest available information was published in the December 1992 issue of "Economic Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library. Regional gross domestic product figures are calculated only at current prices, as there are no regional price deflators available.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the viability of registered care homes affording generalist provision for single homeless people is not put at risk by the implementation of the community care legislation on 1 April.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  From 1 April local social services authorities will be responsible for arranging residential care for people who

  NHS charitable trust funds 1991–92

  Total income £

  Total expenditure £

  Total capital reserves as at 31 March 1992 £

  Northern RHA

  37,306

  40,191

  403,196

  Hartlepool

  106,680

  93,092

  218,955

  North Tees

  437,063

  252,459

  690,772

  South Tees

  1,361,321

  540,624

  1,660,114

  East Cumbria

  478,407

  454,056

  1,179,052

  South Cumbria

  419,508

  594,992

  610,198

  West Cumbria

  424,106

  226,497

  634,757

  Darlington

  303,816

  224,549

  1,424,155

  Durham

  157,483

  164,286

  328,469

  North West Durham

  134,721

  103,750

  213,704

  South West Durham

  285,780

  310,688

  444,080

  Northumberland

  501,013

  851,363

  1,353,052

  Gateshead

  154,080

  159,520

  314,886

  North Tyneside

  160,968

  96,518

  337,500

  South Tyneside

  224,749

  145,990

  246,296

  Sunderland

  856,824

  781,244

  1,193,623

  Northern Region Total

  6,043,625

  5,017,799

  11,252,807

  Yorkshire RHA

  207,883

  152,013

  947,645

  Hull

  558,608

  442,629

  1,256,433

  East Yorkshire

  392,129

  372,860

  463,235

  Grimsby

  161,957

  146,860

  301,702

  Scunthorpe

  228,647

  255,250

  359,127

  Northallerton

  192,221

  141,542

  426,904

  York

  573,691

  443,939

  1,212,757

  Scarborough

  468,155

  364,286

  757,150

  Harrogate

  356,752

  470,425

  1,451,158

  Bradford

  498,703

  371,582

  1,410,426

  Airedale

  394,097

  316,628

  709,376

  Calderdale

  133,615

  83,650

  497,277

  Huddersfield

  322,379

  384,050

  1,177,623

  Dewsbury

  230,202

  282,470

  217,642

  Leeds

  514,575

  354,551

  2,001,180

  Wakefield

  643,714

  533,187

  877,239

  Pontefract

  219,748

  115,499

  409,163

  Yorkshire Region Total

  6,097,076

  5,211,421

  14,476,039

  Trent RHA

  34,040

  23,584

  509,924

  North Derbyshire

  884,179

  540,776

  1,642,598

  South Derbyshire

  1,317,684

  1,244,573

  3,874,527

  Leicestershire

  2,385,040

  2,101,954

  6,596,662

  North Lincolnshire

  410,378

  345,853

  948,273

  22
  need it, whether or not they have a settled way of life. The money that the Department of Social Security would have spent supporting single homeless people in residential care homes is included within the resources being transferred to local authorities. We have made clear in guidance authorities' responsibilities for this group of people. It is for authorities themselves to decide how they spend their resources.

HEALTH

  Charitable Trust Funds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 18 November 1992,Official Report, column 280, if she is now able to provide details from 1991–92 accounts of charity trust fund balances; and if she will state by health authority and health trust in England the charitable trust fund (a) income, (b) expenditure and (c) fund balances at 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  23

  Total income

  Total expenditure

  Total capital reserves as at 31 March 1992

  £

  £

  £

  South Lincolnshire

  348,645

  210,604

  987,781

  Bassetlaw

  161,202

  143,261

  234,439

  Central Nottinghamshire

  672,413

  1,341,974

  1,621,621

  Nottingham

  1,013,890

  995,400

  2,235,123

  Barnsley

  381,336

  333,961

  1,053,878

  Doncaster

  264,516

  207,109

  482,289

  Rotherham

  463,253

  437,732

  895,723

  Sheffield

  2,489,582

  1,828,328

  3,780,100

  Trent Region Total

  10,826,158

  9,755,109

  24,862,938

  East Anglian RHA

  86,399

  49,407

  171,291

  Cambridge

  1,656,888

  1,745,798

  4,259,125

  Peterborough

  1,480,153

  593,730

  1,902,037

  West Suffolk

  498,942

  477,985

  1,060,531

  East Suffolk

  913,719

  920,221

  1,477,756

  Norwich

  1,571,675

  1,297,252

  6,711,654

  Great Yarmouth

  669,315

  731,857

  1,631,660

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  408,365

  310,410

  1,000,624

  Huntingdon

  1,093,261

  1,076,424

  1,498,515

  East Anglian Region Total

  8,378,717

  7,203,084

  19,713,193

  North West Thames RHA

  111,798

  27,004

  1,245,835

  North Bedfordshire

  249,713

  217,778

  802,777

  South Bedfordshire

  772,149

  604,874

  6,850,728

  East Hertfordshire

  193,381

  180,722

  294,380

  North West Hertfordshire

  583,005

  558,499

  1,680,343

  South West Hertfordshire

  411,023

  372,809

  1,497,304

  Barnet

  371,483

  416,828

  590,186

  Barrow

  699,846

  548,051

  1,135,659

  Hillingdon

  1,065,270

  1,176,775

  769,209

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  519,201

  572,708

  1,027,077

  Ealing

  397,435

  130,349

  701,378

  Riverside

  204,175

  319,226

  252,854

  Parkside

  207,403

  137,882

  1,836,191

  North West Thames Region Total

  5,785,882

  5,263,499

  18,683,921

  North East Thames RHA

  75,159

  16,131

  504,163

  Basildon

  434,192

  312,971

  767,349

  Mid Essex

  396,138

  295,402

  843,785

  North East Essex

  402,591

  307,383

  1,766,061

  West Essex

  629,719

  502,043

  824,518

  Southend

  51,743

  48,862

  247,349

  Barking/Havering/Brentwood

  714,838

  504,726

  1,219,804

  Hampstead

  114,203

  65,883

  272,762

  City and Hackney

  573,430

  308,745

  993,951

  Newham

  245,627

  215,530

  853,704

  Enfield

  124,721

  139,893

  66,758

  Haringey

  44,900

  29,207

  149,748

  Redbridge

  409,154

  472,264

  513,256

  Waltham Forest

  553,165

  566,247

  1,065,486

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  695,909

  621,839

  4,904,533

  North East Thames Region Total

  5,465,489

  4,507,126

  14,993,227

  South East Thames RHA

  906,531

  752,925

  2,536,377

  Brighton

  1,442,387

  1,362,934

  2,786,429

  Eastbourne

  732,093

  1,415,860

  5,539,408

  Hastings

  369,551

  257,679

  625,829

  South East Kent

  506,903

  460,096

  669,241

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1,174,349

  1,116,324

  1,960,503

  Dartford and Gravesham

  280,085

  229,967

  763,769

  Maidstone

  289,108

  261,487

  859,826

  Med way

  311,436

  407,419

  1,045,818

  Tunbridge Wells

  522,351

  480,926

  1,312,682

  Bexley

  425,864

  390,513

  802,547

  Greenwich

  568,170

  1,097,213

  2,190,993

  Bromley

  828,636

  675,352

  831,991

  Lewisham and Southwark

  70,941

  15,874

  716,047

  South East Thames Region Total

  8,430,405

  8,924,569

  22,641,460

  South West Thames RHA

  80,459

  143,490

  515,738

  24 25

  Total income

  Total expenditure

  Total capital reserves as at 31 March 1992

  £

  £

  £

  North West Surrey

  453,013

  343,897

  1,790,050

  West Surrey/North East Hampshire

  404,856

  593,280

  554,588

  South West Surrey

  570,403

  515,087

  1,577,867

  Mid Surrey

  210,262

  181,868

  494,854

  East Surrey

  804,419

  712,467

  1,239,190

  Chichester

  268,248

  298,155

  967,636

  Mid Downs

  326,388

  243,763

  1,280,200

  Worthing

  391,143

  237,407

  471,864

  Croydon

  311,344

  195,399

  1,506,654

  Kingston & Esher

  175,725

  135,138

  635,492

  Richmond Twickenham & Roehampton

  76,882

  32,085

  436,708

  Wandsworth

  242,218

  215,462

  1,770,282

  Sutton & Merton

  194,179

  83,322

  1,279,995

  South West Region Total

  4,509,539

  3,930,821

  14,501,118

  Wessex RHA

  89,580

  40,802

  1,054,546

  East Dorset

  1,422,407

  1,224,539

  3,590,101

  West Dorset

  32,592

  —

  351,629

  Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  1,621,902

  1,292,554

  4,509,323

  Southampton & South West Hampshire

  3,174,357

  2,130,265

  2,837,002

  Winchester

  627,546

  586,406

  1,238,502

  Basingstoke & North Hampshire

  354,013

  292,739

  1,042,287

  Salisbury

  958,418

  831,538

  3,205,956

  Swindon

  845,234

  600,982

  1,957,911

  Bath

  1,133,723

  1,190,861

  1,406,638

  Isle of Wight

  661,296

  392,068

  1,297,421

  Wessex Region Total

  10,921,068

  8,582,754

  22,491,316

  Oxford RHA

  27,216

  64,192

  298,431

  East Berkshire

  426,456

  299,798

  691,493

  West Berkshire

  847,828

  778,377

  1,614,048

  Aylesbury

  1,411,488

  1,058,712

  1,579,347

  Wycombe

  763,232

  564,361

  868,238

  Milton Keynes

  304,841

  220,298

  426,241

  Kettering

  1,079,692

  883,447

  1,114,259

  Northampton

  892,045

  805,532

  2,477,647

  Oxford

  5,731,653

  4,313,476

  10,865,195

  Oxford Region Total

  11,484,451

  8,988,193

  19,934,899

  South Western RHA

  . 39,664

  30,918

  261,857

  Bristol & District

  1,616,399

  1,504,247

  3,960,984

  Cornwall

  616,791

  555,687

  927,229

  Exeter

  979,456

  938,904

  1,433,056

  North Devon

  18,397

  46,721

  83,350

  Plymouth

  983,032

  893,916

  1,723,576

  Cheltenham

  1,817

  425

  13,887

  Gloucester

  1,179,012

  942,596

  1,264,001

  Somerset

  604,312

  639,672

  1,375,488

  South Western Region Total

  6,038,880

  5,553,086

  11,043,428

  West Midlands RHA

  169,765

  156,024

  614,697

  Bromsgrove

  151,642

  161,477

  405,932

  Hereford

  1,195,477

  531,675

  1,671,876

  Kidderminster

  230,127

  220,035

  458,164

  Worcester

  338,387

  387,657

  766,632

  Salop

  1,471,418

  1,317,795

  2,142,910

  Mid Staffordshire

  580,959

  865,940

  1,067,287

  North Staffordshire

  961,983

  787,667

  3,432,627

  South East Staffordshire

  301,693

  181,352

  1,173,033

  South Warwickshire

  907,294

  336,689

  1,482,508

  East Birmingham

  1,303,629

  1,113,730

  2,020,685

  North Birmingham

  612,983

  616,310

  686,609

  West Birmingham

  1,378,453

  1,182,094

  2,374,635

  Coventry

  959,605

  976,002

  1,629,905

  Dudley

  798,466

  882,845

  1,536,450

  Sandwell

  345,526

  352,015

  612,673

  Solihull

  228,988

  253,784

  934,185

  Walsall

  80,158

  92,877

  161,436

  Wolverhampton

  480,452

  617,537

  1,358,510

  North East Warwickshire

  416,405

  308,520

  786,468

  South Birmingham

  1,222,234

  853,961

  1,926,344

  26 27

  Total income

  Total expenditure

  Total capital reserves as at 31 March 1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  West Midlands Region Total

  14,131,744

  11,695,766

  27,243,566

  Mersey RHA

  1,125,689

  52,744

  1,470,317

  Chester

  258,632

  213,431

  632,182

  Crewe

  305,653

  376,872

  828,133

  Halton

  58,051

  61,688

  88,688

  Macclesfield

  219,557

  230,881

  582,909

  Warrington

  161,968

  167,061

  259,537

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  441,380

  453,314

  717,885

  Southport and Formby

  219,900

  353,182

  433,402

  South Sefton

  573,009

  359,988

  1,230,314

  Wirral

  1,186,835

  616,349

  2,399,798

  Mersey Region Total

  4,550,674

  2,885,510

  8,643,165

  North Western RHA

  56,201

  10,042

  600,220

  Lancaster

  497,805

  453,060

  683,320

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  930,311

  959,527

  1,362,766

  Preston

  732,498

  369,563

  1,457,944

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  456,047

  404,571

  2,165,241

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  363,963

  299,096

  711,806

  West Lancashire

  266,891

  299,815

  442,433

  Chorley and South Ribble

  66,625

  81,190

  102,901

  Bolton

  278,822

  863,022

  393,830

  Bury

  170,004

  140,173

  316,288

  North Manchester

  299,778

  255,683

  1,267,790

  Central Manchester

  149

  152

  (4)

  South Manchester

  3,162,853

  2,993,118

  4,318,515

  Oldham

  323,427

  247,811

  614,962

  Rochdale

  204,434

  155,158

  490,647

  Salford

  2,623,689

  2,345,722

  3,333,114

  Stockport

  472,128

  430,431

  886,384

  Tameside and Glossop

  395,682

  387,403

  1,031,041

  Trafford

  349,161

  258,370

  649,835

  Wigan

  327,395

  360,824

  666,380

  North Western Region Total

  11,977,863

  10,814,731

  21,495,399

  St. Bartholomew's

  8,745,436

  9,326,739

  61,594,568

  London Hospital

  4,472,814

  3,844,624

  17,657,547

  Royal Free Hospital

  4,367,877

  3,989,874

  10,900,046

  University College Hospital

  1,596,300

  1,026,716

  6,694,888

  Middlesex Hospital

  3,143,572

  5,080,477

  11,855,573

  Charing Cross Hospital

  1,415,906

  1,433,516

  6,762,681

  St. George's Hospital

  1,983,204

  1,490,294

  9,287,827

  Westminster Hospital

  1,366,459

  1,176,170

  9,793,011

  St. Mary's Hospital

  1,551,427

  833,069

  15,768,335

  Guy's Hospital

  12,517,034

  16,917,995

  47,308,026

  King's College Hospital

  1,942,221

  2,189,175

  8,897,575

  St. Thomas's Hospital

  16,782,339

  11,651,260

  69,882,489

  Hammersmith Hospital

  1,303,197

  1,277,862

  4,689,652

  Leeds Teaching Hospital

  860,062

  993,816

  4,754,133

  Sheffield

  895,600

  1,015,691

  8,141,192

  Bristol

  1,864,038

  2,033,252

  7,935,074

  Birmingham

  6,648,450

  6,485,447

  16,397,762

  Newcastle University

  1,102,572

  560,816

  8,745,826

  Nottingham University

  993,131

  964,845

  3,298,771

  Royal National Throat/Nose/Ear Hospital

  133,643

  100,483

  1,435,747

  Moorfields

  1,311,054

  391,958

  8,232,011

  St. Peters

  141,429

  645,524

  377,709

  Hospital for Sick Children

  15,372,597

  8,004,541

  28,309,099

  Queen Charlottes

  948,420

  680,529

  2,342,604

  Special Trustees Total

  91,458,762

  82,094,673

  371,062,144

  National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  905,112

  3,093,876

  2,335,233

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital

  2,179,543

  2,627,744

  20,682,594

  Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital

  3,084,856

  6,654,076

  3,876,225

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  5,468,010

  5,219,346

  17,275,264

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte

  14,032

  5,011

  137,897

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  23,706

  609

  46,335

  Special Health Authority Total

  11,675,259

  17,600,662

  44,333,548

  28 29

  Total income

  Total expenditure

  Total capital reserves as at 31 March 1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  The Freeman group of hospitals NHS trust

  815,564

  577,970

  1,504,696

  Leeds General Infirmary and Associated hospitals trust

  805,251

  424,913

  1,416,119

  St. James' University hospital trust

  985,479

  402,819

  2,724,866

  Northern General hospital Sheffield NHS trust

  741,109

  571,535

  980,324

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu hospital Mexborough trust

  568,220

  280,213

  763,244

  Anglian Harbours NHS trust

  827,847

  57,662

  730,434

  Southend Health Care Services trust

  572,734

  560,936

  997,977

  London hospital and associated community services trust

  43,411

  20,676

  322,521

  North Middlesex hospital NHS trust

  76,905

  90,424

  265,962

  North Hertfordshire NHS trust

  668,885

  134,004

  1,868,972

  Mount Vernon hospital NHS trust

  482,593

  457,437

  637,833

  Hillingdon hospital NHS trust

  536,657

  707,406

  549,429

  Central Middlesex hospital

  352,216

  338,864

  599,298

  Lifecare trust

  35,807

  50,012

  123,751

  Kingston hospital NHS trust

  357,038

  219,235

  1,149,789

  The Homewood NHS trust

  92,225

  64,431

  141,540

  St. Helier NHS trust

  255,941

  225,650

  1,122,580

  Croydon Community Health trust

  6,722

  8,080

  12,018

  Epsom Healthcare trust

  295,058

  190,118

  389,057

  Weston area health trust

  346,859

  463,648

  696,249

  East Gloucestershire NHS trust

  593,435

  479,897

  1,284,136

  Cornwall Community Healthcare trust

  249,628

  276,630

  238,126

  United Bristol Healthcare trust

  154,329

  292,353

  935,645

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly mental handicap services trust

  10,307

  7,339

  32,090

  South Devon Healthcare NHS trust

  728,297

  1,125,933

  933,802

  The Royal National hospital for Rheumatic diseases trust

  121,973

  31,158

  166,867

  West Dorset mental health services trust

  7,674

  12,642

  (4,968)

  West Dorset community services trust

  79,000

  53,000

  14,000

  Nuffield orthopaedic centre NHS trust

  79,054

  80,721

  260,320

  First community health trust

  19,710

  7,411

  39,393

  Mid Staffordshire mental health trust

  10,128

  10,892

  68,235

  The Rugby NHS trust

  77,294

  50,932

  274,617

  The Walsall hospitals trust

  341,324

  287,489

  642,080

  St. Helens and Knowsley hospital services trust

  415,097

  421,530

  618,762

  Cheshire and Halton community trust

  7,170

  5,552

  13,815

  Central Manchester NHS trust

  3,047,234

  2,124,033

  5,969,491

  Christie hospital trust

  10,190,119

  9,622,729

  11,293,851

  Lincolnshire ambulance service and health transport service trust

  15,033

  2,158

  26,359

  North Devon Healthcare trust

  580,872

  701,992

  1,604,685

  NHS Trust Totals

  24,889,781

  21,040,204

  41,407,965

  Sources:

  (a) 1991–92 annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England together with those of special trustees and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  (b) 1991–92 annual accounts of first wave NHS trusts in England.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional in that they are subject to audit by the National Audit Office.

  2. The figures of total income do not include gifts, donations and legacies of capital to be held in perpetuity. These receipts are, however, reflected in the total capital reserves which include the balances of funds to be held in perpetuity and represent the excess of the total assets (ie. property, investments, stock, debtors and cash) over the total liabilities (mainly creditors).

  3. A number of health authorities do not include statements for NHS charitable trust funds within their annual accounts as their funds are separately managed and accounted for by special trustees. Similarly, during 1991–92 some district health authorities and first wave NHS trusts deferred the transfer of responsibility for manageing and accounting for relevant charitable funds.

  Health Promotion Clinics
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health promotion clinics were functioning at 1 June 1992; and if she will list their cost and a breakdown of the various services and therapies being provided through those clinics at that time.
  30
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of clinics as at 1 June 1992 was not collected centrally. The number of claims made by partnerships in England for health promotion clinic sessions for the year ending 1 April 1992 was 1,331,277. The forecast total expenditure on health promotion clinics for the 1992–93 financial year is £74·448 million.

  There is no central breakdown of the services and therapies provided through health promotion clinics.

  Complementary Therapies
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the standards, qualifications and levels of competence of GPs providing extra services in the form of one or more of the non-conventional/complementary therapies are assessed and monitored; and by whom.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioners are required by their terms of service to render all necessary and appropriate medical services to their patients. When GPs provide services personally it is for them to ensure that they are appropriately qualified and competent to do so. GPs are responsible for the actions of staff they employ and their terms of service require them to be satisfied that employees are appropriately qualified and competent. GPs can obtain advice on qualifications and competence from their family health services authorities or the relevant associations which represent a particular complementary therapy.

  Foot Surgery
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the national health service of providing foot surgery; and what assessment has been made of the effect on this of imposing value added tax on children's footwear.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Value added tax is not charged on young children's footwear.

  Hepatitis B
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the cost to the NHS of screening a patient for hepatitis B.

  Mr. Sackville
  Such costs vary between laboratories. The cost of materials for a basic screen is about £4, and a final cost including overheads is likely to be between £10 and £20.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were found to be positive for hepatitis B antigen following screening as a result of being treated by the surgeon in Stafford.

  Mr. Sackville
  In addition to the original case at Stafford which led to the investigations, one further patient has been found at Stafford with evidence of recent hepatitis B infection, together with several others who show evidence of hepatitis B in their past history. Investigations are continuing to determine whether any of these infections can be shown to be linked to hospital treatment.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of recall of patients for hepatitis B screening treated by the surgeon in Stafford, both at his current and previous hospitals of employment.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand the estimated cost to date of screening patients from Stafford district general hospital is £1,100.

  The cost of screening patients from the Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock and the Ayrshire central hospital in Irvine is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  32
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to offer compensation to patients who have acquired hepatitis from their surgeons.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Compensation in relation to alleged failures in hospital treatment is a matter to be considered by the relevant health authority or trust.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has as to the number and percentage of surgeons who have been vaccinated against hepatitis B.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 24 March at column 619.

  Angina
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the conclusion published in 1992 in her Department's "Health Trends" that waiting time of up to six months was acceptable for surgical treatment of angina remains Government policy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's policy is that provision of cardiac services is the responsibility of health authorities taking account of local health needs and it is the responsibility of clinicians to determine the priority of treatment for patients in their care. Articles in "Health Trends" represent the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department.

  Eileen House
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 437, how many beds there are in the small flat at Eileen house; if she will list the other major items of furniture there; who is allowed access to the flat; and how much was spent refurbishing the flat.

  Mr. Sackville
  The flat is used as offices and contains office furniture: desks, seats and file storage units. It contains no beds. Departmental staff have access to these offices, which have not been refurbished.

  London Implementation Group
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list a full timetable for the work of the London implementation group on(a) changes to acute services and (b) the review of individual specialities; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the progress being made by the London implementation group on the future of (a) the Royal Brompton hospital, (b) the Royal Marsden hospital, (c) the Charing Cross hospital, (d) Queen Charlotte's hospital, (e) the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital and (f) the hospital for tropical diseases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The timetable for planning change in the inner-London acute sector was set out in our policy document "Making London Better". We have asked the London implementation group, working with the Thames regional health authorities and local purchasers and providers, to take forward the necessary studies, option appraisals and consultations according to this timetable.

  Primary Care (London)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list a detailed breakdown of the distribution of the funds for 1993–94 proposed for the improvement of primary care in London in her document, "Making London Better"; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  £40 million is available for primary care capital and revenue developments in the London initiative zone 1993–94. Local proposals for using these funds have been developed under the guidance of the Thames regions and will be considered by the London implementation group's primary health care forum.

  Applications have been invited against the sum of £7·5 million over three years available for voluntary sector developments in the LIZ area. Initial applications are expected by the end of April and will be considered by the Primary Health Care Forum. Further details of the arrangements for the London primary health care challenge fund will be published shortly.

  Parliamentary electors

  Ward electorates

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Present constituency

  Newbury district1

  103,388

  104,466

  105,336

  1. Aldermaston

  725

  719

  716

  Newbury CC

  2. Basildon

  1,820

  1,859

  1,848

  Newbury CC

  167

  166

  163

  Reading West CC

  1,987

  2,025

  2,011

  3. Beenham

  2,090

  2,069

  2,081

  Newbury CC

  4. Bradfield

  1,749

  1,776

  1,814

  Newbury CC

  65

  80

  89

  Reading West CC

  1,814

  1,856

  1,903

  5. Bucklebury

  1,558

  1,578

  1,605

  Newbury CC

  6. Burghfield

  5,026

  5,077

  5,107

  Newbury CC

  6

  6

  7

  Reading West CC

  5,032

  5,083

  5,114

  7. Calcot

  2,380

  2,381

  2,430

  Reading West CC

  8. Chieveley

  2,123

  2,265

  2,383

  Newbury CC

  9. Cold Ash

  3,018

  3,049

  3,076

  Newbury CC

  10. Compton

  2,575

  2,603

  2,652

  Newbury CC

  11. Craven

  4,261

  4,307

  4,400

  Newbury CC

  12. Downlands

  1,797

  1,783

  1,788

  Newbury CC

  13. Falkland

  4,561

  4,577

  4,563

  Newbury CC

  14. Greenham

  1,617

  1,607

  1,584

  Newbury CC

  15. Hungerford

  4,888

  4,937

  4,953

  Newbury CC

  16. Kintbury

  2,584

  2,612

  2,643

  Newbury CC

  17. Lambourn Valley

  4

  3

  3

  Devizes CC

  3,966

  4,104

  4,164

  Newbury CC

  3,970

  4,107

  4,167

  18. Mortimer

  219

  207

  220

  Basingstoke CC

  3,604

  3,616

  3,643

  Newbury CC

  3,823

  3,823

  3,863

  19. Northcroft

  1.925

  2,027

  2,019

  Newbury CC

  20. Pangbourne

  4

  5

  5

  Henley CC

  2,552

  2,581

  2,596

  Reading West CC

  2,556

  2,586

  2,601

  21. Purley

  2,954

  3,065

  3,067

  Reading West CC

  22. St. John's

  5,385

  5,339

  5,338

  Newbury CC

  23. Shaw-cum-Donnington

  1,293

  1,272

  1,304

  Newbury CC

  24. Speen

  2,525

  2,548

  2,585

  Newbury CC

  25. Thatcham North

  3,479

  3,464

  3,524

  Newbury CC

  Electoral Roll (Newbury)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 March, what are the district councils which cover part or all of the parliamentary constituency of Newbury; what are the latest available estimates from the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years for those district council areas; and what are their equivalent electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Newbury parliamentary constituency comprises most of Newbury district (with 81,106 of the total of 105,336 parliamentary electors on the 1993 registers) and a small part of Basingstoke and Deane district (with 833 of the 111,452 parliamentary electors in 1993), this information is shown in the table. The latest population estimates available relate to mid–1991. The estimates for residents aged 17 and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16, at that date are 108,900 in the whole of Newbury district and 114,600 in the whole of Basingstoke and Deane district.
  35

  Ward electorates

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Present constituency

  26. Thatcham South

  7,028

  7,149

  7,273

  Newbury CC

  27. Thatcham West

  4,333

  4,319

  4,342

  Newbury CC

  28. Theale

  0

  15

  16

  Newbury CC

  7,224

  7,406

  7,407

  Reading West CC

  7,224

  7,421

  7,423

  29. Tilehurst

  8,319

  8,248

  8,243

  Reading West CC

  30. Turnpike

  2,459

  2,530

  2,555

  Newbury CC

  31. Winchcombe

  3,105

  3,117

  3,130

  Newbury CC

  Basingstoke CC (pt)

  219

  207

  220

  Devizes CC (pt)

  4

  3

  3

  Henley CC (pt)

  4

  5

  5

  Newbury CC (pt)

  79,494

  80,318

  81,106

  Reading West CC (pt)

  23,667

  23,933

  24,002

  Basingstoke and Deane borough2

  110,103

  111,625

  111,452

  1. Basing

  5,802

  5,836

  5,804

  Basingstoke CC

  2. Baughurst and Heath End

  669

  661

  610

  Newbury CC

  3,376

  3,384

  3,407

  North West Hampshire CC

  4,045

  4,045

  4,017

  3. Brighton Hill

  6,221

  6,367

  6,310

  Basingstoke CC

  4. Brookvale

  4,280

  4,341

  4,290

  Basingstoke CC

  5. Buckskin

  4,552

  4,375

  4,304

  Basingstoke CC

  6. Burghclere

  1,903

  1,948

  1,904

  North West Hampshire CC

  7. Calleva

  6,120

  6,382

  6,437

  Basingstoke CC

  237

  232

  223

  Newbury CC

  6,357

  6,614

  6,660

  8. Chineham

  4,277

  4,459

  4,611

  Basingstoke CC

  9. Eastrop

  3,593

  3,574

  3,601

  Basingstoke CC

  10. East Woodhay

  1,924

  1,970

  1,964

  North West Hampshire CC

  11. Grove

  4,451

  4,403

  4,356

  Basingstoke CC

  12. Hatch Warren

  4,399

  4,920

  5,333

  Basingstoke CC

  13. Highclere and Bourne

  2,286

  2,300

  2,295

  North West Hampshire CC

  14. Kempshott

  5,671

  5,725

  5,666

  Basingstoke CC

  15. Kingsclere

  3,934

  3,963

  3,949

  North West Hampshire CC

  16. Norden

  5,339

  5,457

  5,377

  Basingstoke CC

  17. Oakley and North Waltham

  5,790

  5,811

  5,793

  Basingstoke CC

  18. Overton and Laverstoke

  3,234

  3,283

  3,294

  North West Hampshire CC

  19. Popley

  6,661

  6,605

  6,507

  Basingstoke CC

  20. Sherborne St. John

  1,846

  2,017

  2,011

  Basingstoke CC

  21. South Ham

  5,849

  5,756

  5,671

  Basingstoke CC

  22. Tadley

  6,230

  6,374

  6,368

  North West Hampshire CC

  23. Upton Grey

  2,081

  2,142

  2,141

  Basingstoke CC

  24. Whitchurch

  3,604

  3,613

  3,587

  North West Hampshire CC

  25. Winklebury

  5,774

  5,727

  5,639

  Basingstoke CC

  Basingstoke CC (pt)

  82,706

  83,897

  83,851

  Newbury CC (pt)

  906

  893

  833

  North West Hampshire CC (pt)

  26,491

  26,835

  26,768

  1 As altered by The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Surrey (County Boundaries) Order 1991 and The Newbury (Parishes) Order 1991.

  2 As altered by The Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Surrey (County Boundaries) Order 1991 and the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1992.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities existed in 1980–81, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; how many she expects to exist by the end of 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities were established by the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1981 (SI 81/1837). The information is shown in the table.
  36

  Number of District Health Authorities in England

  Date

  Number

  1981 (number established)

  192

  April 1990

  190

  April 1991

  186

  April 1992

  178

  March 1993 (current)

  173

  We cannot anticipate the outcome of merger proposals currently in hand, but if current proposals are agreed there will be 140 DHAs by March 1994.

  We will continue to consider merger proposals where they are in the interests of patients.
  37
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state for each district health authority in the four Thames regions(a) the revenue outturn for 1982–83, (b) the revenue outturn for 1991–92 in cash terms, (c) the revenue outturn for 1991–92 adjusted using the NHS pay and price index, (d) the 1992–93 revenue allocation including capital charge compensation, (e) the 1992–93 allocation excluding capital charge compensation and (f) the percentage difference between (a) and (e) adjusted using the NHS pay and price index.

  Revenue outturn 1982–83 (at 1982–83 cash)

  Revenue outturn 1991–92 (at 1991–92 cash)

  Revenue outturn 1991–92 (at 1982–83 cash)

  North West Thames RHA

  20,335,775

  57,619,199

  34,649,828

  North Bedfordshire

  29,878,953

  71,656,022

  43,090,999

  South Bedfordshire

  30,796,203

  86,066,794

  51,757,047

  North Hertfordshire

  19,771,127

  59,288,222

  35,653,510

  East Hertfordshire

  24,926,353

  88,002,384

  52,921,032

  North West Hertfordshire

  42,483,433

  102,570,343

  61,681,606

  South West Hertfordshire

  32,795,331

  87,009,205

  52,323,775

  Barnet

  59,776,548

  130,730,177

  78,615,778

  Harrow

  34,701,218

  88,397,307

  53,158,522

  Hillingdon

  46,374,090

  83,518,302

  50,224,489

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  45,496,873

  107,625,179

  64,721,378

  Ealing

  34,522,021

  103,110,478

  62,006,421

  Brent

  44,982,791

  —

  —

  Paddington

  54,116,453

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  44,470,597

  —

  —

  Victoria

  67,787,606

  —

  —

  Riverside

  —

  186,629,392

  112,231,278

  Parkside

  —

  238,303,679

  143,306,079

  North West Thames Regional Total

  633,215,372

  1,490,526,683

  896,341,742

  North East Thames RHA

  22,442,080

  189,715,331

  114,087,035

  Basildon and Thurrock

  42,406,907

  89,539,073

  53,845,134

  Mid Essex

  35,554,483

  93,892,755

  56,463,260

  North East Essex

  48,242,241

  103,239,520

  62,084,022

  West Essex

  29,864,213

  84,477,676

  50,801,417

  Southend

  35,084,701

  91,034,599

  54,744,482

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  62,219,351

  153,568,011

  92,349,517

  Hampstead

  58,524,732

  60,483,821

  36,372,494

  City and Hackney

  70,790,662

  107,363,560

  64,564,051

  Newham

  30,612,895

  99,756,200

  59,989,296

  Tower Hamlets

  60,463,479

  80,426,175

  48,365,010

  Enfield

  30,392,333

  96,196,452

  57,848,609

  Haringey

  36,483,041

  92,736,373

  55,767,859

  Redbridge

  32,057,915

  88,194,556

  53,036,596

  Waltham Forest

  55,667,325

  96,763,754

  58,189,761

  Bloomsbury

  107,685,280

  —

  —

  Islington

  42,185,088

  —

  —

  Bloomsbury and Islington

  —

  178,471,140

  107,325,239

  North East Thames Regional Total

  800,676,726

  1,705,858,996

  1,025,833,782

  South East Thames RHA

  19,143,996

  250,032,280

  150,359,180

  Brighton

  45,101,687

  104,263,976

  62,700,088

  Eastbourne

  34,656,520

  89,229,769

  53,659,131

  Hastings

  23,460,289

  58,655,280

  35,272,885

  South East Kent

  28,198,300

  83,818,882

  50,405,245

  Canterbury and Thanet

  49,788,466

  102,041,685

  61,363,693

  Dartford and Gravesham

  39,709,671

  74,250,536

  44,651,233

  Maidstone

  29,480,820

  60,676,123

  36,488,137

  Med way

  36,446,695

  92,556,936

  55,659,953

  Tunbridge Wells

  38,849,110

  60,611,414

  36,449,224

  Bexley

  30,536,484

  71,303,254

  42,878,859

  Greenwich

  54,158,630

  91,659,692

  55,120,387

  Bromley

  47,947,516

  110,819,831

  66,642,511

  West Lambeth

  70,519,544

  88,371,499

  53,143,003

  Camberwell

  57,456,272

  84,269,767

  50,676,389

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  94,966,664

  145,155,564

  87,290,615

  South East Thames Regional Total

  700,420,664

  1,567,716,488

  942,760,533

  South West Thames RHA

  15,748,269

  149,076,547

  89,648,534

  North West Surrey

  32,060,211

  72,956,823

  43,873,247

  38
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 22 February 1993]: The tables give for each district in the Thames regions the revenue outturn for 1982–83 and 1991–92 (derived from the published accounts) and the 1991–92 outturn at 1982–83 prices using the GDP deflator. The national health service pay and price index for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  Information on the 1992–93 allocations to districts, which will be the final cash limits for the financial year, is not held centrally.
  39

  Revenue outturn 1982–83 (at 1982–83 cash)

  Revenue outturn 1991–92 (at 1991–92 cash)

  Revenue outturn 1991–92 (at 1982–83 cash)

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  31,626,605

  75,794,712

  45,579,838

  South West Surrey

  29,056,845

  67,946,908

  40,860,490

  Mid Surrey

  36,006,038

  62,977,286

  37,871,962

  East Surrey

  41,247,221

  72,024,210

  43,312,412

  Chichester

  25,000,995

  60,116,349

  36,151,512

  Mid Downs

  36,279,451

  87,040,435

  52,342,555

  Worthing

  26,365,689

  82,473,837

  49,596,390

  Croydon

  50,933,963

  109,082,512

  65,597,758

  Kingston and Esher

  35,913,579

  68,653,248

  41,285,253

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  30,778,431

  96,517,808

  58,041,859

  Wandsworth

  80,822,843

  104,631,717

  62,921,232

  Sutton and Merton

  58,552,912

  132,302,204

  79,561,131

  South West Thames Regional Total

  530,393,053

  1,241,594,596

  746,644,173

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to assess the dangers arising from radon gas concentrations in dwellings; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government are advised on the risks of exposure to radon in the home by the National Radiological Protection Board, which has recommended action levels for exposure. The board's latest advice was endorsed by the independent advisory Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Envvironment, and has been accepted by Government. The Department is currently supporting a comprehensive case-control study of the incidence of lung cancer in the areas of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of radon in homes. The situation is being kept under close review.

  NHS Administrators
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers of administrators/ management employed in each regional health authority, district health authority and family health services authority, in England and Wales.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 10 March 1993]: The information requested for England is shown in the table. Sub-regional figures for 1991 are not available centrally. The figures for 1991 (the latest year for which figures are available) include staff in national health service trusts. Information on Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Administrative and clerical managerial grades, by regional health authority, England 1991

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Northern

  7,240

  720

  Yorkshire

  8,090

  1,130

  Trent

  10,540

  810

  East Anglian

  4,550

  560

  North West Thames

  8,660

  680

  North East Thames

  11,050

  1,310

  South East Thames

  10,800

  980

  South West Thames

  6,590

  650

  Wessex

  6,190

  850

  Oxford

  4,930

  520

  South Western

  7,680

  780

  West Midlands

  12,740

  1,440

  40

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Mersey

  6,160

  730

  North Western

  11,220

  990

  SHAs

  2,390

  290

  Others

  8,560

  910

  ENGLAND

  127,370

  13,340

  Administrative and clerical and managerial grades, by RHA and DHA, England 1990

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  120,040

  9,680

  Northern RHA

  6,940

  550

  Yorkshire RHA

  7,870

  930

  Trent RHA

  10,120

  600

  East Anglian RHA

  4,070

  480

  North West Thames RHA

  8,160

  80

  North East Thames RHA

  10,450

  1,030

  South East Thames RHA

  10,030

  780

  South West Thames RHA

  6,340

  520

  Wessex RHA

  5,840

  610

  Oxford RHA

  5,150

  420

  South Western RHA

  6,980

  610

  West Midlands RHA

  11,950

  1,060

  Mersey RHA

  5,810

  500

  North Western RHA

  10,070

  690

  Special Health Authorities

  1,840

  130

  FHSAs

  4,350

  640

  London Ambulance Service

  90

  —

  Other Statutory Authorities

  3,960

  40

  Northern RHA

  6,940

  550

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  470

  40

  Hartlepool

  220

  10

  North Tees

  340

  30

  South Tees

  690

  70

  East Cumbria

  320

  40

  South Cumbria

  320

  30

  West Cumbria

  260

  —

  Darlington

  300

  20

  Durham

  290

  20

  North West Durham

  170

  10

  South West Durham

  280

  20

  Northumberland

  490

  50

  Gateshead

  290

  20

  Newcastle

  1,350

  80

  North Tyneside

  270

  20

  South Tyneside

  240

  10

  Sunderland

  650

  70

  Yorkshire RHA

  7,870

  930

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  500

  140

  41

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Hull

  670

  70

  East Yorkshire

  340

  50

  Grimsby

  280

  30

  Scunthorpe

  350

  10

  Northallerton

  150

  20

  York

  500

  50

  Scarborough

  240

  20

  Harrogate

  280

  40

  Bradford

  690

  110

  Airedale

  320

  30

  Calderdale

  290

  20

  Huddersfield

  420

  40

  Dewsbury

  270

  20

  Leeds

  1,820

  210

  Wakefield

  440

  40

  Pontefract

  290

  30

  Trent RHA

  10,120

  600

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  740

  110

  North Derbyshire

  540

  0

  Southern Derbyshire

  1,030

  50

  Leicestershire

  1,690

  80

  North Lincolnshire

  540

  40

  South Lincolnshire

  490

  50

  Bassetlaw

  170

  10

  Central Nottinghamshire

  510

  60

  Nottingham

  1,520

  30

  Barnsley

  380

  50

  Doncaster

  480

  30

  Rotherham

  390

  30

  Sheffield

  1,640

  70

  East Anglian RHA

  4,070

  480

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  270

  60

  Cambridge

  680

  100

  Peterborough

  470

  40

  West Suffolk

  390

  30

  East Suffolk

  580

  60

  Norwich

  770

  80

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  360

  50

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  320

  30

  Huntingdon

  240

  40

  North West Thames RHA

  8,160

  80

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  330

  10

  North Bedfordshire

  430

  10

  South Bedfordshire

  440

  —

  North Hertfordshire

  270

  —

  East Hertfordshire

  430

  —

  North West Hertfordshire

  620

  30

  South West Hertfordshire

  330

  10

  Barnet

  750

  —

  Harrow

  420

  —

  Hillingdon

  600

  10

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  670

  —

  Ealing

  420

  10

  Riverside

  1,220

  10

  Parkside

  1,190

  10

  North East Thames RHA

  10,450

  1,030

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  670

  160

  Basildon and Thurrock

  520

  40

  Mid Essex

  480

  60

  North East Essex

  680

  30

  West Essex

  420

  60

  Southend

  570

  60

  Barking Havering and Brentwood

  750

  70

  Hampstead

  700

  50

  Bloomsbury

  1,070

  80

  Islington

  530

  50

  City and Hackney

  850

  60

  Newham

  460

  40

  Tower Hamlets

  840

  60

  42

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Enfield

  390

  40

  Haringey

  500

  40

  Redbridge

  400

  50

  Waltham Forest

  640

  80

  South East Thames RHA

  10,030

  780

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  600

  60

  Brighton

  730

  50

  Eastbourne

  460

  50

  Hastings

  360

  40

  South East Kent

  480

  40

  Canterbury and Thanet

  640

  50

  Dartford and Gravesham

  450

  40

  Maidstone

  370

  30

  Med way

  570

  60

  Tunbridge Wells

  450

  50

  Bexley

  490

  40

  Greenwich

  650

  40

  Bromley

  560

  50

  West Lambeth

  880

  60

  Camberwell

  940

  40

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  1,400

  90

  South West Thames RHA

  6,340

  520

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  640

  50

  North West Surrey

  410

  40

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  390

  40

  South West Surrey

  450

  50

  Mid Surrey

  350

  50

  East Surrey

  390

  40

  Chichester

  370

  30

  Mid Downs

  420

  40

  Worthing District

  410

  30

  Croydon

  530

  60

  Kingston and Esher

  160

  30

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  320

  10

  Wandsworth

  870

  60

  Merton and Sutton

  620

  10

  Wessex RHA

  5,840

  610

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  240

  60

  East Dorset

  840

  70

  West Dorset

  320

  40

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  890

  90

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1,050

  90

  Winchester

  340

  60

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  430

  40

  Salisbury

  310

  30

  Swindon

  460

  50

  Bath District

  720

  70

  Isle of Wight

  240

  10

  Oxford RHA

  5,150

  420

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  570

  50

  East Berkshire

  560

  40

  West Berkshire

  770

  30

  Aylesbury Vale

  370

  30

  Wycombe

  380

  30

  Milton Keynes

  320

  30

  Kettering

  350

  50

  Northampton

  580

  6Q

  Oxfordshire

  1,240

  110

  South Western RHA

  6,980

  610

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  450

  40

  Bristol and Weston

  1,180

  80

  Frenchay

  550

  40

  Southmead

  490

  50

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  610

  90

  43

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Exeter

  660

  50

  North Devon

  270

  30

  Plymouth

  700

  40

  Torbay

  470

  60

  Cheltenham and District

  350

  30

  Gloucester

  590

  60

  Somerset

  660

  40

  West Midlands RHA

  11,950

  1,060

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  1,120

  60

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  300

  30

  Herefordshire

  330

  10

  Kidderminster and District

  230

  30

  Worcester and District

  420

  30

  Shropshire

  660

  40

  Mid Staffordshire

  420

  80

  North Staffordshire

  930

  90

  South East Staffordshire

  440

  50

  Rugby

  130

  10

  North Warwickshire

  350

  20

  South Warwickshire

  390

  50

  Central Birmingham

  950

  80

  East Birmingham

  490

  40

  North Birmingham

  350

  30

  South Birmingham

  750

  50

  West Birmingham

  670

  60

  Coventry

  640

  80

  Dudley

  630

  70

  Sandwell

  460

  20

  Solihull

  280

  50

  Walsall

  450

  30

  Wolverhampton

  560

  40

  Mersey RHA

  5,810

  500

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  510

  50

  Chester

  420

  30

  Crewe

  440

  0

  Halton

  210

  20

  Macclesfield

  350

  20

  Warrington

  400

  40

  Liverpool

  1,410

  160

  St Helens and Knowsley

  570

  50

  Southport and Formby

  260

  40

  South Sefton

  560

  40

  Wirral

  690

  50

  North Western RHA

  10,070

  690

  RHA HQ and HQ Units

  980

  80

  Lancaster

  410

  40

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  510

  40

  Preston

  610

  50

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  510

  20

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  460

  40

  West Lancashire

  270

  30

  Chorley and South Ribble

  150

  20

  Bolton

  450

  30

  Bury

  280

  20

  North Manchester

  640

  30

  Central Manchester

  730

  30

  South Manchester

  940

  50

  Oldham

  380

  20

  Rochdale

  310

  10

  Salford

  700

  70

  Stockport

  500

  20

  Tameside and Glossop

  350

  30

  Trafford

  370

  30

  Wigan

  530

  20

  Special Health Authorities

  1,840

  130

  Hospitals for Sick Children

  290

  30

  Nat Hospital for Nervous Diseases

  200

  20

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  170

  —

  44

  Administrative and clerical

  General and senior managers

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals

  160

  10

  National Heart and Chest

  300

  30

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  270

  20

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's Hospital

  380

  10

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  60

  —

  FHSA

  4,350

  640

  Northern RHA

  290

  30

  Yorkshire RHA

  350

  60

  Trent RHA

  350

  60

  East Anglian RHA

  180

  30

  North West Thames RHA

  240

  30

  North East Thames RHA

  340

  40

  South East Thames RHA

  340

  50

  South West Thames RHA

  340

  50

  Wessex RHA

  230

  40

  Oxford RHA

  260

  50

  South Western RHA

  270

  30

  West Midlands RHA

  590

  90

  Mersey RHA

  150

  20

  North Western RHA

  430

  70

  London Ambulance Service

  90

  —

  Other Statutory Authorities

  3,960

  40

  1. Figures are in whole-time equivalents and are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. —denotes less than 5.

  3. Family Health Service Authority figures for 1990 are only available as regional totals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to introduce new laws relating to the organisation or funding of political parties; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consider legislation to require political parties to make public their financial supporters.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to introduce any such legislation.

  Bill of Rights
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the introduction of a Bill of Rights or a written constitution during the lifetime of this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the speeches he has made on the environment since April 1992; and what commitments he has made to additional investment in the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government consider that environmental concerns should be reflected across the whole spectrum of policy. The environment has accordingly figured frequently in the speeches which my colleagues and I have made. The environment was central in my speech to the Earth summit at Rio in June 1992, as it was when I spoke in Birmingham last week at the global technology partnership conference.
  45
  The Chancellor's autumn statement included figures for public investment in the environment, but investment by private enterprises and individuals is even more important. Accurate figures are hard to derive, but we estimate that about 2·5 per cent. of our gross domestic product is spent directly on environmental purposes.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in the Cabinet Office are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures for women employed in the Cabinet Office, including its executive agencies, are as follows:

  Grades (and equivalents)

  Women

  Total

  Percentage women

  1

  0

  5

  0

  2

  2

  8

  25

  3

  1

  25

  4

  4

  0

  3

  0

  5

  16

  41

  39

  6

  19

  45

  42

  7

  63

  264

  24

  Overall

  1,330

  2,634

  50

  The ethnic monitoring programme was carried out on a voluntary basis and did not extend to the Cabinet Office's agencies. Of those who responded, 62 people (2·3 per cent. of the total) chose to register as non-white. One of these is at grade 7 level.

  The Cabinet Office's figures on staff with disabilities include only those who have chosen to register as disabled. Twenty-eight people (1 per cent. of the total) are so registered. None is at grade 7 level or above. The Cabinet Office employs other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register. The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer, and emphasises this fact in its advertisements.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 138, what percentage of unemployment is consistent with his aim to seek full employment.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 8 March 1993 at column 392.

  South Africa
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the testing of nuclear devices by South Africa in the Kalahari.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no evidence that South Africa has conducted nuclear tests. We have noted President de Klerk's statement that South Africa never carried out a clandestine nuclear test.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed of the existence of South Africa's nuclear bombs.

  The Prime Minister
  I was informed that South Africa had built six nuclear devices by President de Klerk's statement on 24 March.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 467, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the resumption of negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty during 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 22 March at column 467.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the possible contribution of the comprehensive test ban treaty towards the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty extension conference.

  The Prime Minister
  We believe the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty is in the interests of all signatories. The case for its extension is strong regardless of progress towards a comprehensive test ban, and we believe it is wrong to see NPT extension as dependent on achieving a comprehensive test ban.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an independent public inquiry into effective strategies for sheep scab control in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints he has received concerning the leaflet on sheep scab produced by his Department last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  A number of complaints have been received about an error regarding the application of the control of substances hazardous to health regulations to the dipping operation; this is being rectified.

  Integrated Administration and Control
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rights inspectors will have to enter on to farms and demand production of records to check the accuracy of information given in connection with the integrated administration and control system.

  Mr. Curry
  We shall shortly be laying before the House regulations which will provide the powers of entry to farms and access to records in connection with the integrated administration and control system necessary to undertake the control procedures required to meet EC obligations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to raise with(a) the European Commission and (b) the other members of the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers the co-ordination of the integrated administration and control system for farms in each member state; and what steps he will take to ensure that British farmers are not subject to more rigorous requirements than farmers elsewhere in the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  At the March meeting of the Agriculture Council, my right hon. Friend emphasised that it was
  47
  crucial for the European Commission to ensure that the integrated administration and control system was implemented fully and uniformly throughout the EC.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the proposed penalties as outlined in the draft booklet RSAS 4 Dec. (1) issued by his Department for late and inaccurate forms submitted in connection with the integrated administration and control system.

  Mr. Curry
  The penalties for late and/or inaccurate forms in connection with IACS are laid down in Community legislation and consequently apply equally in all EC member states. The IACS is intended to help control CAP expenditure and penalties for infringements of the rules have to be set accordingly.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the procedure to appeal against his Department's decisions relating to forms submitted in accordance with the intregrated administration and control system.

  Mr. Curry
  It is open to any farmer to contact his regional service centre if he is dissatisfied.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that deregulation is being applied to the forms required for the integrated administration and control system to keep them as simple as possible.

  Mr. Curry
  The forms have to reflect the requirements of the EC legislation. Subject to this, we have made the forms as simple as possible for farmers to understand.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the effect of the integrated administration and control system on the transfer of land from one occupier to another.

  Mr. Curry
  This mater is covered in the explanatory booklet on the integrated administration and control system.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what opportunities there will be to correct genuine errors on integrated administration and control system forms after 15 May.

  Mr. Curry
  The booklet on the integrated administration and control system will set out conditions for the correction of genuine errors.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the application forms for the integrated administration and control system to be published.

  Mr. Curry
  An explanatory booklet on the integrated administration and control system and area aid application forms will be dispatched to farmers in England and Wales on 2 April. Copies have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mineral Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will take steps to enforce the ban on the use of mineral hydrocarbons; and if he will make a statement.
  48
  Mr. Soames
  The results of studies of mineral hydrocarbons are currently being examined by the scientific committees that advise Ministers on food safety issues. No decisions will be taken until this independent expert assessment has been completed and the committees' recommendations have been received.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the food products which use mineral hydrocarbons in their manufacture.

  Mr. Soames
  I am aware that mineral hydrocarbons are used in the United Kingdom in the manufacture of base components for chewing gum and rind for whole pressed cheese. I am informed that certain other permitted uses have been discontinued. However, detailed information on remaining uses will be available when the independent expert committees that advise the Government on food safety have completed the examination of this subject on which they are currently engaged.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Curry
  Consultancy fees totalling £429,037 were paid to KPMG Peat Marwick, Touche Ross and Price Waterhouse between the financial years 1987–88 and 1991–92. A further breakdown of figures cannot be given, as this information is classified commercial in confidence. These consultancy firms were involved in nine areas of work in my core Department. This answer excludes contracts made for IT work and those made by executive agencies. Information on the precise nature of the contracts and their duration is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Agricultural Tourism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farmers' revenue was derived from agricultural tourism in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available. A survey undertaken by the university of Exeter in 1989 and 1990 on a sample of 330 full-time farms which had diversified in England and Wales showed that income from the diversified activity contributed 11·4 per cent. on average to aggregate business income on the farm.

  Lambs and Kids
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he intends to act on the 1987 FAWC report on the welfare of animals at market, in respect of a ban on the sale of lambs and goat kids under four weeks old at market unless at the foot of their dams;

  (2) what is the number of unaccompanied lambs that have been sold at livestock markets in the current year;

  (3) what action he is taking to enforce the MAFF Code on the Welfare of Animals in Livestock Markets (1990) in relation to unaccompanied lambs and kids.
  49
  Mr. Soames
  In respect of the marketing of orphan or unaccompanied lambs, the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 (S.I. No. 2628), together with the guidance set out in the MAFF code of practice on the welfare of animals in livestock markets, implement the recommendations made by FAWC in its report. The FAWC report made no recommendation about banning the sale of lambs and goat kids in markets. The code of practice, which provides guidance and advice, has been drawn to the attention of all concerned with enforcement of the legislation.

  Information on the numbers of unaccompanied lambs sold at markets is not collected centrally.

  Basking Sharks
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of basking sharks caught in the United Kingdom waters in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Curry
  Although, under an EC fishery agreement, Norway could take basking sharks in United Kingdom waters, between 1987 and 1990 no basking sharks were taken. Figures for later years are not yet available. In addition, there is a very small and sporadic United Kingdom fishery.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the recruitment of basking shark stocks in United Kingdom waters.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom Fisheries Departments collect no data on the recruitment to the stocks of basking shark which move into our waters.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research his Department has commissioned into the status, breeding success and wintering patterns of the basking shark.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1988, the marine laboratory, Aberdeen, published a survey of scientific knowledge of the basking shark. It concluded that this shark was not under threat. The fishery in recent years has been minimal. The MLA continues to monitor and collect data.

  Grants and Subsidies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each type of grant and subsidy and the amount provided for each for the 1993–94 budget, where the grants or subsidies are decided by his Department independent of CAP commitments.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures for the 1993–94 provision in respect of the main grants and subsidies can be found in the Ministry's February 1993 departmental report (Cm 2203), a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Further details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total weekly cost of keeping open those British Coal collieries at which regular production has ceased.
  50
  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest available figures for the sterling price per tonne of coal imported into the United Kingdom from Australia and China.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average costs of imported coal from Australia and China in 1992 were £32·73 and £31·40 per tonne respectively.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subject to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the last year, my Department has launched a number of market tests in areas which could be described as providing a professional service. The full list of tests was published in "The Citizen's Charter, First report: 1992"—Cm 2101. These tests are due to be completed by September 1993. Information on the forward market: testing programme is unavailable as it is still under preparation.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish an estimate of the return on investment in the THORP project based on(a) a 10 per cent. discount rate, (b) a 12 per cent. discount rate, (c) an 8 per cent. discount rate including interest during construction, (d) a 10 per cent. discount rate, including interest during construction and (e) a 12 per cent. discount rate, including interest during construction.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent his Department will be using the Touche Ross report in its assessment of the future of THORP; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 17 December 1992, Official Report, column 477.

  Drinks Measures
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards section 43 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 relating to beer or cider and froth.

  Mr. Leigh
  As part of the Government's dereguation initiative, my Department is reassessing the costs and benefits of the implementation of section 43. Interested parties have been asked to provide information relevant to this reassessment and their replies are being considered.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what formal discussions he has had with the European Commission on the possible re-authorisation of the
  51
  non-fossil fuel obligation, under article 92(3) of the EC treaty, in order to remove Electricité de France's non-leviable status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has placed in the Library of the House a summary of legal advice received on trade in electricity across the interconnector with France. As that indicated, EdF's non-leviable status could not be removed without giving EdF the benefit of levy payments. In view of this, my right hon. Friend does not propose to pursue this with the Commission.

  Electricity
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department was first informed of the application by Rich and Co. for a licence to supply electricity; what steps were taken to interview its chairman; when his Department was first informed of Offer's decision to grant a licence to Rich and Co.; if he will give details of the involvement of his Department in the decision to grant the licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The authority to grant second tier supply licences was delegated by the Secretary of State to the Director General of Electricity Supply at the time of vesting in March 1990. The Department is neither consulted not informed of applications for, or the award of, second tier supply licences as the approval of the Department is not required in such cases.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list his statutory duties, and those of the Director General of Electricity Supply, under the Electricity Act 1989 in respect of the award of licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The statutory duties of the President and of the Director General of Electricity Supply are set out in section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the Government's review of nuclear power will commence; and what will be the terms of reference;

  (2) how far in advance of the Government's nuclear review the terms of reference will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: My Department's White Paper on the prospects for coal was published on Thursday 25 March. The White Paper contains the following statement in paragraph 16.6:
  "The Government will bring forward work on its review (of the future prospects for nuclear power) and will make a further announcement later this year."

  Manufacturing, Planning and Implementation Scheme
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received to date for the manufacturing, planning and implementation scheme.

  Mr. Heseltine
  To date, a total of 191 applications have been received. Fifty-two grants have been awarded, with a further 90 applications currently being processed. The 52
  scheme as announced on 19 February 1991 was for a three-year period to start on 1 June 1991 and end on 31 May 1994. To allow detailed appraisal no further applications will be considered after 31 May 1993.

  Colliery Review
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the contribution to the gross domestic product of each of the 31 pits in the colliery review process from each year since 1987–88 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member on 22 March, Official Report, column 454.

  Domestic Fuel
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the percentage of households in each region and in the United Kingdom who rely mainly on(a) oil, (b) piped gas, (c) cylinder gas, (d) electricity and (e) coal as as source of domestic fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that households main energy sources are as follows:

  Per cent.

  (a) Oil

  3

  (b) Piped gas

  74

  (c) Cylinder gas

  n.a.

  (d) Electricity

  12

  (e) Coal

  9

  Source: DTI estimates, using Building Research Establishment data. n.a. not available.

  These estimates relate to Great Britain only; United Kingdom and regional data are unavailable. They are based on households' main heating fuel. Heating is the dominate use of energy in most households.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bletchley Park Memorial
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his response to proposals to establish Bletchley Park as a memorial to those who worked there during world war II.

  Mr. Howard
  I have made it clear that I welcome the proposal to create at Bletchley Park a visible memorial to the war-time activities that took place there. The Bletchley Park Trust is at present reviewing its plans for such a development, including purchase of the site owned by the Government and BT once this becomes surplus to requirements later this year. I look forward to constructive discussions with the trust.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith),Official Report, 10 March, column 629, if he will list (a) the scope

  53
  of the selective monitoring for radioactive pollution in private water supplies, (b) the consultants contracted and (c) the value of the contracts to which he makes reference.

  Mr. Maclean
  The monitoring provides for 100 samples from private water supplies in a given area of the United Kingdom to be taken and analysed each year. The areas covered by the current three-year contract, which is with ICI Tracerco, are: Beverley, East Yorkshire—1990; Dolgellau, north Wales—1991; Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland—1992. The value of the contract over this three-year period is £143,299 excluding VAT.

  Council Tax, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Lambeth are liable to pay the council tax; and what number fall into each band.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of dwellings in each valuation band on the proposed valuation list sent to the London borough of Lambeth in November 1992 was as follows:

  Council tax band

  Number of dwellings

  A

  3,556

  B

  30,838

  C

  34,126

  D

  24,328

  E

  11,647

  F

  8,985

  G

  4,596

  H

  244

  TOTAL.

  118,320

  The Department does not hold information about the number of households liable to pay the council tax. The number involved will be different from the number of dwellings shown above to the extent that there are more empty or exempt dwellings than dwellings which are occupied by more than one household.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the organisation R ed Alert about measures needed to preserve the indigenous red squirrels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have had no discussions with Red Alert about the preservation of red squirrels. Research by Red Alert is supported by grant aid from English Nature, the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation, and regular contact is maintained between the two organisations. I am very much aware of the threat to our indigenous red squirrels and will encourage all measures to help them.

  Oil Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for further interim action to protect the United Kingdom coastline against oil pollution from merchant ships in advance of the report of the Donaldson inquiry.
  54
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave to the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Hague) on 26 February 1993 at column 696 on the interim measures that have been voluntarily agreed by the shipping industry pending Lord Donaldson's report. If further measures seem essential, we shall take them.

  Environmental Action Fund
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all groups which have received funds from the environmental action fund for the 1993–94 financial year and the amounts granted to each group.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 15 March,Official Report, column 83.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline his criteria for deciding which groups receive funding from the environmental action fund for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  Applications to the environmental action fund were assessed against the priorities I announced when launching the fund on 20 July 1992, the extent to which the proposals would produce tangible benefits to the environment, and the degree to which they would provide value for money.

  Women and the Environment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which environmental groups have been funded by his Department which deal specifically with women and the environment for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such groups were funded under our original invitation to apply, but the townswomen's guilds later sought funding for an environmental project, and I am looking sympathetically at their request.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action has been taken to clarify the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in respect of the definition of transferral of an economic entity with regard to the compulsory competitive tendering of public services;

  (2) what are the reasons for the non-application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and the EC acquired rights directive with regard to a normal contract let under the compulsory competitive tendering legislation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 11 March that he had issued and placed in the Library guidance on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection or Employment)—TUPE—Regulations 1981 to the market testing of public services, including the contracting-out of local authority services following compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—Official Report, column 648. As the guidance indicates, the contracted-out provision of a service is not affected by the TUPE regulations unless it

  55
  involves the transfer of an undertaking in the terms of the regulations—that is to say, the transfer of an economic entity which is capable of operating as a going concern, and which retains its identity. Whether or not a particular case of contracting-out following CCT involves such a transfer will depend on the nature of the service in question, and the arrangements under which the contractor carries out the provision of the service.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make regulations and issue guidance to ensure that local authorities seek competitive tenders for services in a fair manner.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have today laid before the House regulations made under section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992. These come into force on 10 May, when guidance will be issued.

  The regulations and guidance meet our commitment in the Government's Green Paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in Provision of Local Services" to establish a clear statutory framework for compulsory competitive tendering. They will ensure that competition for local services is fair, allowing local taxpayers to receive quality services which offer value for money.

  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities in England which are to undergo a structural reorganisation following the Local Government Commission's recommendations will also be required to seek tenders for work under the compulsory competitive tendering legislation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This Government are committed to efficient, effective local government. The work of the Local Government Commission in England and the compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—regime both have an important part to play in achieving this aim.

  Reorganisation of boundaries and responsibilities is bound to put extra pressures on local authorities. Moreover, existing arrangements for the provision of services will not necessarily be appropriate for the reorganised authority structure. We therefore intend that local authorities which, following a review by the Local Government Commission, are about to undergo a structural reorganisation, or have recently undergone such a reorganisation, will be exempt for a short period from the obligatory requirements of CCT. In doing so, we also intend to protect the interests of contractors engaged by the local authority.

  For those services already subject to CCT under the Local Government Act 1988, local authorities will be seeking to retender work throughout the period over which the commission will be conducting reviews of English authorities. We intend that the local authority undergoing restructuring will be exempt from the statutory requirement to seek competitive tenders before the work can be awarded to their own direct services organization—DSO. This exemption will start from the date at which Parliament approves the statutory instrument making the structural change. New authorities will then be required to start CCT tendering as soon as possible after their setting-up, so as to have new contracts in operation within 18 months of reorganisation, or sooner.
  56
  Similar exemption provisions will apply to services subject to CCT under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 10 November 1992 Official Report, column 743, the Government's intention to extend CCT to local authority construction-related and corporate services. We intend that these services will be brought into the CCT regime from 1995–96, and a detailed timetable will be announced shortly. The Government recognise that it is particularly important for the arrangements for the key corporate services to reflect the structural organisation of the authority concerned.

  We therefore intend that, as with services already subject to CCT, any local authority which is undergoing a structural change will similarly be exempt, for the period immediately before and after reorganisation, from the statutory requirement to seek competitive tenders for these services before work can be awarded to their own DSO.

  The provisions I have described will not apply to metropolitan districts and London boroughs. Nor will they apply to those authorities which, following review, are not subject to structural reorganisation.

  My Department will give careful consideration to the position of authorities which do not fall to be considered by the Commission until after the date at which new services become subject to CCT. The general exemptions described above will not apply to these authorities, but it may nevertheless be inappropriate to introduce com-petition for new services where a reorganisation may shortly follow.

  These general exemptions are intended to allow for a smooth transition to successor authorities and the continued effective operation of CCT thereafter. I anticipate they will affect only a relatively small proportion of the contracts let by English local authorities at any one time. They will relieve both local authorities and contractors tendering for this work from the uncertainties surrounding the reorganisation process.

  While these arrangements remove the mandatory requirement on the authorities concerned, authorities will have the freedom to continue competitive tendering throughout the reorganisation period, where they judge this to be sensible, and with appropriate consultation with shadow successor authorities.

  There are a number of technical issues relating to the reorganisation of DSOs and the protection of existing contractual arrangements. My Department will issue more detailed advice on the operation of CCT where local authorities are undergoing structural change in due course.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made within the Property Services Agency to deal with inquiries in respect of prospective buyers of the agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redmond
  Inquiries in respect or prospective buyers of the PSA Building Management businesses are dealt with by the privatisation and strategy directorate within the Property Services Agency or by the press office as appropriate. Statements will be made when contracts have been exchanged with the preferred buyers of the different businesses, probably in early summer.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department gave to global warming considerations when considering proposals to increase domestic roof, wall and floor insulation standards in the Building Regulations part L revision.

  Mr. Baldry
  As stated in the consultation letter covering the proposals to review part L of the Building Regulations, these have been brought forward now because of growing environmental concerns and the Government's commitment to return CO2, emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish technical information supplied to his Department by the Building Research Establishment and the National House Building Council, which his Department has considered in reaching its proposal not to increase current United Kingdom insulation standards in domestic roofs, walls and floors in the current Building Regulations part L revision.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proposals for the revision of part L of the Building Regulations would increase significantly current insulation standards in domestic roofs, walls and floors by requiring more demanding calculation pro-cedures, requiring improved insulation around window and door openings, and by not permitting lower standards of wall, floor and roof insulation where double-glazing is used. In addition, views are being invited on improving U-values for roof and floor insulation. Estimates made by the Building Research Establishment of the costs and savings of the proposals were included in the summary paper deposited in the Library of the House on 26 January 1993.

  Defence Personnel (Housing)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue a circular to local authority housing departments, regarding the requirement of military authority possession orders for ex-service families and other irregular occupants of Ministry of Defence garrison properties, seeking to prove their eligibility for social housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  Advice to local authorities about this is already given in paragraph 10·21 of the "Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities", (third edition). That advice will be included in the draft text of an updated circular on housing for ex-service personnel, on which we intend to shortly to consult the local authority associations and other interested parties.

  Burghfield Base
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underlay the removal of Burghfield base, national grid ref. SU 6668, from the Ordnance Survey maps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The feature was removed from editions of maps published later than 1976 at the request of the owning authority; it is not considered to be in the national interest to publish details of the site. The need to impose restrictions on published material is regularly reviewed to ensure that detail is not unnecessarily withheld.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those commercial organisations which have placed contracts with the Building Research Establishment over the last three years for which figures are available; and what their contribution to the Building Research Establishment's income has been.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Building Research Establishment's list of firms and organisations for whom it has undertaken technical consultancy work is subject to normal client confidentiality. The total income earned from such clients over the last three financial years was:—

  £ million

  1989–90

  1·8

  1990–91

  2·9

  1991–92

  2·7

  Planning Appeals (Costs)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce the outcome of his review of the policy guidance, in his Department's circular 2/87, for the award costs to parties in appeals under town and country planning and other legislation.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have today issued a comprehensive circular, giving policy guidance on the criteria for awards of parties' costs in planning and other similar proceedings. This guidance replaces the present DOE circulars 2/87 and 23/91—Welsh Office Circulars 5/87 and 77/91. A copy of the circular has been placed in the parliamentary Libraries.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish how many disabled people have been disqualified from receiving reductions in their council tax because their properties have been placed in hand A; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of dwellings in band A which might qualify for a reduction could be determined only by asking residents of such properties to make applications. Such a request would be pointless, frustrating for the applicant and administratively costly.

  Homeless Families (Cooking Facilities)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information local authorities are required to keep on the type and standard of cooking facilities available to homeless families placed in temporary accommodation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The "Homelessness Code of Guidance to Local Authorities" issued by my Department advises authorities to ensure that temporary accommodation meets acceptable standards; this would include the standard of cooking facilities. It is for each authority to decide what information to hold about this.

  Mackmurdo Building
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received about the demand by Cadogan Estates that their leaseholder, the John Lewis Partnership, demolish the listed Mackmurdo building.

  Mr. Baldry
  No formal information has been received by the Secretary of State.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications for opencast mining have been made and approved in each of the last five years; and what was the expected quantity of coal indicated.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: This information is not held centrally. According to statistics compiled by the County Planning Officers Society's Committee No. 3, however, the information requested is as shown in the table.

  Number of applications

  Number approved

  Tonnage (thousands)

  1987–88

  90

  60

  13,746

  1988–89

  100

  66

  28,389

  1989–90

  80

  49

  10,525

  1990–91

  118

  79

  12,722

  1991–92

  91

  63

  10,195

  Water Quality (Norfolk)
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the six beaches in Norfolk which failed tests for enteroviruses in 1991 were not tested for enteroviruses in 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: National Rivers Authority policy is to test for enteroviruses where the coliform standards were not met the previous season. Two of the six were tested in 1992, the other four met the coliform standards in 1991.

  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inland waters in Norfolk conform to the definition of bathing area in article 1 of the water quality directive EC 76/160.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The Department is not aware of any that fall within the definition.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list United Kingdom-designated or candidate special protection areas under directive 79/409/EEC.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: Sixty-nine special protection areas have now been designated in the United Kingdom and the Government are firmly committed to designating further sites. Details of designated and potential sites have been placed in the Library.

  Polluted Land
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions are specified for standards to which ground stabilisation and chemical pollution are to be treated for land which is subject to Government grants for its redevelopment.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]The Department normally expects reclamation to be carried out in accordance with the current professional codes of practice applicable to the engineering operations involved, whether they be the stabilisation of ground or the treatment of contamination.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount has been allocated by his Department under the hedgerow incentive scheme for each year from 1992–93 to 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: The following amounts have been made available to the Countryside Commission for this purpose:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–

  0·55

  1993·94

  1·25

  1994·95

  1·75

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring his Department is carrying out with regard to the implementation of the hedgerow incentive scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: Consultants have been appointed to monitor the implementation of the scheme over its first three years. Agreements made under the scheme extend over a 10-year period, under which farmers and landowners are required not only to restore specific hedgerows, but to manage positively all the hedgerows on their land in an environmentally sympathetic way. The Countryside Commission has the means to ensure that works are properly carried out in accordance with the agreements made, and to recover grant where appropriate.

  Services Resettlement
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location of blocks of flats which have been transferred to housing associations under the arrangements set up for services resettlement giving the names of the housing associations involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  In line with the recommendations of the Ministry of Defence's housing task force, surplus married quarters which are not suitable for sale to service personnel at a discount are now being offered in the first instance to housing associations at a discount in return for nomination rights. To date the following sales have been completed:
  108 flats at Stamshaw, Portsmouth; Portsmouth Housing Association.

  61
  12 flats Renown Gardens, Lovedean: Portsmouth Housing Association.
  18 flats, Ashley Court and Hutfield Court, Gosport; Portsmouth Housing Association.
  12 flats, Wyvern Villas, Bristol: Haig Homes.
  32 houses at Shawbury: Bromford Corinthia Housing Association.

  We also have deals in Chatham, Gosport and Plymouth which we hope to complete shortly. In addition, deals in Plymouth, Woolwich, Portsmouth and Finningley are under negotiation.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total quantity of toxic waste exported from Britain to non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992; and what it is expected to be in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no generally accepted definition of toxic waste. The nearest equivalent would be hazardous waste defined by the OECD red and amber lists. The total amount exported from the United Kingdom to non-OECD countries was 15,000 tonnes in 1990, 16,300 tonnes in 1991 and 9,000 tonnes in 1992.

  We could provide an estimate for 1993 and 1994 only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a right of appeal for individuals against the issuing of section 42 certificates under the Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989; and what steps he is taking to ensure individuals can discover the nature of the allegations made.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no plans to introduce a right of appeal. This question was considered in detail before and during the passage of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and an undertaking was given that the matter would be kept under review. This remains the Government's position.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many section 42 certificates applying to Northern Ireland Electricity were issued under the Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989 in each year since their introduction; and what were the numbers for the various religious categories of complainants.

  Mr. Atkins
  Fourteen certificates relating to Northern Ireland Electricity have been issued under section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 (as amended). Three were issued in 1981, three in 1984, two in 1987, four in 1988, one in 1989 and one in 1990. Twelve of the complainants were Roman Catholics and two were Protestants.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of section 42 certificates issued each year under the Fair Employment Act 1976 and its equivalent under the Fair Employment Act 1989 by employer and by religious category for public and private concerns.
  62
  Mr. Atkins
  I am informed by the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission that the number of certificates issued each year under section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976, as amended, is as follows:

  Number

  1977

  —

  1978

  4

  1979

  —

  1980

  3

  1981

  3

  1982

  1

  1983

  1

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  6

  1989

  1

  1990

  4

  1991

  —

  1992

  4

  1993

  —

  Of the complainants, 30 were Roman Catholics and five were Protestants. In 20 cases the employer was a Government Department and in 15 cases the employer was a public body or a publicly owned company.

  Hospital House Officers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new house officer and senior house officer posts were created in the Belfast City and Royal Victoria hospitals in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The information is as follows:

  House officers

  Senior House officers

  Year

  Belfast City hospital

  Royal Victoria hospital

  Belfast City hospital

  Royal Victoria hospital

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1984

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1985

  —

  5

  3

  3

  1986

  —

  —

  8

  9

  1987

  7

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  8

  3

  1989

  —

  —

  5

  2

  1990

  1

  —

  5

  3

  1991

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new house officer and senior house officer posts were created in the Downe hospital, Downpatrick and the Downpatrick maternity hospital in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: During the period 1983 to 1991, no new house officer posts were created in the Downe hospital or Downpatrick maternity hospital. One senior house officer post was created in Downe hospital in 1989. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  House officer and senior house officer posts are primarily for training and should not be established solely to meet a service need. Where there is such a need, the appointment of a career grade doctor should be considered.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Children's Play Facilities
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the amount spent annually per child on play facilities by national and local Government.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hospital Broadcasting
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance he has given to the Radio Authority regarding the priority to be attached to applications for access to the FM spectrum for hospital broadcasting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not given any guidance. The Radio Authority is responsible for licensing and for its procedures and priorities.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 653, when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a full reply to his letter.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Within the next 10 days I expect to be in a position to reply to the hon. Member's letter of 23

  Table 1

  Disabled student allowances for:

  Academic year

  General expenditure

  Non-medical personal helper2

  Specialist equipment2

  Cash

  1992–93 prices1

  Cash

  1992–93 prices1

  Cash

  1992–93 prices1

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1985–86

  555

  810

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  565

  800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  700

  952

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  730

  938

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  765

  914

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  1,000

  1,077

  4,000

  4,307

  3,000

  3,230

  1991–92

  1,060

  1,098

  4,240

  4,391

  3,180

  3,293

  1992–93

  1,110

  1,110

  4,430

  4,430

  3,325

  3,325

  1 Using the retail prices index at September 1992 prices.

  2 Additional allowances introduced with effect from 1 September 1990.

  Table 2

  Total expenditure by local education authorities in England and Wales on disabled students' allowances in mandatory awards

  Academic year

  Cash £

  1990–91 prices1 £

  1985–86

  106,036

  142,581

  1986–87

  192,123

  250,287

  1987–88

  157,586

  194,599

  1988–89

  189,775

  218,444

  1989–90

  186,701

  201,649

  1990–91

  969,621

  969,621

  1 Using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the change in the number of disabled people admitted to universities since 1987.
  64
  December 1992 concerning the proposals submitted by Renfrewshire Enterprise for the East India harbour, Greenock.

EDUCATION

  Classroom Practice
  Lady Olga Maitland
  f o ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the willingness of schools to improve classroom practice.

  Mr. Forth
  The Office for Standards in Education has a continued programme of school inspection and reports on all aspects of education in schools. The overall impression is that teachers and schools have made considerable efforts to improve classroom practice.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the financial allocation in real terms for students with disabilities to enter university nationwide in each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Boswell
  The first table shows the value of the supplementary allowances available to disabled students on first degree and comparable courses at universities and other higher institutions under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations between 1985–86 and 1992–93.

  The second table shows the total expenditure on these allowances by local education authorities in England and Wales between 1985–86 and 1990–91, the latest year for which this information is available. Assistance may also be available to disabled students from other sources.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government aim to ensure that people with disabilities are able to benefit from the higher education opportunities available. My right hon. Friend asked the new Higher Education Funding Council for England to consider how access for such students can be facilitated, and the council announced recently that it will allocate £3 million in 1993–94 for a special initiative to improve access for these students. The Government have also substantially increased the value and scope of the disabled students' allowances payable with the mandatory award. Information on the number of students with disabilities in higher education is not held centrally.

  Foreign Languages (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools offer a foreign language to their pupils; and to.what extent the numbers have varied over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not centrally recorded.

  University Students
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest statistics on the number of(a) students from other EC countries and (b) non-EC students attending United Kingdom universities; and if he will estimate the income this brings to the universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  There were 19,500 students from other EC countries and 43,900 students from non EC countries studying in United Kingdom universities in the academic year 1991–92, when estimated fee income received by universities from these students was £274 million.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools have(a) fewer than 50 pupils; (b) 50 to 100 pupils, (c) 100 to 250 pupils, (d) 250 to 500 pupils, (e) 500 to 1,000 pupils, (f) 1,000 to 1,500 pupils and (g) more than 1,500 pupils.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the table. This uses latest available pupil numbers and is based on the 337 self-governing (GM) schools currently operating.

  Numbers of pupils in assisted places scheme schools in Academic year 1991–92

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Abbey School, Reading

  1,053

  46

  4·37

  Abingdon

  747

  91

  12·18

  Ackworth

  494

  15

  3·04

  Aldenham

  328

  27

  8·23

  Alice Ottley

  711

  83

  11·67

  Alleyns, Dulwich

  926

  201

  21·71

  Ardingly College

  651

  13

  2·00

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  1,171

  76

  6·49

  Ashford

  668

  41

  6·14

  Ashville College

  672

  6

  0·89

  Austin Friars

  308

  5

  1·62

  Bancrofts

  965

  80

  8·29

  Barnard Castle

  618

  9

  1·46

  Bath High OPDST

  626

  99

  15·81

  Batley Grammar

  609

  243

  39·90

  Bedales

  682

  10

  1·47

  Bedford

  1,111

  92

  8·28

  Bedford High

  1,013

  120

  11·85

  Bedford Modern

  1,191

  160

  13·43

  Belvedere GPDST

  567

  166

  29·28

  Berkhamsted Girls

  603

  16

  2·65

  Berkhamsted

  773

  24

  3·10

  Birkenhead

  1,077

  219

  20·33

  Birkenhead High GPDST

  950

  251

  26·42

  Bishop's Stortford College

  604

  45

  7·45

  Blackheath High GPDST

  496

  85

  17·14

  Bloxham, Banbury

  360

  13

  3·61

  Bolton School Boys

  999

  263

  26·33

  Bolton School Girls

  1,125

  253

  22·49

  Bootham, York

  350

  15

  4·29

  Bradfleld College

  587

  4

  0·68

  Bradford Girls Grammar

  870

  55

  6·32

  Bradford Grammar School

  1,168

  220

  18·84

  66

  Number

  Fewer than 50 pupils

  1

  50–100 pupils

  8

  100–250 pupils

  29

  250–500 pupils

  68

  500–1,000 pupils

  162

  1,000–1,500 pupils

  65

  1,500 pupils or over

  4

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people are employed on the management of the assisted places scheme; at what cost; and what plans he has for placing the management of the assisted places scheme in private hands.

  Mr. Forth
  The full-time equivalent of 7·7 staff is directly engaged in the management of the assisted places scheme in the current financial year and the direct staff costs are some £130,000 per annum. My right hon. Friend currently has no plans to change the existing arrangements for the management of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for the academic year 1991–92 those schools involved in the assisted places scheme with(a) the total number of pupils on rolls, (b) the number of assisted pupils and the percentage which (b) represents of (a).

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following table:
  67

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Brentwood School

  1,155

  84

  7·27

  Brighton College

  482

  115

  23·86

  Brighton/Hove High GPDST

  718

  151

  21·03

  Bristol Cathedral

  459

  133

  28·98

  Bristol Grammar

  1,193

  256

  21·46

  Bromley High GPDST

  716

  83

  11·59

  Bromsgrove

  1,166

  15

  1·29

  Bruton Girls

  558

  127

  22·76

  Burgess Hill Girls

  577

  14

  2·43

  Bury Grammar Boys

  783

  199

  25·42

  Bury Grammar Girls

  1,141

  243

  21·30

  Canford

  501

  30

  5·99

  Carmel College

  262

  70

  26·72

  Casterton

  351

  42

  11·97

  Caterham

  723

  117

  16·18

  Central Newcastle High GPDST

  825

  115

  13·94

  Charterhouse

  698

  7

  1·00

  Cheadle Hulme

  912

  126

  13·82

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  848

  12

  1·42

  Chigwell

  644

  66

  10·25

  Christ's Hospital

  804

  16

  1·99

  Churchers College

  514

  118

  22·96

  City of London

  818

  139

  16·99

  City of London Freemans

  673

  6

  0·89

  City of London Girls

  646

  109

  16·87

  Clifton College, Bristol

  1,196

  68

  5·69

  Clifton High, Bristol

  824

  43

  5·22

  Colfes

  869

  176

  20·75

  Colston's Girls

  587

  166

  28·28

  Colston's Bristol

  729

  77

  10·56

  Coventry, Bablake

  1,957

  273

  13·95

  Cranleigh

  724

  30

  4·14

  Croham Hurst

  556

  15

  2·70

  Croydon High GPDST

  1047

  82

  7·83

  Culford

  645

  48

  7·44

  Dame Alice Harpur

  1,007

  142

  14·10

  Dame Allans Boys

  472

  118

  25·00

  Dame Allans Girls

  449

  120

  26·73

  Dauntseys

  622

  57

  9·16

  Denstone College

  300

  112

  37·33

  Derby High

  508

  10

  1·97

  Douai, Reading

  262

  15

  5·73

  Dover College

  267

  14

  5·24

  Downe House, Newbury

  470

  6

  1·28

  Dulwich College

  1,393

  273

  19·60

  Durham

  373

  21

  5·63

  Edgbaston College Girls

  405

  16

  3·95

  Edgehill College

  496

  139

  28·02

  Ellerslie (to 1992)

  174

  15

  8·62

  Ellesmere College

  374

  6

  1·60

  Eltham College, London

  726

  94

  12·95

  Emanuel, London SW11

  757

  283

  37·38

  Epsom College

  673

  23

  3·42

  Exeter

  818

  170

  20·78

  Farnborough Hill

  488

  153

  31·35

  Felixstowe College

  339

  5

  4·42

  Felsted, Dunmow

  562

  44

  7·83

  Forest School

  1,173

  128

  10·91

  Framlington College

  710

  6

  0·85

  Francis Holland

  369

  15

  4·07

  Friends, Saffron Walden

  273

  74

  27·11

  Giggleswick, Settle

  435

  9

  2·07

  Godolphin & Latymer

  699

  156

  2·32

  Godolphin, Salisbury

  353

  14

  3·97

  Greshams

  769

  10

  1·30

  Guildford High Girls

  598

  10

  1·67

  Haberdashers Askes Boys

  1,300

  228

  17·54

  Haberdashers Askes Girls

  1,125

  105

  9·33

  Haileybury and ISC

  615

  10

  1·63

  Hampton

  891

  187

  20·99

  Harrogate College

  389

  17

  4·37

  Headington

  723

  7

  0·97

  Hereford Cathedral

  595

  229

  38·49

  Highgate

  904

  35

  3·87

  Hipperholme Grammar

  378

  6

  1·59

  Holy Child

  335

  10

  2·99

  68 69

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Hulme Grammar Boys

  840

  202

  24·05

  Hulme Grammar Girls

  631

  178

  28·21

  Hurstpierpoint College

  519

  13

  2·50

  Hymers College

  939

  141

  15·02

  Ipswich

  618

  74

  11·97

  Ipswich High GPDST

  575

  100

  17·39

  James Aliens Girls

  948

  161

  16·98

  John Lyons

  506

  91

  17·98

  Kent College

  740

  88

  11·89

  Kimbolton Schools

  713

  15

  2·10

  King Edward VI High

  544

  125

  22·98

  King Edward VI Norwich

  761

  116

  15·24

  King Edward VI Southampton

  945

  223

  23·60

  King Edwards VII Lytham

  616

  231

  37·50

  King Edwards at Bath

  853

  110

  12·90

  King Edwards Birmingham

  829

  233

  28·11

  King Edwards Witley

  522

  72

  13·79

  Kings College Wimbledon

  1,070

  65

  6·07

  Kings High Girls, Warwick

  553

  137

  24·77

  Kings Bruton

  347

  11

  3·17

  Kings, Chester

  596

  84

  14·09

  Kings, Macclesfield

  1,026

  152

  14·81

  Kings, Rochester

  650

  58

  8·92

  Kings, Tynemouth

  915

  10

  1·09

  Kings, Worcester

  905

  179

  19·78

  Kingsley

  586

  10

  1·71

  Kingston Grammar

  584

  150

  25·68

  Kingswood School, Bath

  483

  39

  8·07

  Kirkham Grammar

  646

  79

  12·23

  La Sagesse Convent

  507

  150

  29·59

  Lady Eleanor Holies

  806

  37

  4·59

  Latymer Upper

  1,053

  325

  30·86

  Laxton

  184

  2

  1·09

  Leeds Girls High

  949

  73

  7·69

  Leeds Grammar

  1,129

  187

  16·56

  Leicester Grammar

  565

  22

  3·89

  Leighton Park

  343

  15

  4·37

  Leys, Cambridge

  379

  37

  9·76

  Liverpool College

  687

  182

  26·49

  Lord Wandsworth College

  761

  81

  10·64

  Loreto Convent Grammar

  812

  54

  6·65

  Loughborough Grammar

  921

  125

  13·57

  Loughborough High

  528

  94

  17·80

  Magdalen College

  473

  126

  26·64

  Malvern College

  555

  71

  12·79

  Manchester Grammar

  1,430

  257

  17·97

  Manchester High

  970

  172

  17·73

  Marist Convent Senior

  406

  7

  1·72

  Maynard

  557

  159

  28·55

  Merchant Taylors Girls

  888

  182

  20·50

  Merchant Taylors, Liverpool

  846

  207

  24·47

  Merchant Taylors, Northwood

  704

  67

  9·52

  Mill Hill

  565

  60

  10·62

  Monkton Combe

  600

  41

  6·83

  Mount Carmel, Cheshire

  572

  15

  2·62

  Mount St. Mary's College

  324

  69

  21·30

  Mount, York

  327

  15

  4·59

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  1,347

  419

  31·11

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Church High

  626

  15

  2·40

  North London Collegiate

  900

  96

  10·67

  Northampton High

  787

  152

  19·31

  Norwich High GPDST

  829

  166

  20·02

  Notting Hill/Ealing High

  764

  116

  15·18

  Nottingham Girls High GPDST

  1,072

  199

  18·56

  Nottingham High

  825

  150

  18·18

  Oakham

  1,036

  15

  1·45

  Old Palace, Croydon

  761

  197

  25·89

  Oxford High GPDST

  648

  79

  12·19

  Pangbourne College

  408

  14

  3·43

  Perse School for Boys

  651

  58

  8·91

  Perse School for Girls

  701

  68

  9·70

  Plymouth College

  876

  187

  21·35

  Pocklington

  714

  133

  18·63

  Polam Hall

  483

  21

  4·35

  Portsmouth Grammar

  1,088

  191

  17·56

  70 71

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Portsmouth High GPDST

  710

  132

  18·59

  Prior Park College

  440

  14

  3·18

  Putney High School GPDST

  832

  84

  10·10

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  484

  166

  34·30

  Queen Elizabeth, Blackburn

  1,225

  248

  20·24

  Queen Elizabeth, Wakefield

  740

  141

  19·05

  Queen Mary, Lytham

  660

  233

  35·30

  Queens College, London

  398

  74

  18·59

  Queens College, Taunton

  699

  66

  9·44

  Queens School, Chester

  613

  75

  12·23

  Ratcliffe College

  456

  69

  15·13

  Red Maids, Bristol

  578

  158

  27·34

  Redland High, Bristol

  663

  88

  13·27

  Reed's School, Gobham

  340

  15

  4·41

  Reigate Grammar

  852

  107

  12·56

  Rendcomb College

  244

  15

  6·15

  Repton

  553

  51

  9·22

  Rossall

  782

  41

  5·24

  Royal Grammar, Guildford

  810

  111

  13·70

  Royal Grammar, Newcastle

  1,117

  263

  23·55

  Royal Grammar, Worcester

  895

  254

  28·38

  Ryde School

  628

  7

  1·11

  Salesian College

  499

  54

  10·82

  Scarborough College

  430

  15

  3·49

  Sedbergh

  458

  40

  8·73

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  914

  10

  1·09

  Sheffield High GPDST

  707

  91

  12·87

  Shrewsbury High GPDST

  610

  76

  12·46

  Silcoates

  560

  6

  1·07

  Sir William Perkins

  504

  87

  17·26

  Solihull

  1,000

  21

  2·10

  South Hampstead High GPDST

  726

  68

  9·37

  St. Albans

  670

  113

  16·87

  St. Albans High Girls

  677

  50

  7·39

  St. Ambrose College

  782

  64

  8·18

  St. Anselms College

  853

  204

  23·92

  St. Bede's College

  1,120

  220

  19·64

  St. Bees

  332

  82

  24·70

  St. Benedict's

  599

  78

  13·02

  St. Catherine's

  596

  34

  5·70

  St. Dunstan's College

  788

  154

  19·54

  St. Edmund's College

  618

  80

  12·94

  St. Edward's College

  883

  396

  44·85

  St. Felix, Southwold

  367

  11

  3·00

  St. George's College

  630

  26

  4·13

  St. Helen and St. Katherine

  508

  89

  17·52

  St. Helen's, Northwood

  920

  43

  4·67

  St. John's College, Southsea

  847

  173

  20·43

  St. John's, Leatherhead

  439

  8

  1·82

  St. Joseph's College, Ipswich

  654

  81

  12·39

  St. Joseph's College, Stoke

  477

  10

  2·10

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  458

  111

  24·24

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  380

  15

  3·95

  St. Margaret's, Bushey

  471

  13

  2·76

  St. Margaret's, Exeter

  456

  13

  2·85

  St. Mary and St. Anne

  267

  10

  3·75

  St. Mary's College, Crosby

  800

  235

  29·38

  St. Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  572

  110

  19·23

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  367

  59

  16·08

  St. Maurs Convent, Weybridge

  713

  52

  7·29

  St. Paul's Girls, Hammersmith

  618

  62

  10·03

  St. Paul's, Barnes

  1,161

  80

  6·89

  St. Peter's, York

  768

  126

  16·41

  St. Swithun's, Winchester

  629

  0

  0·00

  Stafford Grammar

  292

  10

  3·42

  Stamford

  962

  84

  8·73

  Stamford High

  999

  87

  8·71

  Stockport Grammar

  1,259

  230

  18·27

  Stoneyhurst College

  421

  30

  7·13

  Stowe

  588

  5

  0·85

  Streatham Hill/Clapham High

  537

  148

  27·56

  Surbiton High

  704

  14

  1·99

  Sutton High GPDST

  802

  59

  7·36

  Sutton Valence

  384

  62

  16·15

  Sydenham High GPDST

  704

  126

  17·90

  Talbot Heath

  547

  140

  25·59

  72 73

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Percentage of assisted pupils to pupils on roll

  Taunton

  1,026

  52

  5·07

  Teesside High

  541

  10

  1·85

  Tonbridge

  627

  2

  0·32

  Tormead

  522

  8

  1·53

  Trent College

  638

  124

  19·44

  Trinity-of John Whitgift

  834

  141

  16·91

  Truro

  907

  117

  12·90

  Truro High

  372

  61

  16·40

  University College School

  767

  70

  9·13

  Upton Hall Convent

  606

  166

  27·39

  Ursuline Convent, Kent

  285

  15

  5·26

  Ursuline High, Ilford

  401

  144

  35·91

  Wakefield High

  1,013

  147

  14·51

  Walthamstow Hall

  505

  57

  11·29

  Warwick

  981

  141

  14·37

  Wellingborough

  795

  64

  8·05

  Wellington College

  820

  39

  4·76

  Wellington, Somerset

  838

  214

  25·54

  Wells Cathedral

  815

  78

  9·57

  West Buckland

  566

  85

  15·02

  Westholme

  1,019

  15

  1·47

  Westminster

  610

  53

  8·69

  Whitgift, Croydon

  939

  108

  11·50

  William Hulme Grammar

  791

  220

  27·81

  Wimbledon High GPDST

  758

  65

  8·58

  Winchester College

  652

  22

  3·37

  Wisbech Grammar

  628

  312

  49·68

  Withington Girls

  569

  71

  12·48

  Wolverhampton Grammar

  653

  261

  39·97

  Woodbridge

  781

  113

  14·47

  Woodhouse Grove

  735

  133

  18·10

  Worksop

  374

  15

  4·01

  Wrekin College

  339

  5

  1·47

  Wycliffe College

  598

  41

  6·86

  Yarm

  560

  21

  3·75

  Average proportion

  13·52

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will state for each year in which the assisted places scheme has been operating the number of places available and the number actually taken up, the amount budgeted each year for the scheme and the amount actually spent.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following table for each year up to 1991–92, the latest year for which complete figures are available:

  Year

  Places available1

  Places taken up1

  Budget estimate2£m

  Actual outturn2 £m

  1981–82

  5,446

  4,185

  3·3

  3·0

  1982–83

  11,058

  8,616

  9·3

  8·7

  1983–84

  15,866

  13,102

  16·5

  15·0

  1984–85

  20,699

  17,386

  22·5

  22·2

  1985–86

  25,210

  21,412

  31·1

  29·6

  1986–87

  29,295

  24,478

  37·4

  37·9

  1987–88

  33,228

  26,899

  47·8

  46·0

  1988–89

  33,217

  27,083

  55·1

  50·9

  1989–90

  33,280

  27,008

  57·0

  56·5

  1990–91

  33,302

  26,740

  60·4

  63·4

  1991–92

  33,312

  27,641

  64·9

  75·7

  The figures are for England only

  1 Academic year

  2 Financial year

  74

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the full year cost of increasing all national insurance benefits by(a) 0·5 per cent. and (b) 0·3 per cent. in 1993–94.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government Actuary's Department estimates are in the table.

  All national insurance benefits

  Year

  Percentage increase

  Full year cost £ million

  1993–94

  0·5

  198

  1993–94

  0·3

  119

  Over-60s (Benefits)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged 60 years or over receive(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) community charge benefit in each of the standard regions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the tables. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  75

  Income support recipients aged 60 or over

  Social security region

  Number of claimants

  South Western

  121

  London South

  237

  London North

  249

  Midlands

  250

  North Eastern

  236

  North Western

  230

  Wales

  90

  Scotland

  155

  Great Britain (Total)

  1,567

  Income Support Recipients Aged 60 or over

  Social Security Region

  Number of Claimants

  Housing benefit

  Community charge benefit

  South West

  125

  249

  South East

  283

  493

  London

  261

  357

  East Anglia

  72

  130

  West Midlands

  212

  403

  East Midlands

  122

  227

  North West

  242

  416

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  159

  245

  North

  179

  264

  Wales

  91

  139

  Scotland

  263

  353

  Great Britain (Total)

  2,010

  3,277

  Notes:

  1. Figures are thousands rounded to the nearest thousand. The totals do not sum due to rounding.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry and the Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System—May 1991.

  3. Income support information is not available for the standard statistical regions; the nearest alternative is given for this benefit.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines he has issued to local Department of social security offices concerning the health risks of repetitive strain injury in the workplace.

  Mr. Scott
  Repetitive strain injury is a condition commonly contracted by those who operate visual display units for unreasonably long continuous sessions and/or in an ergonomically incorrect environment.

  Since 1987, the Department of Social Security has stipulated that all VDU operators must work in accordance with a departmental information technology agreement. This agreement between management and the trade unions paid particular regard, among other things, to health and safety issues surrounding VDU usage, including ergonomic issues, and restricts the period of continuous operation to safe levels.

  Employees were also issued with proprietary literature in 1991 which was intended to increase general awareness of the means by which injury to the wrist, hand and finger can be avoided.

  All of the Department's VDUs are being, or have been, assessed to confirm that they comply with the provisions of new health and safety regulations which are effective from 1 January 1993. VDU users are receiving, or have received, further training on practices which will prevent repetitive
  76
  strain injury. They have also been invited to contribute to the assessment process to ensure that personal ergonomic needs are met.

  Diability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for the disability living allowance have come from Warrington, south; how many have been successful; and how many were successful on appeal.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT (Fuel and Power)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if those in receipt of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax rebates will be compensated for extending value-added tax to domestic fuel and power.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 March 1993 at column 511.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the national average figure for processing housing benefit claims within 14 days.

  Mr. Burt
  The proportion of claims processed within 14 days of receipt of all the necessary information is 76 per cent.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce his response to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's recommendations on chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  We have considered the Council's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema in coal miners and metal production workers very carefully and have accepted the recommendation that these diseases should be prescribed as industrial diseases in relation to underground coal miners. Regulations will be laid to give effect to this from 13 September 1993.

  Under normal circumstances benefit claims in respect of industrial diseases can take several months to investigate, and in this case we anticipate very large numbers of claims from miners and ex-miners. We estimate that the number of claims dealt with over the next year or so under the industrial injuries scheme could be almost doubled.

  We are concerned to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible and that unacceptable backlogs and delays do not arise. We consider that this can best be achieved by a two-stage take-on of claims. The regulations will provide for claims from older miners and ex-miners to be taken first, from 13 September 1993, and for claims from other miners and ex-miners from 1 March 1994. We are devising arrangements that will ensure that seriously ill miners and ex-miners will be able to submit a claim in the first period regardless of age. Payments will be backdated to 13 September 1993, if people claim at the appropriate

  77
  time and satisfy the usual conditions for the award of benefit, so that no one will lose benefit as a result of the phased take-on. Precise details of how the take-on claims will be handled will be well publicised before implementation.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence there is on the financial effects for landlords of bed-and-breakfast accommodation of an increase in the income support paid to homeless families living in such accommodation.

  Mr. Burt
  In the mid-1980s, benefit regulations and procedures relating to board and lodging were substan-tially re-appraised and tightened in response to widespread public criticism of abuse of the existing arrangements. The persistence of such abuse led to the subsequent abolition of the special treatment of boarders within income support in 1989. Retrieval of the evidence then available could now be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions (Report)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by Watson Europe on pensions in Britain and Europe.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library shortly.

  VAT (Heating Fuels)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners and others on low incomes he expects to receive special help in Waveney with meeting the VAT on heating fuels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Information in the form requested Rs not available. Overall, some 8 million recipients of income-related benefits will gain from extra help. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be considering the precise way in which to target this help and his conclusions will be announced in the normal way in the autumn.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: Information for the United Kingdom is not available. However, the latest available information for Great Britain is in "Social Security Statistics 1992", table A3.05, a copy of which is in the Library. Discrete information for Chelmsford borough council, or the parliamentary constituency, is not available.

  Pensions (Payment Methods)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary Of State for Social Security (1) what saving in public expenditure or other financial benefit accrues to his Department by retirement pensions being paid through automated credit transfer; and what proportion of retirement pensions being paid at present are paid(a) through ACT, (b) through post offices and (c) in other ways;
  78
  (2) how many letters he has sent in the last year to those about to retire advising them about how their pension may be paid; if all such letters gave information about pension payment through (a) the Post Office, (b) automated credit transfer and (c) other methods; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration and payment of retirement pension is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Max Madden, dated 26 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many letters he has sent in the last year to those about to retire advising them about how their pension may be paid; if all such letters gave information about pension payment through (a) the Post Office, (b) automated credit transfer and (c) other means; and what saving in public expenditure or other financial benefit accrues to his Department by retirement pensions being paid through automated credit transfer: and what proportion of retirement pensions being paid at present are paid through ACT, (b) through post offices and (c) in other ways.
  Information relating to methods of payment is contained in the retirement pension claim form. 527,383 retirement pension claim packs were issued in the year ending 16 March 1993. Information regarding the various methods of payment is available to all applicants.
  Savings arise through reduced administration costs. The average administrative cost of paying retirement pensions by ACT is three pence per payment. The alternative methods of paying retirement pensions are order books and payable orders; each payment costs an average of forty four pence and fifty one pence respectively. Additionally, ACT is not as susceptible to fraud in the same way as other methods of payment and this means further savings in public expenditure.
  At the end of January this year, 69·5 per cent. of pensioners were paid by order book at the Post Office, 26·7 per cent. were paid by ACT, which includes customers using Girobank at the Post Office, and 3·8 per cent. were paid by payable order.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The tables list the contracts awarded by the diplomatic and aid wings of the Department for each of the last four years, and for the diplomatic wing in 1988–89. Information on contracts awarded by the aid wing in 1988–89 is not centrally recorded and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.Arthur Andersen
  (a) Diplomatic Wing
  No contracts awarded in last five years
  (b) Aid Wing
  One contract only, awarded in 1991–92
  Project Finance and Development, Former Soviet Union 7 weeks duration; value £450,000
  Andersen Consulting

  79
  (a) Diplomatic Wing
  No contracts awarded in the last five years
  (b) Aid Wing
  No contracts awarded in 1989–90 and 1990–91
  Two contracts awarded in 1991–92

  (i) Feasibility study, bread distribution Moscow 3 weeks duration; value £48,000

  (ii) Bread distribution, Moscow 22 weeks duration; value £998,000

  One contract awarded in 1992–93
  Moscow bread project Phase II
  9 months duration; value £245,000
  K.P.M.G. Peat Marwick McLintock
  (a) Diplomatic Wing
  One contract awarded in 1988–89
  Review of IT project management in FCO one months duration; value £5,000
  One contract awarded in 1989–90
  Review of Information Systems Division Training one months duration; value £14,000
  No contracts awarded in 1990–91
  Three contracts awarded in 1991–92

  (i) Review of Information Systems Division Training Two months duration; value £22,000

  (ii) Scrutiny on Training 3 weeks duration; value £15,000

  (iii) Review of Career Planning 8 months duration; value £350,000

  No contracts awarded in 1992–93
  (b) Aid Wing

  No contracts awarded in 1988–89

  Two contracts awarded in 1989–90

  (i) Public Service Commission, Zimbabwe 15 weeks duration; value £52,000

  (ii) Economic Recovery Programme, Tanzania 14 weeks duration; value £72,000

  Four contracts awarded in 1990–91

  (i) Privatisation of the Ceska Insurance Company, Czechoslovakia 5 months duration; value £185,000

  (ii) Public Service Review Phase 2, Guyana 6 months duration; value £812,000

  (iii) Audit and Strategic Analysis of State Insurance Company, Poland 11 months duration; value £295,000

  (iv) British Council Fee Rates, ODA 3 months duration; value £12,750

  Six contracts awarded in 1991–92

  (i) Insurance Division, Ministry of Finance, Poland

  12 weeks duration; value £163,000

  (ii) Civil Service Reform, Uganda

  13 weeks duration; £262,000

  (iii) Country Studies, climatic change: Ghana and Kenya 8 months duration; value £320,000

  (iv) Public Service Review Phase IIB, Guyana 6 months duration; value £232,000

  (v) Debt Reconciliation, Tanzania 3 months duration; value £100,000

  (vi) Privatisation Study, Senegal 4 weeks duration; value £22,000

  Nine contracts in 1992–93 (i) Agricultural Development Fund, Poland 6 months duration; value £92,000

  (ii) Offshore Financial Services, St Kitts 2 months duration; value £49,000

  (iii) Review of Services in OACD, ODA 3 months duration; value of £46,000

  80

  (iv) Singareni Colliery Spares Management and Incentives, India 12 weeks duration; value £163,000

  (v) Procurement advice for Information Systems, Romania
  one weeks duration; value £4,500

  (vi) Public Sector Reform Programme, Compensation Policy, Turks and Caicos Is 10 weeks duration; value £86,000

  (vii) Public Sector Reform Programme: Training Review, Turks and Caicos Is 12 weeks duration; value £86,000

  (viii) Market Testing, Natural Resources Institute 6 days duration; value £5,500

  (ix) Development of Costing Module, Natural Resources Institute 6 days duration; value £5,500

  Touche Ross
  (a) Diplomatic Wing
  No contracts awarded in the last five years
  (b) Aid Wing
  Two contracts awarded in 1989–90
  (i) Assistance to Budapest Stock Exchange, Hungary
  6 weeks duration; value £41,000
  (ii) Environment—CFC Consultancy, India 3 months duration; value £165,000
  Three contracts awarded in 1990–91
  (i) Management plan for interim multilateral ozone fund 3 months duration; value £47,000
  (ii) Budapest Stock Exchange, Hungary 6 weeks duration; value £41,000
  (iii) Accountant, Privatisation Foundation, Poland 4 months duration; value £92,000
  Five contracts awarded in 1991–92 (i) Economic Implications of Limiting CO2 emissions, Zimbabwe 6 weeks duration; value £122,000
  (ii) Climate Change Study, Romania 4 months duration; value £50,000
  (iii) Privatisation of public enterprises, Zambia 8 months duration; value £36,000
  (iv) New trading floor, Budapest Stock Exchange, Hungar 19 months duration; value £295,000
  (v) Privatisation Adviser, Zambia 4 years duration; value £150,000
  One contract awarded in 1992–93 Phasing out ozone depletion substances, Algeria 5 weeks duration; value £8,000
  Ernst and Young
  (a) Diplomatic Wing

  One contract awarded 1988–89 to 1989–90

  Administrative and executive work on China

  Claim Funds

  2 years duration; value £2 million

  One contract awarded in 1990–91 CRAMM

  Review

  9 months duration; value £20,000

  One contract awarded in 1991–92

  Advice on Heavy Baggage contract

  3 months duration; value £17,000

  One contract awarded in 1992–93 Overseas Estate

  Procurement System

  6 months duration; value £59,000

  (b) Aid Wing
  No contracts awarded in 1989–90
  Three contracts awarded in 1990–91
  (i) Diagnostic studies of commercial banks, Poland 13 weeks duration; value £393,000
  (ii) Privatisation assistance, Poland 6 months duration; value £225,000
  (iii) Privatisation assistance, Czechoslovakia 7 months duration; value £475,000
  Four contracts awarded in 1991–92

  81
  (i) Voucher privatization programme, Czechoslovakia 18 months duration; value £740,000
  (ii) Voucher privatisation, secondary market study, Czechoslovakia 5 months duration; value £200,000
  (iii) Privatisation Slovakia National Insurance Co., Czechoslovakia 11 months duration; value £223,000
  Assistance with privatisation policy, Stage 2, Czechoslovakia 8 months duration; value £575,000
  Two contracts awarded in 1992–93

  (i) Voucher privatisation secondary market study, Phase 2, Czechoslovakia 5 months duration; value £175,000

  (ii) Voucher privatisation, secondary market study, Czechoslovakia 5 months duration; value £200,000

  Price Waterhouse
  (a) Diplomatic Wing
  Two contracts awarded in 1988–89
  (i) Management of Finance IT Systems 12 months duration; value £513,000
  (ii) Administrative and executive work on Russian Fund Claims 18 months duration; value £3 million
  One contract awarded in 1989–90 Maintenance of Finance IT Systems 4 years duration, to March 1993; value £758,000
  No contracts awarded in 1990–91 and 1991–92 One contract awarded in 1992–93 Baselining Posts' Overseas Accounts System 6 months duration; value £71,000
  (b) Aid Wing
  Five contracts awarded in 1989–90
  (i) Budget and Official Development Studies, Ghana 21 weeks duration; value £159,000
  (ii) Dead Sea Chemical, Economic and Financial Appraisal, Jordan 18 months duration; value £246,000
  (iii) Customs and Excise Programme Improvement Study, Kenya 13 weeks duration; value £34,000
  (iv) Lesotho Highlands Development Authority, Phase II, Lesotho 54 months duration; value £525,000
  (v) Trade Investment Programme, Indonesia 100 weeks duration; value £137,000
  Two contracts awarded in 1990–91
  (i) Word Processing Equipment, UK 4 weeks duration; value £10,000
  (ii) Institutional Review, Attorney General's Office, Zambia 3 months duration; value £71,000
  One contract awarded in 1991–92
  Organisation and Business Review, Agrobanka, Czechoslovakia2 months duration; value £39,000
  Three contracts awarded in 1992–93

  (i) Traffic Costing System, Kenya Railways 3 months duration; value £60,000

  (ii) Department of Statutory Bodies, Malawi 20 months duration; value £250,000

  (iii) Review of Pensions, Tanzania Railways 12 months duration; value £83,000

  UNESCO
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the gross and net costs of rejoining UNESCO.
  82
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At current rates of exchange, we estimate that our UNESCO assessed contribution for the remainder of 1993 would be about £5·8 million and that our advance payment to the organisation's working capital fund would be about £610,000.

  We estimate our assessed contribution in 1994 would be about £10·6 million and the advance to working capital fund almost £200,000.

  There would also be additional costs as a consequence of staff increases in London and Paris. We estimate these could amount to £250,000 a year. It is not possible to estimate any compensating financial benefits resulting from United Kingdom membership.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce a decision on rejoining UNESCO.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are keeping under close review a possible resumption of our UNESCO membership, but are not able to say when a decision might be taken.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 432, what decisions were taken at the meetings of 17 and 18 March, respectively, to which he refers; what further developments, in regard to North Korea's withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty, have taken place since the meetings in Vienna; and if he will place in the Library a copy of Her Majesty's Government's recent communication with North Korea on the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The non-proliferation treaty co-depositaries continue to co-ordinate closely their response to North Korea's announcement. On 18 March, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors adopted a resolution approving the efforts of the secretariat to implement the request for inspections; reaffirming the board's confidence in the director general; confirming that North Korea's safeguards agreement remains in force and requesting the director general to report to a further meeting on 31 March. We have not been in direct communication with North Korea, other than receiving notification of the North Korean intention.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency put forward to the special session of the IAEA board of governors in Vienna called to evaluate the decision of North Korea to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to prohibit IAEA nuclear safeguards inspectors' access to certain nuclear facilities in North Korea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 March 1993]: At the IAEA board of governors meeting on 18 March, the British representative gave firm support to the resolution subsequently adopted by the board, which approved the efforts of the secretariat to implement the request for inspections; reaffirmed the board's confidence in the Director General; confirmed that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's safeguards agreement remains in force; and requested the director general to report to a further meeting on 31 March.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subjected to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The market testing programmes of the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices for the 12 months to September 1993 were published on pages 61 and 63 of Command 2101 on 25 November 1992. Both wings are still considering their market testing plans for the following 12 months.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the massacre on 10 March by the Khmer Rouge near Siem Reap in Cambodia and about what steps are being taken to apprehend the culprits.

  Mr. Goodlad
  According to the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia, UNTAC, at approximately 8.30 pm on 10 March, a group of about 18 armed men entered the village of Chong Kneas in Siem Reap province killing 35 ethnic Vietnamese and wounding a further 24. It seems almost certain that the Khmer Rouge were responsible. The UNTAC special prosecutor has issued a warrant for the arrest of the alleged leader of the attack, Loeng Daru.

  Belize
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Belize on the future maintenance of a British military presence in Belize.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are in close touch with the Government of Belize on a wide range of issues. As with all our overseas defence commitments, the British military presence in Belize is kept under review.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long Her Majesty's Government are committed to maintaining a garrison in Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  At the time of independence it was agreed that the garrison in Belize would remain for an appropriate period. That remains the case. As with all our overseas defence commitments, the British military presence in Belize is kept under review.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British ambassador to the United Arab Emirates last met(a) the Head of State, (b) the Foreign Minister and (c) the Minister of the Interior or his equivalent.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates last met the President, Shaikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Rashid Abdullah al Na'imi, on 23 March. He last met the Minister of the Interior, Lt. General Mohammed Saeed al Badi, on 14 February.

WALES

  Economic Base
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to diversify and strengthen the economic base in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There has been a tremendous transformation in the Welsh economy since 1979. More than 800 new factories have opened and manufacturing output has increased by 25·4 per cent. Productivity per employee has increased from £8,677 to £30,698.

  Patient Treatments
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many in-patients and day patients have been treated in Wales in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the year to June 1992, NHS Wales treated 482,789 in-patients and 138,216 day cases, excluding those in psychiatric specialties.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the coal industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The findings of the Government's coal review were published in a White Paper on 25 March.

  Structural Funding
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of local authorities in Wales to discuss the availability of structural funding in the Principality.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 January at which European regional development fund funding was discussed. Welsh Office officials are in regular contact with local authorities about structural fund matters.

  North Coast Main Line
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning services on the north Wales coast main railway line.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations over the last year.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of redundancies declared in Wales since 1 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not Available.

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning additional resources for Wales from the European regional fund.
  85
  Mr. David Hunt
  I met Commissioner Milian on 15 March to discuss this and other issues.

  Source Wales
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the future initiatives he intends to take under the Source Wales programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Source Wales has been managed and developed by the Welsh Development Agency since April 1992. Future activities will include a programme to identify companies' capabilities set against world class practice; assisting the development of innovation as a standard practice; and setting up a further six supplier clubs which will bring together groups of suppliers for development purposes.

  Democracy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the quality of democracy in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My proposals for the reorganisation of local government will create accountable unitary authorities responsive to the needs of local people.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to build on the valleys initiative programme.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I recently announced my intention to launch a further five-year programme for the valleys. I will be giving further details shortly.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Wales continues to attract high levels of inward investment—206 projects were recorded in 1992, an all-time record.

  New dwellings completed for the disabled, by district

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Aberconwy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  15

  Alyn and Deeside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arfon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brecknock

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  28

  5

  6

  34

  0

  0

  0

  Carmarthen

  0

  23

  43

  10

  0

  0

  0

  Ceredigion

  2

  1

  15

  0

  6

  4

  0

  Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  0

  Cynon Valley

  0

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Delyn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dinefwr

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dwyfor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glyndwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islwyn

  19

  35

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Llanelli

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Lliw Valley

  0

  2

  0

  6

  31

  30

  55

  Meirionnydd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  6

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Monmouth

  0

  0

  21

  3

  15

  37

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  23

  4

  0

  4

  2

  1

  0

  Neath

  0

  36

  34

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newport

  0

  0

  0

  10

  21

  0

  0

  Ogwr

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  I

  13

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  0

  27

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to introduce local government legislation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current financial allocation from special central funding directly towards care for disabled people in the community in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £2·565 million was made available in 1992–93 to support the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and people with physical or sensory disabilities. This grant scheme will continue in 1993–94 and applications from social services authorities are currently arriving for consideration.

  A total of £27·5 million is being transferred from social security resources to local authorities in 1993–94, together with a supplementary sum of £8·4 million to support the general implementation of the community care reforms. A further £1·614 million has been allocated to social services authorities in recognition of their additional responsibilities arising from the new independent living fund arrangements for the support of disabled people in the community.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses specifically designed for disabled people have been built in each housing authority area in Wales in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the table.
  87

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  0

  33

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  Radnorshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Rhuddlan

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Taff-Ely

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1

  10

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  11

  0

  20

  12

  19

  0

  0

  Ynys Mon

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  25

  0

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Hepatitis B
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were found to be positive for hepatitis B antigen following screening as a result of being treated by the surgeon in Wrexham.

  Dr. Gwilym Jones
  Two hundred patients were identified as being at possible risk of infection. Of the 170 patients who have been tested to date, four hepatitis B positive cases are thought to be connected with surgical treatment at Wrexham Maelor hospital.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special facilities are available in primary and secondary schools for Down's syndrome children in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Local education authorities and school governing bodies have responsibilities to ensure that appropriate provision is made for children with special educational needs, including those with Down's syndrome. Provision will depend on the needs of the individual child.

  The Education Bill proposes a duty on schools to develop and publish policies for the provision they make for all their children with special educational needs and to report annually to parents on the implementation of those policies.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total amount of regional assistance funds to industry allocated through his Department since 1986–87.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1986–87 my Department has paid £584·8 million of regional assistance to industry in Wales.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount of council tax transitional relief granted to each local authority in Wales; and what is the amount of transitional relief as a percentage of the total amount of transitional relief granted in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no council tax transitional relief scheme for Wales.

  Grant maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of the schools which have(a) achieved grant-maintained status, (b) been given permission to go ahead and (c) been refused permission to go ahead; and if he will express each category as a percentage of the total number of non-private schools in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since my right hon. Friend's reply of 27 January, at column 743, we have approved a further three schools for grant-maintained status. They are Maelor comprehensive, Clwyd; Ysgol Caergeiliog primary, Gwynedd; and Stanwell comprehensive, South Glamorgan. All three will become grant-maintained on 1 April. No applications for grant-maintained status have been turned down in this period.

  Bees Officers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will appoint more bees officers for Gwent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is proposed to employ seven bees officers in Wales in 1993. I am aware of concerns about possible outbreaks of varroa in Wales, although there are at present no confirmed cases of the disease. The importance of disease prevention is fully appreciated, and if any cases of varroa or other notifiable bee diseases are confirmed, appropriate control measures will be implemented.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the future assisted area status of Cardiff, Neath, Newport, Wrexham and Shotton.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The representations received about the review of assisted areas are currently being considered. The Government hope to be able to make an announcement on the outcome of the review as soon as possible.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 514, if he will list the principal reasons for the Cardiff Bay development corporation quinquennial review not commencing in the financial year 1992–93 as indicated at paragraph 9.13 of Cm. 2215.
  89
  Mr. David Hunt
  The review will begin as soon as a suitable officer has been identified and can be released to begin the work..

  Toxic Waste Imports
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (I) if he will meet representatives of Gwent county council and Torfaen borough council to discuss the proposed imports of toxic waste going from Germany to the ReChem plant at Pontypool;

  (2) if he will meet representatives of the community of New Inn, Pontypool, to discuss the import of toxic waste from Germany going to the ReChem plant at Pontypool;

  (3) if he will make representations to the European Commission concerning the transport of toxic waste going from Germany into Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym. Jones
  I am aware of the concerns of local authorities and the local community. The Government have already asked the German Government to ban the proposed shipment of hazardous waste from Hamburg. Our policy of self-sufficiency in final disposal for developed countries has been incorporated into the EC waste shipments regulation which will come into operation in May 1994. In these circumstances, I do not think that a meeting would be appropriate.

  Business Rate Relief
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales have used their powers under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to give uniform business rate relief; and how much relief they have given in each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Llanelli BC

  —

  132

  Newport BC

  —

  125

  Cardiff CC

  —

  295

  Lliw Valley BC

  1,937

  728

  Total

  1,937

  1,280

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage local authorities to use their powers under section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to grant relief from the uniform business rate and to promote awareness of their powers among businesses.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to issue further guidance to local authorities. Decisions on whether to give relief are a matter for them.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the number and (b) the proportion of the total of registered disabled he has appointed to nominated bodies.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not collected.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assess the danger to the people of Wales caused by radon gas concentrations in dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  ; The first two phases of a survey to assess the extent of radon gas in Wales have been completed by the National Radiological Protection Board. The next phase of that survey will be undertaken shortly, with the results expected in spring 1994.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the methods used in the preparation and amendment of citizens charters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not set down a central blueprint for preparing or amending charters. The important point is that both new and revised charters should set demanding but realistic targets for service delivery which reflect the expressed needs and priorities of their users.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of his time he spends as Civil Service Minister, Science Minister, Minister responsible for the citizens charter and adviser to Her Majesty the Queen on the estate pertaining to the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This varies from day to day, depending on the issues raised in each area.

  Duchy Administration (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited Bolton to discuss the administration of the Duchy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I visited Bolton on 24 November last year and had discussions with the chairman of the Bolton justices, the convenor of my advisory committee and other senior magistrates. Afterwards I visited the Octagon theatre which the Duchy Benevolent Fund is helping with a donation towards its refurbishment. I will be visiting Bolton again tomorrow.

  Secrecy in Government
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to reduce secrecy within Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made progress on many fronts and will follow up with further proposals in a White Paper later this year.

  Science (White Paper)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his White Paper on science.
  91
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I intend to publish a White Paper on science and technology in the next few months.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate the value of the central Government services that were market tested in the last two years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  About £25 million worth of central Government services were market tested in each of the last four years. In 1993–94, there are plans to market test activities worth £1·5 billion.

  This fiftyfold increase in market testing between these years is good news for the taxpayer, because it leads to real savings, allowing the Government to deliver more, at no extra cost.

  Science (Public Awareness)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what efforts have been made in the past two years by research councils to develop public awareness of science; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Research councils contribute to developing public awareness of science in a number of ways. These include publications, press briefings,, displays and conferences publicising and explaining the councils' work; participation in the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; institute open days; links with schools; and research into public attitudes to science.

  Specific council activities in the past two years have included:
  Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)
  "Research Horizons"—a new type of conference, held for the first time in 1992, aimed at encouraging young scientists to present their work to the media and the public
  A video presenting the Council's work, winner of two top awards.
  Medical Research Council (MRC)
  Training of scientists in communication techniques.
  Involvement in planning Science Museum exhibitions.
  Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  Extensive press and media contacts leading to feature articles, for example on biodiversity and mid-ocean ridges.
  Involvement of local schools in project work at NERC institutes.
  Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC)
  Exhibitions at the Royal Agricultural Show, the Royal Welsh Show, and the ASDA Festival of Food and Farming, Hyde Park.
  An annual schools competition, and a survey of pupil attitudes to biotechnology and genetic engineering.
  Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  Completion in 1991 of a major research programme on the public understanding of science and dissemination of the results, including a conference at the Science Museum.
  The "Innovation Agenda"—a recent publicity campaign to highlight the role of science and technology in economic competitiveness.

  The Government attach great importance to the development of public awareness of science and welcome the contribution of the research councils in this field.

EMPLOYMENT

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will introduce the principle of the joint liability of the transferor and the transferee, in respect of 92
  obligations arising from a contract of employment, into the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to do so.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list, for each of the last five years, the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by her Department to Arthur Andersen, Andersen Consulting, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Touche Ross, Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the precise form requested is available only at disproportionate cost. However, I am able to provide information relating to 1992–93.

  Nature of Contract

  Duration

  Arthur Andersen

  Revision of TEC Guidance update

  1 month

  Andersen Consulting

  4 contracts for technical support for new computer systems for benefit payment

  1 year, 6 months, 3 months and 2 months

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which professional services within his Department have been subjected to market testing within the last 12 months and with what result; and which will be subjected to market testing within the next 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department's 1992–93 market testing programme, which runs up to September 1993, covers a range of activities of which the following may be regarded as falling within the definition of "professional services":

  Research and Evaluation (Employment Service);

  Psychologists supporting Placement, Assessment and Counselling Teams;

  Occupational Psychologists.

  None of these tests has yet been completed. The programme beyond September 1993 is still under consideration.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the performance of the jobcentres in Suffolk and Norfolk in each of the past three years in placing people back to work.

  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. David Porter, dated 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 to her about the

  93
  performance of the Jobcentres in Suffolk and Norfolk in each of the past three years in placing people back to work. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The numbers of people placed in work by Jobcentres in the Norfolk and Suffolk area in the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  April 1990-March 1991

  41,852

  April 1991-March 1992

  36,270

  April 1992–5 February 19931

  32,394

  1 The latest date for which figures are available.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of new job opportunities under the business start-up scheme expansion announced in the Budget for East Anglia; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's regional directors will be in touch with individual training and enterprise councils in due course to discuss the number of new opportunities under the business start-up scheme for each TEC.

  Workstart
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many pilot workstart schemes for employers to create jobs for long-term unemployed she expects to set up in East Anglia; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 23 March that workstart pilots will be run by Tyneside and Devon and Cornwall TECs, and by the Employment Service in east Kent and in south and south-west London. We also recently announced a pilot community work scheme. It will be run in north Norfolk and will get under way shortly.

  Community Action
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on how many of the proposed community action opportunities announced in the Budget she expects to set up in Suffolk and Norfolk and how the projects will be implemented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have asked the Employment Service to put in hand the necessary arrangements so that community action opportunities can be available from the summer. Announcements will be made in due course of the numbers of opportunities that will be available in each area and how they will be delivered.

  Disallowance of Benefit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish tables for cases of disallowances of benefit for each adjudication sector and 94
  administrative region since the third quarter of 1990 to the most convenient recent date for which statistics are available for each month or quarter.

  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. Rhodri Morgan, dated 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 publishing tables for cases of disallowance of benefit. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  To ensure that the most effective use is made of our total adjudication resource, cases where there is a doubt about entitlement to benefit are transferred between regions to match workloads with handling capacity. It does not necessarily follow, therefore, that decisions made in an individual sector office relate to cases referred by my local offices in the same geographical area or region. Information about the number of decisions made is not therefore collated or published by sector office.
  Reports on the volumes of adjudication decisions given both nationally and by originating geographical region are, however, collated and published. These reports, entitled Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions, contain details of the number and type of decisions given during the period, and have been recently revised to include information on the percentage of adverse decisions. At the time of writing, this information is available up to and including September 1992 and can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the individuals and organisations retained by her Department as consultants in the current andeach of the preceding three years indicating, in each case, the nature of their work.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) which local authorities employ fewer than the 3 per cent. employment quota of disabled people; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how many disabled people are employed by local authorities in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M E G Fogden to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 29 March 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your

  95
  Parliamentary Questions about which local authorities employ fewer than the 3 per cent. quota of disabled people; and how many disabled people are employed by local authorities in the United Kingdom. These are matters which, in respect of Great Britain, fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Tables showing the number of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of public sector employers in Great Britain, including local authorities, and the percentage of total staff represented by those numbers, are published annually in the "Employment Gazette". The information is published with the agreement of the individual employers concerned. Only those disabled people who have chosen to register as disabled under the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958 count towards the Quota.
  The tables of figures are preceded by a short article. This explains how and when the information is collected, and the formula which has to be used by employers, for the purposes of the Quota Scheme, to calculate their number of registered disabled workers and their total workforce. Both are in terms of "staff unit" equivalents rather than people.
  I enclose an extract from the February 1992 issue of "Employment Gazette" this includes data on the Quota positions of local authorities at 1 June 1991. The total number of registered disabled people (in terms of staff units) employed by local authorities was 17,910. This is the aggregate total for district and country councils in England and Wales, Scottish district and regional councils, Scottish island councils and London borough councils.
  I expect the tables of figures for June 1992 to be in the April 1993 issue of "Employment Gazette", which is due to be published on 8 April. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  The extract from the "Employment Gazette" has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Forces (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people employed, distinguishing between(a) professional and (b) lay personnel, in each of the police forces in Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The numbers of police officers and civilian employees as at 31 December 1992 are given in the table.

  Force

  Police officers

  Civilians

  Dyfed-Powys

  967

  272

  Gwent

  1,000

  319

  North Wales

  1,356

  473

  South Wales

  3,164

  1,079

  Crime (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of males between the ages of 15 and 30 years have been convicted of at least one indictable offence in the Greater Manchester area.
  96
  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested. Nationally, 24 per cent. of males born in 1953 have been estimated to have been convicted of at least one "standard list" offence between the ages of 15 and 30 years; 33 per cent. at age 30 or less. These estimates stem from a sample of some 8,500 offenders from the offenders index. More details are given in table 1 of HOSB 32/89 "Criminal and Custodial careers of those born in 1953, 1958 and 1963", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those immigrants who have been granted settlement for five or more years have subsequently been granted British citizenship.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The statistics on persons granted British citizenship do not identify when the person was granted settlement.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the effect of the proposals to reduce section 11 funding under the Local Government Act 1966 on Barham primary school;

  (2) how many representations he has received regarding the recent consultative document to reduce funding under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 25 March, some 500 letters, and 6 petitions bearing some 1,200 signatures, had been received in response to the Home Office letter of 26 November to local authorities and other recipients of funding under section 11. Grant will continue to be available to support all projects approved for funding, but we have invited local authorities to let us have their views on how the reduced level of grant can be deployed most effectively. It is for local education authorities to assess the position of individual schools.

  Cautions
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records there are of the level of cautions administered in each police area for the last quarter and for a similiar period one and two years before; and what proportion these are of detected crime.

  Mr. Jack
  Figures for persons cautioned by the police for the fourth quarters of 1989,1990 and 1991 (the latest available period) are shown in the following tables.

  Figures for the proportion of detected notifiable offences that were cleared up by means of a caution are provided separately as they relate to offences rather than offenders and to a different coverage of offences (broadly all indictable offences and some summary eon-motoring offence).
  97

  Persons cautioned by police force area and offence type—1991 (Quarter 4)

  Indictable offences (excluding motoring)

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding motoring)

  Avon and Somerset

  710

  35

  745

  Bedfordshire

  605

  105

  710

  Cambridgeshire

  613

  95

  708

  Cheshire

  888

  329

  1,217

  Cleveland

  805

  239

  1,044

  Cumbria

  383

  240

  623

  Derbyshire

  780

  277

  1,057

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,212

  467

  1,679

  Dorset

  408

  105

  513

  Durham

  280

  150

  430

  Essex

  1,114

  299

  1,413

  Gloucester

  402

  78

  480

  Greater Manchester

  2,608

  1,003

  3,611

  Hampshire

  1,634

  578

  2,212

  Hertfordshire

  587

  41

  628

  Humberside

  1,244

  402

  1,646

  Kent

  1,549

  231

  1,780

  Lancashire

  1,238

  425

  1,663

  Leicestershire

  796

  297

  1,093

  Lincolnshire

  418

  60

  478

  City of London

  102

  63

  165

  Merseyside

  1,546

  1,377

  2,923

  Metropolitan Police

  7,639

  10,631

  18,270

  Norfolk

  624

  264

  888

  Northamptonshire

  358

  245

  603

  Northumbria

  1,336

  492

  1,828

  North Yorkshire

  815

  160

  975

  Nottinghamshire

  1,632

  289

  1,921

  South Yorkshire

  1,403

  563

  1,966

  Staffordshire.

  1,058

  381

  1,439

  Suffolk

  717

  194

  911

  Surrey

  541

  37

  578

  Sussex

  1,043

  338

  1,381

  Thames Valley

  1,727

  568

  2,295

  Warwickshire

  520

  117

  637

  West Mercia

  1,206

  429

  1,635

  West Midlands

  3,377

  1,391

  4,768

  West Yorkshire

  1,997

  546

  2,543

  Wiltshire

  464

  173

  637

  Dyfed Powys

  438

  82

  520

  Gwent

  630

  318

  948

  North Wales

  517

  125

  642

  South Wales

  962

  487

  1,449

  England

  46,379

  23,714

  70,093

  Wales

  2,547

  1,012

  3,559

  England and Wales

  48,926

  24,726

  73,652

  Persons cautioned by police force area and offence type—1990 (Quarter 4)

  Indictable offences (excluding motoring)

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding motoring)

  Avon and Somerset

  606

  137

  743

  Bedfordshire

  434

  134

  568

  Cambridgeshire

  488

  172

  660

  Cheshire

  929

  483

  1,412

  Cleveland

  607

  280

  887

  Cumbria

  314

  219

  533

  Derbyshire

  635

  346

  981

  Devon and Cornwall

  918

  446

  1,364

  Dorset

  304

  177

  481

  Durham

  208

  168

  376

  Essex

  944

  362

  1,306

  Gloucester

  433

  111

  544

  Greater Manchester

  2,638

  1,212

  3,850

  Hampshire

  2,569

  1,133

  3,702

  Hertfordshire

  614

  56

  670

  Humberside

  1,201

  514

  1,715

  Kent

  1,127

  246

  1,373

  Lancashire

  987

  371

  1,358

  Leicestershire

  605

  253

  858

  Lincolnshire

  323

  128

  451

  City of London

  74

  68

  142

  98 99

  Indictable offences (excluding motoring)

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding motoring)

  Merseyside

  1,402

  1,006

  2,408

  Metropolitan Police

  7,167

  11,504

  18,671

  Norfolk

  516

  227

  743

  Northamptonshire

  346

  229

  575

  Northumbria

  1,113

  525

  1,638

  North Yorkshire

  316

  118

  434

  Nottinghamshire

  1,117

  274

  1,391

  South Yorkshire

  1,028

  545

  1,573

  Staffordshire

  900

  143

  1,043

  Suffolk

  270

  201

  471

  Surrey

  456

  45

  501

  Sussex

  867

  170

  1,037

  Thames Valley

  1,205

  523

  1,728

  Warwickshire

  271

  67

  338

  West Mercia

  960

  371

  1,331

  West Midlands

  2,140

  572

  2,712

  West Yorkshire

  1,936

  686

  2,622

  Wiltshire

  583

  181

  764

  Dyfed Powys

  266

  69

  335

  Gwent

  330

  295

  625

  North Wales

  439

  120

  559

  South Wales

  824

  561

  1,385

  England

  39,551

  24,403

  63,954

  Wales

  1,859

  1,045

  2,904

  England and Wales

  41,410

  25,448

  66,858

  Persons cautioned by police force area and offence type—1989 (Quarter 4)

  Indictable offences (excluding motoring)

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding motoring)

  Avon and Somerset

  581

  86

  667

  Bedfordshire

  237

  98

  335

  Cambridgeshire

  370

  218

  588

  Cheshire

  77

  25

  102

  Cleveland

  923

  391

  1,314

  Cumbria

  337

  255

  592

  Derbyshire

  499

  352

  851

  Devon and Cornwall

  724

  470

  1,194

  Dorset

  436

  168

  604

  Durham

  356

  139

  495

  Essex

  884

  314

  1,198

  Gloucester

  285

  75

  360

  Greater Manchester

  2,408

  1,423

  3,831

  Hampshire

  396

  264

  660

  Hertfordshire

  328

  74

  402

  Humberside

  883

  466

  1,349

  Kent

  861

  199

  1,060

  Lancashire

  735

  198

  933

  Leicestershire

  527

  196

  723

  Lincolnshire

  273

  182

  455

  City of London

  75

  77

  152

  Merseyside

  1,204

  915

  2,119

  Metropolitan Police

  6,162

  11,617

  17,779

  Norfolk

  486

  221

  707

  Northamptonshire

  264

  285

  549

  Northumbria

  1,270

  609

  1,879

  North Yorkshire

  240

  139

  379

  Nottinghamshire

  1,033

  329

  1,362

  South Yorkshire

  1,252

  601

  1,853

  Staffordshire

  961

  215

  1,176

  Suffolk

  297

  160

  457

  Surrey

  330

  60

  390

  Sussex

  630

  248

  878

  Thames Valley

  1,062

  564

  1,626

  Warwickshire

  285

  82

  367

  West Mercia

  779

  403

  1,182

  West Midlands

  2,014

  429

  2,443

  West Yorkshire

  2,036

  601

  2,637

  Wiltshire

  435

  177

  612

  Dyfed Powys

  205

  69

  274

  Gwent

  316

  319

  635

  North Wales

  367

  210

  577

  South Wales

  743

  514

  1,257

  100 101

  Indictable offences (excluding motoring)

  Summary non-motoring offences

  All offences (excluding motoring)

  England

  32,935

  23,325

  56,260

  Wales

  1,631

  1,112

  2,743

  England and Wales

  34,566

  24,437

  59,003

  Cautions as a proportion of all notifiable offences cleared up by police force area

  Percentages

  Police force area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  10

  9

  Bedfordshire

  16

  10

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  15

  13

  Cheshire

  5

  10

  11

  Cleveland

  16

  21

  14

  Cumbria

  14

  15

  16

  Derbyshire

  14

  17

  16

  Devon and Cornwall

  7

  9

  13

  Dorset

  7

  7

  8

  Durham

  7

  7

  6

  Essex

  13

  15

  12

  Gloucestershire

  10

  13

  12

  Greater Manchester

  10

  10

  9

  Hampshire

  15

  15

  18

  Hertfordshire

  12

  17

  13

  Humberside

  13

  12

  13

  Kent

  14

  14

  19

  Lancashire

  8

  8

  8

  Leicestershire

  16

  15

  17

  Lincolnshire

  20

  13

  13

  London, City of

  16

  15

  14

  Merseyside

  6

  7

  7

  Metropolitan Police

  9

  9

  9

  Norfolk

  9

  10

  9

  Northamptonshire

  9

  9

  10

  Northumbria

  14

  11

  9

  North Yorkshire

  13

  10

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  15

  17

  South Yorkshire

  10

  9

  10

  Staffordshire

  13

  12

  12

  Suffolk

  15

  14

  19

  Surrey

  14

  17

  18

  Sussex

  11

  13

  13

  Thames Valley

  11

  13

  15

  Warwickshire

  10

  9

  13

  West Mercia

  14

  15

  14

  West Midlands

  8

  8

  10

  West Yorkshire

  12

  11

  11

  Wiltshire

  17

  16

  IS

  Dyfed-Powys

  8

  9

  9

  Gwent

  2

  3

  8

  North Wales

  12

  10

  11

  South Wales

  7

  7

  6

  England and Wales

  11

  11

  11

  Immigration
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants since 1990 have been allowed leave to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom under(a) the 10-year concession and (b) the 14-year concession; over the same period, how many applications were refused in each category; and of those refused who went on to appeal, how many of these appeals were successful.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the long residence concession, a person who has 10 years or more continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom, or 14 years continuous residence regardless of legality, may qualify for 102
  the grant of indefinite leave to remain depending on the circumstances of their particular case. The information we have does not distinguish those allowed to remain indefinitely after 14 years from those allowed to remain after 10; and information on refusals and on grants following appeal is not identifiable separately in the statistics. The information we have is as follows:

  Acceptances for settlement under the long residence concession (excluding dependants)

  Number

  1990

  2,600

  1991

  2,200

  1992

  12,100

  1Provisional.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Government have taken during the last three years to help women, with and without children, who are victims of domestic violence.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government take very seriously violence against women. A wide range of initiatives across Government has been taken in recent years to tackle domestic violence. These are directed towards ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice; that victims receive the necessary material emotional support, and that steps are taken towards prevention in the long term. A new interdepartmental official group has been established to co-ordinate future work, and Ministers will take forward their proposals.

  Action has been taken to improve the criminal justice response to domestic violence. In July 1990, guidance was issued to the police in England and Wales and Scotland to ensure a quick and effective response. The RUC issued a similar force order in 1991. A study is in hand to assess the effects of the guidance in England and Wales. The Crown prosecution service is updating its comprehensive guidance issued to staff for dealing with domestic violence cases. The Lord Chancellor is giving detailed consideration to the recommendations for action through the civil court contained in the Law Commission report on "Domestic Violence and the occupation of the Family Home".

  An increasing number of schemes and projects are being developed to provide help and support for victims. Safer cities projects have between them funded over 100 schemes aimed at the problem of domestic violence. Derby, Hull, Islington, and Tower Hamlets are funding domestic violence workers. Multi-agency groups to tackle the issue have been established in many areas. The Leicester project has set up a major initiative to fit emergency alarms to the homes of women at risk from their partners. In Hammersmith and Fulham, a scheme has been funded to support the children of women

  103
  experiencing domestic violence. In Northern Ireland, domestic violence forums were set up in Newtonabbey and Lisburn in 1992 under the safer cities initiative.

  The Department of Health grant aids the Women's Aid Federation (England), which co-ordinates and supports the work of refuge groups nationally. Similar annual funding is made to Scottish Women's Aid, Welsh Women's Aid, and Northern Ireland Women's Aid respectively by the Scottish and Welsh Offices and Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland.

  In addition, the Department of Health is funding a national domestic violence telephone helpline run by WAF(E). In 1992–93, an extra £438,000 was provided by the Welsh Office to support projects in individual refuges and advice centres. The third edition of the homelessness code of guidance issued by the Department of Environment in 1991 advised local authorities that victims of domestic violence should be considered homeless and in priority need.

  A wide range of action is being undertaken to prevent domestic violence in the long-term. A women's safety package, which includes a section dealing with domestic violence, is currently being produced by the Scottish Office crime prevention unit. Two innovative projects in Scotland, the CHANGE project in Central region and the Lothian probation project, are aimed at changing the behaviour of men who abuse their partners. They are being evaluated in a three-year study, which began in. 1991.

  The Government will continue to support research to inform future policy development. The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland has been involved in a major research project over the last year into domestic violence in Northern Ireland. A draft final report on the project is presently being considered by the Department. The Home Office programme development unit is funding several innovative projects over the next three years. A 24-hour civilian team has been attached to Islington police station to help provide specialised counselling, advice and referral alongside an enhanced criminal justice response to domestic violence.

  The Leeds inter-agency project is supporting a number of schemes, including the attachment of counsellors to GP surgeries to deal with the particular needs of children affected by domestic violence. In Keighley, a programme of activities will be developed on gender issues and family violence for use in schools and youth clubs. My Department is also evaluating a Merseyside police pilot project which provides alarm systems for women at risk.

  Transgenic Animals
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has in respect of transgenic animals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The use of all vertebrate animals in scientific procedures which may result in pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm is controlled by the Animals 104
  (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under the Act, the Home Office regulates not only the development of transgenic animals, but also the breeding of any such animals which may suffer harmful effects as a result of their transgenic status.

  Boundaries (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Boundary Commission is expected(a) to commence its inquiries in Essex and (b) to publish its provisional recommendations for Essex.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the Boundary Commission for England will shortly start work on its review of Essex and expects to publish provisional recommendations during June of this year.

  Falklands War (Troops' Behaviour)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been allotted to the Metropolitan police to enable it to investigate allegations concerning misbehaviour of troops during the Falklands war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No additional resources have been allotted.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers from the United Arab Emirates have undergone training in this country in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Central records show that, in November 1992, two police officers from the United Arab Emirates attended a hostage negotiators course with the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British police officers are either currently seconded to the United Arab Emirates or have been in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No British police officers are currently on secondment to the United Arab Emirates under the terms of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, nor have there been any secondments there in the last 12 months.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been given British citizenship under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: As at 20 March 1993, 67,395.

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

Credit Cards: Fraud
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to protect customers from fraudulent charging by companies when making payments by credit cards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the Government have no plans to take such steps. Credit card holders are not liable for fraudulent charges by traders.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. However, is she aware of the enormous problem that is being created, bearing in mind the fact that the credit card referral unit has itself initiated a number of arrests and nothing much has been done? Two thousands cards are either lost or stolen each day. Further, British people on holiday on the Continent have had to pay bills from places which they have never visited in their lives. Surely the Government could contact the card companies and instruct them to be a little more careful and to play the game with their reasonably honest customers who, although they may be foolish, are not dishonest?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that I believe this to be an occasion on which we could have some sympathy with the banks. If a transaction has not been authorised by a card holder, the card issuer will reimburse the holder and charge the amount back to the merchant acquirer or retailer. It is important for individuals to retain transaction vouchers, to check their statements carefully and to inform the card issuer without delay.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there has been considerable comment recently in the press about credit card vouchers which are left open to car hire companies by holidaymakers? When the return comes in, people find that extra charges have been added. Is that a desirable practice, or is there any way in which one could prevent it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am aware of the issue regarding car hire vouchers returned in such a way. It is something at which the Director General of Fair Trading is looking. There are already rules stating that charges in respect of vehicle damage, parking tickets and traffic violations cannot automatically be charged to the card holder's account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while operating within the letter of the law, is it not outrageous that credit card companies are now charging 20 per cent.
590
over the base rate on balances which are not cleared by the end of the month? Further, is it not even more outrageous that those companies are now considering ending the interest-free period, so that the interest is paid as soon as the item is bought and not from the time it appears on the statement? What do the Government propose to do about the matter?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government will leave commercial contracts to the parties concerned. I should also point out that it is standard banking practice for interest to be paid on an amount borrowed from the time that it is borrowed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Consumers' Association is very interested and much perturbed by what is going on at present with credit card firms? The association believes that such firms should not just add on extras without proof of such extras being approved by the person who owns the card. It asks that there should be more responsibility taken before debiting accounts with extras. There is also the problem which arises when people telephone for an item and give their credit card number. They think that the amount to be charged is "x" amount, but when they come to pay for it they discover that the amount is very much more than that stated in the advertisement. Surely in the interests of honesty, the credit card companies and the bankers would be pleased if the Government were to take some initiative in the matter so as to get a better understanding for all concerned?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concern. Credit card fraud and lost credit cards are a major problem. There is a responsibility on the card holder's part; for example, many cards are stolen from cars. That seems to me to be no place to leave one's credit card. Moreover, if a trader cannot substantiate a transaction, the card holder will be reimbursed. But leaving a credit card docket unsigned is no different from writing a blank cheque.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, at the risk of sounding a little old-fashioned, is there not a certain virtue in settling one's debts by cash?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suggest that there are many protections against using a credit card which are to the advantage of the consumer.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to obliging issuers of credit cards and bankers' cards to encapsulate a photograph of the card holder on the card?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to assure the noble Earl that that matter, and several other technological protection matters, are being considered by the card issuers, who are the ones most at risk in many such transactions. Barclays Bank recently installed a system whereby an automatic check can be made to ascertain whether the proposed spend is in the pattern of the person spending. Unfortunately, I understand that it stops someone buying an engagement ring.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in general there are no free lunches and that credit cards are often a snare and an illusion? Cautious people should be extremely careful about using them. It is foolish for people to have many credit cards just because they are often regarded as a status symbol.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that responsible borrowing is the only kind of borrowing that people should enter into.

Honorary Consuls: Selection
2.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they use for the appointment of honorary consuls and for the selection of countries in which they serve.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, candidates for honorary consular appointments should be people of sound standing in the local community with good access to useful contacts. Our policy is to strengthen the honorary consular network. Each head of mission throughout the world may consider whether or not a particular area under his or her jurisdiction would benefit from the appointment of an honorary consul.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her customary courteous and comprehensive Answer. Is she aware of the great debt we owe to our consuls, whether paid or unpaid, in our diplomatic service the world over? However, does my noble friend not agree that there is an anomaly? In Canada, for example, one can travel for 4,000 miles without having access to a consul. In Finland, which is a country I know and love well, there are 10 honorary consuls; in Norway there are 14. Is that not an anomaly? Consuls carry out excellent work. Will my noble friend consider the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I agree that we owe a great debt to all consuls, whether honorary or in the diplomatic service. Many consuls who reside in holiday resorts work way beyond their normal hours. I realise that in large countries where long distances are involved there may be a case for appointing more consuls if the diplomatic service and Ministers think that that is right. However, I am told that travelling is easy in Canada and that telecommunications there are good: the facilities are better than those that exist in Finland and perhaps in Norway. Canada constitutes a special case in this regard. The High Commissioner in Ottawa keeps the matter under continual review. I gather that in Finland the large number of honorary consuls is a matter of historic significance. The consuls perform little work but, for historical reasons, are not paid, as other honorary consuls are.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the Government's argument against establishing an honorary consulate in Alberta?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the situation in Alberta has been special. We have not continued the appointment because of the low amount of work that was being done by the consulate general there. As my noble friend made clear on 2nd March, we are satisfied that consular assistance to British citizens transiting Alberta is adequately covered from Vancouver. The office in Vancouver covers export promotion work. That work could not be undertaken by an honorary consul. However, as I told my noble friend earlier, we are keeping the situation under review, although at the present time there does not seem to be the work for an honorary consul there.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the High Commissioner in Ottawa is considering the situation in Alberta? Vancouver may help a little but it is a considerable distance from Alberta where there was formerly a full-blown consular office.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of the matter my noble friend refers to. In the past year or so few inquiries were made to the paid consul in Alberta. We are asking the High Commissioner in Ottawa to keep the matter under close consideration. I can assure my noble friend that Ministers are keeping the situation in Alberta under review and are also reviewing the opportunities that might be afforded by honorary consuls elsewhere.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, will my noble friend consider appointing a consul general in Krakow as Poland has requested?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when subordinate posts have to be closed, as they are likely to have to be closed following the cuts in the Autumn Statement, there is a case for examining them post by post to see whether it would be appropriate for an honorary consul to be appointed in place of a full-time consulate? Will the Government also consider a recommendation made by the Central Policy Review Staff in its review of overseas representation some years ago that British trade representatives should be drawn from local businessmen based abroad? The recommendation appears in chapter 6, paragraphs 118 to 120.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Baroness knows the paragraphs so well. Most of us who have read the report also know them. Foreign governments can turn down requests to have honorary consuls either from the visiting nation or their own nation. Sometimes, if a post is closed for any reason, the government concerned do not wish to have an honorary consul there instead of a full diplomatic post. The position is not always quite as easy as the noble Baroness indicated. It is clear that while honorary consuls can represent extremely good value for money, one should not think that honorary consuls who occupy their

593
posts in the name of the British people and the British Government should have an additional ability to pursue their own trade interests.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's support for the concept of honorary consuls, especially in remote cities, can she support the notion of increasing the number in Latin America where the distances are even greater than in Canada and the countries are diverse?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that we are perfectly prepared to look at such matters in the light of the work which is asked of us. We know from our annual records what is asked of us. Where there is a case for having them, then I believe that honorary consuls can represent not only good value for money but also good publicity for the United Kingdom abroad.

European Elections
2.50 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the De Gucht proposals for the adoption of proportional representation in the United Kingdom for the next European elections, and in particular what action they propose to take on the six additional seats allocated at the European Summit in Edinburgh.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are ready to discuss the European Parliament's resolution in the Council of Ministers. The Government are currently formulating proposals for accommodating six extra seats. When we have done so we shall consult with the opposition parties.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that extremely encouraging and interesting reply. On previous occasions in this House I have heard him stonewall when replying to questions on the subject of proportional representation for European elections. Perhaps I may encourage him in that new open-mindedness on the part of the Government by reminding him that Article 138 of the European Community treaty, to which the UK is a signatory, commits us to a uniform electoral procedure. Is the Minister further aware, as I am sure he is, that in their proposals Mr. De Gucht and his colleagues in the European Parliament bend over backwards to try to accommodate British institutional conservatism on the issue? Finally, does he agree that failure on our part to move towards a common electoral system would not merely take us further from the heart of Europe but would also further widen the gap between the British people and European democratic institutions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that Article 138 of the European Community treaty requires the European Parliament to draw up proposals for uniform electoral procedures. It is for the presidency to decide when the Council of Ministers will discuss the matter.
594
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he thought that I was more open-minded, but I would not wish to encourage him too far about that. We, intend to discuss the matter with our European partners in the Council of Ministers. We have always taken the view that the first-past-the-post system is the best and that proportional representation is not a system: it depends on which of the 20 systems one desires to adopt. I do not believe that if 'we retain the first-past-the-post system it will take us away from the heart of Europe.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if there is to be a uniform system, given the desire of the Italians to rid themselves of PR and the Mafia in one blow, it is more likely that Europe will opt for a single system, namely first-past-the-post?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would not wish to equate the first-past-the-post system with the Mafia. Whether the Council of Ministers agrees in the end on a first-past-the-post system or proportional representation is a matter for the Council of Ministers. The obligation is to find a uniform electoral procedure. That system has yet to be found.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we have been down this road before? We had direct elections in 1979 in order to bring ourselves into conformity with the remaining states of Europe, with the result that we had a system of direct elections here and in Ireland, whereas the remainder carried on exactly as before. Would it not be far better if her Majesty's Government were to relax on this issue and concentrate instead on seeking the verdict by referendum of the British people as to whether they want Maastricht at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is remarkable in being able to bring up the subject of Maastricht on this Question about proportional representation. It has nothing to do with it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is the British Members of the European Parliament who have the closest connection with their electorate in this country? MEPs have direct links with the electorate in their regions. Other Members of the European Parliament do not have that direct link. Perhaps I may be allowed to tell the House that one MEP, a Frenchman, said that if he had three articles in Le Monde a year that was his only connection with his electorate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for making the case for the first-past-the-post system so clear. When people say that we are the only country not having proportional representation, it is interesting to note that Spain and Portugal have a list system in which the electorate choose parties rather than a member, Belgium has a list system of a different variety, Italy has a list system but now wants to revert to the first-past-the-post system, and France has a system in which one votes on two consecutive Sundays. There is no unanimity there at all.
Lord. Cockfield: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present Socialist majority in the European Parliament is due entirely to the bizarre operation of the first-past-the-post system in the United Kingdom? Does he regard that as a good argument for the retention of the first-past-the-post system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, having a Socialist majority is regrettable. But to use that as an argument for doing away with the first-past-the-post system is even more regrettable.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Earl told us that the Government are considering ways of accommodating the six additional seats allocated at the European Summit. Do they propose to accommodate those on the basis of single member constituencies? If so, should not the Boundary Commission be hard at work?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords. The idea is to redraw the lines of the European parliamentary boundaries. That can either be done by the Boundary Commission, which at the moment is tied up, or by a special body of people. If that is so we shall, of course, have consultations with all opposition parties.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us who the special body of people might be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not until the special body of people has been devised.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that reply will cause considerable shock to democrats in this country? We have a system for devising boundaries in this country which is called the Boundary Commission.
Is there any truth in the rumours that the Government may not proceed with the six seats at all and, because of the difficulties of redrawing the boundaries on the first-past-the-post system, we may forgo those seats? Do the Government care to deny that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any validity in the rumour that the noble Lord has just promulgated.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, leaving aside the question of proportional representation, which is obviously much more sensible than the system we have here, will the Minister give us some guidance on how those six seats are to be divided among the various nations which make up the United Kingdom?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that would be for the advisory body to decide.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that any alteration to the voting system for the European Parliament would have to be agreed by both Houses of the Westminster Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Any alteration of this kind would require primary legislation, which would need the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us who Mr., Mrs. or Miss De Gucht is and by what right he or she makes recommendations that we should change our system of election?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Mr. De Gucht—I hope that I have the correct pronunciation—is a Member of the European Parliament. He is a Belgian. He is a Liberal. He has made his proposition to the Council of Ministers and the Council of Ministers is going to discuss it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the noble Earl belies his chauvinism with his exquisite pronunciation of Mr. De Gucht's name, on which I congratulate him. If it is the Government's intention to consult with opposition parties, will they also consult the Conservative Members of the European Parliament, a large majority of whom favour a reform of the electoral system on these lines?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wish to make the situation perfectly clear. We intend to redraw the parliamentary constituency boundaries for the European election before next July. How that is to be done in order to accommodate the six new additional places is a matter still to be discussed. It could be by the Boundary Commission; it could be by a special body.

Royal Parks Agency
3 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the establishment of the Royal Parks Agency on 1st April 1993, each of the parks will be able to retain for its own use any surplus income it may generate, and if not, why not.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the financial arrangement agreed with the Treasury will allow the Royal Parks Agency to keep 50 per cent. of any income above its Voted provision. This reflects the need to tackle a backlog of essential maintenance which exists throughout the parks. It is not specific to individual parks.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to allow discretion as to the use of surplus income would encourage appropriate investment in the parks and the enjoyment and full use of them? It would be a good idea for each park to be treated differently by those who know about it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, in practice that would normally be the aim. However, because of differing priorities across the parks, the chief executive will be the ultimate arbiter on how the additional income will be used. That is to ensure that the primary aims of the agency set out in the corporate plan are best served.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, why has the essential repair and refurbishment work to the Albert Memorial in Kensington Gardens, one of the Royal

597
parks, been suspended? Is it part of the Exchequer cuts? Should it not be a national responsibility for that work to proceed as quickly as possible?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of that Grade I listed memorial and are committed to its repair and restoration. Over £2 million has already been spent on a full survey and protection and to prevent any deterioration. Plans for the restoration have been prepared. The current cost is projected to be £10.4 million over six to seven years. We do not yet have a commencement date for the works.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what is happening about the Royal Parks Advisory Committee? Is there to be one committee for all the Royal parks or will each park have its own committee? How will local people be consulted in advance?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there will be one advisory committee. Its main function will be to provide a source of independent advice for the Secretary of State on the agency's proposals for the development of the parks and the agency's performance against its published targets. Park managers are building on their relationships with local interest groups. The agency's corporate plan will be published on 1st April. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the agency also proposes to make individual park plans available to local groups and statutory bodies in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of us are extremely surprised to learn that any Royal park might make a profit? Will he explain how a profit is to be made? If it is to be made what magnitude are we talking about? Furthermore, is making a profit to be a criterion in re-letting contracts? In other words, if a park fails to make a profit, will that failure influence who obtains the contract next time?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is somewhat mistaken. The parks do not make a profit. The expenditure for 1993–94 is £26.9 million. Out of that sum, the income is only £2 million. There is therefore no question of making a profit. We were discussing earlier any profit on specific projects which occur within a park. That is a different matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if any profit or other surplus money is generated in relation to St. James's Park, will my noble friend ask the body responsible for allocating such surplus money to consider further work to ensure the full aeration, circulation and cleanliness of the water in the pond which in hot weather can detract considerably from the attractions of the park?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have already taken steps to improve the water quality in St. James's Park. Time will tell this summer how successful those measures have been. In the past, all excess receipts had
598
to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The fact that we are able to retain 50 per cent. is a substantial improvement.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his original Answer, did my noble friend refer to 50 per cent of any income or 50 per cent. of any surplus income?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is 50 per cent. of any surplus income, which means 50 per cent. of any income which is not part of budgeted income for that year.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, when announcing the extension of the agency concept to Royal parks, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that hitherto the agencies had achieved three of their four targets in the areas of finance, productivity and value for money. He admitted that with regard to the fourth target area, quality, the agencies were falling short. Is the Minister aware that quality is the prime priority in relation to our Royal parks for the citizens of London and its visitors and that it should be a higher priority than the financial considerations being promoted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the aims of the Royal Parks Agency is to protect, preserve and enhance the parks and to offer peaceful enjoyment, recreation, entertainment and delight to their visitors.
We care about quality. The recent review of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, carried out by Dame Jennifer Jenkins identified the need for increased funding to tackle the severe backlog of urgent maintenance. We are extremely grateful to Dame Jennifer and her committee for the hard work that they have put into producing an excellent report on Hyde Park. We expect her further report on Green Park, St. James's and Regent's Park to he published shortly.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, 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 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 and five Scottish legal aid regulations will be taken.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages this day.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that previously when the Motion has been moved there has been raised from all quarters of the House the possibility of using the day on which the Consolidated Fund Bill comes before your Lordships as a means of inaugurating a debate on the general economic or financial state of the nation's affairs.
Noble Lords will be aware that this afternoon the Select Committee on Procedure will be meeting in order to discuss the matter on a proposal produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and myself. Will the noble Lord give the House the benefit of any further constructive thoughts that he may have before the committee meets?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have been around just long enough to know that last time I gave the benefit of my advice after the Select Committee had considered the matter. I do not believe that it would be wise for me to give any views prior to the committee meeting later this afternoon.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend give your Lordships some guidance? As the position now stands, debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill is prohibited. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, that is to be discussed by the Procedure Committee this afternoon, and I shall not touch upon it now. However, will my noble friend say whether or not the procedural Motion that he has moved is regarded as debatable?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords are perfectly in order if they wish to debate the procedural Motion that I have moved.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wish to support the two noble Lords who have spoken. The first item on the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions in another place is the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill. It states that,
"Questions on Second and Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill will be put forthwith".
There will therefore be no debate whatever in another place. Members in another place will obviously do as they wish. However, we have had previous discussions on the subject in this Chamber and I should like some assurance that we are not negating any right that we may have had in the past.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as on previous occasions, I support all noble Lords who have spoken in this matter.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, all four noble Lords who have contributed briefly to the debate are well apprised of the issues which will be discussed later this afternoon by the Select Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Hooper and the Viscount Allenby of Megiddo be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session in place of the Viscount Davidson, who has resigned.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Tenant's notice of intention etc.]:
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 176A:
Page 96, line 13, at end insert:
("() In Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act, paragraph 10 (certain dwelling houses for persons of pensionable age), sub paragraph (2) (b), for the words from "a system" to "a group of dwelling houses" there shall be substituted "or other designated responsible person and a system for calling him provided that the system was in operation either on 1st January 1993 or, if the tenancy was granted after that date, at the inception of the tenancy."").
The noble Lord said: The history of this amendment goes back a long way. In order not to empty the Chamber too quickly, I shall try not to go back further than I can help. But I fear that I have to go back to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. At a late stage in the passage of that Bill, in fact the Committee stage in this House, the Government decided to repeal paragraph 1 I of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. That repeal would have permitted enfranchisement in small groups of council housing designed for the aged, but where, inter alia, no common room facilities existed. That had particular implications for the provision for the elderly in small groups and in smaller villages in rural areas.
This House was not satisfied with the position then and hence passed by 94 votes to 36 a somewhat hastily composed amendment which relied upon each application for enfranchisement in those cases being determined by the Minister. It was hastily proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I am sure that he would not mind my saying that it had to be done hastily and it may not have been as perfect as all that. However, on the whole the House felt that he had done a good job. That amendment constitutes the present paragraph II of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act, and that is the present position.
At that time there was some doubt as to whether the proposal was ideal. To begin with, it is a pretty cumbersome procedure. My noble friend Lord Vinson and I had put amendments down which would have reduced the number of cases which the Minister

601
needed to determine. Our amendments were with-drawn pending discussion before Third Reading with the Minister, who was then my noble friend Lord Hesketh. My recollection is that we got within an ace of success in the discussions, but at that time there were great pressures on the parliamentary timetable at the end of the Session. There was a strong desire not to amend the Bill further and it was therefore concluded that perhaps the best thing we could do on that occasion was to await a further legislative opportunity. So, although amendments were put down on Third Reading, they were not moved.
Amendment No. 176A was one of the amendments put down on that occasion. In effect, it amends paragraph 10(2) (b) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act. That paragraph lists the cases where enfranchisement does not apply. The amendment simply takes out the requirement for the common room, leaving the other provisions as they are in paragraph 10. The rest of the amendment proposes to prevent the later addition of a calling system, which might be some form of abuse to which authorities might possibly resort.
Today, looking at the matter again, we have the advantage of hindsight. Since 1989 a large number of applications have been made to the Minister, I believe almost 4,000. There have been complaints about uncertainty and delay. Local authorities have 28 days in which to apply. They have found that a pretty tight schedule and in a number of cases they have failed over the deadline.
On the other hand, the Minister is permitted to take as long as he likes, and it is alleged that he has certainly done so. One wonders whether the uncertainty is of much help to anyone, local authorities or potential enfranchisers. There have been complaints on both sides about petty application of the rules and I suppose that that is fairly inevitable. I shall not go into it now.
Then, of course, there is the cost of this lengthy procedure; and another drawback is that the Act in no way enjoins the Minister to take into account the likelihood or otherwise of a dwelling for the elderly being replaced if the original one is enfranchised. Several local authorities are concerned on that score. They see a steady attrition of suitable accommodation available to them which will make it more difficult for them to fulfil their obligations. My anxiety about that is the obligation they have of rehousing under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. It would be interesting to know how the Minister sees the position.
The dangers, in my view, are, first, that as people become older they wish to stay in the same neighbourhood, to continue to live where they have reason to live as long as they can. That is something which might be prevented. I also see increasing difficulty for local authorities in rehousing retired agricultural workers under the 1976 Act.
It seems to me right to propose something that would make for more automatic decisions and less bureaucracy. That is what the Association of District Councils wishes to see. The amendment would reduce the number of applications for the Minister to decide. It would provide, I believe, more certainty. It might result in somewhat fewer enfranchisements of that
602
kind of property. Under the circumstances, that might be to the good; after all, the number of elderly is not decreasing. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: I support my noble friend's amendment for most of the reasons that he gave. In particular, there is the position of small groups of houses in rural areas where it would not be reasonable to expect a common room to be attached to the group. Nor would it seem to be reasonable for a council in those circumstances to have to go through the currently cumbersome and capricious procedures involved in paragraph 11. I hope that my noble friend will consider that a case has been made here.
Lord Renton: I too support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. I happen to be an elderly person and live in a rural area, but I have no interest to declare so far in the amendment. It is a fact that a great many people in rural areas seem to live to a great age. Once they have become settled in a cottage, flat or small house, they do not wish for any reason, whether it be a technical reason under the housing law or any other, to have to move against their will. To the extent that my noble friend's amendment would prevent that, I think it requires a great deal of sympathy.
We have reached a stage of the Bill at which I must confess, although I am a lawyer, we enter a realm of a good deal of legislative complexity and some technicality. My noble friend explained with great clarity the reason for the amendment and its result. I find it difficult to understand how my noble friend on the Front Bench could be other than sympathetic towards it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On this side of the Committee we warmly support the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. We have long been concerned at the way the Secretary of State exercises powers under the Housing Act 1985 to exclude elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy. The significance is that, short of full sheltered housing, there is special housing designed to meet the social and physical needs of the elderly in the last five to 10 years of life which can now be sold. As so many speakers have said, owing to the growing number of the elderly, the demands of care in the community which very shortly will face us all and the particular needs of the rural community to allow elderly people to remain in their villages and small towns, it is essential that elderly persons' bungalows, short of full sheltered housing, should remain part of the socially rented housing stock.
It cannot be sensible that someone of 80 should exercise his or her right to buy an elderly persons' bungalow which has been customised for his needs, and buy at a heavy discount, which does not allow a replacement bungalow to be built, who may then, unfortunately, die within a year or two, so that the elderly persons' bungalow passes to a son or daughter of 40 or 50 who can sell it to somebody else as a second home. That cannot be right. It strips rural areas in particular of their ability to meet the housing needs of the elderly.

603
The Secretary of State currently exempts sheltered housing where it is clustered round a common room or has a resident warden and high care facilities. But where we deal with elderly persons' bungalows without the full range support of facilities, it is left, as the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, said, to the Secretary of State to decide. The factors he takes into consideration include location, heating systems, design, size and so on. When the delays prove to be bureaucratic and time-consuming, local authorities are required to contest a right-to-buy application on an elderly person's dwelling in 28 days. In my authority it has taken up to 14 months for the Secretary of State to reply—not surprisingly, when one asks the Secretary of State to deal with each individual case on its merits based on the associated paperwork. In consequence, local authorities have to measure to the nearest yard the distance of a bungalow from shops and from bus stops, heights of ceilings and the like. It is simply bureaucratic nonsense. The result is that we have had whimsical, unpredictable and arbitrary decisions flowing from the Secretary of State as to whether an elderly person may or may not buy his or her bungalow or flat.
For example, the local authority was required to sell an old person's ground-floor flat on the basis that that flat was located on a noisy road and therefore, the Secretary of State held, was not suitable for an elderly person. Yet at the same time, if that flat were not on a main road, the Secretary of State would have regarded it as being too far from buses and shops and therefore not suitable for an elderly person.
On another occasion, the local authority was required to sell a dwelling because it was 0.9 miles away from the nearest shop—this being in a rural area where there were no shops for two miles. That meant that, on that formula, that village could have no elderly persons' bungalows at all. In another case, for example, the Secretary of State required the sale of an elderly person's flat because it had high ceilings and the Secretary of State argued that people could not reach to change the light bulbs. Another was sold because it had the wrong catch to a bathroom door; another because, though the bath was fitted with grab rails, it was not properly designed for an elderly person.
On that basis, neither the tenant applicant nor the local authority can predict whether an elderly person's flat, bungalow or dwelling will come within RTB. It is clearly nonsense. What the amendment will do—which is why we support it so warmly—is to exclude from RTB not just sheltered housing which is currently exempt but those elderly persons' dwellings which are connected to a warden system or a control system; in other words, designed for the elderly in the last years of their life who need some degree of support to remain in the community. We believe that that is an appropriate field for socially rented housing, particularly in rural areas. We very much hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: I too rise to support strongly the amendment of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. I am a great supporter in general of the right to buy.
604
But, as noble Lords know, it has caused very special problems in rural areas. They are problems which have to some extent to be made up for through the reinvention of council housing under another name—through housing associations. Unfortunately, due to a shortage of government funds, it has not been possible to make up the deficit. There are many villages where people are simply unable to afford to live and where the whole social and age mix of the population is changing greatly as the result of that particular scarcity.
If one has legislation of this sort, which is in general good, one should not shrink from producing the necessary amendments to make it more precise in meeting demands. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend would facilitate matters. I believe that all Members of the Committee must agree that where there is housing which has been specially provided in any form for the elderly, at a cost great or small, it is a great pity if there is no simple and non-bureaucratic means whereby the right to buy should not apply to such housing.
Baroness Hamwee: Voices have been raised on all sides of the Chamber in support of the amendment. I hope that the Minister's voice will be added to them. If he accepts the amendment, he need not tell the Committee whether it is merely to avoid bureaucracy or whether he accepts the arguments about right to buy which have been put forward. Perhaps he can avoid embarrassment on that score.
I support all that has been said about keeping a stock of housing which is very much needed. I should like to add one comment in regard to alarm systems (call systems). As technology advances, the use of such systems is the greater and they may be used and installed all the more easily. Anything which discourages that installation must concern us. Any sort of discouragement, and a fear that one needs to provide additional facilities in the form of a common room to meet all the criteria in order to take housing out of the right-to-buy provisions, is of concern. I say quite simply that I hope the Minister will support the widest spread of that sort of system and avoid the bureaucracy that has already been referred to this afternoon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment for the reasons given by other Members of the Committee. It is obviously the work of a competent draftsman. I compliment my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton on his clarity of exposition in an exceedingly technical and complex area. However, he has made plain the spirit of the amendment. If the drafting does not appeal to my noble friend, perhaps he would take on board the spirit of the amendment and produce his own draft with the assistance of a parliamentary draftsman. The Committee may well think that the essence of the amendment is wholly admirable and right, irrespective of whether one supports the right to buy. I support it, but as the Committee knows, with qualifications as to residency.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to add my support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord

605
Monk Bretton. If dwellings in a group are sold off one by one, it will become virtually impossible to find a warden to look after those which remain. Certainly it will he difficult to find back-up wardens. The amount of money that one would be able to pay to wardens will go down and no one will come forward to be of help.
The other point that I want to put to the Minister concerns rural areas. Should that type of accommodation in rural areas become extremely rare and difficult to find, it will mean that elderly people in the last days of their life will be forced out of country areas, away from their families and friends and into an urban and what may be to them a possibly hostile environment. I very much support the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lord Renton said that we were legislating in an area of increasing complexity and technicality. He is right and it gives me a problem. I should like to bring some clarity to this area because I suspect that there is confusion in the minds of some of my noble friends as to the current position. Therefore perhaps I may ask the Committee's blessing if my reply is slightly lengthy. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that I am conscious that we are returning to a subject which has been much debated in this Chamber—as he said, most recently in 1989—and which, as has been demonstrated today, arouses strong feelings.
I remind the Committee that following the 1989 legislation we now have two separate statutory regimes under which housing occupied by elderly people may be excluded from the right to buy. First, there is the provision currently in paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 which applies to groups of housing particularly suitable for elderly people. The amendment would change that provision. Paragraph 10 applies only if there are special facilities for the benefit of the occupants of a group of dwellings. The special facilities may take the form of a resident warden. Alternatively there may be a non-resident warden and a call system; but in that case there must also be a common room.
I should like to emphasise the point that paragraph 10 applies to an elderly person's bungalow or flat only if it forms part of a group. It does not apply to such properties when they stand alone. The provision is clearly directed, as I agree that it should be, at what might be called the classic sheltered housing scheme. One of the thoughts lying behind the provision is that the scale of individual units in a group which has shared facilities may affect the viability of the whole scheme.
There has not been a lot of controversy about the exclusion of sheltered schemes from the right to buy and the provision which now appears as paragraph 10 is not much changed from when it first appeared in the Housing Act 1980. If the landlord denies the right to buy to a tenant or the ground that his or her home forms part of a sheltered housing scheme, the tenant has no right to challenge. So far as I know, few or no disputes have arisen. No doubt it is quite clear whether
606
or not someone is living in a sheltered housing scheme. The Government and my noble friends have no dispute with that. By contrast, the law relating to individual non-sheltered housing for elderly people has been through several changes, has provoked many disputes and has been debated in this Chamber on a number of occasions. It is one of the subjects on which Members may regard themselves as having some expertise.
The problem is that housing for elderly people, when it takes the form of individual free-standing properties rather than sheltered groups, is not always obviously recognisable. Most elderly tenants live in housing which could be equally appropriate for younger people. It is probably true that housing for elderly people should be on the level and properly heated, because people become less able to climb stairs and less able to cope with the cold as they become older. However, beyond that the suitability for elderly people of a particular property can be very much open to debate. For that reason no doubt the original legislation in 1980 provided that if the landlord did not want to sell elderly persons' housing under the right to buy and that housing did not form part of a sheltered scheme, the Secretary of State had to be asked to determine that the right to buy was not to be exercised.
During the period between the Housing and Planning Act 1986 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 the Secretary of State lost that jurisdiction and landlords were free to deny the right to buy on their own authority. The position now is that the Secretary of State has jurisdiction under paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act in respect of what was, broadly speaking, the existing public housing stock at the end of 1989. A determination may only be made if the property was first let before 1st January 1990. Post-1989 housing for elderly people can only be excluded from the right to buy if it forms part of a sheltered group and falls within paragraph 10 of the schedule.
The amendment tabled by my noble friends would change paragraph 10 so as to widen the definition of a sheltered group. Under the amendment a group of dwellings could fall within paragraph 10 provided that it had the services of a non-resident warden or other designated responsible person and a system for calling that person. There would no longer be any need for a common room. The presence of a system for summoning a designated responsible person might be thought to be strong evidence that the property in which it is installed is rather special. That was certainly the view of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee. At one time it might well have been so. But with modern telecommunications it no longer seems to be the case.
That is not just the Government's position. Let me quote from a pamphlet kindly supplied to the department by Stroud District Council explaining its lifeline service. It reads:
"The lifeline consists of a telephone unit and a body worn radio trigger. An alarm call is raised by simply pressing a red button on the telephone or by pressing the petite radio trigger

607
… Having activated an emergency call your details are displayed on a visual screen at the ambulance headquarters control centre".
I am sure the whole Committee will agree that that is an admirable service. Perhaps I may explain to whom it is available. The council's note says:
"Lifelines are available to anyone living in Stroud District Council's area, for the elderly, the disabled or even the person living on their own who feels the need for reassurance, irrespective of whether you are a house owner or rent your accommodation".
The leaflet goes on to explain that all that is needed for the equipment to be installed is a British Telecom telephone line and socket and a power point.
We would not take the view that the residents of Stroud district who take advantage of that excellent facility are therefore to be regarded as living in sheltered housing.
I have a further concern about the amendment tabled by my noble friends. In paragraph 10 the provision which the amendment would modify relates to groups of dwellings and not to individual bungalows and flats. As the law stands there is unlikely to be a problem there because a scheme with a resident warden or a common room will generally be a recognisable entity. However, if there is neither a resident warden nor a common room, what is to count as a group of dwellings? Must they be contiguous or within 50 yards or 500 yards of each other? Why should it make a difference if the properties share no common facilities apart from being connected to a call system such as the one I described provided by Stroud District Council?
I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that this is not just a point of technical detail. As it stands, paragraph 10 applies to recognisable sheltered housing schemes. I suggest that the amendment would dilute the definition of such a scheme to the point where it extended to housing which in reality was free-standing and not sheltered in any real sense. Such housing, if first let before 1st January 1990, can be excluded from the right to buy. But the landlord must first apply for a determination from the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned that as people grow older they do not wish to move away from the homes in which they have been living. Nothing in the legislation in any way obliges people to move away from homes in which they have been living.
Many Members of the Committee suggested that the Secretary of State was reluctant to make determinations when asked to do so. I checked that suggestion, as did the noble Baroness. My facts do not support that contention. Since 1st March 1990 local authorities and other landlords have applied for 4,100 determinations. About 1,700 have been made and 800 refused. That means more than twice as many decisions have gone in the landlord's favour than in the tenant's. I understand that it takes about six months for each determination. I am sure that there are examples where it has taken longer, but that is the average.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton asked about the tight deadline for landlords' applications to the
608
Secretary of State for a determination. In applying, the landlord need only tell the department that it wants the property excluded from right to buy and it can put its reasoned case forward later, after the statutory deadline has expired.
Perhaps I can turn briefly to the important question of rural housing. It was raised by many Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It was suggested that the Secretary of State does not make due allowance for rural circumstances. Since 1990 4,700 dwellings have been provided by housing associations in villages of 3,000 people or less. The Housing Corporation's 1993–94 programme provides for 1,850 new dwellings to be approved: that represents 6 per cent. of the whole programme. The Secretary of State's planning guidance—PPG3— encourages planning authorities to consider granting planning permission for low-cost rented housing and shared ownership in rural areas where development would not normally be permitted.
The department's guidance to the landlord says that the property should be located reasonably conveniently for shops and public transport. I know that that has provoked controversy in the case of villages with no shops. Following representations from local authorities, that policy was relaxed in June of last year. The Secretary of State will now consider making a determination in respect of a property in a rural area even though there may be no shop within walking distance provided that there are other reasonable means of obtaining necessities.
At the beginning of my reply I accepted that we were discussing technical and complex issues. I have tried to demonstrate that the Government are at one with my noble friends in that sheltered housing should be excluded from right to buy. I suspect that we also agree that where there is a clear use of housing for elderly people, then the provision should apply there also. But the method of application is by receiving a determination from the Secretary of State. As I hope I have demonstrated, generally speaking the Secretary of State is happy to give that dispensation.
In the light of what I have said I hope that my noble friends will agree that there is a good deal more common ground between us than there might have been when my noble friend moved the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that if the amendment were accepted it would save considerable expense, both for local authorities and the Government, incurred when local authorities have to apply to the Minister?
Lord Strathclyde: I am not aware that applying for determinations places an onerous burden on local authorities. If the amendment were accepted it would create a great deal of uncertainty and arbitrary differences between the rights of different tenants living in similar housing. I do not wish to see that area more confused than it already is.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can help me. As I understand it, his description of the Stroud situation would not be

609
covered by the amendment; therefore it was irrelevant. That concerned a technical appliance which summoned an ambulance service. We are not discussing the means of contact but the fact that the means of contact lock into a responsible person—generally a good neighbour scheme and people monitoring the system—who can give a degree of support. It is a little less than sheltered housing but much more than independent free-standing dwellings.
Therefore, if the Minister is right when he says we all agree that elderly persons' housing occupied by elderly persons with support should be exempt, surely he can accept the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: There is nothing irrelevant about the scheme I mentioned. The noble Baroness takes an entirely different philosophical point from this side of the Chamber. The noble Baroness and her party believe that right to buy is wrong; they are against it in essence. We believe that right to buy has brought significant benefit to many hundreds of thousands of people; it is something that we wish to extend.
By using the Stroud example I demonstrated that a communication which does not include a common room or resident warden is readily and cheaply available no matter what kind of house one lives in because telecommunications provide it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to press the Minister on the matter but it is important. He brought up the whole question of right to buy. We are not arguing about right to buy or philosophical differences between his party and ours. We are arguing about a specific type of accommodation which, generally speaking, we all want to see treated with sympathy.
The point made by my noble friend Lady Hollis, which the Minister did not answer, concerns who is at the other end of the telephone in Stroud. If it is the leader of the Stroud council, that is no use whatever. If it is a hospital, it is of no use whatever. What is needed is some sort of warden arrangement so that the old person, when he or she wishes to activate the alarm system, does not contact the local hospital, is not involved in high-tech video telephones and so forth, but can pull a string and obtain a warden. That is the point at issue.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness if I was trying to create philosophical differences where there are none. Perhaps I misunderstood the point of the question of the noble Baroness. I shall explain what happens in Stroud. By pressing a radio trigger the emergency call gets through and details are displayed on a visual screen at the ambulance headquarters control centre. Upon receipt of the information the control room staff will talk to the caller and identify the problem. A decision will then be taken on what course of action is needed either by contacting the caller's doctor, family or a friend, or even dispatching an ambulance to ensure the caller's well-being. During that time the caller will be in constant contact with the control room staff who will be sympathetic, reassuring and professional. I hope that that gives some comfort to Members opposite.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for further prolonging the matter but many Members of the Committee will be familiar with the services referred to. They are excellent services. They are extremely responsive. My mother has a service. If she knocks the instrument when dusting it, she immediately receives a call inquiring whether she needs help. If she were calling for help the service would go through a list of telephone numbers of her neighbours until somebody was found who could come in. That is not a designated responsible person in the language of the amendment. In describing the Stroud scheme and asking us to concentrate on that, the Minister appears to have taken that as the overriding consideration and has perhaps become a little distracted from the provisions of paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act. That starts by describing the type of accommodation and only then goes on to say that there shall be facilities of the type described in the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, seeks to provide.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to ask my noble friend to consider the introduction of tighter definitions in the amendment, such as the definition or a group, or a means of confining the operation of the amendment to predominantly rural areas or parishes If the Minister is to continue to designate in all of these cases it may be necessary to introduce an additional criterion to take into account whether the housing need problems in the immediate area are being considered sufficiently. We have had a considerable debate on this issue today. Perhaps my noble friend will undertake to look at these points. I should be grateful to know whether the matter may he discussed before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that my noble friend knows me well enough to realise that naturally I shall be very happy to consider these points. Perhaps he and I, and other of his noble friends who still have concerns on these issues, can discuss them. What I cannot do is give any commitment that the Government will come back with amendments. The Government's feeling is that the points raised by my noble friend have been well dealt with in legislation already, but if my noble friend has evidence to suggest that it is not working I shall be delighted to see it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It appears to me that the Minister is offering nothing. If he is offering to read the amendment again and merely listen to his noble friend repeating its text, that is of no concern to us. It is only if the Minister can offer something positive —for example, to take it away, study the problems seriously and come back with something—that the commitment means anything at all.
Lord Strathclyde: I may not have been clear to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, but I hope that I have been clear to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
Lord Monk Bretton: I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have supported me in this amendment. I remain most concerned about the degree of attrition that is taking place in relation to this Bill. I am not altogether happy that one-third of the cases dealt with

611
by the Minister have been found in favour of the local authorities and enfranchisement has not taken place. I am not sure that that is really enough. There are a number of areas where the matter does not come forward at all and consideration of a particular case is ruled out on some other ground. For example, I believe that 12 per cent. of cases were out of time. This is a matter of very considerable concern.
A great deal has been said today and we have a lot to think about. I would prefer not to press the amendment at this stage, but I hope that we can have some reasonably meaningful discussions. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176B:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Right to require former landlord to repurchase

.—(1) In this section, "former secure tenant" means a secure tenant who has exercised the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms; and such a tenant has the right to require repurchase.

(2) In this section, "the right to require repurchase" means the right, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions stated in this section, to require the former landlord to repurchase the interest acquired by the former secure tenant under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent or mortgage terms.

(3) In this section, "the former landlord" is the landlord from whom the dwelling was purchased under the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms.

(4) The right to require repurchase shall cease to apply where the former secure tenant disposes of the interest acquired under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms, or where he ceases to occupy as his residence the dwelling house in which the interest is held.

(5) Where a dwelling house is repurchased under the provisions of this section, the price payable by the former landlord is either—

(a) where the dwelling house was purchased under the right to buy, the price for which it was purchased; or

(b) where the dwelling house was acquired on rent-to-mortgage terms, the sum of the initial payment and any subsequent payment made in pursuance of such an acquisition, or, such other amount as is agreed between the former landlord and the former secure tenant.

(6) Where a local authority makes any payment to a former secure tenant in relation to a repurchase under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall issue to that authority a supplementary credit approval, within the meaning of section 54 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (supplementary credit approvals), in an amount equal to the price payable for, and for the purpose of, repurchasing the dwelling house.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is about the right to require the former landlord to repurchase. It is the first of a series of amendments to deal with the problems associated with families on very modest incomes who are seeking to buy their council homes. All the evidence is around us that during the 1980s too many people who could not afford it were encouraged into owner occupation and, as soon as the recession deepened, found themselves struggling to keep up repayments. Worsening unemployment wiped out any gain from lower interest rates. In consequence, last year there were 70,000 to 80,000 repossessions. There
612
are now about 300,000 families in arrears of more than six months. It is estimated that at least half of them will lose their homes. Most of them are unable to sell. Even if they could sell they would experience negative equity and could not even dump the keys on the desks of building societies and walk away.
Council tenants have not been exempt from such problems even when they are exercising the right to buy at extremely large discounts. Obviously, if no one in the family is in work they are eligible for income support after 16 weeks—four payments—but that still leaves half of the costs to be met for the first 16 weeks, together with ongoing insurance, repairs and the like. It also means that very often they face very heavy service charges, especially in flats, for the maintenance of lifts, the concierge, cleaning of communal parts and caretaking which do not attract income support and can easily exceed £20 per week. They also face the likelihood of a major repair.
Far worse is the plight of someone on very low earnings. Perhaps the husband has lost his job, his wife is in part-time work and the family is eligible for family credit but there is no mortgage help at all. All too often such families end up by being repossessed. Even when building societies roll up the arrears it merely adds to the long-term problem of debt and negative equity. Clearly, such families need financial help. Ideally, they would have a mortgage benefit scheme so that those on family credit got such help and reductions in the levels of support through mortgage tax relief would be recycled into such a scheme. But if under the law we cannot give benefit to residents as owners and enable them to afford housing when their incomes fall, we need to allow them to turn into tenants, staying in their homes so that they may draw housing benefit instead.
This amendment will do precisely that for former council tenants and housing association tenants—the one-and-a-quarter million who since 1980 have exercised the right to buy. It will give them the right to require repurchase by the local authority for whom they bought the home at a price no higher than was paid for it, including discount. It also requires the Department of the Environment to give supplementary credit approval so that the local authority can afford to do so without depleting its capital resources.
We do not expect great numbers of people to need this help. After all, most council tenants who buy their homes are older, the property is cheaper and so on. Nonetheless, in a situation where council tenants have exercised the right to buy, their financial circumstances have changed and they cannot afford to maintain their mortgage payments, we suggest that this is a civilised, humane and cost-neutral proposal that will allow such families to remain in their homes and to retain them. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment would give former secure tenants who had purchased under the right to buy the right to require their landlords to buy back their homes at the price that they had originally paid. I have some sympathy with those purchasers who have problems with resale, but this is a proposal that I cannot support. I am fully aware that former tenants in certain kinds of ex-council flats have

613
experienced difficulty over resale. One of the problems has been the alleged reluctance of building societies to lend on those properties. We have been discussing this problem with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and have received assurances from them that there is no blanket ban on lending on such properties and that each case is considered on its merits. A further problem that has recently arisen is the unwillingness of some mortgage insurance companies to provide cover on certain properties. Without extra security the lenders cannot advance more than 75 per cent. of the purchase price.
In the present state of the housing market lenders and insurers are acting very cautiously, but once the market picks up, right-to-buy purchasers, together with other home owners, will benefit. Meanwhile, we are continuing to work with the building societies to do what we can. That seems to me to be the way forward rather than to place a formal duty on landlords to buy back. However, the noble Baroness will know, I am sure, that the landlord can already buy back a property from a right-to-buy purchaser if it so wishes and if it seems a reasonable and justifiable use of its resources, given other demands and priorities. In that way the responsibility to exercise discretion over whether to re-acquire these dwellings is married to the financial implications of doing so. That is surely right.
The amendment seeks to place a duty on landlords to repurchase and provides for central government to reimburse them for the expenditure incurred. That would in effect be an open-ended call on limited public sector resources. Under our current practices, which are drawn up in consultation with the local authority associations, all resources that are available for housing are allocated to individual local authorities or earmarked for programmes such as Estate Action well in advance of the beginning of the financial year. If the amendment were to become law the Government would have to hold back an amount each year to meet reimbursement costs. Since the amendment places no constraints on the right-to-buy purchaser's right to demand repurchase by the landlord, this could amount to a significant sum. I hardly think that we can justify such use of scarce public resources.
I believe that by stimulating the market in the way that we have and by continuing our consultation with building societies, we can cover this problem. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We obviously welcome any moves that building societies are willing to make to allow people who are unable to maintain mortgage payments to remain in their homes. There is no dispute between us on that. However, the way they are doing it at the moment is to roll up arrears which then add to the negative equity that people currently experience. What is not possible, for the most part, is for people to change their tenure and remain in their own homes. Either they are locked into negative equity and debt or the building society forecloses. We can expect another 70,000 or so foreclosures next year. What then happens? The local authority has to rehouse families in either temporary accommodation
614
or, if they are lucky, in permanent accommodation—and, probably, in the inner cities, in bed and breakfast accommodation.
The amendment seeks to allow the former tenant in such situations to trigger a right to repurchase. The local authority can agree to do so at neutral cost. That avoids a situation which would otherwise occur of a family becoming homeless and possibly going into bed and breakfast accommodation, the children having to move school and all the problems of domestic stress and strain that result. I suspect that the amendment would eliminate the prospect of very real social misery and that there would also be a financial saving when we consider just how much bed and breakfast accommodation is currently costing local government. There is not a cost-free solution. We accept that. But the amendment would be cheaper and certainly more humane than the present system.
The Bill pushes marginal tenants into owner occupation. We are trying to offer them a route back from owner occupation into tenancy without going through the trauma of court procedures, foreclosure, repossession and homelessness. If the noble Lord is not minded to accept the amendment, we feel that we shall need to come back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176C:
Page 97, line 4, at end insert;
("; or,
(c) at any time in the relevant period the arrears of rent owed by the tenant exceeded the equivalent of the rent lawfully due from him for a period of eight weeks.").
The noble Baroness said: This is the first of a series of amendments on the rents to mortgages clause of the Bill. If Members of the Committee were asked to describe the most pressing housing problems facing this country I am sure that they would mention homelessness. They would probably mention the families in bed and breakfast accommodation we have just been discussing. They would probably mention too the long waiting lists within the council rented sector. They might also mention, as we await the English House Condition Survey, the very poor state of repair, which is the consequence of cutbacks in local government investment, given capital controls over the years. They would probably refer, in the private sector, to repossessions and evictions allied to a frozen housing market in which one cannot move, buy or sell on. They might even mention the 400,000 building workers who have lost their jobs and the hundreds of small construction companies that have crashed. We have a housing Bill before us which tackles not one of those problems that Members of the Committee might think are the key housing problems facing us. Instead the Bill introduces an initiative for a problem that does not exist—that of turning very low rent payers into highly vulnerable owner occupiers.
Last year the London boroughs accepted 13,000 more homeless families than they could house. The

615
initiative does nothing to help them. It adds not a single house to the stock and houses not a single family. It merely bribes poor tenants into changing their tenure and possibly putting the long-term security of their homes at risk, particularly as the Government were minded to reject the previous amendment. We have had a decade of right to buy which has allowed tenants to buy at substantial discounts—up to 70 per cent. In the past few years applications to buy have dried up, mainly because of the growth of unemployment but partly because many families now left in council housing are on housing benefit and are therefore ineligible and partly because there is uncertainty in the housing market. In other words, right to buy has probably reached the edge of its natural constituency.
As a consequence the Government introduced another initiative to press owner occupation further down into the ranks of the rather poor. I refer to shared ownership schemes in which tenants bought slices of equity, if they could afford it, and paid rent on the outstanding share of the dwelling. The Government spent vast sums of money advertising it. All of 600 tenants took it up. There were two inquiries in Norwich out of 22,000 tenants and neither was followed through. We warned the Government at the time that this was an initiative for a problem that did not exist. The Government ignored us. We warned them again. We now have a different version of the same scheme—rents to mortgages—in which the existing rent becomes a mortgage payment paid to a building society weekly which amortises it into a lump sum to be paid to the local authority as an initial payment. The outstanding sum, which could be as much as 60 per cent. of the value of the property, is held by the local authority as an equity stake to be redeemed at some unspecified time in the future. Essentially it is a deferred purchase scheme in which the local authority loses the property and gets only a partial capital receipt.
That is deeply undesirable not just in terms of the problems it will present to local government—it is costly, cumbersome and unattractive but we can live with that—but in terms of the problems it will present to the tenants themselves. Britain already has the highest percentage of owner occupation in the western world. It is surpassed only by Bangladesh, which is some test of affluence. The rate is far higher than in Germany, France or Scandinavia. As a result we have the highest level of personal debt—of mortgage debt in ratio to personal income—in Europe. In consequence we have greater financial problems within the housing market as well as within the economy than anywhere in Europe. This scheme will, I believe, in its folly, add to them.
That is not my view alone. It is the view also of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, which doubts whether, at a time of rising homelessness, increasing numbers of homeless families in temporary accommodation, unprecedented levels of mortgage arrears and repossessions, and when there is a continuing need for affordable housing, it is appropriate to introduce a scheme which
616
will result in further erosion of the supply of socially rented dwellings. It is also considered questionable whether it is sensible—this is the Tory-led ADC—to encourage low income households to take on the responsibilities of home ownership at a time of falling house prices and low inflation.
The view is not that of the Tory-led Association of District Councils alone. It is also the view of the Institute of Housing—a professional officers' association, not a Labour authority. It states:
"We believe that rents to mortgages is the wrong scheme at the wrong time".
There are record levels of mortgage repossessions and record levels of homelessness applications. To propose a scheme which will encourage families who can barely afford it into owning their homes is both unnecessary and unwise.
It is also a bad buy for the tenants themselves who will get a worse deal than they would under the right to buy in terms of lower discounts. The message to tenants should be that if they cannot afford the outright right to buy they should not touch rent to mortgages. It is bad for their financial health. It extends owner occupation to very marginal renters when what we need is the reverse; namely, to extend the option to rent to poor owner occupiers.
Before formally moving the amendment, I ask the Minister to answer some general points about the practical details of the scheme. First, the building society will amortise the rent payment and hand it over to the local authority as an initial payment. If the applicant is over 40 or 50 years of age, what happens if the building society expects higher repayments than the current rent level in order to have the repayments met within a less than 25-year term? How can and will the tenant afford that? Secondly, if the value of the property is, say, £32,000 and the average rent produces an initial payment of £17,000, the local authority landlord is left with an equity share of 45 per cent. before discount. What protection is there for the local authority landlord if the tenant defaults on the mortgage payments to the building society because financial circumstances worsen?
What power does the landlord have, which pertains to half the asset value of the property, to ensure that it is protected by requiring that repairs are done or covenants put on? If the tenant decides only to increase his tranche of equity by taking out stakes, who pays for that and will it occur within a reasonable time? Given that the full redemption of that outstanding share—whether it is 40 per cent. 50 per cent. or 60 per cent.—must occur on the death of the original tenant, and if the property passes to, say, a daughter who is living with them and who is a secure tenant otherwise, she is required to redeem that money. What happens if she cannot find it? Does she become homeless? Who pays?
Fortunately, I do not believe that the scheme will work or be taken up any more than the previous one. It is being piloted at huge expense and publicity in Milton Keynes and Basildon. Of a possible 10,000 tenants only 150 showed any interest. Why? First, given the rules about initial payments, any tenant living in a flat for more than five to eight years, or in

617
a house for more than 20 years, is technically ineligible because of the minimum payment rule. Secondly, those who remain will have problems getting loans from the building society. Thirdly, the Government rightly disqualify anyone on housing benefit, which is 70 per cent. of all remaining council tenants. So it is an expensive scheme which will be extremely cumbersome to administer. It is a scheme for very few tenants and it would almost certainly be financially better for them to go for the right to buy.
There is one final problem which this amendment addresses; namely, that of arrears. If it is right to exclude those on housing benefit from exercising the rent-to-mortgage choice, it must be right to exclude those who currently or recently have been in arrears and cannot even afford to keep up their rent payments. If they cannot afford the upkeep of their rent payments, what hope have they for financing owner occupation? If they are already in debt, it cannot be sensible to add an even larger debt. I assume that the Government simply forgot about that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support a good deal of the analysis which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I agree that the rent-to-mortgage scheme is largely an irrelevance. Clearly it does not begin to address the country's housing problem. I have some difficulty with some of the amendments. If there is to be such a scheme then we risk being a little too paternalistic if we seek to exclude people from it on the basis of judgments that the legislators make rather than as potential purchasers.
However, as regards this amendment, to exclude tenants who are in arrears with rent, looked at from the point of view of the potential lender, must be very sensible and should be included in the legislation. Any normal lender in a normal lending situation will investigate the financial situation of the proposed borrower. If he discovers that the proposed borrower has financial problems then the lender is going to be very circumspect, and probably very reluctant to proceed with a loan, and may well say no. It would be a sensible move to reflect that in the legislation.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, repeated her Second Reading speech in introducing this amendment and very interesting it was, too. The Committee will be glad to know that I shall not be repeating mine. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities during the discussion on the next few amendments to consider rents to mortgages and how that will work. There is one important thing: the right to buy is the major plank on which the Government have sought to extend home ownership. That provision, coming more than 10 years after that initial legislation, is designed to offer just an extra opportunity to a number of people who may feel that they need that extra choice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right. We must not be overly paternalistic in our view of how arrangements are going to be made between the tenants and the building societies. The noble
618
Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked what would happen if the building society does not grant a 10-year mortgage. The initial payment is the amount which can be borrowed in general on the market, on a 25-year mortgage. It is for the tenant's discretion how to raise that sum. The arrangement between the tenant and the building society cannot be and should not be the concern of the landlord.
If the tenant cannot raise the initial payment, then he will simply refrain from buying and that must be the right way to go ahead. The noble Baroness asked what would happen if the tenant were to default. The landlord's right to a further payment on disposal or debt is set down by a registered charge on the property. That charge has a priority after the building society's mortgage. Therefore, the landlord will have a claim on the residue of the proceeds if there has been a sale. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I understand that that is the case.
I now come to the amendment. The noble Baroness made a useful contribution at that stage. Perhaps I may first explain that the legislation includes a provision on similar lines to the amendment. It is slightly less severe in its effects. I can forgive the noble Baroness for not spotting it because it is not obvious from a reading of the Bill. The provision in question is in the existing right-to-buy legislation that will apply to rents to mortgages. A landlord is not obliged to complete a sale under the right-to-buy scheme if the tenant is a month or more behind with the rent. The tenant, of course, does not lose the right to buy, but must first clear the arrears. I hope that that explanation will go some way towards meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. We shall obviously pursue his last point. I was shaking my head about his other point on the security of the landlord's stake in the property should a tenant default. The Minister said that it would take priority over other debts. I feel that that is not so. We have an amendment tabled to that effect which will allow that to be so. But where a tenant spends quite a large sum of money—say £15,000—on major improvements, that can take priority over, and therefore wipe out, the landlord's equity which is reflected in his share of the property. Given what the Minister has just said, I look forward with confidence to the Minister's support for the subsequent amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176D:
Page 97, line 27, at end insert:
("less an amount equal to the landlord's estimate of the average weekly expenditure on repairs to the dwellinghouse for the most recent year for which audited accounts are available.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176E and 176H. As defined in the amendment, the purpose is that only 80 per cent. of the rent is used in calculating the minimum initial payment. The intention is to take account of the fact that tenants

619
acquiring rent to mortgage terms will take on full responsibility for maintaining the dwellings and need to make financial provision for it. This amendment effectively gives them financial head space for the additional outgoings over and beyond rent payments which they will be forced to undertake when they become owners. The figure has been chosen to reflect, in particular, the cost of keeping a property in repair, which the Minister in another place estimated to be just under £8 per week, to say nothing of the insurance and legal costs.
This is a useful amendment which would ensure that the tenant had enough financial resource not only to pay the rent or the equivalent of a rent through the mortgage payment but also to meet the additional outgoings which he faces. Therefore, we hope that the amendment will meet with the Government's support. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I, too, will speak to Amendments Nos. 176D, 176E and 176H. Rents to mortgages is designed to offer tenants a low-risk route into home ownership by giving them the opportunity to buy their homes without having to make a significant increase in their regular outgoings. That is why the minimum initial payment is calculated in such a way that a typical purchaser's mortgage payments will be no greater than the current rent. There are, of course, other expenses involved in home ownership, and tenants contemplating buying will have to take them into account when they decide whether or not to buy their homes.
The first two amendments of this group would reduce the amount of the minimum initial payment for house purchasers to take account of repair costs. The noble Baroness who tabled the amendments will no doubt have noticed that purchasers of flats under rents to mortgages can make an initial payment that will result an mortgage payments lower than the rent. That is in recognition of the obligation to pay service charges.
I recognise that tenants buying houses will also have repair and maintenance costs to meet. However, in the case of a house, repairs will not have to be paid for each week or each month. House owners can often decide for themselves what needs doing and when. They may well be able to carry out routine repairs themselves, use friends to help or, if they need to employ professionals, they can shop around for the best offer.
Flat owners do not have that flexibility. It is their landlord who is in control of the management of repairs and improvements to their block, and the service charge bill will not always come at the time when it would best suit the leaseholder. That is why we have taken the view that tenants buying flats should be given the flexibility of being able to make a reduced initial payment but that for house purchasers this is not necessary. Making a lower initial payment would in any case be a mixed blessing. The scheme is structured in such a way that purchasers maximise their discount by making as large an initial payment as they can. And we should bear in mind that any change in the Bill which reduces the initial payment will have
620
public expenditure implications by deferring receipts for local authorities. The noble Baroness has always been very keen on receipts for local authorities.
The third amendment would require the Secretary of State to make orders subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament specifying the relevant amount and the multipliers which are to be used for calculating the minimum initial payment. I am all for proper parliamentary oversight of the exercise of delegated powers, but it seems to me that it could be a waste of the time of both Houses if affirmative orders had to be made for this purpose. The Secretary of State's discretion in the matter is already closely circumscribed by the Bill. In arriving at the relevant amount and the multipliers, the Secretary of State will be obliged to make certain assumptions about the applicable interest rate, the type of mortgage and the repayment period. The interest rate used will be the standard national rate which is a weighted average of the rates charged by the top 15 commercial lenders. It will be assumed that the mortgage is a 25-year repayment mortgage in which the monthly payments represent payments of both capital and interest. All this is clearly laid down in the legislation.
The relevant amount will be the rent that, given these assumptions, would finance a mortgage commanding maximum tax relief. The mortgage interest relief at source or MIRAS limit is £30,000 at the moment, and at current interest rates a payment of £45 a week will support a mortgage for £30,000. The first multiplier will be applied to amounts of rent up to the relevant amount and will take account of the effect of MIRAS in increasing the size of the mortgage which can be supported by a given repayment. The second multiplier will be applied to rent over the relevant amount and will make no allowance for MIRAS.
Perhaps it would be useful if I were to give an example. Assuming that a net standard national interest rate of 6.01 per cent. applies throughout the 25-year period of a repayment mortgage, the multiplier would be 664.06 on rents below £45 a week. When applied to a weekly rent of £30, this would give an initial payment of around £20,000 on a house, or £16,000 on a flat. For any part of the rent above £45 a week, tax relief would not apply. For this portion of the rent, a gross interest rate of 8.01 per cent. would be assumed, giving a multiplier of 554.59.
The point of the example is to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has very little discretion when declaring the relevant amount and the multipliers. He will be obliged to follow the rules laid down by the Act. The Bill could have left it to landlords and tenants to work out for themselves what the minimum payment should be, but it seemed more convenient if the Secretary of State were to go through the process and publish the results. Each time interest rates change, or the MIRAS rules are amended, a new relevant amount and new multipliers will need to be fixed quickly. That is why the Bill provides for them simply to be declared by the Secretary of State: in practice, the department will send a circular to landlords. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel

621
reassured and that she will understand that the sanctity of Parliament is not being trodden over by this provision.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was a very interesting reply. However, although the Minister spent some time dealing with the formula which the Secretary of State will operate, he did not deal with the substance, which is the ability of the tenant to pay on the one hand and of the landlord to have his equity stake protected on the other. That was the substance of the major part of this cluster of amendments. I refer to Amendment No. 176H, which relates to the 80 per cent, rule. The Minister said that house owners know perfectly well what to spend on repairs. But it is the case that they often under-estimate the amount. After all, as the Minister himself said, for tenants to acquire the maximum discount, the arrangement needs to be structured so that they pay the maximum initial payment, which will encourage them to over-commit.
The amendment will protect tenant-purchasers' ability to maintain their property in decent repair by considering that as part of the formula on the one hand., while on the other hand it will protect the local authority's equity charge over the property. That depends on the property being kept in good repair, which in turns depends on the tenant being able to afford to do so.
In the light of the leaks about the English House Condition Survey showing the generally poor state of repair of the English property market, nothing that the Minister has said gives me any confidence that this is a sensible way forward. Nonetheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 176E not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176F:
Page 98, line 10, leave out ("25 year").
The noble Baroness said: At pre3ent it is assumed that a rent-to-mortgage purchaser will raise a mortgage over 25 years. The amendment would amend that assumption where the applicant (or the youngest applicant in the case of a joint bid) would reach retirement age within 25 years, subject to a minimum of 10 years. In other words, the amendment seeks to bring the English provisions into line with the Scottish provisions in not having extended mortgages which would run well beyond people's probable financial ability to repay. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: As I said earlier, the idea of rents to mortgages is to offer tenants the opportunity to buy their homes by taking out a mortgage with repayments the same as their rent. They will be able to pay less than the normal right-to-buy price but at a minimum they must pay the amount which can be raised on a 25-year repayment mortgage with repayments the same as their current rent. I say, "the amount which can be raised" rather than "the amount which the particular tenants can raise" because the terms of sale will not be fine tuned to the circumstances of individual purchasers. Typical purchasers will be able to finance the purchase price by taking out mortgages
622
with repayments the same as their current rent, but they may choose to pay more, for reasons which I shall explain in a moment. Even if their mortgage repayments are exactly the same as their rent at the time of purchase, that will cease to be the case if they have taken out an ordinary mortgage with a variable rate of interest and that rate changes. As home owners they will also have to meet other costs such as repairs and insurance, so the current rent is only meant to be a broad guide to what the purchaser can afford.
The amendments seek to introduce a little more fine tuning by enabling older tenants to pay less. It may be helpful if I illustrate the effect of that. Instead of paying the amount which could be raised on a 25-year mortgage with payments the same as their rent—say, £20,000 if their rent were £30 a week—they would be able to make the initial payment which they could finance on a mortgage running up to the age of retirement. If that were in, say, 15 years' time, £30 a week would service a mortgage of £15,000. There would be a minimum assumed payment period of 10 years, which would give an initial payment of about £11,500 for tenants whose rent was £30 a week.
I am afraid that there is a snag. Allowing older tenants to make smaller initial payments would reduce the extent to which they were able to benefit from discount. That is because the initial payment will attract normal right-to-buy discount pro rata to the amount paid. If, for instance, the purchaser qualifies for a 50 per cent. discount under the right to buy, every £1 of the initial rents-to-mortgages payment will attract discount of £1. Putting it another way, every £ I paid will buy a £2 share in the equity in the property. Later, if the purchasers sell up, or after their death, a further payment must be made to buy out the former landlord's share. That payment too will normally attract discount, but only at a fixed rate of 20 per cent. There will thus be an incentive for purchasers to make as big an initial payment as they can afford in order to get as much discount as possible and reduce the payment which has to be made later.
It would, then, be a doubtful blessing if older purchasers were allowed to pay significantly less. They would lose discount, and the landlord's share would be disproportionately high as a result. Purchasers could find that they were locked into their homes, unable to sell because the net proceeds of sale, after paying off the landlord's share, were not enough to buy their next home.
I should say also that the amendment would reduce the receipts realised by landlords in the short term from sales under the rents-to-mortgages scheme. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am delighted that the Minister is concerned that local authorities should maximise their capital receipts. That is a welcome move by the Minister. However, I remained baffled. Why is it appropriate to have this restriction in the Scottish clauses and not in the English?
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Baroness points out, there is indeed a precedent in the Scottish rent-to-loan scheme for allowing older purchasers to pay less. As a general rule, I am very much in favour of good ideas from Scotland being applied elsewhere. However, the English and Welsh version of rents to mortgages in the Bill is structured differently from the rent-to-loan scheme. Under rents to mortgages, as practised south of the Border, the tenant's initial payment will attract normal right-to-buy discount pro rata to the amount paid. Thus, the larger the initial payment, the better the deal the tenant gets. In the Scottish scheme, by contrast, the discount on the initial payment is on a lower scale from that available under the right to buy, but does not vary according to the size of the initial payment. Paying more at the outset, of course, reduces the amount to be paid later, but there is no gearing effect because the discount credited is the same regardless of how much the purchaser pays initially. That means that older purchasers can be allowed to make smaller payments without doing them a disservice.
The noble Baroness will ask me why, if that works in Scotland, it should not work in England and Wales. I have to say that as a result of the pilot schemes and the consultations we had in England, it was felt that the two schemes could differ.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We often enjoy the Minister's ability to speak impromptu—bluffing would be the wrong word in the circumstances—but would the Minister like to tell us why he thinks that they should differ?
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Baroness said earlier, the rent-to-mortgage schemes were piloted throughout England and Scotland. It was because of the results—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Were they piloted in Wales as well?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted to tell the noble Lord that I understand the schemes were piloted in Wales. They were definitely piloted in England and Scotland. This is an important issue, but it was decided that there are areas of difference between legislation in England and Wales and Scotland—my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will be bringing forward amendments that demonstrate that there are differences—and it was due to the results of the consultation and the pilot studies that we decided to do things differently in England. I hope I indicated, during the course of my explanation on the amendment, why we believe that we have it right in England, and why we do not disagree with what is being proposed for Scotland.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister tell the House what were the differences in the pilot studies that led him to different conclusions for Scotland and England?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness will realise that I do not have the results of those pilot studies with
624
me. I am happy to look further into the matter, and perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness with the information for which she has asked.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In other words, the Minister is saying that he does not know what were the differences in the pilot studies. He does not know upon which basis different recommendations have been made but, nonetheless, asks us to accept it. I do not have much option but to withdraw the amendment, but that is not because the Minister has persuaded the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176G to 176J not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we leave the clause, perhaps I can ask the Minister to clarify one or two points on the famous formula about which he talked at considerable length. In Clause 96 (page 97) as at present drafted there is a multiplier. At first sight it seems that the multiplier is something that the Secretary of State can fix at his will. But, as the Minister rightly pointed out, on page 98 there are some requirements that the Secretary of State has to consider in fixing the famous multiplier.
I understand that if the MIRAS arrangements change clearly that amount has to change to take account of that alteration. What I am unclear about, and what I hope the Minister will be able to clarify in my mind, is what is meant by the "standard national rate" mentioned in subsection (7) (a). I was not aware that there was a standard national rate. I was not aware that there was a standard national rate which apparently is a fixed rate, if I read the Bill correctly, throughout the 25-year term; that is, a fixed mortgage rate for 25 years which is apparently standard throughout the United Kingdom, lacking any evidence to the contrary.
I assume that that rate is in sterling, although again there is no evidence in the Bill that it is sterling. It is possible, as the Minister will be aware, to arrange a mortgage in dollars, where the interest rate would be substantially different, or in ecu, French francs, or other currencies. I imagine that at a later stage the Minister will ensure that we are certain that it is the currency of the United Kingdom, whatever currency that my happen to be at any particular point in time. I suppose one can argue that at certain times the Scottish pound is a different value from the English pound which, alas, we have to use in Wales as well.
I am also concerned, in subsection (7) (b), that the monthly mortgage payments represent payments of capital and interest only. That rules out the consideration by the Secretary of State of the possible cost of endowment mortgages. I do not see why that should be the case, because in many respects endowment mortgages can be advantageous. They can also be disadvantageous. I recognise that there are two sides to the argument. However I cannot see why the Government have chosen one side rather than another. In order words, I find the whole definition of what the Secretary of State has to take into account

625
when fixing his famous factor "M" in Clause 96 to be pretty muddy. I hope that the Minister will be able to clear it up for me.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. However, I always believe that the avid readers of Hansard should have the opportunity to see for themselves the material which is under discussion. Perhaps I may refer the Committee to Clause 96(6), which states:
"The relevant amount and multipliers for the time being declared for the purposes of this section shall be such that, in the case of a dwelling-house which is a house, they will produce a minimum initial payment equal to the capital sum which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could be raised on a 25 year repayment mortgage in the case of which the net amount of the monthly mortgage payments was equal to the rent at the relevant time calculated on a monthly basis".
If there were a competition for obscurantism and horrible drafting, that paragraph would be a fair and proper entry. It has the extraordinary distinction of doing the reverse of shining against the background of a perfectly horrible clause.
Lord Strathclyde: I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given me to explain some of the definitions which we use in the clause. The noble Lord asked about the standard rate. That is laid down by local authorities under Schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1985. The interest rate used will be the standard national rate, which is a weighted average of the rates charged by the top 15 commercial lenders. I dare say, therefore, that the currency is not relevant because the rate will be expressed as a percentage rather than a fiscal amount.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we go any further, what is the weighting percentage? Which is the most important lender? How does the weighting occur? What is the formula?
Lord Strathclyde: That is a perfectly fair question to ask. I suggest that it is done by consideration of the size of the lenders. I said that the panel, if I may call it that, is made up of the top 15 lenders. Presumably the weighting will be up to the size of the lenders on the panel.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, before we go any further, I wish to point out that as a matter of fact, securitised mortgages—I am sure that the noble Lord understands what I mean by that—represent a larger market than some of the 15 major institutional lenders. Is the average rate for the securitised mortgage market included in his weighted average?
Lord Strathclyde: No, because we are looking at standard repayment mortgages. The reason we do that —and this is the reply to another question which the noble Lord asked about why they were not set on endowment mortgages—is that in all cases the tenant is free to use whatever financial instrument he believes is most applicable to his circumstances, depending on whether the lender will lend on those terms. The multiplier that we are discussing in this clause determines the minimum payment. It is up to the
626
tenant to decide how to raise the cash. We must set the minimum payment under this legislation and that is what we have done.
I appreciate that there arc aspects of the clause which are complicated. My noble friend Lord Peyton read out some of the language used in describing the clause and I can understand why he thinks that it is complicated. However, I hope that I have explained how the decision is reached and that that will suffice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to press the noble Lord again but I wish to ask only one question which I asked previously but which he failed to answer. Are we talking about a weighted average fixed-rate mortgage for 25 years or are we talking about a floating-rate mortgage? That appears to me to be an important factor in fixing the multiplier that we were discussing.
Lord Strathclyde: The statute requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the interest rates which are currently being charged by the building societies—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is that the monthly rate?
Lord Strathclyde: The monthly rate, to the overall rate, to the interest rate charged by the building societies. The Secretary of State must then make a reasonable judgment about what is the prevailing market rate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The discussion is becoming wearisome and I do not wish to weary the Committee. I do not believe that the Government have thought the matter through at all, let alone having thought through when a dwelling-house is not a house.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 98 [Landlord's notice admitting or denying right]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176K:
Page 99, line 26, at end insert (", and, where paragraph (a) applies,
(c) advising the tenant of any circumstances known to the landlord, including the tenant's financial circumstances or the condition of the property, which may prejudice an application by the tenant to an approved lending institution for a loan towards the acquisition of the dwelling-house on rent to mortgage terms.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a modest probing amendment. We are extremely worried that tenants may be persuaded by publicity into taking out RTM schemes without a full knowledge of and a full briefing on the implications. I refer not only to the rent payments, which can be converted to mortgage payments to a building society, but to the associated costs of, above all, repairs, insurance, legal services and the like. They should be seen in terms of the tenant's financial circumstances. In tabling the amendment we seek to give a steer that local authorities counsel tenants adequately about the financial implications of taking on such a responsibility. If tenants take that on but cannot meet the

627
ongoing responsibilities the local authority's stake in the property is at risk and the tenant is at risk of repossession and homelessness. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Does the noble Baroness fear that such counselling might have the reverse effect to that which she intends? In general I support the intention but the tenant may rely too heavily on the landlord in judging his own position. The situation is difficult but suggesting that the landlord should advise on matters which include the tenant's own financial circumstances could tip the balance too far the other way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I take the noble Baroness's point. However, the amendment is part of a sequence that we have been moving. In doing so we have tried to make clear that when a tenant takes on an obligation to purchase he is not merely commuting existing rent payments into mortgage payments. He is taking on additional costs. We have moved a series of amendments to that effect—for instance, the 80 per cent. and the arrears—which the Government have dismissed as not being particularly significant or, alternatively, as being outweighed by other considerations. Therefore, we are extremely worried that this group of marginal tenants will become even more marginal owner occupiers without adequate proper financial counselling. That is the purpose which the amendment is designed to achieve.
Lord Strathclyde: I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at the beginning that we should not be overly paternalistic—at least, I think that that is what she said—and I believe that she is right. I understand and welcome the anxieties of Members of the Committee opposite that we are dealing with a potentially vulnerable group of people who may believe that they are being forced into buying their properties. That is not the case; we are not forcing anyone to buy their property. We do not want people to be forced to buy their property. What we want is the ability for certain tenants who do not feel that they have quite enough to come under the right to buy legislation but feel that they want to own their properties. There may be people who fall into that class. The legislation before us gives them that ability.
Of course there are safeguards; for example, before a tenant reaches the point of claiming to buy under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, the landlord will already have served notice setting out the terms under the ordinary right to buy. The notice is required to include a description of any structural defects known to the landlord. If the property is one that is designated under housing and defects legislation, the landlord must say so.
It is possible that some prospective purchasers under rents to mortgages will be able to raise the purchase price without borrowing from a mortgage lender. For example, they may be able to use savings or buy with help from members of their family. Anyone who does so is well advised to make inquiries to ensure that the property is mortgageable so that
628
they do not run into difficulties if they want to sell later. We have always advised tenants to have a survey carried out to warn them of potential problems. But in the large majority of cases where I would expect tenants to take out a mortgage, they will find out from the horse's mouth whether or not there is a potential problem because they will be applying for a mortgage from a private lender.
As I said earlier, I understand the noble Baroness's concerns. But with all the publicity that there has recently been on home ownership, on mortgages, on defaulting and on repossessions, I regard it as very unlikely that anyone would go down the route of turning their rent into a mortgage without looking very carefully at the financial implications involved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I, too, share the Government's concern not to be over-paternalistic. I hope, therefore, that when we deal with CCT we can expect the Minister to take the same approach on CCT and paternalism as he does here. We shall return to that point later.
I should like to remind the Minister that there is a fear behind the proposal. I believe—and I think my figures are correct—that 154,000 families presented themselves as homeless last year. A proportion of those were former council tenants who had exercised their right to buy. Had they known the full implications of taking on that liability, they might have been spared the problems of repossession and homelessness. The amendment seeks to ensure that proper counselling is available. That has not always been the case. But, given the present situation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 103 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 104 [Terms and effect of conveyance or grant: general]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176L:
Page 103, leave out lines 23 to 42.
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would remove the provision that a rent-to-mortgage purchaser of a flat should pay a lower service charge than a right-to-buy purchaser. The Government have inserted the provision because they say that the local authority will benefit, in proportion to its share of the equity, from any appreciation in the value of the property.
We are concerned that expenditure on repairs, for example, is rarely reflected pound for pound in increased value. If indeed that has occurred, it is more appropriate that that should be reimbursed when the purchaser redeems part or all of the equity mortgage and that subsequent valuation of the dwelling should exclude any major contribution for repairs or improvements to which the subsection applies. In other words, because a rent-to-mortgage purchaser would pay only a proportion of the service charge when we feel that they should pay the full amount —and, as I say, some offsetting, if appropriate at the

629
point of redemption—we believe that it is basically inequitable. It means that other tenants in the housing revenue account will be picking up some of the costs of repairs that should properly be met in the full by the leaseholder. Why should some tenants who are not on housing benefit and paying a full rent cross-subsidise the repair bills of other former tenants who have become owner occupiers? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: We all know that service charges can be a very significant problem for owners of flats. The standard arrangement in the private sector is that the freeholder undertakes in the lease to keep the structure and exterior of the building in repair and the leaseholder covenants to make appropriate contributions to the costs incurred by the freeholder. That practice applies equally to sales under the right to buy, and it will apply to sales under rents to mortgages.
All leaseholders of flats have protections against unreasonable service charges. Under the right to buy, purchasers also have the benefit of binding estimates, given to them before the sale, of the charges that they may have to pay for repairs and improvements over the first five years of the lease. That, too, will apply to rents to mortgages. The intention is that tenants who consider buying should have reliable warning of the charges they will face before deciding whether to proceed.
The five-year estimates to which I have referred were introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 1986. Some tenants who bought with the benefit of those estimates have, nevertheless, reported having difficulty with their service charges. The five-year estimates are not, of course, designed to give permanent protection. The department is in discussion with representatives of right-to-buy leaseholders and with the local authority associations to get a clearer picture of the problems and see what can be done.
The trouble with service charges for major repairs, such as the renewal of a roof, is that they often come as a demand for a large lump sum. Raising the purchase price to buy a flat under the right to buy is usually much easier than in the case of a house because the market value will generally be lower and the discount scale is more generous. The purchase price will normally be financed by a mortgage, which spreads the burden of repayments and attracts tax relief. By contrast, a demand for a service charge can require the leaseholder to find a large amount of cash. We have introduced a right to a loan from the landlord in respect of particularly large service charges in order to help spread payment, but the leaseholder must still find the cash sooner or later.
The rent-to-mortgage scheme is designed to offer a route into home ownership for tenants who cannot afford to pay the normal right-to-buy price. Knowing that service charges can be a problem for people who have exercised the right to buy, we were concerned to make realistic provision for tenants buying flats under rents to mortgages.
A precedent was available in the right to shared ownership. That right was introduced in 1984 for tenants who had the right to buy but could not afford to exercise it. The rules were rather complex and, as the noble Baroness said earlier, very few people took
630
advantage of it: that is why the Bill repeals it and puts rents to mortgages in its place. The two schemes are, however, designed for the same category of purchasers. Service charges on flats were potentially a problem for people exercising the right to shared ownership. The legislation therefore provided for the Secretary of State to make an order adjusting the responsibilities of the shared owner in respect of repairs and maintenance. The order provided that any amount payable by the leaseholder of a flat for repairs, maintenance and insurance would normally be adjusted so that the amount payable was reduced pro rata to the leaseholder's current share.
The amendment would delete the counterpart to that rule in the rent-to-mortgage scheme. The Bill provides that if the leaseholder's share is, say, 60 per cent., only 60 per cent. of the service charges which would otherwise be payable for repairs and improvements will be recoverable.
I have explained the practical considerations which led us to this. There is also another argument of principle. A landlord which, as in the example I have quoted, retains a share of 40 per cent. in the equity in a flat has an interest in ensuring that its value is maintained. By keeping the rest of the building in good repair it is preserving and perhaps increasing the value of its stake in the flat. If leaseholder and landlord share the equity in the flat between them it seems reasonable that they should equally share between them the costs of looking after the building, to the extent that those costs are for the benefit of the flat.
If the question is asked, how is the landlord to pay for its share of those costs, I can answer with another question: how would the landlord pay for mending the roof and the lifts if the flat in question was not sold? It would not be able to recover any specific contribution from the tenant of the flat and the tenant's rent would not go far to cover the costs of major repairs.
I am aware that that is not necessarily a precise answer. It is difficult to give one because the combined effects of the rule on rent-to-mortgage service charges and the rules of the financial regimes which govern local authority and housing association expenditure are extremely complex. I know that there have been discussions with the National Federation of Housing Associations, and the department will of course be very willing to discuss this also with the local authority associations if they have a serious concern on this point.
However, I hope we shall not become too engrossed with the mechanics. I invite the Committee to consider the substance of the matter. If the tenant of a flat cannot afford to exercise the right to buy and remains a tenant, he or she will continue to look to the landlord to keep not only the common parts but the interior of the flat in repair, and will be paying a rent which assuredly does not cover the landlord's full costs. If instead the tenant buys under rents to mortgages, the landlord will realise an immediate receipt; will cease to be responsible for looking after the interior of the flat; will be able to recover part of the costs of looking after the common parts; and will

631
have the prospect of a further payment in due course on disposal or death. And, perhaps most important of all, the flat will be owned by someone who has a personal interest in looking after it and seeing that the building is a good place to live. I suggest that those are benefits well worth having. I apologise for that rather lengthy explanation. I hope the noble Baroness can now withdraw her amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As far as I can see, the Minister has given three different answers as reasons for rejecting this amendment. The first is a practical consideration; that is, bluntly, that the tenant cannot afford the bill if he wishes to take on full responsibility for the property. The implication of that is that other tenants will therefore have to take on the bill. It is not a question of the landlord taking on the bill, but rather that other tenants, through their rents, pay for the person buying to have a reduced obligation for financing the repairs the Minister mentioned. The Minister's first answer therefore, which concerns the practical problems of presenting a tenant with a full bill, is to be met by making other tenants, who may be poorer than the tenant in question and therefore not able to buy, pick up the bill through increased rents. That does not seem to me a legitimate answer.
The second answer the Minister gave was that the landlord retains an equity stake in the property. That is fine but, first, the equity stake may not be redeemed for 40 to 50 years, at which stage the notion of capital receipts is fairly nebulous. Secondly, there is no way for the landlord to ensure that repairs are carried out, thus protecting the landlord's equity stake. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will allow landlords to impose covenants to ensure that their equity stake is protected to give backing to the point he has just made, which is that if the landlord is protected by his equity stake, the landlord in return must be protected by his right to impose repairs?
Thirdly, the Minister gave an analogy with shared ownership. He was right to say that that scheme was a non-starter. That also applies to the scheme that we are discussing. But the important difference is that under shared ownership purchasers paid rent on the proportion of equity that remained with the local authority, and therefore through their rent they contributed to the cost of the repairs that would fall on the landlord. That does not apply here. The analogy is not exact. I await the Minister's response, but I suggest to him that none of the arguments he has adduced is valid. I invite the Minister to reply to those points.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness did not answer the final point that I made, which is that the landlord retains a share of the ownership of the flat, or indeed the block of flats. He will receive some more money at some stage in the future. It must be in his interest to make sure that the flat is reasonably maintained. It must be in the interests of the new purchaser—the new owner—to make sure that the building is kept in good repair. That is why we have
632
introduced this provision. The tenant will certainly be required to keep the flat in repair but it will be up to the landlord to mend the roof and the external parts of the block of flats. I think that that is perfectly reasonable. I do not share the concerns of the noble Baroness. I accept that the analogy with shared ownership is slightly flawed because in that case a degree of rental was maintained, but, as the noble Baroness pointed out, shared ownership did not work very well. We hope that rents to mortgages will be far superior.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the Committee is persuaded by that, I shall be surprised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176M:
Page 215, line 20, after ("occurs") insert ("and in any event not exceeding 30 years in cases of disposal)").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is similar to that of a later amendment on Scotland which is to be moved by my noble friend. This amendment seeks to ensure that the remaining landlord's share, or deferred financial commitment, is redeemed in a reasonable period of time. At the moment the matter is open ended until the tenant's death. As I have said, this may constitute a period of 40 to 50 years. During that time the landlord has to forgo his capital receipt. It does not seem to us unreasonable to bring that to an end and to limit the period to perhaps 30 years. That allows for an average mortgage period of 25 years, together with an additional extension, if necessary, for, for example, loans for improvements. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I can well understand the object of this amendment. When tenants buy their homes under rents to mortgages they pay less than the normal right-to-buy price. In return, the landlord retains a right to be paid part of the value of the property if it is later sold, or after the death of the purchasers. The payment will be based on what the property is worth at that time so that the former landlord retains a stake in any future growth in its value. The share must be bought out eventually, but the timing of that event, from the landlord's point of view, is uncertain. The purchasers may sell their home sooner or later or they may stay in it for the rest of their lives, which may be, as the noble Baroness said, 40 to 50 years.
The only snag is that the former landlord may have to wait a long time for his share in the value of the property. Hence the proposal the noble Baroness has made that there should be a 30-year time limit. Having said that I understand the object of this amendment, I do not think we can impose a limit. The difficulty is simple. If the purchasers are alive and well and are living in the house and have not sold it, how are they to raise the money to buy out the landlord's share? Anyone who takes out an ordinary mortgage must of

633
course redeem it by a set date, but the arrangements for repayment are worked out so as to enable the borrower to do this whether by spreading repayments over the period of the mortgage or by taking out an endowment policy which will produce the necessary sum.
I do not think that we can put people in a position where they may have to find a substantial sum of money, representing perhaps a quarter of the value of their home, at a time when they have no plans to sell up. They may not have the means to repay a loan and be forced to sell to raise capital. They might not be able to rehouse themselves out of the net proceeds of the sale. While I have some sympathy and understanding with the point the noble Baroness has made, I believe the provision is impractical and probably unnecessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept that we are between two alternative problems as it were. The Minister has put the position fairly. I do not know whether he would like to take this measure away and consider whether it is possible that, where a tenant in the situation we have been discussing is under the age of 65, that tenant may reasonably go on to take out an additional and further mortgage based on a capacity to continue to pay rent which may be compounded by the building society to offset the outstanding equity stake. That would seem to me to be reasonable where the 30 or 40 years still comes to a term that is well under the 65 years of age of a pensioner whose income may then be expected to fall.
I take the Minister's point, but I hope he can reconsider this matter because it is no kindness to a local authority to have 40 or 50 year-old debts outstanding which it is unable to realise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Mortgage for securing redemption of landlord's share]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176N:
Page 104, line 27, leave out ("so give") and insert ("not unreasonably withhold").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to a point on which we had a brief skirmish earlier this afternoon. The amendment would give local authorities a limited discretion to prevent a further loan being taken out by a rent-to-mortgage purchaser having priority over the landlord's mortgage.
The background to the amendment is the growth in debt and arrears across the country. We find, for example, from the Rowntree Trust, which has studied such arrears, that in 45 per cent. of cases of substantial arrears people have extended their mortgage. That was often associated with multiple arrears in respect of fuel, water and credit companies. In more than half of the cases such arrears were associated with worsening unemployment, lower wages, loss of overtime and so on. The Rowntree Trust also found that those who were in arrears were not the better off with higher mortgages but the worse off with lower mortgages, in other words the most vulnerable. The background to
634
the amendment is an arrears problem which is becoming worse and a problem of increased indebtedness.
In that context, if people exercise a right to buy or take advantage of a rent-to-mortgage scheme the first thing that those purchasers do is to show that they have bought their homes and are different from other council tenants. As a result, they have new doors, windows, porches, garages, conservatories and even extensions. Anyone who visits a council estate can pick out the houses which have been bought by the alterations and the extensions which have been made to those properties. In many cases that is to be welcomed.
However, to finance those improvements the tenant purchaser usually takes out a loan or second mortgage, sometimes well in excess of the discounted purchase price. In the case of a flat costing perhaps £15,000 or £18,000, it is not unusual for major improvements to exceed that discounted purchase price. That is fine if the purchaser can afford it. However, if purchasers fail to keep up their mortgage payments to their lenders and therefore the building society decides to foreclose, there is—as we know, because the noble Lord rejected our amendment—no provision for the local authority to have first refusal to purchase at a nil cost implication through supplementary credit approval. Homelessness results.
Given that it is the case that many right-to-buy purchasers have borrowed large sums which are not covered by sufficient residual equity in the property, the noble Lord will share our concern to protect the local authority's position in its fiduciary responsibility to other tenants and other rate and rent payers. Essentially, we say that further loans from lenders should be restricted to no more than the equity share left in the property until such time as full equity has been acquired by the purchaser. Otherwise the tenant is at risk of foreclosure and the local authority as landlord is at risk.
As the Bill stands the landlord must agree that a loan for approved purposes, as defined in subsection (6), will always have a higher priority than the landlord's share, contrary to what the noble Lord said earlier this afternoon. The amendment would allow the landlord to refuse to give it a higher priority if there were good reasons for doing so, and that consent must not be unreasonably withheld.
The amendment seems to me to be of unimpeachable virtue, so I hope that the noble Lord will support it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly indicated earlier that the landlord came second. However, I did not go on to say, as I clearly should have done, that there are exceptions. This is one of the exceptions.
When a tenant buys his or her home on rent-to-mortgage terms the proportion of the right-to-buy price which is not met by the initial payment is covered by an equity mortgage from the landlord. That is to say, the landlord has a right to be

635
paid a proportion of the value of the property on disposal or death. That right is protected by a registered charge.
The landlord's mortgage will have priority immediately after a mortgage taken out by the tenant to finance the purchase. That is to ensure that the landlord has good security for his loan. In some circumstances, however, the purchaser will wish to borrow an additional sum, either at the time of purchase or later, perhaps, as the noble Baroness pointed out, to carry out repairs or improvements to the property. The lender will want security for that loan and the money will be used to ensure that the value of the property is maintained or even enhanced. That is why we have provided that if a further advance is made for purposes connected with the purchase, maintenance or improvement of the property, the landlord should be required to consent in writing to the postponement of its charge.
The amendment framed by the noble Baroness would give the landlord discretion in granting that consent. I can understand that there might well be concern that the purchaser would be able to borrow large sums which could undermine the security of the landlord's mortgage. However, the purposes for which the loan could be used would be strictly limited and would be in the long-term interests of the former landlord in protecting the value of the property. If the landlord were given discretion over whether to grant postponement in those situations it would create uncertainty and be liable to give rise to a substantial amount of dispute. It might also have the effect of discouraging lenders from making loans to tenants wishing to purchase on rent-to-mortgage terms since they might fear that any further advances which they made, even if they were for legitimate purposes connected with the property, might not be protected.
We have included in the Bill detailed rules to ensure fair play between the former landlord and the mortgage lenders. I do not believe that it would be virtuous to complicate the position further by giving landlords a discretion. The requirement to give consent where it was reasonable to do so would be a fertile source of dispute. The legislation as it stands gives sufficiently secure protection to the landlord's mortgage.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the Minister is wrong in this. I believe that his position is foolhardy. If a proposed improvement adds to the value of the property and therefore protects the landlord's interest, assent would surely be given. If a £10,000 garage adds broadly £10,000, or even £8,000, to the value of the property then of course the landlord's equity interest is protected. There is no problem there. There is an array of improvements, ranging from double glazing or conservatories to work on kitchens, which may be desirable but whose cost is not reflected in additional value to the property. They may also be acceptable if the tenant proposing to make those improvements can afford to pay for them.
636
However, if the tenant cannot afford to pay and if those loans are not secured by the residual value in the property, what is the landlord's position?
What is the local authority supposed to do when somebody defaults because he has taken out more than he can afford to spend and that is a first charge on the property over and above the landlord's own share? It is not the landlord that is hurt, but other council tenants are denied their rightful return because consent has been unreasonably given when it should reasonably have been withheld in those circumstances. I ask the Minister to comment further.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister does so, is it not normally the case in the commercial market that there would always be the opportunity for the first mortgagee to give or withhold consent? One hopes that he would do so on a reasonable basis. I do not see the difference.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, makes a very valuable point reflecting what happens in normal market practice.
Perhaps one of the aspects which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has missed is the approved list. Money cannot be borrowed for any purpose such as a Caribbean holiday, a boat or a car. It has to be borrowed for approved purposes. It is only on that basis that the landlord is obliged to give his consent. The approved purposes are to enable the tenant to make an interim or final payment to redeem a landlord's mortgage, to pay for insurance, works to the property or service charges for works or to defray so much in advance as is outstanding, any arrears of interest, costs or expenses of enforcement. That is what we refer to. We do not refer to the opportunity for new owners to involve themselves in fast living. We assume that the extra loan will be used to enhance the property. That is clearly in the interests of the landlord.
I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. However, if we were to agree the amendment, not only would it create disputes but bureaucracy. Every time a new owner wished to extend his loan for approved purposes, he would have to request discretionary permission from the landlord. That could be cumbersome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to press the Minister. Perhaps he will help me with the sums because I am somewhat baffled. Let us suppose that the property is valued at £35,000; that the tenant's initial mortgage payment covers £20,000 of that; and that the equity stake represents the £15,000 to the landlord. There are therefore effectively two mortgages in place: one to the building society for the original £20,000; and one to the local authority for £15,000 as an outstanding charge. The tenant can afford the payment. The tenant wishes to do £15,000 worth of approved work. The local authority is concerned about it. The approved works may be desirable but they may add only £5,000 to £8,000 to the value of the property. The landlord is worried about the tenant's financial circumstances. The tenant finds that he is unable to maintain his £20,000

637
payments to the building society and the £15,000 to a second company for the improvement works. The tenant defaults.
The charge on those works applies ahead of the landlord's stake. Effectively it would wipe out all but £5,000 of the landlord's equity. The landlord finds that instead of having a charge on the property worth about £15,000 he has a charge of only £5,000. In other words, the local authority tenants have lost £10,000 on that deal because the landlord's mortgage could not take precedence over improvement works. That is what we refer to. How does the Minister propose to compensate council tenants for that loss of £10,000?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness began by making a good point. However, she is now making a meal of it. I accept the example that she gave proves that there is a substantial loss to the local authority. But even the noble Baroness will accept that that case is unlikely to arise.
The rules that we have introduced have been generally much welcomed by the local authority associations because they represent a considerable tightening up of the old right-to-buy rules. Under the old rules any further advance by the same lender had priority. In this case we have introduced the system of approved purposes. I believe that that is a substantial improvement. I hope that the noble Baroness envisages it as a considerable and worthwhile improvement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the Government's position is foolhardy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clauses 119 and 120 agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [The rent to loan scheme]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 176P:
Page 131, line 14, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert:
("(3) Payment of he deferred financial commitment to the original seller of the house—

(a) shall be made at a date no later than 30 years after the original purchase, or

(b) subject to section 73D(1), be made—

(i) on the sale or other disposal of the house by the rent to loan purchaser, or

(ii) if the rent to loan purchaser does not sell or dispose of the house, on his death, whichever first occurs.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to by my noble friend. There was an error in the grouping which caused certain confusion. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 176P not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176PA:
Page 133, line 16, after ("of") insert ("testate or intestate").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to ensure that the provision of the Bill refers to succession only without indicating whether or not it is restricted to testate or intestate succession. In normal circumstances a reference to succession alone indicates
638
intestate succession. The amendment clarifies that the law of succession covers inheritance to estate whether intestate or where a will has been made. I believe that it is a helpful small amendment. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): Although I understand the reasons why the noble Lord does not wish to move Amendment No. 176P—the noble Baroness moved the amendment which applies to England—perhaps I may advise the Committee on a brief item of fact. We have had a pilot scheme in Scotland. It may be of interest that the average age of those purchasing under the scheme in Scotland is about 46 years. Accordingly, if one were to put a limitation of 30 years on the provision, it might be inappropriate to require a sale at a time when one could have a widow or widower at the age of 76 or 80 having to find that very substantial sum.
The noble Lord seeks to ensure that the reference to the law of succession in new Section 73D(1) includes both testate and intestate succession. I assure the noble Lord that there is nothing between us. It is our intention that the provision, which is about the circumstances in which the deferred financial commitment need not be repaid, should apply when the house passes to another joint purchaser whether by the law of testate or intestate succession.
In his Institutions of The Law of Scotland, Lord Stair dealt with both testate and intestate succession under the heading of "Succession". A recent definition of the law of succession is given by the Emeritus Professor of Scots law at Glasgow University, David Walker, as,
"the branch of law which deals with the devolution of a person's property to others on his death".
He recognises it as covering both testate and intestate succession.
As the wording of the law of succession embraces both testate and intestate succession, I see no reason to change it. Indeed, to specify in the Bill that the term means both testate and intestate succession could cast doubt on references in other legislation where there is no such separate specification. I hope that with the reassurance that there is nothing between us the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must accept the opinion of the former Lord Advocate. I was merely advised that it made matters absolutely clear. However, I understand the point that if the reference were included in this Bill only it could cause confusion in other legislation and that there would be debate as to why it was not included. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Abatement of purchase price]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176PB:
Page 136, line 35, after ("sale") insert ("or where the provisions of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 apply, a Land Certificate with no exclusion from the Keeper's indemnity is delivered").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176PC to 176 PE. The amendments are highly technical to me and to others. The provision of the Bill refers to a date upon which a good and marketable title would have been granted by the seller. The phrase "a good and marketable title" is a term of art which has a special significance under the system of registration of deeds known as the Sasine system. The amendment clarifies that where the provisions of the Bill apply the new system of registration of title (as opposed to deeds) applies. The system of registration of title was introduced by the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 and ensures that a person who obtains an entry in the land register, certified by the Keeper of Registers to be without exclusion of indemnity, obtains the equivalent entry of a "good and marketable title" under the Sasine system. The amendment is designed to ensure that the effect of the new system is recognised.
I find that a particularly difficult part of a difficult Bill. Reading through some of the Second Reading speeches such as that by my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I was struck by the fact that he complained about a small part of a very large Bill being applicable only to Scotland. I find myself wondering what happens: does every lawyer's office in Scotland need to obtain the Bill and have it on the shelves? Obviously, the subject comes up frequently and it seems an incredibly clumsy way of dealing with it. We know the difficulties of the Scottish Standing Committee, but it seems an incredibly cumbersome method. The Bill itself is also obtuse. I received from a friend a copy of a letter from a senior partner of a firm of Scottish solicitors. He ends the letter by saying:
"Apart from these main points, I must say that I found the provisions in relation to the rents to mortgage scheme fiendishly complicated. I cannot believe that any ordinary Local Authority tenant would, have any chance of understanding them at all".
In fairness to local authority tenants, I think that many people in this House will not understand them either. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I certainly accept that many of the provisions relating to the rent-to-mortgage scheme are necessarily complicated, I do not believe that the basic scheme itself is particularly difficult to understand. Indeed, council tenants in Scotland will not only be able to understand it but will, as the pilot scheme indicates, take advantage of it.
The matter raised by the noble Lord is certainly highly technical. According to the authorities, one of the meanings of the words "good and marketable title" is that the seller undertakes that he is in a position to confer ownership onto the buyer. He further undertakes that the buyer's title will be free from challenge; that is, that it will be absolutely good and invulnerable to reduction.
What I should explain to the noble Lord is that this applies equally in the register of Sasines transactions and in the land register transactions. In the case of land registered or to be registered in the land register, the view of one of the main authorities on conveyancing in Scotland—and so far as I am aware,
640
his view has not been contradicted—is that the words "good and marketable title" cover the point that there will be no exclusion of indemnity.
In addition, it is the practice of the legal profession in Scotland, as recommended in what is known as the Practice Book: Registration of Title, to provide in missives a clause that the keeper issue a land certificate in the name of the purchaser as the registered proprietor of the whole subjects of offer and containing no exclusion of indemnity in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. The Practice Book also recommends that there be an addition to the effect that, notwithstanding the delivery of the disposition, the clause shall remain in full force and effect and may be founded upon. It would also be unsatisfactory to single out exclusion from the keeper's indemnity because not only is the concept of exclusion from indemnity covered by the words "good and marketable title", but other aspects too.
The idea of a good title may be said to involve four different aspects: first, that the buyer is to be made owner; secondly, that there are no heritable securities; thirdly, that there are no unusual conditions of title; and, lastly, that there are no leases. It would therefore be unsatisfactory to single out exclusion from the keeper's indemnity.
I am not sure whether that will make any sense at all to the noble Lord, but I am sure that he sees it now as clearly as ever. Noble Lords may have felt that a point was not covered but I hope that from what I have said they will be reassured and accept that the amendment is unnecessary. We wish to leave the terminology as "good and marketable title". It covers the point that vexed either the noble Lord or those who first raised the matter with him. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I think that all I can do is to compare it with the original wording and see whether I can understand it. If not, then perhaps I shall have an opportunity of taking advice and bringing the matter back on Report. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 176PC, 176PD and 176PE not moved]
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Right to have repairs carried out]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 176Q:
Page 108, line 13, leave out from ("(1)") to ("(to)") in line 16, and insert:
("A landlord of secure tenants shall operate a repair default scheme in accordance with the provisions of this section, for entitling secure tenants").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient for the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176R to 176V and Amendment

641
No. 176W. It is odd that all amendments in this part of the Bill start with the number 176, so we have to play a game of "Scrabble".
We come to the tenant's right to have repairs carried out, which is in the rubric of Clause 109. The Government have taken the view—in our opinion, correctly—that the existing scheme which was in the 1984 Act was bureaucratic, legalistic, complex and difficult to understand. In its place, they have attempted in the Bill to put something which is bureaucratic, legalistic, complex and difficult to understand. Our amendments try to make it slightly less bureaucratic, legalistic, complex and easier to understand. In particular, with Amendment No. 176Q, we are not satisfied that it is really the job of the Secretary of State to operate a blanket scheme. Although the proposed new national scheme is something of an improvement on the existing scheme, we argue that local authorities within it must have a great deal of flexibility due to the different conditions in different parts of the country.
Our view is that landlords must have flexibility to decide what repairs qualify under the scheme and what response times are appropriate, to decide how and when a back-up contractor should be called in, and to decide locally on compensation arrangements. Those three thoughts are the subject of Amendments Nos. 176Q, 176R, 176U, and 176W. Of those, the most important is Amendment No. 176Q, which lays on the landlord of secure tenants the operation of a repair default scheme in accordance with the provisions of the section and removes the burden from the Secretary of State. We believe that that is the right way to go about it. It would restrict the Secretary of State's power to prescribe a scheme to where a majority of tenants object to the local scheme.
The other amendments in the group are of a slightly different kind, but are all concerned with the repair default schemes about which I have been talking. Therefore, I accepted the grouping in the interests of trying to get a move on with the Bill.
Amendment No. 176S is designed to ensure that the first contractor has the opportunity to complete the work by the end of the last day before the tenant is eligible to call in the second contractor. Without that, it would be possible for the first and second contractors to arrive to do the same job on the last day, which seems an undesirable event, leaving the tenant in the rather difficult situation of having to mediate between the two contractors and possibly giving rise to legal challenge.
The purpose of Amendment No. 176T is to enable the local authority to decide which back-up contractor should be called out. We believe that there should not necessarily be two back-up contractors. It should be the local authority that decides. That is the purpose of the amendment. The amendments are slightly complex but we thought it appropriate to group them together because they deal with rent default schemes. Amendment No. 176Q is the central one. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support this group of amendments. Compliments have been paid by the Government Front Bench to local authorities along
642
the lines of their diversity and so on. Local authorities are diverse. There are different circumstances, different types of housing and different types of tenancy agreement. To allow that diversity to be reflected in the landlord's own decision on those matters would be appropriate.
On a more detailed point, I fear that if a long list of contractors has to be involved, no one contractor will have any particular loyalty or enthusiasm in providing a scheme which is properly priced and under which he could respond energetically. There is a point beyond competition where too many cooks spoil the broth. To reduce the list of contractors would not only reduce administrative complexity and the cost of operating the scheme; it would also be a practical approach. Finally, I add to the list of adjectives used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He left out "obscure" and possibly "obscurantist".
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, introduced the amendments to deal with the Government's new right-to-repair scheme. He began by criticising the old scheme. I accept that the old scheme was not the great success for which we had initially hoped. But it is wrong to write off the low take-up as a sign of failure. In the first three years, 71 claims were worth £7,300. It is also to ignore some of the very positive things that the scheme achieved. It changed attitudes among tenants and authorities; it enabled tenants to use the threat of the scheme to get repairs done—largely hidden from view, thus negating the need to exercise the right. The noble Lord accused the Government of introducing something that was bureaucratic, legalistic and complex. However, these amendments, although they change the fundamental nature of the proposed new right to repair, are a recipe for a mixture of schemes and a mixture of rights. If they are accepted, I fear that many tenants will end up with second-rate schemes and second-rate rights.
No doubt the proposals are well intentioned. But in seeking to have the best of both worlds—a locally-agreed scheme and the fall-back statutory scheme—tenants will not get a right to repair but a right to negotiate for a right to repair. The scheme proposed by the amendments would undermine the very scheme that the Government propose. It removes from tenants the opportunity to take control for themselves when things go wrong and puts the design and detailed operation of the scheme back into the hands of the local authority. Where the local authority is a good and effective manager, no doubt that would work well enough. But since too many authorities have poor and ineffective management and repair services, what guarantee do we and the tenants have that the schemes devised by the worst authorities will be up to scratch? By putting the control of the right to repair in the hands of those authorities, there will be little or no incentive for the authority to do better. It is the tenants in the poorest performing authorities who need the right to repair most of all. It is those tenants whom the Government's scheme is designed to help. If the Committee accepts the amendments, it will

643
provide the worst authorities with the escape route that they seek and deny tenants the opportunity to get urgent repairs done to their homes.
After long and perhaps frustrating negotiation with an unco-operative authority, tenants could, under the proposals, provided that a majority of tenants can be mobilised to submit requests to the council, insist on a scheme described in regulation under this part. But how long will all that take? When will the tenants get the right to repair and when will they get their repairs done? That is why I say to Members opposite: surely it will be quicker and easier for all concerned, and ultimately more acceptable to tenants, if, as we propose, authorities are required from the outset to deliver a basic statutory scheme. After consulting their tenants, local authorities will be free to enhance that statutory scheme by extending the range of repairs or shortening repair times. That way, tenants can be assured that they will have a right to repair, a right compatible with that of their fellow tenants and, most importantly of all, that repairs will be done quickly. That is our main aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there could be the confusion of contractors arriving on the same day. But the regulation-making power allows government to specify in the regulation the precise time by which work should be completed. Therefore the problem envisaged by the noble Lord—a totally fair problem—will not occur because the second contractor will arrive only after the first contractor has patently failed to turn up to complete the repairs.
I am sure that many questions arise about how we envisage our scheme operating. We have consulted widely on the principles of the new scheme (during late 1991) and we are currently consulting on its detailed operation. The consultation period closes on 2nd April. We are listening to the views of all parties and will describe the new right in regulations later this year. When we say that we are listening to all parties, that includes the points made today by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. In the light of that, I commend to the Committee the Government's proposals for a basic statutory scheme which local authorities can improve upon. It offers the best way forward for tenants and also for local authorities, which will have a clear framework and timetable against which to operate. I acknowledge that some authorities will have to rethink how they deliver their repair services and whether current structures best serve the needs of tenants. But that is surely a small price to pay for improved repairs services. The Government's proposal offers the best way forward for all concerned. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whether, in the light of what I have said, he might withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble Lord could kindly direct me to the paragraph in the regulation which deals with the point I made about the end of the last day when responding to that amendment. He said that I had made an error by not seeing something that I should have seen. If so, that would he an error of the Institute of Housing which did not see something which it should have seen.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord asked where it said in the regulation-making power that the Government can specify in the regulation the precise time by which the work can be completed. I am advised that it is in the proposed Section 96(2) (b).
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for pointing us to the right clause. That is the regulation-making power, but it does not say that the regulations that the Secretary of State may make will in fact do what this amendment says they should do. If that is not the case, why not have it on the face of the Bill? I cannot understand it. Perhaps we can decide this point before we continue.
Lord Strathclyde: I am turning up the specific page in the Bill. I am quite happy to look up the regulation. On advice that I have received from my officials, I understand that there is no problem here. However, in the light of what the noble Lord said—I certainly do not wish to try the patience of the Committee—I am quite happy to take away this point and make sure that what I said to the noble Lord was appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should be grateful if the noble Lord could take it away and respond to the question of why it should not appear on the face of the Bill rather than be in some kind of regulation-making powers, the substance and contents of which we do not know. Would the noble Lord care to intervene?
Lord Strathclyde: My eye is drawn to Clause 109 —the proposed new Section 96(2) (b)—which states that:
"provision that, if the contractor specified in a repair notice fails to carry out the repair within a prescribed period, the landlord shall issue a further repair notice".
The point I want to make is that in the regulations we shall prescribe the period. I am sorry if I have caused any confusion. I hope that that explanation is sufficient.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It does not say what the amendment says. Nevertheless, it gives power to the Secretary of State to make that provision. I fully understand that. I also fully understand when the Minister gives an undertaking which is, as I understood him, that the regulation shall contain the amendment that I have proposed.
Lord Strathclyde: If the noble Lord understood that, he must have misheard me. Certainly that is not what I said. I said that the regulations would include what I said they would include. That may or may not include the wording of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
The point is that I have nothing against the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and it may be appropriate to include something like that in the regulation when it comes to be made. I said that we were consulting on this matter. This is clearly part of the consultation. If it is appropriate, I shall be very happy to take it on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It seems that we have gone as far as we can go on this point. I hope that the regulations do not include all that the Minister said. Some of it, to say the least, was a little eccentric.

645
Let me move on to the main basis of the Minister's criticism. He claims that our amendments would undermine the scheme that the Government have put forward. He is right. That is the purpose of the amendment; namely, to undermine the scheme. We consider that the scheme as put forward will give rise to a great deal of bureaucracy and complexity which people will not understand.
As always when dealing with local authorities, the noble Lord assumes that the Government know best and the local authority knows worst. That is a characteristic of this Government with which we have learnt to live. It seems that the local authority does not understand what it is doing, whereas the Government, in some magic way that we have not yet found, know what they are doing.
In our view, the tenants should have a majority right to appeal to the Secretary of State to prescribe a scheme along the lines that the Government have in mind. That does not mean that the tenants will have to suffer from some poor old inefficient and ineffective Conservative local authority which has got the whole thing wrong and manages its affairs in a terrible way. If it wants to do so, it can opt out. That is the expression that the Government seem to wish to use. But yet again, we have an example of the Government refusing to delegate powers to local authorities and insisting on centralising still more than they have done in the past. This is a matter on which we ought to take the opinion of the Committee.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176Q) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hooson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

646

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Lindsay, E.

Aldenham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Liverpool, E.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moyne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Derwent, L.

Prentice, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Flather, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sharples, B.

Gisborough, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Greenway, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Halsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hertford, M.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 1761? to 176V not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176VA:
Page 109, line 9, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 176VA is a simple and sensible procedural amendment. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulation to allow the landlord to set off any payments for compensation under the right of repair against moneys owed to it by the tenant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176VB:
Page 109, line 12, at end insert ("and
(e) enable the landlord to set off against any compensation payable under the regulations any sums owed to it by the tenant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176W not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 109, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before we part with Clause 109 perhaps I may take the opportunity of explaining that I have just voted for the Government on Amendment No. 176Q. However, I regard the clause as a fairly horrible provision in a fairly horrible Bill. It is difficult to understand. It is particularly messy.
I managed to persuade myself, aided by my regard for my noble friend, and drag myself into the Government Lobby because I had something of a suspicion that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would make a nasty situation much worse. That is my excuse for doing what I did. I do not feel at all proud; in fact, I feel slightly ashamed. I only hope that my noble friend feels something of the shame which I feel in regard to that measure.
Lord Strathclyde: I am at a loss for words. It grieves me that my noble friend is so upset by the Bill and particularly by this aspect of it. We went through it in some detail at Second Reading. I made two speeches and my noble friend made a speech on other aspects of the Bill. I should have thought that my noble friend could accept the clause as being an important step in giving rights to council tenants to improve the quality of their homes.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: There was a time when I greatly admired the Secretary of State, but I do not believe that the present or any other Secretary of State will have an easy road in making the kind of regulation which this clause and others call for. It is an enormous obligation. To take one part at random,
"if the contractor specified in a repair notice fails to carry out the repair within a prescribed period, the landlord shall pay to the tenant such sum by way of compensation as may be determined by or under the regulations".
That will be an exceedingly complex regulation. It will take more than a genius to implement it and carry it into effect. I believe that the intention of the clause is to make life easier and more comfortable for tenants. One wonders whether it will.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Right to have repairs carried out]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 176X:
Page 138, line 43, after first ("the") insert ("end of the").
The noble Lord said: When Amendment No. 176X was tabled, I did not appreciate that a similar amendment had been tabled in Committee in another place and in response the Minister had tabled an amendment which was slightly different but which he maintained covered the points made by the original amendment. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: An identical amendment to the same effect was tabled by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place. That led to a government amendment which sought to clarify that very point by substituting the word "by" for "before" in new Section 60(3) (b), to make clear that the tenant would not be able to call in an alternative contractor unless the original contractor had failed to start the repair work before the end of the specified period. I hope I am able to assure the noble Lord that the clause as currently drafted achieves exactly what his amendment seeks to do. If that is the assurance that he seeks I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 110 [Right to compensation for improvements]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176XA:
Page 110, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 7.
The noble Lord said: These amendments make a number of changes to the enabling provisions in Clause 10 which allow for the establishment, by regulation, of the new scheme whereby secure tenants of local authorities will be able to receive compensation from their landlords for certain home improvements which they have made, once their tenancies end. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176YA to 176YC. They reflect a number of sensible suggestions put forward by local authorities, and others, during the recent consultation exercise on the general operation of the compensation scheme. They will improve the operation of the scheme, and I commend them to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 176Y:
Page 110, line 36, after ("amount") insert ("which shall not exceed a reasonable estimated cost of the works had the improvement been made by the landlord,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollis. The whole question of compensation is a difficult one. Almost by definition the scale and timing of any take up of the scheme is unpredictable. It is possible that authorities will find themselves unable to meet claims within the capital resources available to them. Quite how that is to be handled in the regulations that the Secretary of State is to make I know not, but the

649
amendment that I propose tries to quantify an upper limit that the compensation shall achieve. The words used in the amendment are:
"which shall not exceed a reasonable estimated cost of the works had the improvement been made by the landlord".
That is an upper limit which, I understand from a news release from Mr. Baldry that the noble Lord was kind enough to send me, is in the mind of government. In the terms of that news release there will be both upper and lower limits in relation to the amount payable in respect of improvements, and the Government are proposing to make minor amendments to the enabling powers to reflect a number of suggestions from consultees. I am not sure whether those minor amendments have now passed us or whether there are more minor amendments setting upper and lower limits to come. In the circumstances, it seems wise to stick to real life; that is,
"a reasonable estimated cost of the works had the improvement been made by the landlord"
and not unreal life as might be imagined by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope that the Committee will not be surprised if I confess to having some sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. Why should a local authority pay more in compensation to a tenant for an improvement than the reasonably estimated cost to it had it undertaken or arranged for the work to be carried out? We should have value for money for public expenditure, but let me explain why the amendment is not acceptable. We should begin by remembering the fundamental principle behind the proposed scheme. Council tenants should be able to receive some recompense towards the cost of home improvements they have made should they leave within the expected lifetime of the improvement. Part of the value of the scheme is in the encouragement it gives to tenants to develop a stake in their homes, and a commitment to making them better places in which to live. There are wide benefits here.
Let us also note that when we make the regulations we do not propose to include in the calculation of the compensation any element in respect of the costs of the labour provided by the tenant. In the case of such DIY improvements compensation will be based solely on the cost of the materials. In those cases, of which we expect there to be a significant number, it is highly unlikely that a council would be able to undertake the work at less than the materials cost to the tenant. That is one situation where the concerns expressed by the noble Lord will not arise.
As for other cases, where there is a paid labour cost, it is technically possible for an authority to pay out more in compensation than the cost to them of carrying out the improvement themselves. But I do not believe that that is likely to occur often, due to the method of assessing the compensation payable. Let me explain why.
First, we propose that in the regulations the amount of compensation will be based on the original cost of the improvement discounted over time. Realistically, that means that unless the tenancy ends quite soon after the completion of the improvement the amount of compensation payable will have
650
reduced significantly. Secondly, local authorities will have an element of discretion in determining the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, in circumstances where they believe that the original cost of the improvement on which the compensation is based is unacceptably high, the council can reduce, within reason, the amount of compensation offered to the tenant. The tenant will be able to appeal if he or she is not satisfied with the council's offer. Thirdly, and finally, the amount of compensation payable on any one improvement will be restricted by an upper limit. This will ensure that councils are not faced with excessive claims for compensation. We propose to consult further on the proposed upper limits and the content of the draft regulations, providing authorities with an opportunity to put forward suggestions on what they believe are reasonable maximum levels for each type of improvement, and other aspects of the scheme.
In conclusion, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because of the features 'which are to be built into the provisions, and that, in any event, the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are seldom likely to occur.
I hope that given the commitment to consult on the regulations and on the upper limits, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in retrospect will feel that his amendment is unnecessary but will join in the consultation when it comes forward.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. We will join in the consultations, and we accept that the amendment as it stands is not necessary. We look forward to that consultation being completed in time for an amendment to be made to the Bill rather than by regulation. The Minister appears to be making faces that express some doubt about that procedure.
The Minister will be aware that the consultation document issued by his department said that the calculation of the compensation payable could be based on the increase in the capital or rental value of the dwelling resulting from the improvement at the time that the tenancy ended. That seems to me to be a very odd concept. One of the reasons for tabling the amendment was, to make sure that the Government did not take their own consultation paper too seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 176YA to 176YC:
Page 110, line 36, after ("be") and insert ("determined by the landlord, or").
Page 110, line 50, leave out ("and").
Page 111, line 3, at end insert ("and
(d) enable the landlord to set off against any compensation payable under the regulations any sums owed to it by the qualifying person or persons.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Existing rights with respect to disposals by housing action trusts]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176YD:
Page 112, line 48, at end insert:
("() In section 94 of that Act, there shall be added at the beginning of subsection (1) the words "Except where subsection (8) applies".
() After subsection (7) of the same section, the following new subsection shall be added—
"(8) In respect of a housing action trust, the right conferred by this part may be exercised by the local housing authority or authorities in whose area the trust is located, but not until the dwellings concerned have been owned by the housing action trust for at least two years".").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 176YD and the subsequent tranches of amendments refer to housing action trusts. The trusts were introduced by the Housing Act 1988 to serve rather like a UDC and target large but rundown council estates starved of investment and modernisation moneys and transfer them to an action team made up of government and local authority nominees. The teams could then draw on specific funding for a defined period of between five and 10 years to turn those estates around. Their intent was therefore not only to target and modernise stock but to diversify their ownership.
As originally proposed in HATs, tenants would have had no say in the matter. They were to be transferred if they lived on such an estate to a housing action trust whether they liked it or not. But when the 1988 Housing Bill came to this House we inserted, quite rightly, a tenants' right to a ballot and therefore to a veto. We inserted into HATs a tenants' choice, which was respected subsequently by the Government.
The six areas that the Government had at the time in mind for HATs—Lambeth, Southwark, Sunderland, Sandwell, Leeds and Tower Hamlets—were balloted in the light of your Lordships' amendment and the tenants declined the proposals fearing that they could end up both with private landlords and the loss of their right to buy. Since that time—we certainly welcome the move that the Government have made on this—housing action trusts have become, so to speak, more user friendly, involving stronger local authority and tenant participation in management. In return for a promise, which so far the Government have proposed to honour but which has not yet come about, that the tenants should have the right to return to a local authority when the work of the housing action trust is complete and that they should not be propelled against their wishes into the control of an alternative landlord, we very much welcomed them. In consequence, in 1991 the Minister was able to announce a HAT with tenants' support in Hull and a second one in Waltham Forest. A third is due in Liverpool. Ballots are shortly due—I know that the Minister is concerned about their outcome—in Tower Hamlets, and I understand that Birmingham and Sheffield may also be considered for HATs.
Although Clauses 111 and 112 give statutory force to the undertakings offered by the Minister, the tenants, especially of Tower Hamlets who are due to ballot soon, seek assurances on some further issues which we bring before the Committee today and
652
which are the subject of these amendments. I refer to the financial terms of the transfer—Amendments Nos. 176YE to 176YG; secondly, the right for the minority of tenants in a block of flats where the majority may have voted to go to a private landlord to stay with the local authority—Amendment No. 176YH; and, thirdly, the extension of the tenants' choice that the process should be initiated by the tenants themselves and that they should not have to wait until the end of the HAT's first term.
In Committee in another place the Minister gave the undertaking that there would be a transfer of improved properties back to the local authority at the tenants' request at nil cost rather than by purchase and then offset by the much more cumbersome route of supplementary credit approvals. We welcome that —and we think that the Minister was being exceedingly helpful—but we believe that it needs to be on the face of the Bill just in case subsequent Ministers, or concurrent or subsequent Treasury officers, should change their mind or have it changed for them. It is clearly unreasonable, nonetheless, that that initiation back to a local authority should occur within a few months of a HAT being initiated. That is why in Amendment No. 176YD we say that there should not be initiated a tenants' right to transfer back to the local authority until a HAT has been in existence for at least two years. The bite of the amendment is that the tenants should be able to initiate that right to return. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish briefly to put on record our support for the amendments and for the attempt to plug loopholes, if that is the appropriate word, to fill the gaps and make sure that the provisions of the Bill entirely fulfil the assurances given by the Minister in another place.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Baroness pointed out, this is the first amendment concerning housing action trusts. It may be useful to the Committee if I say a few words about the policy background and the provisions in the Bill to which this amendment and subsequent amendments refer.
The housing action trust policy was introduced some five years ago to address one of the most intractable problems of housing provision. I refer to local authority estates, some built before the war but many more recently, which exhibit a complex combination of physical, management and social problems. These estates are often very large with an overwhelming sense of monotony and uniformity. They are often riddled with vandalism and crime. They generally house some of the poorest members of society in a pervasive sense of isolation and insecurity. Management of the estates is often near to breakdown and not infrequently many of the ordinary services on which local communities depend have come to an end.
As Members of the Committee know, the fundamental proposition on, which trusts are based is the need for a special public body able to act comprehensively and independently. Over the years the policy has been open to debate, but it is founded on three basic justifications which I believe remain relevant today. The first is the overwhelming severity

653
and complexity of the problems which will often require a special ad hoc agency capable of concentrating and focusing the necessary effort. The second is the fact that such estates are often themselves located within broader local authority areas where there is a wide range of other problems. In many cases the local authority is already overstretched and relieving it of this particular and most severe problem can be the key to its beginning to get on top of its other difficulties. Finally, the problems and failings of local authorities over many years have often bred a deep alienation of tenants from the authority, which means that a new start under a new organisation is an essential basis for regeneration.
That is the background and a little of the history. I believe that we have now reached a point where HATs can offer a real partnership of government, local authorities and tenants. That partnership can bring a strength to tackling these problems which we have not previously had and which the severity of the problems requires. The overwhelming support in tenant ballots for HATs in Hull, Waltham Forest and Liverpool shows that the approach has now found strong support among tenants themselves.
As it has developed in the past two years, a cardinal feature of the HATs policy has been a right for tenants to choose, when the redevelopment or renovation of their estate is complete, to which landlord they should move—whether to the local authority, a housing association, a co-operative or whatever. It is the Government's firm policy that their wishes in this matter should be respected. It was on that basis that Clauses I 111 and 112 were inserted in the Bill to give statutory effect to a right for tenants to move to the local housing authority if that is their wish at the end of a HAT's work.
These clauses set out a clear and effective procedure for tenants to exercise this right closely tailored to the specific circumstances of housing action trusts. Its principles have found widespread support. However, Amendment No. 176YD would now import on top of that a different tenants' choice procedure under the 1988 Act that would allow local authorities to initiate these different procedures after two years regardless of the circumstances of the trust or the impact on its development programme and the interests of its tenants. It would be wholly inappropriate and perverse to have yet another regime for the transfer of HAT properties to the local housing authority. Given the extensive rights already set out in the Bill, that would add nothing but confusion and potential disruption.
There is a further perversity. The tenants' choice legislation in Part IV of the 1988 Act (all 20 sections) is drafted for tenants moving from public sector landlords. To stand the provisions on their head and try to use them where tenants may opt to move to the local housing authority would be perverse and a violence to the original legislation. It is much better to rely on the tailor-made provisions in the Bill which give tenants a secure right to transfer to local authorities, which reflect the particular circumstances of HATs and which allow transfers to follow a timetable compatible with HATs programmes.
654
HATs have an enormous and difficult task dealing with renovation and redevelopment of some of the most rundown housing areas in the country. They need a clear basis on which to work. Their tenants also need to know where they stand. The existing clauses of the Bill give them full rights to exercise their own choice of landlord at an appropriate time. To bring in a wholly different procedure and allow local authorities to initiate tenants' choice transfers of property through trusts to themselves, even while large-scale redevelopment programmes were in progress, would undermine the work of trusts and contribute nothing to the effective rights of tenants. Therefore I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree with a considerable amount of what he said. I accept entirely that, not the original HATs, but HATs Mark II, have gained a high degree of tenants' acceptance and, in co-operation with local authorities, may very well be doing an important job.
Let us remind ourselves why that job is necessary to some degree. The rundown condition of estates is in no small part due to the squeeze on capital spending by local government. The noble Lord pulls a face. I have been checking figures. I remind the noble Lord that my own local authority had an investment programme for 1989–90 of £17.5 million. That was cut by the Government for 1991–92 to £8.5 million or less than half in real terms. In such a situation it is not that local authorities are unwilling to remedy conditions on the estates but that the Government have deprived them of the resources to do so. Central government should not easily pass the buck in the way that the Minister indicated. Having said that, I take into account what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [New rights with respect to such disposals]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176YE:
Page 115, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 176YF, 176YG and 176YH. The first three amendments simply seek to get on the face of the Bill an undertaking given by the Minister in another place at Committee stage that HAT properties are transferred to the local authority at nil cost. It is something which we very much welcome and would like to see in the Bill. That is the point of the first three amendments.
Amendment No. 176YH covers a rather different issue. Its purpose is to ensure that where the majority of tenants in a block of flats vote to transfer to a private landlord—perhaps to a housing association—that will allow the minority of tenants to become council tenants again by requiring the local authority to take a lease on the relevant dwellings. That has been

655
demanded, for example, by the Tower Hamlets tenants as a consideration that will affect the way in which they will vote on the new HAT ballot. The procedure we are asking for is analogous to that already exercised by tenants under the tenants' choice.
What it means is a lease back. It is not unlike the enfranchisement of flats. It is essentially a minority right that where the majority exercise their right, the minority may have a right to return to the local authority. Why may they want to do that? There are two very obvious reasons. First, tenants may actively prefer local authority management with its democratic accountability, possibly over a housing association and almost certainly over some of the private landlords whose reputations are not always immaculate. Secondly, if a majority of tenants are going over to a housing association or a private landlord, they go with the loss as secure tenants of the right to buy. By having a right to return on lease-back arrangements to the local authority, that would protect such tenants, as I understand it, and their right to buy. Otherwise they would lose it.
It is certainly true that they could have exercised that right while they were tenants within the HAT procedure but that may not have been financially possible for them at the time. It seems unreasonable to us that they should be required to lose it were they a minority of tenants who preferred to remain with the local authority. For that reason in particular we wish to press the Minister on Amendment No. 176YH. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I join with the noble Baroness in speaking to Amendments Nos. 176YE to 176YH. These amendments provide two small but significant changes to the arrangements introduced by the Bill to allow HAT tenants to become tenants of the local housing authority when the work of the trust is complete. The first would include in the statute the requirement to transfer back to the local authority at nil cost. Let me make it clear that that is, as a matter of policy, the Government's intention in respect of all those trusts now established or proposed. However, it is not possible to anticipate the valuations or financial circumstances of estates that in due course might pass to trusts.
The clause as drafted therefore gives the Secretary of State discretion to set the transfer terms. That is a flexibility we should preserve for the future. I urge the Committee to preserve it. I readily understand, however, the motives of those who have put forward the amendment. They fear that at some point the Secretary of State might reverse his nil cost transfer policy and, by onerous financial conditions, frustrate the right of tenants to return to the council. That is not a risk which need concern tenants.
The fact is that the local authority will be under a duty to take tenants back. I believe that the Secretary of State would be acting outside his statutory duties if he used his current flexibility to impose onerous financial conditions which would negate the right of return which Parliament will have given. For those reasons I see no justification for the amendment and invite the Committee to leave the clause as drafted.
656
Amendment No. 176YH would alter our present proposals that blocks of flats should transfer to a single landlord on the basis of a majority tenant vote. I recognise that the Bill provides for individual choice of landlord in the case of renovated or new houses. But there are two reasons why that is not sensible or practicable in the case of blocks of flats, and why I must therefore urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The first consideration is that such a statutory scheme would paradoxically undermine real diversity of choice for tenants. The fact is that landlords would be discouraged from coming forward to take over blocks of flats from HATs where they had no control over the proportion of flats they might end up owning in any block. For instance, it might be difficult for them to raise private finance for the purchase of a block in which they might own anything from 51 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the flats. The danger is that even the sociable landlords would simply consider it too much trouble.
The second consideration is that we must preserve as far as practicable the improved management arrangements which HATs are designed to deliver. That will be far easier where each block is under a single landlord. I accept that the right to buy may diversify tenure in a block, but that is quite different from having different landlords managing the properties. There should be nothing to prevent a HAT negotiating with prospective landlords lease-back arrangements where that is sensible, practical and acceptable to the landlords. That would mean that tenants could take into account the position on those flats when expressing their preferences but would not be bound, as they would in this amendment, to their initial choice. Existing and proposed trusts are sympathetic to that approach, but to impose a rigid statutory scheme would, in our view, go too far,
I submit that this amendment would result in a more onerous restriction of opportunity and choice for tenants than the arrangement for the transfer of blocks by majority ballot which we are proposing. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister's case in response to these amendments seems to rest on two arguments. The first relates to practicalities and the second to the problem of diverse ownership and the possible limitation on choice for the majority. On the point about practicalities and the view that it is not reasonable to have mixed landlord arrangements within a block, I have to say that the Government have already conceded that pass on enfranchisement on the one hand (where there will often be mixed tenures) and on the right to buy on the other hand, in which some tenants will have bought, some tenants will have bought and enfranchised, and some tenants will remain renters. That situation will exist in previously local authority owned blocks where there will be three different sorts of tenure arrangements in order to respect the rights and wishes of individual tenants. There will be the right to buy on leasehold, the right to buy and to enfranchise, and the right to remain a tenant.

657
If that can be done under the right to buy plus leasehold enfranchisement, I suggest that it can certainly be done in the much simpler situation in which there is a transfer back of housing action trusts. So much, therefore, for the practicalities. The Government have already conceded that such arrangements can be made to work where they want them to work. We are now asking that they should be made to work where the tenants want them to work.
The second point relates to the democratic rights of tenants which the Minister did not address at all. Clearly, where two-thirds of the tenants want to enfranchise under the leasehold arrangements, one-third may be overruled, but that one-third have the right not to enfranchise. Under this arrangement, a majority of tenants may seek to go to a private landlord or a housing association. However, that would deprive the remaining 49 per cent., or whatever, of their right to buy at some future date. If the Minister is serious, as he was professing today, in saying that we on this side are restricting the right to buy while he and his side are pushing for the right to buy, what is he doing restricting tenants' rights to buy once a HAT is transferred out of HAT ownership into the private sector?
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I understand that tenants transferring to a housing association would retain a preserved right to buy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: And if they transferred to a private landlord?
Lord Strathclyde: That, too, would be the case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, I have been misbriefed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176YF, 176YG and 176YH not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 113 [Provision of housing welfare services]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176Z:
Page 115, line 42, leave out from ("services' ") to end of line 44 and insert ("includes, in relation to accommodation occupied by elderly, sick or disabled persons—

(a) counselling, monitoring and support in connection with tenants' well being and health, and their personal needs other than those directly related to housing;

(b) the provision of monitoring and alarm schemes to reflect increased personal dependency and frailty of tenants;

(c) cleaning tenants' rooms and windows and their laundry services, to the extent that this reflects their reduced abiliy to do so themselves;

(d) organising social and leisure activities and functions;

(e) liaising with medical and social services staff and GPs about tenants' health needs;

(f) providing and supervising restaurants, meals and ancillary services thereto;

(g) counselling and liaising with relatives;

(h) running regular errands because tenants are unable to do so themselves;

(i) administering first aid;

(j) responding to out of hours calls by tenants;

658

(k) helping tenants into and out of bed;

(l) toiletting, dressing, feeding, bathing and shaving tenants;

(m) administering tenants' medication;

(n) nursing care.").

The noble Baroness said: We now move to a cluster of amendments dealing with housing welfare services. If I may, I should like to speak to the amendments more generally first and then deal briefly with the detail. The amendments deal with two sets of issues. The first relates to the powers of the local authority (as housing authority) in the field of housing welfare. Secondly, I have a set of questions about how such welfare activities can properly be funded.
One of the most significant housing developments of the past 20 years or so has been the establishment of sheltered or "good neighbour" housing whereby elderly residents move into suitable and adapted housing clustered around common room facilities, with the support of wardens, good neighbours and alarm systems. That has meant care in the community in the best possible sense. For example, no old people's home has been built in Norwich since the early 1970s because elderly people have been enabled to enjoy richer and more independent lives, with support, in their own neighbourhoods. However, outside the metropolitan authorities housing is a district council function while the provision of social services is a county council provision. Sheltered housing has always been a district function to which county social services occasionally made a modest contribution which, in most cases, dried up during the 1980s. In their turn, at district level, the local authorities have increasingly regarded welfare as part of a broader housing management role, providing, for example, furniture for young people corning out of care into an empty flat; debt counselling for families in arrears or support through the "good neighbour" schemes. How much of such welfare activity was funded through the housing revenue account and how much from the general funds (and therefore from the ratepayers) has always been a matter for local discretion.
That brings me to the second issue—the question of finance, as opposed to powers, and to the council house account. Because the Government contributed subsidies to the housing revenue account, they determined—rightly, in my view—that it should be a landlord's account only; in other words, that it should be ring-fenced to fund only those items pertaining to council tenants, and that those items which should be financed from all of us should be offset by matching general rate fund contributions or excluded from the HRA altogether.
Under that system, local authorities have proceeded perfectly reasonably and with due regard to local circumstances over the past 10 or 15 years. As a consequence of it, in 1991–92, for example, local authorities spent about £174 million on warden services. However, into that situation came the Ealing judgment. A council tenant in Ealing appealed to the courts that the rent on his council house was artificially high because he was paying in his rent for items such as sheltered housing which should properly

659
be borne by the general rate fund. The courts agreed that, in their words, housing management should not go beyond,
"the ordinary and natural meaning of the term".
That meant that the personal care part of the welfare element should be funded by the only body, apparently, with the powers to do so—that is, by the social services. What does the Ealing judgment potentially mean? It would mean closing down sheltered housing, or stripping out its welfare functions, or seeking to persuade cash-starved county councils (in the midst of their desperately trying to mount care in the community) that they should make a hefty contribution to district councils' housing revenue accounts. None of those three outcomes is desirable or feasible; hence the need to legislate (which we welcome) and to reconstruct by law the situation that pre-existed the Ealing judgment.
Therefore, Clause 113 gives local housing authorities explicit power to provide welfare services in connection with housing accommodation. Clause 114 gives local housing authorities the discretion to charge that to the HRA and to finance that either from rents or from a contribution from general funds. However, Clause 115 gives the Secretary of State the power to repeal any of those provisions. That is why we have tabled a series of amendments to test a number of issues. They are probing amendments.
The first set of issues associated with Amendment No. 176Z and with the group comprising Amendments Nos. 176BZ to 176QZ relates to the question: what counts as housing management when tenants are frail, elderly, disabled or mentally handicapped? We on this side want to argue that all good, sensitive housing management is, to a degree, customised (if I can use that ugly word) according to the needs of particular groups of residents. In other words, it is part of the full range of housing management services that need to be provided, but only some of those services will be drawn on at particular times by particular groups of residents. That may range from housing advice on the right to buy, where only council tenants wanting to buy will draw on that welfare service, to counselling on housing and benefits which, again, only those needing housing benefit will draw on, and "good neighbour" services, on which only the elderly will draw. It follows —this is the key part of our argument—that housing welfare is a proper and necessary part of a comprehensive housing management service, especially as council housing increasingly houses those who are too poor, too frail or too handicapped to have an alternative tenure.
If that is right and if housing welfare is part of housing management and therefore part of the local authority's housing powers, there is a second set of questions relating to how that should be funded. First, should the funding come from the housing revenue account and tenants' rents on the grounds that all tenants may need to use those services at some point or, secondly, should it be placed within the housing revenue account but cross-funded from other local authority residents on the grounds that all should
660
contribute as many will enter sheltered housing direct from owner occupation? Thirdly, should it be financed by specific contributions from social service authorities which, in the shire counties, are the county councils? Given the county councils' current concern with funding care in the community and their fears that their funding will be something like £200 million short, it is clear that funding the existing local authority warden services will come low down their priority list.
It is clearly not practicable to split responsibility and funding for sheltered housing. Indeed, the counties have already argued that, if they should be required to contribute to housing revenue accounts to cover the cost of the welfare element in sheltered housing, they would need transferred to them the housing authority money and the housing benefit money for them to transfer it back again to local housing authorities. That is a silly circular movement.
In practice, most authorities fund from within the housing revenue account, but there is a mixture of practice reflecting local needs, the degree of support offered by schemes and the like. We obviously want that discretion to continue, and hence Amendment No. 176Z, because we suspect that that discretion may disappear after April 1994. We want to move an amendment to defer that until April 1998 when we shall see the knock-on consequences of local government reorganisation and whether splintered housing and social service authorities are brought together in a single unitary authority.
Finally, the proposal has implications for housing benefit, because housing benefit at the moment clearly covers a considerable part of housing management costs, including the welfare dimension. If it should be funded from outside the local authority housing service but from the county council, it would have to be recycled back through the SSAs, which is much less precisely targeted. The implications of course for that and for housing provided by local housing associations are significant.
There is then a series of amendments covering the wider issues of housing welfare services and a cluster of amendments on the powers that housing authorities may have to offer those welfare services, properly understood, we believe, as the natural extension of a comprehensive housing role. Secondly, there is a series of amendments on the funding of that provision, whether from council tenants' rents, district council ratepayers or county social services. Amendment No. 176Z is the first of the amendments, and I move it on behalf of myself and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. It provides that we should have a common definition of "welfare services" so that when we come to debate the Secretary of State's power to repeal we shall know to what he might refer. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness has introduced an interesting area which reflects the fast-changing role of housing authorities' provision of specialist housing rather than normal housing. The list set out in Amendment No. 176Z is an interesting and comprehensive one, but I wonder whether it is wise, other than for the purposes of tonight's debate. It

661
changes the definition of "welfare services" as set out in Section 11A(3) inserted by Clause 113 from an exclusive definition,
"'welfare services' does not include the repair, maintenance supervision or management of houses",
to a list which I shall describe as inclusive. At the very least, it would be sensible to retain subsection (3), to which I referred, which provides that welfare services do not include certain matters.
I wonder whether the list is appropriate. I understand and fully support the argument that, because, as we know, the Government do not like local discretion, it may be necessary to spell out what a local authority may do. One might find that the Secretary of State has a more restricted view of welfare than the local authority directly providing the services. My fear is that if we list the services in such detail, clients—local authority tenants are fast changing their status from tenants to clients, as their need for services from social services as well as housing grows—may begin to regard them as mandatory. To that extent, the amendment may have the effect of limiting a local authority's discretion in a way that may not be intended. However, as I say, for the purposes of this debate it is useful to have the list.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for explaining so clearly what lies behind the amendments. It is useful for that to be laid out. We proposed initially that the amendment should be grouped with other amendments because they relate to the central issue of how welfare services to local authority tenants should be provided and paid for. But doing it this way gives us an opportunity to deal with each matter separately.
Like the noble Baroness, perhaps I could discuss the background briefly. The background to Clauses 113 and 115 is the Court of Appeal judgment against the London Borough of Ealing last year. The Court of Appeal found that housing authorities could not debit to their housing revenue account the cost of welfare services provided by wardens in sheltered accommodation. The judgment also highlighted the limited powers available to housing authorities to provide welfare services to their tenants. To avoid uncertainty and disruption to those important services, Clause 113 will give housing authorities powers to provide welfare services to their tenants.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noticed, the term "welfare" was used to ensure that all the care services which wardens carry out and the provision of group monitoring and alarm schemes that do not necessarily depend upon wardens would be covered. The amendment specifies a list of services which, I am glad to say, the term "welfare" already includes.
The noble Baroness asked about funding arrangements. The consultation paper suggests that adjustments to the housing revenue account subsidy and the revenue support grant intend that the overall effect on local government finance is to be neutral. Of course I look forward to comments on the consultations. I hope that that is reason enough for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment was meant to be a probing one to provide a basis for the other amendments. In the light of the Minister's reply, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Power to repeal provisions made by sections 113 and 114]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176AZ:
Page 116, line 24, after ("time") insert ("after 31st March 1998").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the exercise of powers to repeal Sections 113 and 114 until the process of local government reorganisation is substantially complete. In other words, one of the problems facing the appropriate funding of housing welfare services is that housing is a district council function and social services a county council function. It is the expectation, is it not, that following the review of local government there may well be unitary authorities with integrated housing and social services powers? It therefore seems foolish to proceed according to the Government's timetable when we do not yet know the outcome of that local government reorganisation. Therefore all such procedures will have to be re-assessed in the light of possible unitary authorities. I therefore move what we believe to be a helpful, modest amendment that such proposals should be deferred until after the local government reorganisation. Our best guess is that that is 31st March 1998.
Baroness Hamwee: Clause 115 is an extraordinary clause, is it not? It follows two new provisions which give discretion to local authorities, but then it says that the Secretary of State may decide that he does not like what they are doing and so he can repeal the provision. Is that the way to go about legislation or have I misunderstood the clause?
7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment will delay the withdrawal of the powers of the housing authorities to provide welfare services and account for their costs; in the HRA until 31st March 1998. We are currently consulting local authorities and others on the future funding and provision of welfare services for local authority tenants. We have said that we will take no decision on whether or when to withdraw those powers until we have considered what consultees have to say.
Clause 115, which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to withdraw those powers, has been drafted with flexibility in mind. The amendment would remove that flexibility and pre-empt the outcome of the consultation exercise. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with that explanation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Am I right to understand that the Minister has undertaken that the right to appeal will not be brought into effect until after the completion of the reorganisation?
Lord Strathclyde: We are consulting on future funding and on the provision of welfare services. I said that we shall do nothing until we have completed that consultation and have seen what has been stated. That may take some time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But does not the Minister agree that to try to fund across two local authorities is infinitely more difficult than being able to fund by virement between two committees of the same tier of local government?
Lord Strathclyde: No. I can see the point which the noble Baroness makes but I believe that we need to preserve flexibility in the matter. That is why we have drafted the Bill in the way we have.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am unimpressed by the argument of flexibility in respect of a situation in which local authorities may find themselves with extremely bureaucratic arrangements. Nonetheless, given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill
7.2 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1993
7.4 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 regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The purpose of the regulations is to increase by 2½ per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1st May 1993.
People suffering from industrial diseases have the right to sue the employer concerned for damages. However, certain dust-related diseases take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed until 20 to 30 years or more after exposure. By the time the disease is diagnosed the employer or employers responsible may no longer exist.
Parliament enacted this legislation in 1979 to provide a measure of compensation to those who cannot claim it in the normal way through the courts. It provides lump sum payments to sufferers from certain dust-related diseases or, when the sufferers have died, to their dependants. However, I would point out that it has never been the intention of the Act to provide an alternative to taking civil action in the courts.
There are three basic conditions of entitlement, which must be satisfied before a payment can be made: first, that there is no relevant employer who can be sued; secondly, that no court action has been brought nor compensation received in respect of the disease; and, thirdly, that industrial injuries disablement benefit has been awarded.
The Department of Employment does all it can to administer the compensation scheme in a sympathetic

665
way. While it is necessary to ensure that payment conditions are met it is also recognised that each case is art individual disaster and the department is as generous as the legislation allows. Since the Act came into force in 1980 more than 7,000 applicants have made a claim and 75 per cent. of those have received payment. The total cost to date has been £33 million. Payments under the Act are additional to any social security benefits awarded.
The Government have given an undertaking to Parliament to review the amounts payable regularly to maintain their value. These regulations aim to fulfil this commitment.
I feel sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that the circumstances leading to these payments are very much to be regretted. They reflect the conditions in which some people worked many years ago. Action taken by the Government to control the use of asbestos and other hazardous substances will prevent such suffering for present generations of workers. Nevertheless, I very much welcome the opportunity provided by these regulations to maintain the value of the compensation.
I know that all noble Lords will recognise that no amount of money will ever compensate individuals and families for their loss but at least these regulations allow us to give some practical and material help. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
7.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the regulations before the House and the manner in which the Motion has been moved. I wish to put forward only one or two points. We are grateful that there is to be an increase and that it is based on 2.5 per cent. However, because of the group of people about which we are talking I wish to suggest that the Minister takes into consideration the fact that they will be paying more for heat and warmth, which helps to sustain the lives of sick and aged people. The Budget will impinge heavily on the amount of money which such people draw. I realise that the Minister cannot answer tonight because he is not empowered to do so but I ask him to bring the matter to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for consideration when the regulations are next updated.
We are dealing with a diminishing number of people. There have been enormous reductions in the number of miners and, as the Minister probably knows, there is today a lobby of miners and their supporters who are fighting to save the last vestiges of their industry. I am not sure that I agree with the press and some of the claims made by government Ministers that Mr. Heseltine has made an attempt to save the mining industry. I believe that all Mr. Heseltine is doing is slowing down the rigor mortis. But, having said that, I never .see the word "pneumoconiosis" without casting my memory back to a person who very quickly became a friend of mine when I first came to your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us; indeed, he died about two years ago.
666
I am talking about Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who was known as Bernard to us all. He was a real miner in the truest sense. He spent his life in the pits before going to another place and then coming to your Lordships' House. He was very well respected, and loved, by most people who met him as a true person of the kind that the mining communities and industries produced and who helped the country.
Lord Taylor once told me—and I believe one can read the history of this in his autobiography, Uphill all the Way—that he actually played a part in the formulation of the word "pneumoconiosis" and in its inclusion as an industrial complaint. That relates not just to miners, because other people also suffer from the disease. However, I wanted to put on record what Lord Taylor had done in his younger days and the way that he carried it through to his final years in your Lordships' House.
Once again, I should like to tell the Minister that we welcome the upgrading. I hope that the point I made regarding the increase in respect of costs that such people will have to bear as regards heating and lighting will be taken into consideration when the matter is next considered in the House for upgrading under the regulations, which I expect will be some time next year. On that basis, the Opposition is pleased to accept the Motion.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, like the noble Lord opposite, I welcome the regulations. Of course, like the noble Lord opposite and, indeed, my noble friend the Minister, I regret the need for it. My noble friend said that we are talking about a shrinking number of people, but pneumoconiosis is, of course, still extant in some of our deep mines. Without going into the rhetoric of the noble Lord opposite, which may well have been directed to our debate on Wednesday, can my noble friend say whether the use of masks, and other equipment, which are now issued to miners has led to a decrease in the incidence of pneumoconiosis and that, therefore, sooner or later it will no longer be a problem down the mines?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I welcome some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. However, I have to point out two factors to him. Of course, the 2.5 per cent. uprating is in fact a generous one as the RPI has obviously not reached that figure at present. Lest the noble Lord should forget, the social security benefits to which all these people will be entitled, will reflect upratings for the future. Therefore, they will receive a generous payment of this lump sum and will also be entitled to the uprating of social security benefits.
My noble friend asked me a question to which I do not have a reply at present. He asked whether the wearing of masks will prevent people currently working down the deep mines from contracting pneumoconiosis. I have to point out to him that the scheme we are discussing tonight only deals with those people whose employer cannot be traced. Where the employer can be traced—and most of those about whom my noble friend is talking have an employer in British Coal—that employer is responsible for the safeguarding of the health of deep-coal miners.

667
However, I shall try to ascertain some information on the question put by my noble friend. If he will allow me, I shall write to him on the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993
7.14 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House considers five sets of draft legal aid regulations which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The regulations are listed on the Order Paper.
The subject of legal aid in Scotland—and, indeed, in England and Wales—has, of course, been the subject of a considerable amount of comment in recent weeks. It may be of assistance to the House if I describe briefly the policy background against which we are bringing forward the regulations.
Legal aid is the means whereby people on low incomes may be helped to have access to the justice system. I believe that, over the years, it has been successful in that aim. However, legal aid of course involves the expenditure of very large amounts of taxpayers' money. Over the past few years, and most particularly over the last year or so, legal aid expenditure has risen dramatically. Indeed, it has almost doubled over the past five years. Expenditure on legal aid from public funds was £49 million in Scotland in the year ending 31st March 1988. That had risen to £83 million in the year ending 31st March 1992 and will reach £104 million in the financial year which is now ending.
It is not only a matter of the increase in expenditure; there have been significant and, indeed, dramatic increases in the numbers of grants of legal aid. In the year 1991–92, there were some 23,000 grants of civil legal aid. In the year now ending, that figure had risen to 27,000—an increase of some 17 per cent. In 1991–92, legal advice and assistance figures were about 272,000 in Scotland; in the year now ending, that figure rose to 287,000—an increase of 5.5 per cent. Although I understand that some noble Lords may have been briefed on the matter, and although the figures that I have just given are in the public domain following my appearance before a Select Committee in another place last week, such figures have, curiously, been omitted or concealed.
The first two sets of regulations before the House this evening represent a major element in the Government's response to that rise in expenditure. The Government have a general responsibility to ensure the best use of taxpayers' money, and to set their spending priorities accordingly. It is in that context that we have had to look—as any responsible Government would have to—very carefully indeed at the levels of expenditure on legal aid which have arisen recently.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall now describe the provisions contained in each of the sets of regulations in a little more detail.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 adjust the threshold of a person's disposable income below which free civil legal aid is available. They propose that the threshold should be set at £2,293 with effect from 12th April 1993, when the annual adjustments in income support levels under the social security system come into effect. The upper limit will remain unchanged at £6,800 (£7,500 in personal injury cases). The maximum contribution which a person between the lower and upper limits will be asked to make towards the cost of his legal aid bill will be raised from one-quarter to one-third of his disposable income above the lower threshold.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 similarly change the threshold—this time of weekly disposable income—above which a person is required to pay a contribution for legal advice and assistance. The new disposable income level will be £61 per week. The regulations also prescribe the scale of contributions to be paid where weekly disposable income exceeds £61 but does not exceed a slightly increased upper disposable income limit of £147. The level of contribution will range from £7 to £86.
I should make a number of points about the changes. In the first place, all the figures relate to a person's disposable income; that is, his income after allowance has been made for a number of necessary outgoings such as expenditure on dependants, housing costs, the costs of travel to work and other expenses associated with employment, and a number of others.
The calculation will vary significantly according to the circumstances of each individual applicant, but an applicant with a disposable income towards the upper end of the scale giving rise to eligibility could well have a gross income of something around £15,000 or even more. The levels of eligibility therefore continue to represent generous provision, and we estimate that some 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of households in Scotland will remain eligible for legal aid under the new proposals.
The second point I would wish to make is that the contributions which are payable are in all cases maximum contributions. We have seen some newspaper comment recently which seems to imply that the maximum contribution levels are in some sense an entrance fee for access to the system of civil justice. That, of course, is not the case. As at present, no legally-aided person will be required to pay more than their case actually costs; on the other hand, however high the costs of an individual case rise, no one will be required to pay more than the maximum contribution. For those at the top levels, just within eligibility, it needs to be remembered that the average cost of consistorial cases in Scotland is in many cases, if not all, below what would be the maximum contribution.
Thirdly, I should say that our approach has not been to remove significant numbers of people from eligibility for legal aid altogether. We calculate that, of

669
the nearly 300,000 people who received grants of civil legal aid or advice and assistance in 1992–93—the year now ending—only some 7,500, 2 to 3 per cent., would not be eligible under our current proposals. Their effect is rather to require that some people who previously made no contribution towards the costs of their case will have to make a, generally very small, contribution and that the level of contribution of those who already contribute will rise. Given the context within which expenditure has to be set, we assess that that is a fair and even-handed approach.
I turn now to the remaining three sets of regulations before the House. These give effect to the commitment by the Government during the recent passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1993 to extend the scheme of assistance by way of representation to cover the preparation and presentation of a petition by a debtor for the sequestration of his or her estate. The regulations will allow an eligible debtor to obtain the help of a solicitor in completing and submitting the necessary petition forms required by the court. If necessary, the solicitor can also appear in court on behalf of the debtor at any hearing relating to the petition.
This assistance is in addition to, and separate from, any preliminary advice which the solicitor may have provided under the advice and assistance scheme on the options available to the debtor. The Government's commitment to extend the scheme of assistance by way of representation was welcomed by the Opposition at the time of the passage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill. I hope that that support will continue in respect of the regulations before us this evening. I hope that I have described in sufficient detail the content of the regulations which are being brought forward for your Lordships' approval and the policy background against which they are set. I commend these five sets of regulations to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie).
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, from this side of the House I hope I may say that what the noble and learned Lord has outlined is a series of punitive and unjustified measures which will deprive people of access to justice. Having listened to the Minister this evening, I must ask: what is the cost of justice and what is the right to justice? Are the accountants and the Treasury now telling us what justice is all about? The noble and learned Lord made reference to the number of legal aid certificates. That is a statistic but it does not necessarily translate into immediate payments—no doubt the accountants would like that to be the case—because cases may settle extra-judicially and there is the matter of the recovery of expenses from defenders or from pursuers in cases where legal aid has been granted. I shall return to that point later.
The draft regulations as a whole have some good points but I intend to concentrate on the bad points. Without wishing to personalise the matter, I wish to read from a report in The Scotsman of Thursday of last week. It states:
670
"The Law Society has urged the Government to postpone the changes in civil legal aid for one year because it believes the rise in spending on it is a temporary blip.
Lord Fraser said that the Scottish Legal Aid Board's best estimates indicated a continued rise in caseloads and expenditure.
Asked outside the committee if he felt uncomfortable about the Scottish Office plans being so heavily criticised by the legal profession, he said: 'No. They would, wouldn't they? It's just good trade union stuff".
The noble and learned Lord will no doubt inform the House whether he has been quoted correctly. I find his comments a sad approach to the administration of justice in Scotland.
The Minister in another place introduced—I believe he did so the day after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had introduced measures for England—what I can only describe as a back-to-back piece of legislation which tries to apply to Scotland the provisions which relate to the increases in legal aid costs in England. We all know that there is no way one can compare the two systems. I do not have the relevant figures to hand, but they show that between 70 and 80 per cent. of jury trials in Scotland are conducted by solicitors. In England all jury trials, as I understand the position, are conducted by counsel and counsel are usually on legal aid. Therefore in comparing the two systems we are not comparing like with like.
The President of the Law Society of Scotland encapsulated what this debate is all about when he said:
"Justice is the cornerstone of our society and if that society is to be a caring society, every member of it, most particularly the poorest, the disadvantaged and the frail must be provided with proper access to justice. Any threat to them should be the cause of our profession's outspoken concern".
It is for that reason that the Law Society has no doubt provided the Minister with its own memorandum on this matter. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated:
"It is in the civil field that the growth of legal aid expenditure is rising particularly fast".
He was not referring to Scotland but to England and Wales. As I understand it, that is not the position in Scotland. The figure increased from roughly £15,700,000 to £16,600,000 between 1987–88 and 1991–92. In fact there has been no significant increase in the cost of civil legal aid in Scotland over recent years.
The person who at the moment pays nothing towards his legal aid out of an income of about £160 will now pay a £35 contribution. People may say that that is all right because it may be spread over several weeks or the person can save it up and then pay the full sum. However, £35 is a large sum of money to find out of such an income. Can the Minister forecast how many people will be affected by this measure? On what basis are the predictions made? I know he gave us some figures, but that appeared to me to be an accountancy exercise where one takes a percentage rise and applies that rise over the years. What savings are anticipated to be made to the Legal Aid Fund? More fundamentally, how can the Government, or anyone else, predict human behaviour? How can they say how many more, or fewer, divorces there will be next year?

671
I ask the Government seriously to consider postponing the implementation of the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 and the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 so that reasonable consultation can take place with those most closely involved in the administration of justice. Will the Minister agree to have consultations with the parties most closely involved? That is not a clarion call from a lawyer. We have heard from the citizens advice bureaux, Victim Support, the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates and various local faculties throughout Scotland. I am not sure, because no indication is given, how much discussion took place between the Government and any of those bodies prior to the introduction of the regulations.
Access to the legal process is a right, not a privilege. It is the badge of a civilised society. Any measure which minimises that right of access to the courts is a bad measure.
My information indicates that legal aid in Scotland is closely monitored and controlled. I have been given certain figures as to how much has been recovered in damages and how much has been recovered in expenses. However, I should like the Minister to give the official government figures as to how much has been recovered under the legal aid system during the last year for which tabulated figures are available in respect of damages and of expenses and the net figure as between the cost of legal aid in Scotland and the amount recovered in expenses in the courts.
Why is it that the litigant is being penalised because of the cost of what many of us regard as an inefficient system? Why is the finger not being pointed at the courts? Why are the courts not being placed under severe pressure to make themselves more efficient and to cut down costs to the country and the legal aid system? Do the Government have any plans for an overall review of the operation of civil legal aid and of means of cutting costs within the court system and making it efficient? Do they have plans to seek the views of those most closely involved?
An even more pertinent point is that the biggest hood or criminals in any part of Scotland who commits the most heinous crime can walk straight into the legal aid system and have a senior counsel, a junior counsel and a solicitor, all on legal aid, with no questions asked. The woman who wants to protect herself from a bullying husband or the worker who has an accident in the course of his employment has to grovel for legal aid under this scheme. Why are those two schemes so diametrically opposed?
The last available figures for the legal aid scheme in Scotland show that 60 per cent. of the money spent on legal aid in Scotland was spent within the criminal field. Why is the civil field now being picked upon? What steps do the Government have to sort out the criminal field? We all know from our practice in the courts that many of those who appear in the High Court, in the sheriff court or in Solemn Procedure are
672
very wealthy people with assets behind them. They obtain a legal aid certificate and representation with very little trouble.
If the state is to deprive people of access to the courts certain consequences may follow. First, the citizen may take the law into his own hands, leading to other consequences. Secondly, the citizen may litigate on his own behalf. Thirdly, he may do nothing whatsoever because he cannot afford to exercise his rights. That is justice denied. Can the Minister say what consultation has taken place with the judges in relation to the prospect of people undertaking their own litigation in the courts? What is the prospective cost of such an outcome? It may be an impossible exercise because, as I said earlier, it is impossible to project the course of human behaviour.
I understand that 70 per cent. of cases in the civil legal aid field have involved divorce, separation, custody, access, adoption and interdiction against errant spouses. Of the 23,000 applications, 19,000 involved family law. Those people who previously had the right to apply for legal aid will now be deprived of the right of free representation. The legislation will hit at those who are least able to pay and who are the most vulnerable in society. Children and human relationships are vital to the continuation of a reasonably ordered society.
The ideal would be free access to the courts at all times. That will not happen. Consultation rather than confrontation should be the key word for the future. I ask the Government to look again at what they propose in these regulations and take them back and consult with those most closely involved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have been briefed by a very responsible body—the Law Society of Scotland—which the Minister mentioned. The Minister rightly said that the Government have to watch the taxpayers' money. But it worries me that the figures which I have—from which the Minister said some vital facts may have been omitted or concealed, which is a serious charge—indicate that in Scotland expenditure on legal aid is much more reasonable than in England. I should like the Minister to comment on the figures, which he must have seen in his brief.
I understand that total expenditure in Scotland in the past five years has increased from about £47,000 to £80,000 whereas in England it has more than doubled. In addition, I understand that in respect of the criminal law there has been a large payment from the Lord Chancellor's Department. If that is so, and the increase in expenditure in Scotland is mainly in relation to criminal legal aid and associated advice and assistance, there does not appear to be a case. In relation to criminal legal aid the Minister has not reduced the level of assured income below which a person has to pay or altered the level of contribution. However, in relation to civil legal aid, where the figures from the Law Society suggest that the cost has fallen, the Minister has reduced the level of earned income and increased the proportion to be paid from a quarter to a third.
In the case of a married couple with children of five and 12 on an income of £7,000, the contribution would be £140. That is a lot of money for a man with

673
a wife and two children. In respect of what is a very average income, which is well below the industrial wage in this country, of just £10,000 the figure rises from £277 to £1,139. That is a very severe increase.
It appears to me that the Minister may simply be following the policy based on expenditure in England whereas in Scotland the cost appears to be contained. I understand too that the criteria laid down for legal aid are strictly applied. It is an attempt to save money by which the status quo is the least that should have been achieved.
I ask the Minister to explain this. If the figures cited are close, his case for savage increases, or savage decreases—call it what one will—appears to be poor. Perhaps he will comment on the figures and state where they omit or conceal facts that are known.
Baroness Carney of Lour: I listened carefully to what has been said in the debate. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, is the basis for the cost figures in England the same, or is it different? Are those correct comparisons? If so, will the noble and learned Lord explain the difference? That is important.
I too have been briefed by the Law Society. I read the comments of the Law Society of Scotland with great interest. The society states:
"Whilst it is acknowledged that in the period from April to December 1992 expenditure on Civil Legal Aid had increased from the 1991–92 total of £16.5m to £19.3m in December 1992, the number of cases paid had increased over the period from 20,324 to 22,184".
That is an indication that the number of civil cases has increased by over 9 per cent. and the cost by nearly 17 per cent. Why is that? What is the reason? Is there any explanation for those increases in cost being considerably greater than the increase in the number of cases?
My noble and learned friend said that of the 300,000 cases in 1992–93, 2 percent. to 3 per cent. will not be eligible. Will he indicate who the 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. will be? That is the nub of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, stated that there were many good factors in the order but said that he would only talk about the bad aspects. I was sorry to hear that because the public like to know when parties agree on matters. If the Minister will indicate who the 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. are, it will help us to understand the problem.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may respond to a number of points raised in the short debate. When we originally put out our regulations, the Law Society of Scotland produced a leaflet. It was sent to your Lordships. In that leaflet, it identified nine or 10 cases which indicated that individuals would be unacceptably affected by the changes that we proposed to introduce. As noble Lords are aware, subsequent to that first set of proposals we significantly altered the proposals to the effect that a contributory band was reinstated with regard to legal advice and assistance. We made our position generally clearer.
As I understand it, the Law Society of Scotland now accepts that all those individual examples that it
674
then used would no longer be a problem because of the changes that we have subsequently introduced with the latest proposals before your Lordships today. My point is this. Whatever figure one chooses, if we increased the figure significantly, people would still say, "What about those with £20,000 income with two or three children? They will find it extremely difficult. They would always find it difficult to pay any contribution for legal aid or legal advice and assistance". It will always be a matter of judgment. It has always been a matter of judgment ever since the legal aid scheme was first introduced. There has not always been cover for everyone who considers themselves outwith the group of the really wealthy.
The 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. who, we calculate as best we can, would fall out of eligibility, would be among the best off of those whom we are considering. They are the people whose income is now above the level for grants. They are not brought into the level for legal advice and assistance or to civil legal aid. It is not a small group somewhere at the bottom which is worse off.
The fact of the matter is that expenditure has climbed and continues to climb. As I indicated, the expenditure for this year is about £104 million. We already have to budget next year for about £112 million on legal aid. Therefore while there are changes—we calculate that about 7,500 people are taken out of eligibility altogether—those changes bring about a small restriction in growth in legal aid expenditure in Scotland. It is in no sense a cut-back from it. There will be more legal aid paid out this year to more people than ever before.
I do not believe that it is particularly helpful to consider the amount paid out in civil legal aid and advice and assistance this year. There are perfectly sound reasons for believing that, when there is a recession, solicitors and others may put in their bills rather more expeditiously than otherwise in order to improve their cash flow. That is easy enough to understand. However, it is important to understand the figures—I have to express disappointment that they have not been more vigorously highlighted—which indicate that the number of grants of legal aid in civil legal aid and advice and assistance has significantly increased in the past year. It is for that reason that it was considered necessary to bring about the changes to contain the growth in expenditure. As I indicated in evidence to a Select Committee in another place, it was for that reason that the changes were brought about, not because of the position south of the Border, although clearly my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has significant costs to contain in that area too.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, quoted from The Scotsman. I indeed made that comment. However, it was in the context of being told that someone giving evidence before the Select Committee had indicated that, if the legal aid budget were to be maintained and a nuclear submarine or some other item of defence had to be cut out, so be it. I consider that a rather "trade union" attitude, the equivalent of saying, "Let's look

675
at our own expenditure, our own interests, and forget the problem of balancing expenditure and income that governments have to do".
I believe that the numbers who will still receive legal aid in Scotland are such that a fair balance has been struck. One point of agreement in your Lordships' House has contributed. It is a concern about criminal legal aid. I readily accept that concern. However, as the noble Lord appreciates, for there to be any significant change in the way that legal aid in criminal matters is granted we should require further primary legislation relating to some aspects of legal aid, although perhaps not all.
From the speech from the Opposition Front Bench, I understand that there is agreement that in one form or another we should restrict criminal legal aid in Scotland. I welcome that. If the noble Lord or others in Scotland have constructive proposals to put forward as to how such restrictions in the growth of criminal legal aid may be achieved, I shall be very pleased to hear from him.
I regret that these modest restrictions seem to have been hyped up as being far more considerable than they are. I believe that they are reasonable enough and I commend them to the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, there is an intriguing point which reflects great credit on his profession in Scotland. I refer again to the comment of the Law Society of Scotland that the average cost per case of legal aid in Scotland is £815 as against nearly £1,600 in England and Wales. That appears to me to be most creditable. It is a bit hard that in Scotland we should lower the base when the efficiency of the Scottish Bar and the Scottish professions seems to be so much higher than in England.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this set of regulations is not geared to adjust the fees that lawyers earn in Scotland. In the past three years there has been a 21 per cent. increase in fees paid to lawyers. It is difficult to make comparisons across the Border in relation to legal aid fees and it does not follow that, because they are at a particular level this side of the Border, those fees are appropriate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993
7.50 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1993
7.52 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act,
Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act,
Alliance and Leicester (Girobank) Act,
British Railways Act.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8 p.m.]

Housing and Urban Development Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 115.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176AZA:
Page 116, line 37, at end insert:

677
("() An order under this section shall only apply to one or more of the following services, and only where such services are provided in relation to accommodation occupied by elderly, sick or disabled persons—

(a) counselling, monitoring and support in connection with tenants well being and health and their personal needs, other than those directly related to housing;

(b) the provision of monitoring and alarm schemes to reflect the increased personal dependency and frailty of tenants;

(c) cleaning tenants' rooms and windows and their laundry services, to the extent that this reflects tenants' reduced ability to do so themselves;

(d) organising social and leisure activities and functions;

(e) liaising with medical and social services staff and GPs about tenants' health needs;

(f) providing and supervising restaurants, meals and ancillary services thereto;

(g) counselling and liaising with relatives;

(h) running regular errands because tenants are unable to do so themselves;

(i) administering first aid;

(j) responding to out of hours calls by tenants;

(k) helping tenants into and out of bed;

(l) toiletting, dressing, feeding, bathing and shaving tenants;

(m) administering tenants' medication;

(n) nursing care.").

The noble Bareness said: We come to a series of fairly brief amendments. The significance of this amendment is to constrain the power of the Secretary of State to repeal the provisions of Clauses 113, and 114 and restrict them to the matters upon which, as the Minister said earlier, he is currently consulting local authorities.
We fear that, as presently constituted, the power of the Secretary of State to make arrangements in terms of welfare functions is very widely drawn. It could apply, for example, to the counselling functions for homeless families, or to families in arrears, to those with neighbourhood disputes, and so on. I believe he could, for example, repeal the right of the housing authorities to extend their concept of housing management in a wide range of fields. The point about this amendment is to restrict the argument over repeal simply to the functions as listed associated with sheltered housing of the elderly. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The effect of this amendment would be that any order made by the Secretary of State to withdraw welfare services powers in Clauses 113 and 114 would be limited to the 14 welfare services listed in our consultation paper, in so far as they are related to services for the elderly, sick or disabled.
We want to see what local authorities and others have to say in response to our consultation paper, which invites comments by 23rd April. Clause 115, under which my right honourable friend could withdraw some or all of those powers, is drafted flexibly so that we can respond flexibly to comments received. We do not think that, before the comments received in response to consultation have been considered carefully, it would be right to remove any of this flexibility. However, the power in Clause 115 which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to withdraw the powers for authorities to provide and account for welfare services can be exercised in several ways. In particular, the Secretary of State can specify the different categories of welfare services which they can provide and can
678
account for in the housing revenue account, or he can specify the welfare services which a housing authority may not provide or account for in the HRA. The department's current intention is to specify the welfare services which should be excluded.
It is the department's intention to consult representatives of local government and others on any order made following the current consultation exercise to withdraw the power to provide or the power to account in the HRA for welfare services from 1st April 1994. We will also consider consultation nearer the time when any other such orders are drafted, provided of course that consultation is practical.
I can also reassure the Committee that any proposals to widen the scope of welfare services to be excluded from the HRA would also be subject to wide-ranging consultation including the representatives of local government and housing authorities. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for his reply. We are obviously happy to take his assurance about consultation. But I believe he will bear in mind that there is a genuine concern that the Government, being quite properly concerned about the charging of welfare services, appear increasingly minded to restrict the role of housing management to exclude welfare services. That is the distinction we continuously try to draw. But on the assumption that the noble Lord will honour his commitments to consult, as I am sure he will—and I am sure those points have been made fully and amply by the local authority associations—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176BZ:
Page 116, line 37, at end insert:
("() No order under this section in relation to the provisions of section 113 above shall be made in relation to counselling, monitoring and support in connection with tenants' well being and health, and their personal needs other than those directly related to housing.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 176BZ, I should like to speak to all the amendments through to 176QZ standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams.
These amendments follow the same issue and are still associated with the powers of a housing authority, as opposed to charging, which we shall come to in just a moment. Again, the point in this amendment, and the sequence of amendments, is to prevent the repeal of the powers given by Clause 113 for local housing authorities to provide counselling, monitoring and support in connection with the well-being of tenants and their personal needs other than those directly related to housing management, regardless of any order requiring the authority to charge expenditure under this heading to the general fund.
This is a set of what I call "salami" amendments dealing with each individual aspect under debate. The amendments seek to prevent the repeal of a local authority's housing powers to provide those services as a housing authority. We list them separately; we are

679
happy to have them grouped. We want all local housing authorities to be able to provide those care functions which we believe flow out of the housing management rule for the elderly irrespective, as I say, of how they are announced.
The argument behind the amendments is an argument about what housing management is. Our argument is that housing management is always customised, if I can use that word, to the particular needs of particular sets of tenants within its local authority boundaries—tenants of different need, at different stages in their life cycle. All of these may involve a concept of housing welfare wider than that narrowly drawn by the landlord function. It may, for example, include the situation where young people come out of care and need to furnish their flats; or, when one has shared flats for young single people, one may need to provide a caretaker and warden service to ensure good neighbourliness. It means, for example, that when one seeks to organise transfers, one may wish to consider the needs of family members to be near the elderly.
When trying to help tenants for whom English is not a first language, one may need to interview, say, the fuel or water authorities to prevent the cutting off of fuel and utilities. When someone is unemployed one may need to move into the area of debt counselling, and the like. All of us can cite many examples over and beyond that simply of the elderly and their support services.
We argue, therefore, that it is meaningless to provide housing management for the elderly as though they are not elderly. We say that although welfare services flow from care for the elderly, they are not thereby social services as we understand it, needing to be provided by professional social workers. On the contrary, the array of services reflected in these amendments are the sort of services that a relative would provide, or a good neighbour might provide, and they are properly within a generous definition of housing management. After all, specialist housing associations provide such services. No one suggests that social services or the county council should reimburse them. By these amendments we seek to confirm that we share with the Government a generous and comprehensive view of housing management which properly includes a housing welfare function, as listed in the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I understand the concern that the term "welfare service" is a wide one and that the powers in Clause 115 could be used to restrict the ability of housing authorities to provide a whole range of welfare services to their tenants in addition to those supplied by wardens through monitoring and alarm schemes. However, the power in Clause 115 which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to withdraw the powers for authorities to provide an account for welfare services can be exercised in several ways. In particular, the Secretary of State could specify the different categories of welfare services which they can provide and can account for in the housing revenue account; or he can
680
specify the welfare services which a housing authority may not provide or account for in the HRA. The department's current intention is to specify the welfare services which should be excluded.
I explained that we are currently carrying out a wide-ranging consultation exercise proposing that the power of the housing authorities to provide welfare services to tenants who are elderly or disabled, or to those who require personal care for other reasons, should be left in place until after the review of local government structure is complete.
The consultation paper also proposes that the cost of specific welfare services provided to such tenants should be excluded from the HRA from 1st April 1994, which would give the early and comprehensive clarification that some authorities have sought. The consultation paper also proposes an alternative option of excluding a smaller list of welfare services relating to essential care from the HRA from 1st April 1994 and other services, which can be loosely termed "extended landlord", from a later date. Once again the current intention is that the order would list the items to be excluded. However, I must emphasise that no decision on the withdrawal of the powers will be taken until the responses to the current consultation paper have been carefully considered. As I said, we shall consult representatives of local government on any order made following the current consultation exercise.
Having said that and having repeated my assurances about consultation with as many people as possible, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she can withdraw her amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord say whether the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has looked at this provision in Clause 115? Has it also looked at Clause 135 which we proposed to discuss on the question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill?
The rubric of Clause 115 reads:
"Power to repeal provisions made by sections 113 and 114";
and the rubric of Clause 135 reads:
"Power to repeal provisions relating to housing welfare services",
which is the object of the previous clause. Both clauses give the Secretary of State blanket power to amend primary legislation at whatever time or for whatever purpose he sees fit. The noble Lord said that there will be consultation and so on. Why has the legislation come before us in the first place if the Secretary of State is going to rewrite it?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord makes a valid point in the sense of having regulations in legislation. But in dealing with this kind of issue—there is precedent in legislation—it is important to leave the details of how the scheme will work in practice for consultation and then for regulation. There is a reason for that. In dealing with such issues there may be a requirement to change things slightly during the course of operation. To return to both Houses of Parliament every time in terms of primary legislation

681
could cause the kind of hardship that both noble Lords opposite and the Government are keen to avoid.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has not asked to look at the Bill yet. It may well do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I very much hope that it will. The noble Lord spoke about the "details" and having "to change things slightly". If one reads the legislation as presented in the form of a Bill to the Committee, it gives a power to wipe out the whole of the provisions. It does not just alter details here and there or change one part of the schedule. It is a power to wipe out whole clauses—to wipe out housing welfare. If this Government or a future government decide that they do not want to provide for local authority housing welfare services, should this legislation receive Royal Assent they will have the power not to pr provide it. If this or any other government decide that they want to stop local authorities providing housing welfare services, they have the power under the Bill to do precisely that. That seems an astonishing way to produce legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may repeat a comment that I made on an earlier amendment; namely, how extraordinary I find the clause, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Clauses 113 and 114 are not mandatory. They give powers to local authorities to use their discretion. To allow the Secretary of State then to wipe out that discretion is, as I said, quite extraordinary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wait for the Minister to respond to those well placed comments and criticisms. May I invite him to comment?
Lord Strathclyde; How can I resist such an invitation from the noble Baroness? I am not sure that I have very much more to add. The Bill has gone through another place. It has been discussed at some length in Committee and passed through the procedures in another place, which is content with the matters that are before us. Clauses 113 and 114 are emergency powers and are intended to be temporary. They are powers that housing authorities do not now have and that we will give them. Going back to the comments I made earlier, it is important that we consult on these issues in as realistic a manner as possible in order to make sure that we get them absolutely right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am again slightly surprised by the Minister's reply. He said that these are powers which the local authorities do not have but which are being given to them and that the Secretary of State may seek to withdraw at some future stage. I beg to differ from the noble Lord. He is reinstating powers that were presumed to hold good before the Ealing judgment intervened to make it questionable whether they could be funded within the housing revenue account, whether therefore they were properly landlord functions, and whether those services could properly flow from a local authority in its housing capacity.
682
The noble Lord may prefer to accept that reading of the situation. It is, I believe, correct. The point of the amendments is to address the point made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They are probing amendments and we do not particularly seek to see them on the face of the Bill. We seek the Minister's agreement that these housing welfare functions properly flow out of housing management functions and therefore, irrespective of the means by which they are funded, they are properly powers belonging to a local authority in its housing capacity. We fear that the Secretary of State at some subsequent point may say that this is not a housing function but a social services function and that the money should come from the social services.
That brings up the whole issue of the structure of local government that we explored earlier today. We seek from the Minister—I invite him now to give a categorical assurance —that he respects the fact that, however they are funded, the welfare functions as listed are a proper outflowing of housing management functions and therefore are properly a function of a local authority in its housing capacity.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to sound obtuse but the noble Baroness knows that if I could have given her a categorical assurance I should have done so some time ago when we discussed earlier amendments. I cannot give her a categorical assurance. I have explained at length what we are doing and why we are doing it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have listened to the arguments, as has the noble Lord. Does he accept the argument put from different parts of the Chamber to the effect that those housing welfare functions flow out of housing management? Does he accept that argument?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Baroness and I have had a discussion on those aspects of the Bill. But, as I explained, whether or not the noble Baroness is right or wrong will be confirmed by the consultation process that we are undertaking. At this stage one cannot make a categorical assurance either way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have probably gone as far as we can. These are powers that have been exercised by housing authorities over many years. As the Minister in another place said, they are part of a civilised array of local authority services which properly flow out of the housing role. Therefore I and my noble friend remain baffled as to why the Secretary of State seeks to retain the power to repeal them at some unspecified future date.
We have expressed our concerns. No doubt we shall return to this matter at Report stage, perhaps after consultation with the local authorities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176CZ to 176QZ not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I should say that there is an omission from the amendments of one with the alphabetical letter O; otherwise what we have just done is correct.
[Amendment No. 176RZ had been re-numbered 176AZA.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176SZ:
Page 116, line 37, at end insert:
("() An order under this section shall not provide that sub-paragraph (3) (a) of paragraph (3A) of Part III of Schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall cease to apply to counselling, monitoring and support in connection with tenants' well being and health, and their personal needs other than those directly related to housing, where such services are provided by the local authority or its agent through an employee, are incidental to the greater part of the work he is employed to do, and that greater part is work in connection with repairs, maintenance, supervision or management of the authority's houses or other property.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 176SZ I shall speak to amendments up to and including Amendment No. 176FY, as indicated on the Marshalled List.
Whereas the previous discussion concerned the powers of a housing authority, this cluster of amendments concerns the funding of those welfare functions. Up until the Ealing judgment, housing authorities could fund those functions in a variety of ways. They could fund them within their housing revenue account through the rents of other tenants on the grounds that all tenants, at some point in their lives, might enjoy some aspect of so-called welfare functions; or, as in the case of my authority, they may decide to make a general contribution from general funds to the housing revenue account in recognition that they are care services rather than a narrower definition of landlord functions such as the collection of rents and the handing out of keys.
In some authorities there may still be a contribution from social service authorities where they are two-tier or virement across from social service committees, particularly where they have developed part two-and-a-half of a sheltered housing scheme which obviously permits them to support more frail and heavily dependent elderly people in the community than would otherwise be the case.
The amendments seek to prevent the Secretary of State from removing a local authority's discretion to charge such services to the housing revenue account where they see fit. At the moment the majority of local authorities—about 90 per cent. of district councils and 60 to 70 per cent. of other local authorities—charge those services to the housing revenue account; others bring contributions into the general account in a few cases from the county social services. We want that discretion to continue so that local authorities can make local judgments. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict the Secretary of State's powers to limit local authority discretion in how they should fund those aspects of housing management. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: These amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from withdrawing the powers of housing authorities to debit the housing revenue account with the costs of certain categories of
684
welfare services. It is our longer term intention that the housing revenue account should be a landlord account, in which welfare services would not be accounted for. Tenants generally would then not have to cross subsidise through higher rents welfare services provided to specific groups of tenants and would only have to pay for the landlord services they received. However, I hope the noble Baroness will take comfort from the fact that we will take no final decisions until we have considered the responses to the consultation exercise. The amendment would pre-empt the outcome of that consultation process. For that reason I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. If we are not willing to consult with an open mind, there is not much point in consulting.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With respect, what is the point of conducting pilot studies and passing a Bill before we receive the results? What is the point of having consultation papers and passing a Bill before we obtain the results of the consultation exercise? What exactly are we seeking to do?
Lord Strathclyde: I thought that was quite clear. There are aspects of the Bill where we have conducted pilot studies and consultation exercises and have been able to reflect the results in the Bill. In other aspects, dealing with specific issues such as that before us now, we have not. In anticipation of unitary authorities coming potentially in future years, we feel it is right to consult in this way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister seems to be saying that he will have a consultation exercise but pass the legislation before the results of the exercise are known. As a result—referring to a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Williams—he needs to include wide-ranging discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to amend the legislation, scrutinised by this Chamber, in the light of whatever the consultation process throws up. With respect, that is not a fit and proper way to conduct legislative business.
Lord Strathclyde: Surely the noble Baroness recognises that there will be plenty of opportunity for Parliament to discuss the regulations when they come before the Chamber. Secondly, local authorities will be fully involved in the consultation process, and that is the area with which the noble Baroness is concerned. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, this part of the Bill is necessary because of the Ealing judgment that we have already discussed at some length.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I accept that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176TZ to 176FY not moved.]
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clauses 133 and 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Power to repeal provisions relating to housing welfare services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 135 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friends put their names forward to oppose Clause 135 standing part of the Bill. It is the same point that we have made with a fair degree of consistency before and there is no need to go over it again.
It is curious that the Government not only have three Bills, as I said on Second Reading, but in fact three Bills plus enabling Bill which enables the Secretary of State to do all sorts of other things. If the Government can pilot this through Parliament they would say that it is justified. But it is a curious way to approach the legislative process.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There has already been detailed and knowledgeable discussion of the Ealing decision which brought about the necessity for these extensive provisions on both sides of the Border. The situation which it was believed obtained in England and Wales was equally believed to obtain north of the Border. The provisions seek to correct the position and bring it to the state of affairs which it is believed is the most sensible way to handle matters.
I do not propose to go through the provisions. They are essentially repetitive in the clauses that relate to Scotland. However, with regard to the Scottish aspect, we have to regard the introduction of new welfare services by Clause 133 as a modest, if useful, extension of local authority powers to meet specific problems. We do not consider those problems to be permanent. The introduction of community care and the reorganisation of local government will mean that local housing authorities will no longer need specific powers to provide welfare services since, as social work authorities, they will already have the wider and more extensive powers of social work legislation in Scotland. It would then be safe to repeal the more specific powers of Clause 133.
Assurances have already been given elsewhere that the Government have no plans to make use of the repeal powers in Clause 135 before local government reorganisation in Scotland later this decade. I repeat those assurances today. I do not claim to have any familiarity with the reactions of local authorities south of the Border. However, it may be worth noting that our intentions with regard to Clause 135 have been made known to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has raised no objection to our proposal. That is probably because it appreciates the background against which it is included and the assurance that the powers would not be exercised prior to the reorganisation that has been widely mooted, most notably in the White Paper which is being prepared by the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether the Welsh local authorities have been informed of the situation? We are told that its local government reorganisation will take place as of April 1995.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am afraid that I cannot. I indicated that if I offered any view on the reactions of local authorities it would be strictly on the basis of those north of the Border. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the convention is a powerful
686
and observant body in Scotland. It is well aware of what is contained in the Bill and it has made no objection to the proposal, although it was specifically made known to it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps either the noble and learned Lord or the Minister could find the answer to my question and let me know.
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Management agreements]:
8.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176FYA:
Page 116, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 40 and insert ("At the end of subsection (3) of section 27 of the 1985 Act (management agreements), there shall be inserted the words "and shall contain such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
(1A) For subsection (5) of that section").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 176FYA is the first of a series dealing with the delegation of local authority housing management and thus with compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—of housing management. It may be useful for me briefly to set the scene for the Government's proposals.
CCT has been in place for some local authority services for over 10 years and the improvements in those services have been noticeable. This has not been the case only when a private contractor has won the contract. The disciplines of competition—the need to specify clearly what service is required and how it should be supplied—have also enabled local authority staff to provide a better service to their customers. That is a widely shared conclusion. The Government do not see either intrinsic or practical objections to extending CCT to those areas of a local authority's work. I believe that we all agree that local authority housing management has improved in recent years. As the Greenwich Tenants' Federation said in response to the consultation paper Competing for Quality in Housing:
"Handling of both rent and housing benefit arrears has improved greatly over the last two years as has the turnover of voids and the gradual elimination of illegal occupancy. Monitoring of repairs and maintenance has improved indirect consultation with tenants".
But there are still problems in housing management. There are still too many estates where management breakdown is evident. Empty properties are boarded up for long periods or taken over by squatters and common areas display numerous signs of neglect—lifts inoperative, rubbish chutes blocked, the results of vandalism left unrepaired and litter and graffiti disfiguring much of the available space. These sights are familiar enough, and that is the problem. They show that there are tenants who are receiving a worse deal than they deserve. The Government's intention is to ensure that the standards of services in the worst authorities and on the worst estates are raised to at least the best that are presently available. But CCT offers the chance to improve not only the worst, but also the best. It will have benefits and be an additional spur to good management, even for the most efficient and effective local authorities. They will be encouraged to think further about the standard of

687
service which they offer, whether they have got the best form of organisation to deliver those services and whether estates are being run in the most cost-effective way.
Local authorities are increasingly conscious of the value of competitive tendering to the management of their housing stock. Some have already contracted out the service on a competitive basis, and my department has had a number of inquiries from other authorities that want to follow suit.
Wandsworth, again, is an authority which is fully aware of the benefits which the rigours of competition offer. It has been at the forefront of introducing competition to housing management as it has been in other services. It has recently done a tendering exercise for part of its housing stock. I quote a letter from the council to the Secretary of State:
"We have just completed in Wandsworth our first tranche of competitive tendering for our housing management function, the majority of which have been won by our existing in-house team. The whole essence behind CCT has been vindicated, in that despite running a very efficient and well organised Housing Management Department we have saved £500,000 of the annual running costs of a very small number of dwellings, whilst maintaining existing service capabilities".
The advent of CCT to housing management does not mean that authorities will no longer be able to conclude voluntary management agreements. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing said in December that there were three ways in which a local authority could delegate its housing management. First, it could delegate to a tenant management organisation. This Bill contains in the right to manage a clear legal framework for these delegations. Secondly, the authority could delegate its housing management to another outside organisation that could be a housing association or a private company. Thirdly, if an authority does not choose to go down either of the first two routes there is delegation through CCT. Once housing management has been made a defined activity under the Local Government Act 1988 CCT will apply, and apply only when an authority intends to undertake the work itself. It will still be able to do so but will have to go through a competitive procedure first. The effect of CCT is that whichever tenderer is able to provide the service most effectively and efficiently will do so. That can only be good for the recipients of the service, in this case the tenants.
I return to the amendment. It provides for proper linkage between the various forms of delegation. The consultation paper recognised the need for tenant management organisations (TMOs) to be able to take over the management of their houses once tenants had voted in favour. It would not be acceptable if they then had to wait until an existing contract had expired. The consultation paper suggested that some form of break clause might be a possible means of overcoming the problem. The reason for the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to put break clauses or other suitable mechanisms into their management agreements so that TMOs can take over management properly. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for speaking to the amendment. He gave us a somewhat operatic introduction to the whole scheme of CCT, but I did not bother to follow that very closely. It seems to me that Amendment No. 176FYA contains yet another example of "such provisions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State". Again, it is a purely enabling amendment that allows the Secretary of State to do whatever he wishes when he gets out of his bath in the morning. I believe that a point must come when the Government say what the Secretary of State intends to do and that he will tell Parliament exactly what it is: otherwise, I see no point in going on with this legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I thought that perhaps this amendment was here in order to allow the Minister to give a party political broadcast for CCT. If tomorrow he reads the Official Report he may find that what he has said about Wandsworth is a terrible indictment. He said that Wandsworth claimed to have saved £500,000 because of compulsory competitive tendering. What was there to stop that authority going out and saving it before competitive tendering became compulsory? Since Wandsworth is a flagship borough to be emulated, could they not have done it without prompting from the Government?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176FYB:
Page 116, leave out lines 41 to 46, and insert:
("() A local housing authority shall not enter into a management agreement if it appears to them that a majority of the tenants of the houses to which the agreement relates do not wish the proposal to proceed."
() In subsection (1) of that section the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: This is the occasion when we have a go at giving a somewhat operatic version of the considerations of CCT. I will not go into the broad, long-standing criticisms of CCT made by local government. At this stage I wish to restrict my remarks to its application to housing. We have three fundamental criticisms of CCT in the Bill as it applies to housing. First, we do not believe that the housing service as such is broadly suitable for CCT, although individual aspects of it may be. Secondly, we believe that the costs quoted yet again in regard to Wandsworth have been underestimated and the savings over-estimated, which undermines much of the argument. The reorganisational consequences are inappropriate and tenants will pay the price. Thirdly, we believe that tenants who will pay for CCT are not able to control it. If you like, that is the "democratic deficit" argument embodied in the Bill. In the whole of Part II the "democratic deficit" issue is the most significant aspect that we wish to explore.
I turn to the first of our criticisms of CCT as it applies to housing. Given the nature of housing services, we do not believe it is right to send some of those services out to compulsory competitive tendering knowing that organisations, including

689
property organisations and possibly foreign companies, may tender for such services on the basis of price. I remind your Lordships of the kind of functions we are talking about. We are talking about the assessment of housing need under allocation and lettings. Will that be done by a property company or foreign agency? We are talking about the selection of tenants. Admittedly that is within the broad strategy of local authority policy, but even within that to whom does one give priority given the elements of their needs?
When it comes to tenant management, does the Minister really think that these services are appropriate for compulsory competitive tendering? Is information and advice to tenants on rights, duties and welfare matters appropriate for competitive tendering? Is liaison with tenant groups appropriate for CCT? Is CCT appropriate for liaison with other local authority departments such as social services? Is it appropriate for liaison with voluntary groups? Is it appropriate for dealing with complaints from tenants about racial harassment? Is it appropriate for how to consult tenants? Is it appropriate for supporting tenant participation? That is just tenant management. I could go on.
Is CCT appropriate for rents and services charges and on non-payment, including making judgments about who should be made homeless? Is it appropriate to have CCT possibly even for some benefit work? I realise that there is a question mark about that, but is it appropriate bearing in mind some of the confidentiality in that area? Is it appropriate for the administration of right-to-repair schemes in which one contractor will therefore be supervising another contractor, with no accountability back to the local authority? Is it appropriate for this general study of housing supply and demand, for neighbourhood office management and for research? Are the Government serious that this highly sensitive material and these highly sensitive services, which are delicate in their confidentiality and in their support of tenants, should be competitively tendered for on a price basis?
Can the Minister tell us how one specifies in a contract the appropriate level of service one expects when one is dealing with harassment or information to tenants about welfare matters? How does one specify that in a contract? Perhaps the Minister can give an example of two or three phrases that could be put into a contract so that the Committee knows what people will be expected to bid for. Can he tell me perhaps how we would monitor the performance of a contract in debt counselling—more counselling, less counselling, longer counselling or shorter counselling? Can the Minister please give me some guidance? I do not understand. Who is responsible for what? Is it right, for example—this is the basis of CCT—that those competing in these tenders should seek to make a profit (presumably 5 per cent.) out of counselling homeless families? In the past any such profits or surpluses have been looped back into the housing revenue account for the benefit of tenants. In future they will be creamed off for the benefit of shareholders.
How comfortable are we with the Government's proposal that some contractors should be paid by results; for example, in their ability to reduce rent arrears? I am sure the Minister will agree that there are two ways of reducing rent arrears—the expensive way and the cheap way. The expensive way is debt counselling; the cheap way is to evict families and make them homeless. Guess which way the private contractor will go when faced with that choice!
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, many aspects of local government work have already been voluntarily contracted out by local authorities on the basis of their judgment. I refer especially to small rural authorities which do not always have a full range of expertise in house. But with the possible exception of Wandsworth, I know of very few where housing has been contracted out. Can I ask the Minister to tell us why—perhaps he will ask himself why—when so many Tory authorities are anxious to do the Government's bidding, anxious to be praised for being a government flagship and anxious to introduce a contract culture, they are reluctant to Balkanise housing management? Why is that the case? Why are they not willing to do so? Why has there been such a slow interest? Why has there been uniform resistance across the whole of local government to these proposals? The answer is that local government, of whatever political complexion, knows that there are no realistic alternative providers which are appropriate or suitable or which can overcome the problem of the democratic deficit in housing management. The first problem, therefore, is that we simply do not believe that the broad raft of housing services as listed in the Government's own consultative document is appropriate for CCT. I invite the Minister to tell me how one specifies these matters—for example, debt counselling—in tender documents.
Our second concern is the implication of cost and reorganisation. The cost of introducing CCT across the country as a whole so far has been about 10 per cent. of annual contracts. The Minister theoretically believes that this will generate around 6 per cent. worth of savings. If one takes out cleaning, where savings often go up to around 15 per cent., one is left with 2 or 3 per cent. on savings which, over the course of a five-year contract, just about cancel out the cost of setting up the contract in the first place. At best this is likely to be financially neutral. The costs may well be higher than that. I shall give one example.
A local authority with 48,000 properties has 32 decentralised offices each suitable for a CCT package. That means that the offices over a five-year cycle will be putting out a CCT contract document every two months, with enormous implications for workloads. Where will the savings come from? They can only come either from cuts in services or cuts in staff pay. If they come from cuts in staff pay, that will generate higher turnover and poorer quality staff, less training and more tenant discontent. In any way the tenants will be paying the bill.
The third argument—in a way this is perhaps the most serious argument of all—is the question of tenants' rights. The Government did not need this Bill to apply CCT to housing management. The Secretary

691
of State already has that general power under the 1985, 1989 and 1992 Acts. What the Bill does do, however, and why it was necessary, is to remove from legislation Sections 105 and 27 of the Housing Act 1985 which require the Secretary of State to take tenants' views into account. That is essentially a tenants' veto which was inserted by this House against the wishes of the then government who sought to override tenants' views. In this Bill the Government are seeking to remove the right to a tenants' veto which this House introduced against the Government's wishes in 1985.
In the same consultation document the Government say:
"The principal consideration is the welfare of the tenant".
Earlier today the Minister made much of the fact that he did not want to see extended paternalism towards tenants. He said that tenants were moral adults, competent to make their own decisions, and that neither local authorities nor the Secretary of State should interfere with that. In that case, as the Tory-led ADC says, why do we assume that tenants do not know best where their welfare lies? Why is it that only a distant and remote Secretary of State can tell us? Why does empowerment under the Citizen's Charter mean everything except precisely tenants' control over who manages their homes?
We are arguing in a series of amendments, which we shall reach subsequently, that tenants themselves should decide whether they wish to trigger the CCT procedure, and that if they do, they, and not the Secretary of State, should decide whether the proposed contractor is acceptable to them. We are arguing that if the tenants are content with their landlord—the Audit Commission and the ADC remind us that there is no evidence to the contrary —why should they be forced to pay through their rents for a CCT procedure which they do not want and which may cost them dear? We are arguing, secondly, that if, say, an alien property company in which the tenants have little confidence as a body to manage their homes should win the CCT contract, they should have the right of veto over that change.
After all it is worth reminding ourselves, and apparently it is worth reminding the Minister, that it is tenants—not us, not the local authority and certainly not the Secretary of State—who pay for housing management. It comes from tenants' rents. If they wish to decide who provides the service for which they pay, that, I believe, is their inalienable right and a right which the Bill seeks to take from them. The tenants' views are unambiguous. One hundred tenants' organisations have responded. Many have written to me. Not one is in favour of these proposals. As the Hounslow Tenants' Federation stated:
"Compulsory CCT disempowers tenants".
That is precisely so. The National Federation of Housing Associations, whose members might be thought to be contractors in the market place, argues that C'CT is contrary to tenants' statutory rights. The National Housing Forum, which represents all
692
organisations in this field—professional organisations, housing associations and local authorities—states:
"Tenants should be able to decide if CCT is the best option for their housing".
We spent the first three days of the Committee stage determining leasehold enfranchisement, which ensures that tenants wishing to buy their lease should have that right and that choice respected even against a reluctant landlord. We empowered leaseholders in that part of the Bill. Secondly, we have already argued today and accepted that council tenants who wish to buy through right to buy or through rents to mortgages should have that right even against reluctant landlords. In both cases we have empowered tenants. Thirdly, housing action trust tenants, whom we debated just before supper—in this respect we compliment the Government—have the right not only to determine whether to enter a HAT but also the right to determine how and to what body they go when they leave it. We are empowering HAT tenants. But those very same council tenants, who do not necessarily want to buy but want to remain as local authority tenants will, uniquely in this Bill, have their rights not added to but taken away.
We must be unambiguous about this. This Bill takes away tenants' rights introduced by this House in 1985. They will have their express views disregarded and, whether they want it or not, they will be forced at considerable cost into contract procedure and then, whether they approve or not, they will have their landlord managers changed over their heads and they will be powerless to do anything about it.
We have awarded rights to leaseholders with the support of this side of the Committee for the Government. We have awarded rights to housing action trust tenants and again we supported the Government. We have awarded rights to purchasing tenants although we have some queries on that. Those are the very selfsame rights which were awarded by this House to council tenants in 1985 and which will now be taken away by this Government in this Bill unless the Committee decides otherwise. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The fact that I shall speak only briefly to this amendment does not indicate one jot of lack of strong feeling on my part. I kept making mental notes of things which I might add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, only to find two minutes later that she said them. Perhaps we may go back to earlier this afternoon. I was arguing against the noble Baroness when I introduced the need to be a little careful about paternalism. The Minister leapt to agree with me. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on that concept in this context.
Is it not shocking that, with legislation which sets out so extensively the requirement to go to CCT, a Bill has been introduced to remove tenants' rights to veto contracting out —in other words, to veto other people running their lives for them—and even withholds the right to be consulted on matters such as choice of contractor? We spent three days in Committee ensuring that leaseholders in the private sector were able to a greater extent than hitherto to have control

693
over their own lives in terms of their own property. Surely that concept should be extended into the local authority sector.
I wish to put on record words from the consultation paper of December 1992 with which I agree:
"It should be for tenants and tenant organisations themselves to choose, from a wide range of options and models, the level of their involvement".
I believe that tenants' choice and tenants' rights must be protected. This Committee must not retreat from the triumph which it had in securing those rights: it must not now be prepared to discard them.
Lord Strathclyde: A few minutes ago I was accused of being operatic. My opera was nothing compared to what we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She came up with a long list of reasons why CCT would not work and how it would not work. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions and then went on to discuss the amendment about tenants' rights which is currently before us.
I refute the list which the noble Baroness produced and the idea that we have taken away tenants' rights. First, briefly and generally on CCT: there is a fundamental division between the other side of the Committee and this on CCT. The noble Baroness feels that it cannot work and she produced a long list setting out the areas where it would not work. The question she did not ask is: why not? Why could it not work? If the services are already in the hands of the local authority, why could they not work equally well under private sector management?
Why is it that the noble Baroness cannot accept that the same people working in those jobs would not be able to do so outside the control of the local authority? For example, as regards soft services—controlling neighbourhood disputes and debt counselling and so on from the great list which the noble Baroness produced—if local authorities cannot specify at the moment what it is that those services are providing, then I agree that they will have a very difficult job in specifying for a contractor what those people are to do.
However, is it not right that local authorities should know what all their workers are doing? What happened to good management, their action plans, mission statements and so on? This is the discipline which the local authority will provide. Furthermore, the contracts can deal quite flexibly with services like debt counselling which are demand-led. We appreciate that. It can specify levels of service; for instance, response times. How long will it take to deal with things and how long will someone have to ring before the telephone is picked up? This is an area where the noble Baroness is completely stuck in a rut.
Furthermore, some Labour authorities are among the nine pilot schemes working with the department to develop CCT procedures. They include Newham, East Staffordshire and Mansfield, where the local authorities are involved in working towards making the scheme work. Authorities will be able to award contracts on the basis of quality and price. It is not just about price alone.
Having refuted that, perhaps I may now turn to the amendment. It is an important amendment and it is an
694
important issue. I understand the concern of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollis. I regard the amendment as misconceived because I believe that the noble Baroness has failed to grasp the true range of the Government's proposals, which we believe represent a major extension of tenant consultation, involvement and accountability.
When our CCT consultation proposals were originally published last summer we heard much suggestion that the tenants' right to veto housing management delegations would no longer be relevant or necessary. I accept that there was widespread anxiety on the part of tenants and housing organisations. But recently the position has changed. In the past few months we have had barely a handful of letters of opposition or doubt. The fact is that most anxieties were expressed before tenants had the opportunity to see the Bill's provisions, let alone our detailed consultation paper on Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage, published in December. What I believe is now being recognized is that what we are proposing is in fact a radical extension of tenants' real and effective rights.
The fundamental question that must be addressed and which the proposers of this amendment have failed to answer is: why should a veto be required? The key reason why it is not necessary is that there is no proposal to change the landlord, nor to change tenants' basic rights, as there is, for instance, with HATs or LSVTs. If there were, a veto would be relevant. But here the issue is simply the services to be provided to tenants and the standards to which they are to be performed. So long as the local authority remains the landlord and remains responsible, as it will under our proposals, for management policies and standards of service, I submit that a ballot is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Perhaps I may demonstrate this by inviting the Committee to consider the practicalities. Let us consider what the question would be if there were a ballot. Would it be: Do you wish your council not to tender housing management to see if others can provide better, more cost-effective services? Surely tenants could only answer one way. Or should the ballot be later with the question: Do you want to reject the tender from the organisation shown to be the best able to provide cost-effective, quality services to your estate?
Those are the questions that a ballot would address, if there were one. They demonstrate that it would be irrelevant, misplaced and of no real value to any party, least of all the tenants.
By contrast, I suggest that our new framework provides a better way ahead. It envisages a process in which the twin themes of competition and consultation are central and in which the wishes of tenants are woven so finely from the start that a ballot would be pointless, even if a relevant question could be framed.
The Government propose that tenants should be involved in every aspect of the delegation process—from drawing up the tender specifications with the council, to involvement in the shortlisting and interviewing of tenderers, to monitoring the performance and service delivery of the managing

695
organisation to which the management functions are delegated and, if need be, in advising the council on enforcement and penalty procedures in case of default. What possible purpose does a ballot serve in that context?
Moreover, for the first time the Government are proposing a quite specific role for representative tenants' organisations. The consultation paper Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage envisaged an active role for tenants' organisations, whereas earlier consultation processes only saw a place for tenants as individuals. That is not all. The paper proposed that local authorities should be encouraged to establish and support such organisations where none exists so that there will be a vigorous and effective tenants' voice in discussions with the council and the organisations managing estates.
What this amendment is proposing is the wrong time and the wrong circumstances. Let me sum up the reasons why the notion of a veto is an unhelpful distraction. First, the current veto has little real effect because of the way current legislation operates. Secondly, there is no sufficient case for a veto anyway. There is no change of landlord or tenancy rights, for which ballots, we agree, would be appropriate. Thirdly, the real issue is standards of service and how tenants can influence them. The only effective way is by consultation and competition. A ballot would be a clumsy and ineffectual tool for an issue like standards of service. Finally, the proposals which figure in the new consultation paper envisage a far stronger and more effective process of consultation than has operated so far, including a role for tenants' organisations.
It may be that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee, were not aware of the extent of the Government's proposals, our desire to consult and our real commitment to CCT. I hope that that is the case and that the noble Baroness will now withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I suppose that it would be grudging not to thank the Minister for that lengthy reply 'which takes the issue seriously, even though several of his arguments seemed deeply flawed. I hope that I may be able to persuade some of your Lordships that that is, indeed, the case.
The Minister started his reply by saying, "CCT, why not?" He then went on to say—and I wrote down his phrase—that, after all, many of the "same people" will do the same job. That is actually part of our complaint. If that is the case and if the same people are doing the job, where do the Government think that the much-vaunted savings will come from except by worsening the conditions of employment, pay and training?
Lord Strathclyde: Surely the noble Baroness recognises that the in-house team may well win the contract.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Indeed, but in that case why put tenants through the cost of the contracting-out procedure which they will have to pay for through their rents?
Lord Strathclyde: But it is a test to see whether the in-house team is the best. One has to go through that process to check whether it really is the best. That is the way that people do such things every day of the week in normal private sector companies and there is no reason why local authorities should not do the same.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Would the Minister like to tell me how one can best test whether a local authority's in-house team or an outside team is the best when it comes to debt counselling?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not think that it is helpful to have this kind of argument across the Dispatch Box. I have indicated, with the example of debt counselling, that there will clearly be some flexibility in the contract given. However, a local authority—whatever the local authority—must be able to judge for its own performance indicators whether its debt counselling service is providing the service that the tenants actually want.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If a local authority is required to judge whether a service is being provided in the way that tenants want, why then is the Minister saying that the tenants should not control it through the exercise of their ballot?
Lord Strathclyde: This is the last time that I shall intervene in the noble Baroness's winding-up speech. The whole point of this, which the noble Baroness does not make, is that it is a test to make sure that the local authority is being as effective as possible. If the internal team can win that test, so much the better; and if it cannot, so much the better as well. The only people who can win from this are those who pay for the service—the tenants themselves.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think that there is any meeting of minds on this. I honestly cannot believe that the Government understand, have ever experienced or have ever run a housing authority or a housing committee or delivered a housing service. If they had done so, I am sure that the Minister would appreciate the nonsense (if I may say so) of talking about "housing services" in the same breath as "commercial businesses" and "commercial companies" when we are dealing with some of the most vulnerable and poorest people.
We have spent half the evening arguing that housing management is not simply collecting in rents and handing out keys, but that it is about providing a service through people, to people, throughout their lives. If it is the case that savings are to be found by the existing in-house staff doing the work, for the most part the staff will win the contract only if their conditions of service and employment are worsened, because otherwise they would be vulnerable to outside competition—but we have already exchanged views about that.

697
The Minister's second point related to specifying the contract. He said that if a local authority could not specify the contract, what did it think it was doing with its service. Perhaps the noble Lord could help me. When it comes to cases of racial harassment, should the local authority specify in the contract that the service provider may deal with 500 but not 505 cases? I should welcome the Minister's reply on this because I am still baffled as to how one can specify in a contract, to which one attaches a price, services that are demand-led, such as dealing with neighbour disputes, harassment cases, debt counselling, sheltered housing and support functions for the frail and confused. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how one can price such things. Could the Minister give me some guidance?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to try the patience of the Committee any further. We could go on like this all night with the noble Baroness giving examples of where it may be difficult for local authorities to specify the standards of service that they want. It is not impossible to write a specification for the kind of services that are required. It has been done before and when the Bill is enacted local authorities will be obliged to do it. Surely it is better to go forward with that kind of spirit than to do what the Labour Party has done on every single reform of local authorities that has been pasted during the past 13 years, which is to say, "It is not possible. It will not work", and to have to eat its words within a few years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Again, there is no meeting of minds, but the Government appear to believe that the handling of housing services is the same as emptying dustbins in terms of what one can count. I cannot conceive how one will measure input versus output, and therefore value for money. If the Minister, with all due respect, was familiar with housing services he might share that view.
The third point that the Minister made related to the extent to which tenants' concerns and complaints have dried up. He sees that as evidence that those concerns and complaints have been met by government. I am sorry to disillusion him, but I have received a sheaf of tenants' complaints and concerns during the past fortnight. Far from them having dried up, they have not been allayed by anything the Government have said, as far as I can see, either in Committee in the other place or here. As the Sheffield Stannington Tenants' Association says:
"Unless tenants can actually vote against the proposal, any consultation is meaningless".
Fourthly, the Minister asked why there should be a veto in this service as opposed to any other area of local authority life. We are talking here not just about a business but about housing management. Should those managements change as with the right to buy, that can affect people's lives fundamentally. How their homes are managed, how their complaints are handled, how the repairs are done, how problems are solved, how transfers are arranged, how liaison is carried on with the police, the social services, utilities and voluntary agencies and services for the disabled, they all affect people's lives intimately. This is not
698
some business transaction. The Minister seriously asks why tenants should have a veto over something for which they pay, which affects their lives intimately and over which they claim they want a veto. They currently enjoy a veto which the Minister is removing.
The obligation does not lie with us to show that tenants need a veto; it is upon the Minister to show why a veto that has been enjoyed by tenants, which was inserted into legislation by this place in 1985 and which has worked successfully should now be withdrawn by government against the wishes of tenants and the views of local government. I remind the Minister of the letter from Greenwich which he quoted. He did not quote one part which the Committee might like to hear. It states:
"We are led to believe that this Government believes in giving more choice to tenants over the running of their homes, not in taking it away. CCT does not allow us to chose. It rules that the cheapest is always the best. We do not necessarily agree. The important point is that we should be able to decide by whom and at what cost our homes are managed".
If the Minister cannot appreciate the argument about the democratic deficit, then I regret there is no meeting of minds, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 176FYC:
Page 117, line 20, at end insert:
("() The provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protection) Regulations 1981 shall apply to any management agreement entered into under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protection) Regulations 1981. We are seeking to require that those regulations should apply to management agreements and therefore most housing management CCT contracts. The background lies with the European directive of 1977, which was implemented in this country in 1987 and which is required to be embodied in our legal system.
During the 1992 local government debates, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accepted that European law superseded British law on the issue of the transfer of undertakings. Under European law, the transfer of an undertaking means that where a business or undertaking is transferred as a going concern, usually with many, if not most, of its staff, the existing conditions of employment, pension rights and conditions of pay and work should be protected. In other words, the employees should be regarded as having continuity of employment. It means that new contractors cannot buy the work and jobs of existing staff merely by cutting down wages and worsening their conditions of work. Prior to that it was held at common law that a transfer of undertakings terminated all existing contracts of employment.
The debate was, first, whether blue-collar and white-collar local authority contracts were undertakings within the law; and, secondly, whether they were being transferred. The test, according to European law, is whether staff, customers and assets, including good will, are being transferred. So far as concerns local government, European law seems to indicate that not only white-collar contracts but blue-collar

699
contracts come within the European directive. We argued that in 1992 against the then Minister. She hotly denied it, but since last November the Foreign Office has suspended contracting out because of the workings of TUPE. Since the autumn the Welsh Office has suspended NHS contracting out because of the workings of TUPE regulations. The Home Office has actually stated that it expects its contract to reflect the TUPE directives. The Department for National Savings has stated that TUPE applies to catering contracts. The Inland Revenue has stated that TUPE applies to contracting out. The Attorney-General has increasingly edged forward towards accepting that TUPE applies to local government contracts. If necessary, I can quote the statement that he made on 21st January 1993.
At the same time as most government departments and the Government's chief legal officer are accepting that TUPE applies to local authority contracts, the Secretary of State for the Environment insists that if such TUPE clauses are inserted into any contracts which are up for competitive bidding they will be deemed by him to be anti-competitive, illegal and the local authority may be required to re-tender and be subject to judicial review.
So, local authorities are guided by the European Community to say that we must obey European law; the Attorney-General is warning local authorities that they may have to obey European law; but the Secretary of State for the Environment is saying that if they do he will have them up for anti-competitive behaviour. The amendment, therefore, seeks to clarify a situation in which the whole army except for the Secretary of State is marching in step. It will ensure that TUPE applies. After all, as the Minister said only 10 minutes ago, they are services in which the contractor may expect to take over in-house staff. That is one of the EC's criteria for the application of TUPE regulations. Where would he obtain the staff except in-house? But if TUPE does apply, the easy profits that come from cutting wages will make competitive tendering totally unattractive, as one of the leading contractors stated.
Obviously we are awaiting legal judgments such as the Eastbourne judgment; but if Ministers wish to change European directives they must do so in Europe. Indeed, they are seeking to change the directive but they would not try to do so if they did not believe that it applied to local government. If it does apply to local government not only should that be reflected in the contracts which we shall now be forced to offer to white collar workers but, under the judgment of the Francovich case, thousands of blue collar staff will be able to extract compensation from central government for having misdirected themselves over blue collar CCT, despite the best arguments from this side of the Committee. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: TUPE basically provides that, wherever an "undertaking" is transferred from one owner or operator to another employees' terms and conditions are protected and the new employer is
700
liable for any redundancies. The Government made it clear on 11th March that whether TUPE applied in cases of CCT would depend entirely on the particular contract or management agreement. As my right honourable friend the Attorney-General said:
"The contracting out of a service is not a transfer of undertaking unless it involves enough of the elements of the original operation such as premises, staff, goodwill or customer base to constitute the transfer of a going concern … The case law makes it clear that it is the overall sum of what is transferred which determines whether there has been a transfer of an undertaking".
But the amendment would go beyond that and seek to apply the regulations in all circumstances regardless of whether there is a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations, which would be against both the wording and the spirit of the directive. I am sure that Members of the Committee will consider it an undesirable practice to start making any regulations apply in cases where those regulations themselves state that they do not.
As regards the second amendment I am afraid that I do not see the need for it. There certainly can be no need for it in terms of practicality. We have said that we would not expect the first contracts to be let until the beginning of 1996–97, allowing time for the local authorities to prepare for CCT; for example, by separating the client and contractor roles within the authority, consulting staff and tenants, drawing up contract specifications and inviting and judging tenders.
Clearly authorities will want to start planning for CCT as soon as possible and we recognise that they will want to know the final form of secondary legislation both under this legislation and the Local Government Act 1988, which will list housing management as a defined activity. But the timescale that I have set gives plenty of time for preparation thereafter. Indeed, my department has been discussing the details of housing CCT at length with the local authority associations and no request has been made to delay the first year of contracting to 1997.
On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am still not entirely clear on whether the Minister believes that TUPE will apply to local authority contracts and, therefore, whether the insertion of those clauses will be regarded as anti-competitive behaviour.
Lord Strathclyde: TUPE applies where the law states it should apply. It is not for me to interpret the law.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Which law?
Lord Strathclyde: TUPE is in law under the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protection) Regulations 1981, which incorporated into UK law the acquired rights directive. That is the law which we are discussing today. That is what TUPE is all about, is it not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand that, but the European Commission seems to indicate that it applies to local authority contracts. Certainly, all other government departments appear to believe that

701
it does, except for the Secretary of State for the Environment. Therefore, I ask what law the Secretary of State refers to when he tells local authorities that to invoke TUPE is to act uncompetitively.
Lord Strathclyde: We are certainly not encouraging anyone—least of all local authorities—to break the law. As I described earlier, we have the advice of the Attorney-General. What he says is quite clear. Local authorities may need to obtain legal advice on their particular case. The contracting out of a service is not a transfer of undertaking unless it involves enough of the elements of the original operation to constitute the transfer of a going concern. That is the judgement that they have to make. I hope that we shall not get into a long discussion on the matter because I cannot help the noble Baroness very much further.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is becoming clear. Let us take, for example, a case involving housing management, as we described it, in which, as the Minister said, the majority of staff—indeed, the bulk or all of the staff—transfer. Does it mean that that housing management tender, taken over by a private contractor as a going concern with staff, assets and goodwill, would therefore fall within the TUPE regulations?
Lord Strathclyde: It is the overall sum of what is transferred which determines whether there has been a transfer of an undertaking. I shall not reply to the noble Baroness any more. It is not a matter for us to decide across the Dispatch Boxes; it is a matter of law.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I find it exceedingly baffling. There appears to be one law for all other government departments and another for the Department of the Environment when it applies to CCT. However, I do not doubt that it will have to be tested in court on many occasions. However, I warn the Minister that if he does not now allow local authorities to insert such clauses in their contracts, then individual staff members who may lose either their employment or some of their protective packages as a result—for example, as regards salary levels, pension rights, maternity pay, holiday pay, sickness benefit, and so on—will have a case in law for compensation against the Minister on the basis of the Francovich case. I hope that the Minister has noted what I say. If the Government do not move in that direction, they will find themselves with some very large bills. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham had given notice of her intention of move Amendment No. 176FYD:
Page 117, line 20, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall not before 1 April 1997, require that any management agreement under this section shall be entered into as a consequence of regulations under Part I of the Local Government Act 1988.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak briefly to the amendment. I apologise to the Committee as I should have spoken to it in relation to an earlier point. The intention was really just to flag the point that we have pilot schemes running with about six authorities but, as was mentioned
702
previously, the Government are nonetheless going ahead with legislation before they have received the results of those studies.
More generally, I do not know what is the more irritating for those of us on this side of the Committee: for the Government to proceed without information, as in some cases like low-rent questions; to proceed in advance of information, as with having pilot studies but not yet having the results; or to proceed, flying in the face of information, as is the case with some of the repair schemes. We have examples of all three in the Bill. But no major initiative in the legislation has been preceded by pilot studies which are favourable or by a consultation paper which is welcomed and which has been reflected faithfully in the Bill. So much for partnership.
If the Minister is determined to proceed in advance of the results of pilot studies, and despite boroughs like Newham, which he cited earlier, being most concerned about the practicalities of the scheme, so be it. I believe that we shall find ourselves picking up the pieces on another round of legislation.
[Amendment No. 176FYD not moved.]
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Consultation with respect to management agreements]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No 176FYE:
Page 117, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert:
("(a) to be informed of the following details of the proposal, namely—

(i) the terms of the agreement (including in particular the standards of service to be required under the agreement),

(ii) the identity of the person who is to be manager under the agreement, and

(iii) such other details (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. The amendments deal with a range of issues, some of them questions which Ministers took away from Committee in another place to consider further and some which are needed to give effect to the proposals contained in the consultation paper Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage, issued in December.
I am sure that Amendment No. I76FYE will have general support as it extends the range of questions on which tenants should be consulted. The issue it specifically mentions is the identity of the intended manager. Tenants should be informed of this and given an opportunity to comment. Where tendering is involved, authorities will know this at a different time in the process than when they will be considering the standards of service needed under the agreement; so authorities will have to talk to their tenants twice. I should emphasise that the provision does not give tenants a right to choose the manager, but it does give them a right to be informed and to comment.
The remaining part of the amendment is a sensible development. The Bill as it stands would allow regulations to deal only with consultation on the specification for a management agreement and the arrangements for monitoring the contract. If tenants

703
are to get the most from the process, it is sensible to allow regulations which could specify further issues for consultation. One possibility, for example, would be to involve tenants in the assessment of tenderers, a suggestion put forward in Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage. The following two amendments are consequential.
Amendments Nos. 176FYL and FYN deal with the application of Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, which is concerned with tenant consultation on general matters of housing management. The second amendment is identical to one tabled by Members of the Committee opposite, which I am naturally happy to accept. In cases of housing management delegation it would clearly be confusing and unnecessary for a local authority to have to follow both the consultation procedures in Section 105 of the 1985 Act and the more specific consultation set out in Clause 117. In the Bill as it stands, this is only avoided in relation to changes required as a result of CCT. The amendments would make the situation consistent for all delegations of housing management. That follows the precedent and wording of the existing legislation in Section 27A of the Housing Act.
The final amendment, inserting a new clause dealing with consultation on management agreements under CCT, is the result of one of the points which Ministers took away from Committee in another place; namely, to ensure that the legislation would encompass housing management CCT, as was always intended.
Clause 117 as it stands would apply to delegation under CCT, but there are enough differences between the procedures an authority would follow when delegating voluntarily and those it would follow under CCT to merit specific mention of the CCT case. That is what the new clause does.
Finally, I should like to mention briefly Clause 118. Following discussion in Committee in another place, we have drafted a replacement clause which is contained in Amendment No. 176FYQ, which we will be considering later. Therefore, Clause 118 is overtaken and I invite the Committee to delete it.
All of these amendments are intended to clarify how the provisions on management agreements and consultation will work in practice. I hope that the Committee will support them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to the amendments. It is a little unclear exactly how they apply. It is not immediately clear to which management agreement the Government envisage the arrangements introduced by Clause 117 would apply. In the consultation paper, and in debate in another place, the Government accepted that very few, if any, management agreements had been entered into under the existing legislation except in the case of tenant management co-operatives or estate management boards.
Everyone had assumed that Clause 117 was introducing new arrangements to allow for CCT. That appears now not to be the case. What situation do the Government envisage that the new Section 27A will apply to? Is it to apply to cases where local authorities
704
voluntarily enter into management agreements with managing agents, in some cases ahead of, or in order to avoid, CCT arrangements? When an authority enters into a contract with a private contractor, there is no requirement to invite competitive tenders. However, if that is the case, there is a problem. Government Amendment No. 176FYE reinstates the requirement for a local authority to consult on the identity of the person who is to be the manager under the management agreement.
That requirement is present in the existing legislation but was removed by Clause 117 as it appears in the Bill. It is confusing that the Government now appear to envisage Clause 117, as amended by Amendment No. 176FYE, to apply only to a situation where a local authority is negotiating with a single managing agent. An authority which chooses to invite competitive tenders on a voluntary basis, however, might find itself in precisely the same difficulty as the Government envisage would exist if the present legislation applied to the CCT case. Therefore there is a problem and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain the problem he is addressing.
We accept Amendment No. 176FYN because, as the noble Lord said, we put down an identical amendment ourselves. We are happy that the other amendments are consequential, but there is the central problem as to what exactly the principal amendments apply to. If the Minister can explain that to me and I am clear on the matter perhaps we can deal with it quickly.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly hope that I can offer reassurance to the noble Lord and the Committee on this point. If I cannot perhaps I may follow the matter up by writing to the noble Lord and explaining in detail what we intend.
Clause 117 will apply to all delegations, whether voluntary or by CCT, except for tenant management organisations, which are dealt with by Clause 118.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that everybody assumed that that was the case and that Clause 117 introduced new arrangements to allow for CCT. In other words, all CCT arrangements would be included in the remit of Clause 117. I hope that I have understood the Minister so far. However, that appears not to be the case under the amendment as drafted, or so I am advised. There seems to be a difference of interpretation of the amendments. I shall accept the noble Lord's offer to write to me and explain what the Government mean in this case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 176FYF:
Page 117, line 30, at end insert:("of the identity of the person who is to be the manager under the agreement, or the identities of the persons from among whom the manager is to be chosen, and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 176FYF, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 176 FYJ, 176FYK and 176FYM.
The Government appear to have a problem in giving the authority the alternative of consulting on the identity of the managing agent where it is negotiating with .1 single managing agent or on the short list of contractors where it is choosing from among competing tenders, whether on a voluntary basis or as a consequence of CCT. Amendment No. 176FYF seeks to get round that problem.
The amendment reinstates the requirement in present legislation for an authority to consult individual tenants and not merely representative organisations of tenants before entering into a management agreement. We have been over some of the ground but it is worth restating it.
Again, the requirement is to consult on the identity of the managing agent or the short list as well as on the standard of service to be provided. The amendment also reinstates the specific requirement to allow at least 28 days for tenants' views to be considered.
The amendment is put down on the basis that, unless there is good reason for removing statutory guarantees enjoyed by tenants, they ought to remain. Nothing that the Government have said in previous discussions of the Bill has justified the removal of the specific requirement to consult individual tenants. It is an important safeguard.
Amendment No. 176FYK is intended to strengthen local authority duty to have regard to the views expressed by tenants in consultation. If the Government are not prepared to accept the existence of a tenants' veto, they presumably are prepared, if I read the Minister aright, to consider strengthening the duty of local authorities to have regard to the views expressed by tenants. At present the requirement is only that local authorities consider tenants' views. That would seem to be little more than window dressing. The local authority has to receive the views, to spend some time considering them and then to reach a decision. The amendment places a specific duty on authorities to have particular regard to views expressed by tenants.
The wording "have regard in particular to" has been chosen because a note on the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 when the same wording was used—it was used earlier in Part I of this Bill—states that "particular regard" is a stronger formulation than the usual "have regard to".
The amendments seek to address some of the problems that we envisage arising from management agreements. We hope that the Government will give them a fair wind. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to begin with Amendment No. 176FYM since it causes no difficulty. Indeed, the government amendment that we have just debated addressed the issue. I therefore hope that noble Lords opposite will withdraw it.
However, I wish that I could say the same of the remaining amendments in this group. They would, in effect, undermine the very basis of what the Government seek to achieve by extending compulsory
706
competitive tendering to the management of council housing. Collectively, their effect would be to put in place a mechanism to allow tenants to reject a tenderer. That would have one simple effect. It would deter others from bidding for housing management contracts. Where competition did take place they will place such restrictions upon authorities that they will have little choice but to block a management agreement where tenants press for it.
Under an earlier amendment the Committee considered very carefully a proposal to give tenants a veto. The effect of the amendments will be to restore the effect, but by other means.
But these amendments have other effects which are more subtle and which we are unable to accept. They go to the very heart of CCT in that they have the effect of removing the level playing field which we have sought under CCT. On the face of it, the amendments seek to tip the balance of advantage in favour of the tenants; but in effect they tip the balance away from tenants in favour of local authorities —and in particular those bad and inefficient authorities which have much to fear from the drive for efficiency that CCT will bring. They will give those authorities an unfair advantage. That cannot be a good thing for tenants.
As I have made very clear, the Government fully support full and meaningful tenant consultation, tenants' right to know and the right to have their views taken into account, and we have placed the necessary provisions in the Bill. The amendments seek to go much further than that. I am sure that they have sought to do so in a way that is positive and beneficial to tenants. But I believe that the effect of the amendments in practice is to undermine the very principles on which fair play and open competition can take place. I am sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Perhaps he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is clear that there is a major difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee on this issue. It is a matter to which we shall have to return at a later stage. At this time of the night, there is no point in continuing to debate it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176FYG:
Page 117, line 32, leave out ("those terms") and insert ("the proposal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 176FYH:
Page 117, line 34, leave out ("those terms") and insert ("the proposal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. I76FYJ and 176FYK not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 176FYL:
Page 118, line 22, leave out ("nothing in this section prejudices the application") and insert ("the provisions of this section apply in place").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176FYM not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 176FYN:
Page 118, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 176FYP:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering.
(". After section 27A of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering.
27AA.—(1) This section shall apply if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 ('the 1988 Act') providing for the exercise of any management functions to be a defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act (compulsory competitive tendering).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that in any case where—

(a) a local housing authority propose to make an invitation to carry out any functional work in accordance with the rules set out in subsection (4) of section 7 of the 1988 Act (functional work: conditions), and

(b) the proposal is such that any decision by the authority that the work should be carried out by the person or one of the persons proposed to be invited would necessarily involve their entering into a management agreement with that person,

the provisions of section 27A shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(3) Nothing in section 6 of the 1988 Act (functional work: restrictions) shall apply in relation to any functional work which, in pursuance of a management agreement, is carried out by the manager as agent of the local housing authority.
(4) In this section 'functional work' has the same meaning as in Part I of the 1988 Act.
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176FYQ:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Management agreements with tenant management organizations
(".—(1) After section 27AA of the 1985 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Management agreements with tenant management organisations.
27AB.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for imposing requirements on a local housing authority in any case where a tenant management organisation serves written notice on the authority proposing that the authority should enter into a management agreement with that organisation.
(2) The regulations may make provision requiring the authority—

(a) to provide or finance the provision of such office accommodation and facilities, and such training, as the organisation reasonably requires for the purpose of pursuing the proposal;

708

(b) to arrange for such feasibility studies with respect to the proposal as may be determined by or under the regulations to be conducted by such persons as may be so determined;

(c) to arrange for such ballots or polls with respect to the proposal as may be determined by or under the regulations to be conducted of such persons as may be so determined; and

(d) in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations (which shall include the organisation becoming registered if it has not already done so), to enter into a management agreement with the organisation.

(3) The regulations may make provision with respect to any management agreement which is to be entered into in pursuance of the regulations—

(a) for determining the houses and land to which the agreement should relate, and the amounts which should be paid under the agreement to the organisation;

(b) requiring the agreement to be in such form as may be approved by the Secretary of State and to contain such provisions as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(c) requiring the agreement to take effect immediately after the expiry or other determination of any previous agreement; and

(d) where any previous agreement contains provisions for its determination by the authority, requiring the authority to determine it as soon as may be after the agreement is entered into.

(4) The regulations may also make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provisions as may appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient, and may in particular make provision—

(a) for particular questions arising under the regulations to be determined by the authority;

(b) for other questions so arising to be determined by an arbitrator agreed to by the parties or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Secretary of State; and

(c) requiring any person exercising functions under the regulations to act in accordance with any guidance given by the Secretary of State.

(5) Nothing in subsections (2) to (4) above shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of subsection (1).
(6) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas, and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) Except as otherwise provided by regulations under this section—

(a) a local housing authority shall not enter into a management agreement with a tenant management organisation otherwise than in pursuance of the regulations; and

(b) the provisions of the regulations shall apply in relation to the entering into of such an agreement with such an organisation in place of—

(i) the provisions of section 27A (consultation with respect to management agreements), and

(ii) in the case of secure tenants, the provisions of section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management).

(8) In this section—

'arbitrator' means a member of a panel approved for the purposes of the regulations by the Secretary of State;

'previous agreement', in relation to an agreement entered into in pursuance of the regulations,

709
means a management agreement previously entered into in relation to the same houses and land;

'registered' means registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Companies Act 1985;

'tenant management organisation' means a body which satisfies such conditions as may be determined by or under the regulations."

(2) Section 27C of the 1985 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: As I said earlier, this amendment is a substantial and thoroughgoing revision of Clause 118 which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to establish a new right to manage for council tenants. This new clause has exactly the same purpose but strengthens the requirements and procedures which will be needed to make this important new right work.
The Committee will recall that the Government's consultation paper Tenant Involvement in the Right to Manage was issued in December. By the consultation period's close at the end of February, officials had received 101 responses to the document. Most welcomed the broad thrust of our proposals, though perhaps understandably some respondents were cautious about the detail of their implementation.
This new clause is a radical step forward in tenant empowerment. As such, it is unlikely to be trouble-free, and in cases where disputes arise, I am sure that the Committee will agree that it would not be helpful for tenants or local authorities to find themselves locked into expensive and protracted arbitration. For that reason, to safeguard the interests of all concerned, subsection (4) (b) and (c) and subsection (8) of the new clause give the Secretary of State power to specify a panel of arbitrators from whom the parties may choose and the form of arbitration to be followed.
There has been some confusion about the procedures which tenants' organisations may wish to use to achieve their goal of self-management. This new clause sets out on the face of the Bill the broad elements of a robust new right to manage and these will he given fuller substance in the regulations which follow.
However, at the moment tenants' organisations follow the voluntary route of delegation under Section 27A of the 1985 Act. We have taken very careful stock of the argument for retaining that looser voluntary route for would-be tenant managers, but find more compelling the argument for giving all tenants the protection and benefits offered under the detailed provisions of this new clause. For that reason, subsection (7) (a) provides that all agreements made with tenant management organisations must follow the right to manage procedures.
I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite will welcome this sensible and equitable measure. In sum, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the new clause represents a strengthening of our earlier proposals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Management agreements with tenant management organizations]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment. No. 176FYR:
Page 119, line 49, at end insert:
("() This section shall not apply to any management agreement between a local housing authority and a tenant management organisation entered into with the approval of the Secretary of State before the coming into force of this section.").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 176FYR and speak to Amendment No. 176FYS standing in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Williams.
The subject of tenant management organisations was introduced quite fully by the Minister in the previous amendment. The Minister in another place, Sir George Young, in what we popularly call his "three pillars" speech, referred to TMOs in the following terms:
"The Government have over the years strongly supported and provided resources for the development of tenant management bodies. We believe we need now to go further and provide a clear legal framework for delegation to tenants' organisations".
We on this side entirely support that. Given that, why does the Minister say that TMOs, a self-managing body, should have prescribed for them by the Secretary of State that, whether they wish to or not, they have to apply CCT procedures to the services they currently take from local authorities? We are entirely happy that TMOs should have a free choice as to where they seek their services. But to require those bodies to undertake the expense and problems incurred in forcing them to go through the elaborate CCT procedures when they with the clear, delegated legal powers just given to them by the Minister in the last amendment do not wish to do so, seems to undermine the very stance of self-government that the Bill sets out to enshrine.
Not only, apparently, under CCT do individual tenants "not know best"—here we hear the authentic note of paternalist central government, which alone knows best—but it appears to be the case that a properly constituted, democratically organised and legally constructed management organisation is also to be denied the right to exercise its proper managerial judgment as to where and from whom it purchases its services. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Let me deal first with Amendment No. 176FYR, which seeks to exempt from the procedures and requirements of the clause those tenant management organisations whose management agreements receive the Secretary of State's approval before the provisions of the clause come into force. That is a sensible proposal. I am able to reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill will not have retrospective force. Existing approved management agreements will be unaffected. Therefore, I hope that she will see that her amendment is unnecessary.
However, Amendment No. 176FYS seeks to prevent local authorities' provision of services to tenant management organisations becoming subject to the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1988. I am aware that 14 such arrangements exist at the moment, generally involving local authority

711
staff working on a seconded basis for a tenant management organisation while retaining their tenure as council employees. I can understand that those tenant management organisations which are generally happy with such arrangements are keen to preserve them. The amendment would drive something of a coach and horses through the government proposal to bring to all council tenants the benefits which compulsory competitive tendering for housing management is able to offer.
If a TMO is particularly keen to retain the individual members of staff who provide services on the estate, it can exercise its option to employ them directly, providing of course that the staff agree. There is the further option that a council team might wish to form itself into a private housing management company and provide services to the tenant management organisation on a straightforward contractual basis. The option can also offer council teams a freedom to operate in the market which they would not otherwise enjoy. I suspect that I shall disappoint the noble Baroness in not being able to accept her second amendment, but I hope that she will understand why.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am obviously happy that he effectively accepts the first amendment, Amendment No. 176FYR. As for the second amendment, I ask the Minister why he thinks tenants cannot make their own judgment as to whether they wish to go through CCT procedures?
Lord Strathclyde: Without CCT procedures, how can they possibly have the information to know whether or not they want to go for it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Having gone through CCT procedures, why should the Minister not think that the tenants will then know whether they wish to accept the winning bid?
The Minister does not reply to that question, which asks why tenants do not know what is in their own best interest. With the leave of the House, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 176FYS not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 118 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Goschen: The Committee has just discussed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which substitutes a new clause in place of the existing Clause 118. In the light of that discussion I hope that the Committee will understand why we oppose the Question that Clause 118 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118 negatived.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Levy on disposals]:
Lord. Strathclyde Lord. Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. I76FYT to 176FYV:
Page 125, line 21, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 24 and insert ("sums received by the authority in respect of the disposal which are, by virtue of section 58 of the 1989 Act
712
(capital receipts), capital receipts for the purposes of Part IV of that Act and do not fall within a description determined by the Secretary of State").
Page 125, line 27, leave out ("the notional capital receipt") and insert ("any notional capital receipts").
Page 125, line 35, leave out ("formula determined") and insert ("determination made").
The noble Lord said: These three amendments are technical. The first is necessary to allow some flexibility in respect of right-to-buy receipts. The second amendment similarly makes it clear that the series of notional capital receipts can be taken into account. The third and final amendment is purely a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 to 125 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 176GY:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Calculation of Housing Revenue Account subsidy
. In subsection (1) of section 80 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (determination of formulae for calculating Housing Revenue Account subsidy), the words "and for any year the first such determination shall be made before the 25th December immediately preceding that year" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: The Government's new clause would remove the requirement in Section 80(1) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, whereby the first housing revenue account subsidy determination for a year must be issued before 25th December. These determinations set out how housing authorities' entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy is to be calculated for the following financial year. The new clause proposed by noble Lords opposite would replace the statutory deadline of 25th December with a new statutory deadline of 11th January.
The background to these amendments is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement in last year's Budget speech that the Government have decided to change the annual Budget timetable, so that tax and spending proposals can in future be presented to parliament at the same time in the form of a unified Budget. As announced by the Chancellor in another place on 18th February, the Government are planning on the basis that the date of the unified Budget in 1993 will be no later than the last week of November.
We are required by the legislation to consult representatives of local government on the proposed subsidy determinations, which include levels of management and maintenance allowances and guideline rents, before they are issued in their final form. My department's practice is to consult each housing authority on the draft determinations; indeed, it is right that we should consult them. But we will generally have to await the Chancellor's unified Budget announcement of the Government's spending plans before doing so. In such circumstances there will be insufficient time to allow authorities a reasonable period in which to comment on the draft determinations, and for my right honourable friends to consider those comments and then issue the determinations in their final form before the 25th December deadline.
I understand the intention behind the amendment. It gives greater certainty to local authorities in knowing when they will receive final information on the HRA subsidy determination which they require in order that they may set their rents for the following year. But the effect of the amendment will not assist with the desired objective and it might cause difficulties. The department shares the wish of local authorities to minimise the delays caused by the new unified Budget arrangements. Every effort will be made to issue the subsidy determination as soon as possible after Christmas, and the department has stated its intention to do so by 10th January. This has been made possible by the helpful suggestion of local government representatives, which the Government have accepted, to shorten the consultation period on the draft determination so that it can end before Christmas.
The 10th January will therefore become a real target for the department and only something unexpected and untoward will prevent achieving it. No real purpose is served by a statutory deadline for the first determination and the consequences of missing such a deadline are unclear. For all those reasons we feel that the work on producing the final subsidy determinations will better be unfettered by concern about a statutory deadline.
Furthermore, I should also point out that this will be the first year of the new unified Budget arrangements and there will be considerable interest and discussion about how well they work in delivering the benefits that a unified Budget will bring. Setting a new statutory deadline could impose an unhelpful rigidity in the new arrangements, where a flexible approach might be preferable.
For those reasons the Government's own new clause would remove the statutory deadline altogether, returning to the situation which existed prior to the introduction of the Local Government and
714
Housing Act 1989. Given that explanation, which I appreciate was given at some length, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and accept mine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It slightly worried some representatives of local authorities. I accept that it may be that the formula proposed by the noble Lord will work better than a statutory deadline and we shall have to see what the outcome is. In the meantime we shall not oppose the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not want to let this moment pass without reinforcing the justified anxieties of local authorities that flexibility may turn out to be extension and extension upon extension. I received today a telephone call from a friend who is working in a local authority on the introduction of community care. Her authority has been thrown into a complete tizz because it discovered today that it is £4 million light of what it expected. That is not because it did its sums wrong but because the information that it was given was wrong. That comes two days before the introduction of community care.
I give that as an extreme example, but it is right to place on record that, while noting what the Minister said, local authorities will come down heavily on him if he or his department put them in a position which makes it difficult for them to organise their budgets.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 176GZ not moved.]
Clauses 136 to 140 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  ADJUVANTS
  ADJUVANTS
  EC POTATO GROWERS: SUBSIDY
  EC POTATO GROWERS: SUBSIDY
  ABATTOIRS: HYGIENE STANDARDS
  ABATTOIRS: HYGIENE STANDARDS
  EC BEEF STOCKS
  EC BEEF STOCKS
  SUGAR: EXPORT REFUNDS
  SUGAR: EXPORT REFUNDS
  CHILDREN BORN WITHOUT EYES
  CHILDREN BORN WITHOUT EYES
  EYE DEFECTS AND PESTICIDES
  EYE DEFECTS AND PESTICIDES
  NHS SENIOR MANAGER CONTRACTS
  NHS SENIOR MANAGER CONTRACTS
  FAMILY DOCTOR REGISTRATIONS, CENTRAL LONDON
  FAMILY DOCTOR REGISTRATIONS, CENTRAL LONDON
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
  COMMUNITY CARE RESOURCES
  COMMUNITY CARE RESOURCES
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL REPORT
  TWH MANAGEMENT LTD: LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL REPORT
  TWH MANAGEMENT: LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL MEMBERSHIP
  TWH MANAGEMENT: LICENSED DEALERS TRIBUNAL MEMBERSHIP
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE TREASURY
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE TREASURY
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: EC SUPPORT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: EC SUPPORT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: IMPACT ON HACKNEY
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK: IMPACT ON HACKNEY
  CROSS-RAIL
  CROSS-RAIL
  COMMUTERS INTO LONDON
  COMMUTERS INTO LONDON
  AMPHIBIOUS HELICOPTER CARRIER
  AMPHIBIOUS HELICOPTER CARRIER
  EC COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  EC COHESION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  CANCELLATION OF ISRAELI WEAPONS SALES TO ARGENTINA
  CANCELLATION OF ISRAELI WEAPONS SALES TO ARGENTINA
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT