Sitting of 31 March 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MIDLAND METRO BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Council Tax and Rents
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average (a) council tax levels and (b) rent levels in (i) Scotland and (ii) Strathclyde region.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The average council tax for a band D property is £559 for Scotland as a whole and £562 for Strathclyde. These figures are both exclusive of council water charges and before discounts. The average weekly local authority rent level for 1992–93 is £24·75 for Scotland and £25·21 for district councils within Strathclyde region.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that council tax and council rent levels have had to be fixed higher in Monklands district council than they need to be because the council has one of the highest employment levels in the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that a Scottish National party councillor has alleged that 40 close relatives of Labour councillors are employed by the council? Does he consider that the revelation by a Labour regional councillor, John Murphy, that all the allegations about nepotism and corrupt employment pratices on the council are true is significant and that the council should be brought to account?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to point to the relationship between the employment policies pursued by a council and rent and council tax levels. But I have no wish to make any party political points on the matter. Nor is there any need to do so because Labour regional councillor, John Murphy, the Labour member for Coatbridge, North and Glenboig, has said that the council was riddled with cases of nepotism and patronage. We do not need to hear from Tories about the Scottish National party. We only need to hear from someone who has worked for Monklands district council for 17 years and has been suspended—I understand because of the remarks that he made. The only surprise is that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) have maintained complete silence on the issue. But I can see that
    336
    the hon. Member for Monklands, West is itching to leap to his feet to give us his views on the suspension of Councillor Murphy.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that many people in Scotland, but more in Dover, will be interested to know why the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is so interested in Scottish affairs, especially when unemployment in Dover has increased by 137 per cent. since 1990? Is it not about time that the hon. Member for Dover stopped neglecting his constituents and instead concerned himself with unemployment in Dover and how unemployed people will pay the council tax in that local authority?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is a meticulous and extremely hard-working constituency Member. I must remind the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. I understood from the press that the hon. Gentleman was one of the Opposition Members who believe in that proposition. His question showed the continuing embarrassment of the Labour party in Scotland about Monklandsgate.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the policy that has been adopted in Strathclyde, under which privately owned houses that were previously council owned have been rated for council tax one band higher than they would have been rated were they still in local authority ownership? Does my hon. Friend agree that every owner of such a house should appeal?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has raised a point which has already received considerable publicity. It is a matter for the assessor, of course, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the availability of the appeal mechanism. He may be reassured by the fact that no less a luminary of the Scottish left than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Left?"] Yes, from my perspective. In a statutory instrument Committee yesterday, the hon. Gentleman raised the very point made by my hon. Friend. It was reassuring to discover that Labour Members now have some sympathy for council tenants who have rightly taken advantage of the Government's policy to give them the right to buy.
    Mr. Canavan: As the advent of the council tax tomorrow means that today is the last official day of the poll tax, will the Minister now admit that the poll tax was one of the most expensive blunders in the history of any Government? Has not the total cost for administration and collection of the poll tax throughout the United Kingdom now reached the staggering amount of £14 billion?
    If local councillors were found guilty of that sort of misspending, they would be surcharged and banned from office for many years. Why not surcharge and ban the Minister and all the other Tory Ministers who collectively were responsible for introducing the poll tax?
    Mr. Stewart: As I understand the import of the hon. Gentleman's question, he welcomes the introduction of the council tax and the fact that it will have lower administration and collection costs than the community charge. I reassure him that there will be no amnesty for

    337
    non-payers of the community charge. We welcome the hon. Gentleman's apparent underlining of the probable success of the council tax.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the proposals for legal aid reform.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): We have received a number of representations about the Government's proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for legal aid in Scotland, from the Law Society of Scotland, consumer interests, solicitors' firms, Members of Parliament and members of the public.
    Mr. Watson: It would be interesting to know how many of those representations were in favour of the proposals. Why is it that under the proposals, someone in Scotland earning £62 a week who applied for legal aid today would have to pay nothing, but if he applied tomorrow he would have to pay £252 out of his £62 a week? If he were unable to afford that, he would have to abandon his claim. He would not have access to the legal system. What is that, if it is not a denial of basic justice? Will the right hon. Gentleman, even at this 11 th hour, recognise that thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of Scots will be denied access to legal aid and the legal system? Will he now withdraw those ill-advised proposals?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman substantially exaggerates the position. Only about 2 to 3 per cent. of those qualifying for legal aid this year will be affected by the proposals. When I point out that expenditure is doubling over a six-year period—it has risen from £49 million in 1988 to £100 million this year, with further substantial increases in the pipeline—the hon. Gentleman will realise that any Government have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers' interest and to ensure that the matter is kept under reasonable control.
    Mr. McFall: On the Government's own figures, 100,000 people will be taken out of the eligibility category. Among these will be many thousands of women who are locked into violent relationships because they have no access to courts. Such women, with no legal recourse and living in intolerable conditions, could take the law into their own hands. Ironically, some could conceivably end up being granted criminal legal aid to defend themselves against a charge of murder. Does the Secretary of State agree that for the 22,000 women who contacted Women's Aid in Scotland last year, any cuts in legal aid availability will represent a terrible threat to their safety and that of their children?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures completely wrong. We will have an opportunity to debate this later on, but the figure is not 100,000 but some 7,500 —less than one tenth of the figure the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Moreover, we expect civil legal aid to continue to increase by up to 40 per cent. by 1995–96. Criminal legal aid is not affected by these changes.

    Rail Services (Rural Areas)
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met ScotRail to discuss the future of rail services in rural Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. Friend and I meet senior management of British Rail from time to time. Such contacts cover a wide range of topics relating to rail services in Scotland.
    Mrs. Michie: Is the Minister aware of the widespread belief in Scotland that the privatisation of British Rail will mean the end of many rural lines? The Secretary of State for Transport has given no guarantee for the future of these services, which will spell disaster for many areas, particularly north of Glasgow and Edinburgh. What did the Minister or his right hon. Friend do to try and prevent Railfreight from hiking up its costs to the oil companies on the West Highland line, forcing them to travel on the roads to Oban, Mallaig and Fort William? What has happened to the Government's commitment to the environment? They are just making the roads more congested and creating more pollution. What happened to their promise to put more freight on to the railways?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government have repeatedly given a commitment to provide subsidy and to support services in rural areas which, although loss making, provide invaluable social services. Our franchising proposals are based on a desire to bring the benefits of private sector provision to all passenger services and to make them more responsive. We see the railways being used to a greater extent in future. As to the traffic on the West Highland line, unfortunately it is heavily loss making, failing to make any contribution to the infrastructure and not covering the operational costs. Customers have been unable to agree to British Rail's remedial action, which would have returned the service to viability. We are encouraging more freight to use rail by widening the criteria for section 8 grants, by the proposed new grant scheme for the payment of track charges and by the publication of a consultation paper on lorry weight initiatives.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Minister assure the people of Inverclyde that privatisation will not threaten the work of repairing the Newton Street tunnel and Wemyss bay? We are already seeing a deterioration in our services as the railways fatten up for privatisation. Will the Minister assure the people of Inverclyde that they will continue to receive a good service, not one which is run down?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is very important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents continue to receive that service. We recognise the importance of ensuring the necessary investment through Railtrack, which will be responsible for investment in the track and for looking after bridges throughout Scotland. We will support investment in the railways where the schemes do not gain an adequate rate of return but provide a statisfactory cost-benefit return and benefits to the communities concerned.

    Scottish Government
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has so far received to his White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good".
    Mr. Lang: The response to the publication of the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—A Partnership for Good", has been generally very favourable.
    Mr. McAllion: The White Paper offers only procedural tinkering with the Standing Orders of the Westminster Parliament while continuing to lock Scottish business into a voting procedure dominated by Tory votes from the south. Why cannot the Secretary of State see that that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the Scottish people, who are demanding their own national Parliament under their own democratic control? If he does not accept what I am saying, why does not he let the Scottish people speak for themselves in a multi-option referendum? If he is not prepared to trust the Scottish people with such a referendum, why on earth should they be prepared to trust him with anything?
    Mr. Lang: Once again, the hon. Gentleman, because he is not in a position to exercise power in this place through the will of the electorate, seeks to change the rules or move the goalposts. The fact is that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, want to maintain the Union and have one United Kingdom Parliament. The Courier and Advertiser, the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper, said:
    "Scots MPs have the opportunity to become less confrontational. This would be good for Scotland, maybe even for Parliament."
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best possible news for those of us who seek to preserve and, indeed, to strengthen the Union were the howls of outrage from Opposition Members, who seek to undermine the Union? That is eloquent testimony that my right hon. Friend has it absolutely right. Will he give a commitment that, in its new role, the Scottish Grand Committee will come to Aberdeen to debate matters of great importance to that city and the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion and I will certainly give it consideration. The Scottish Grand Committee is one Committee which is advanced by the proposals in the White Paper, but the Committee of the Regions is also mentioned. The White Paper says that
    "the Government will ensure that Scotland has substantial representation on it."
    In that context, I am indebted to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) for drawing my attention to the SNP's campaign handbook, which described the Committee of the Regions as a
    "toothless regional Committee which would lock Scotland out of decision-making in the European Community."
    Sir David Steel: The one item of interest in an otherwise colourless White Paper was the proposal to hold Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee. The Secretary of State has been very coy about how often he expects that to happen. Will he tell us now?
    Mr. Lang: I believe that these matters should be discussed through the usual channels and that we should move forward by general agreement across the Floor of the House. I look forward to those discussions in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people in Scotland feel that strengthening this Parliament and its operations is the best way to reinforce the Union and to secure its future. The White Paper proposes additional meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee and increased opportunities to ask questions, which can only be positive and good. Will he bear it in mind—I hope that the House will do so, too—that it is important that amendments to legislation directly affecting Scotland are fully and properly debated?
    Mr. Lang: I will certainly reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend suggests, but I am grateful for his support for the White Paper, which is clearly designed to strengthen the interests of Scotland within the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is not the Secretary of State very precious about his own position, which is why he sets his face against the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland? He uses his powers as a colonial governor to impose alien policies on the people of Scotland. Is not the real challenge to all Opposition Members of the House to stop sitting on Green Benches and to stand up for Scotland, to support the recall of a Scottish Parliament and to oppose water privatisation? Will they stand in their places for a Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Lang: I am not an appointed governor-general, but, like the hon. Lady, an elected Member of Parliament. As to the rest of her question, perhaps I should offer to write to her.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State writes to the hon. Lady, will he publish that letter and the rest of the correspondence? When he considers representations on these constitutional matters, will he consider the paper that was presented this morning by the Scottish Foundation for Economic Research at the new Glasgow Caledonian university? It studied achievements in Germany, especially in the socialist region of Nord Rhein-Westphalia, and found that, because of the devolution of power, unemployment is half that in Scotland and growth is 20 per cent. more. If subsidiarity works in Germany and in Europe, why is not it good for Scotland, especially when that is what the Scots want?
    Mr. Lang: I am not sure what these facile comparisons between the constitution of the United Kingdom and that of Germany have to do with the question before us, but, if the hon. Gentleman wants comparisons, he can consider the fact that inflation and interest rates have fallen sharply in this country and that we have a competitive exchange rate and are moving out of recession while Germany is still facing considerable problems. The hon. Gentleman may not be so keen on making comparisons in a few months' time.

    Victoria Infirmary and Rutherglen Maternity Hospital
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the future of Victoria infirmary and Rutherglen maternity hospital; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stewart: Since the Greater Glasgow health board released details of its review of acute and maternity services in November last year, my right hon. Friend has received eight representations, including this question, on the future of the hospitals. I look forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister join me in expressing appreciation to all the staff at both hospitals for the service that they give to Glasgow, East Kilbride and my constituency? Will the Minister accept that the uncertainty and insecurity being caused by the review is doing great damage to the morale of all the staff, patients and potential patients attending the hospitals? Will he put an end to that uncertainty by instructing the health board that there is no need to close any hospital in Glasgow?
    Mr. Stewart: I can of course agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point and pay tribute to the staff of the hospitals for their valuable contribution. The Victoria unit handles some 31,000 in-patient and some 400,000 out-patient treatments a year, but it is right to have a review of acute and maternity services. That review is aimed at improving services for the people of Glasgow and beyond and would involve substantial sums of extra public expenditure.
    Mrs. Fyfe: The Opposition have their vision of the kind of maternity services in particular which should be made available not only to Glasgow but to Scotland as a whole. Will the Minister kindly describe his vision of the maternity services that he wants to see in the coming century?
    Mr. Stewart: I wish, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, to see continuing improvements in maternity services. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said, proposals have been convassed for the transfer to the Royal of maternity services currently provided in Rutherglen. One must put the long-term interests of patients first. We are talking about proposals which might involve substantial extra sums of investment—not cuts —to improve health care in the Greater Glasgow area.

    Roads (Fife)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future road programme in Fife.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new east Fife regional road is proving a great success, and our future plans for Fife will bring further benefits. We announced in February major proposals for the firth of Forth including a second Forth road bridge. We are currently studying a west Fife regional road as part of our longer-term network.
    Mr. Campbell: The Minister will know that the A91 trunk road for which his Department has responsibility runs through my constituency and in particular through the town of Cupar. Will he tell my constituents why he is
    342
    delaying the authorisation of the Bonargate relief road and the Cupar bypass, both of which are necessary not only for safety and convenience but for the protection of the environment?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Traffic management schemes are currently being proposed for Cupar. There are proposals for a bypass not only in Cupar but in Auchtermuchty. The criteria for bypasses include traffic flow and composition, safety considerations, environmental factors, feasibility and the relationship to local and national developments. One of the features of the trunk road network review which we carried out last year was the recommendation that we should concentrate on the strategic routes in the first instance. A number of bypasses cannot therefore go ahead as quickly as some of us would wish.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As there is already a dual carriageway across the firth of Forth, does the Minister accept that there should be no need for a second Forth road bridge if the Government would only co-operate with local authorities and ScotRail to provide better commuter services for the communities on both sides of the firth of Forth? Does he accept the case for a passenger transport executive to serve not only the people of Fife but the people of Lothian region in my constituency?
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: We are putting forward a package of proposals for both Fife and the Lothian region. We believe that a second road crossing of the Forth is necessary because the number and length of major delays will escalate year after year out of all proportion to what is considered reasonable or satisfactory.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What about a proper train service?
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the key elements for a package is to provide more rail stops not only in Fife—
    Mr. Home Robertson: And trains.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree. That is one of the key factors that we shall consider. We are awaiting representations and a feasibility study from the regions concerned, and a package of measures from Lothian region which we shall consider sympathetically as part of the whole. It is not only the Al which is important for Scotland, but all the infrastructure prospects for the east of Scotland.

    Steel Workers (Retraining)
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of steel workers made redundant at Ravenscraig and now retraining under official schemes administered by the Lanarkshire Development Agency are retraining for skills in manufacturing.
    Mr. Stewart: About 1,000 steel workers made redundant at Ravenscraig are retraining under official schemes administered by the Lanarkshire development ar j 2–9gency. Many are training for a wide variety of skills and qualifications on about 120 courses, including several that could be applied in various contexts, including manufacturing. About 12 per cent. are retraining for skills specific to manufacturing.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister not worried that the proportion of experienced and skilled production workers training for manufacturing in the industrial heartland of Scotland is so appallingly low? Is he not aware that the same mistrust of the prospects for employment is shared by young people in Lanarkshire schools, who see no prospects for manufacturing under the Government? Do the Government intend to do nothing about that?
    Mr. Stewart: As I have said, many of the steel workers have chosen courses in management, quality assurance, and so on, which are clearly related to manufacturing although not specific to it. Manufacturing output in Scotland has risen in the past five years and, according to all the surveys, the prospects for exports, output and orders are highly positive. Ultimately, it is for individual former steel workers to choose the courses that they perceive to be in their best individual long-term interests.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister not worried that only 12 per cent. of people being trained in the industrial heartland of Scotland are being trained for manufacturing industry? Does he not recognise that part of the problem in Lanarkshire, and especially in Motherwell, was that we are entirely dependent on one or two industries, while recovery, not only in Lanarkshire but in Scotland as a whole, depends on training people for a range of manufacturing skills? Is the Minister not disappointed that 88 per cent. of the people being retrained in Scotland's industrial heartland are not being trained for industry or manufacturing?
    Mr. Stewart: As I explained to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), that figure is not correct. Many of the skills for which people are training could be used in manufacturing as well as in other sectors o f the economy. However, I entirely agree with the more general point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that in Lanarkshire, as elsewhere in Scotland, it is essential to have a more diversified economic structure for the future. That, indeed, is the essence of the strategy being pursued by the Lanarkshire development agency with, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the full co-operation of the local authorities and the private sector.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept thai the problems in Lanarkshire must be seen against the backdrop of a quarter of a million fewer jobs in manufacturing industry than the Government inherited and a quarter of a million Scots languishing on the dole? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that 10,000 young Scots under the age of 18, many of them in Lanarkshire, simply cannot find training places? What, precisely, are the Government prepared to do about the spectre of unemployment and lack of training which is so repugnant to the people of Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Stewart: Expenditure on training and related programmes under this Government is two and a half times—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear the figures. It is two and a half times what it was in real terms during the last year of the Labour Government. It is now £2·8 billion—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like to hear the figures, so I will just give them another one. The most recent CBI industrial trends survey for manufacturing firms in Scotland shows that firms themselves intend to increase expenditure on training and
    344
    retraining in Scotland and in manufacturing industry. I should have thought that even Labour Members would welcome that.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just jobs in manufacturing but manufacturing output which matters? Will he confirm that manufacturing output in Scotland fell under Labour whereas it has risen dramatically under this Government? In the days of Labour's industrial strategy, was not British Steel one of the world's largest loss makers, whereas now it is one of the most successful steel companies in the world? Labour Members opposed the closure of Ravenscraig and they could have gone into the last election committed to keeping it open, but they did not even have the guts to do that.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all the points that he has made. He is right, for example, about the increase in manufacturing in Scotland. There is a question from my hon. Friend on that specific subject later on the Order Paper. He is also right to point to the fact that manufacturing productivity in Scotland in the 1980s has increased by 5·2 per cent. per annum on average. That contrasts with 2 per cent. during the 1970s and 4·1 per cent. during the 1960s. The figure is higher than that of any of the major seven OECD economies. Those are very positive facts about the Scottish economy. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. He ought to be allowed to listen to the answer. I should like to make a little more progress. Has the Minister completed his answer?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am most obliged.

    University Funding
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for assuming responsibility for funding the eight Scottish universities formerly funded by the Universities Funding Council.
    Mr. Lang: I have established the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council which assumes responsibility on 1 April for payment of grants for teaching and research in Scottish higher education institutions.
    Dr. Godman: Although I do not expect the Secretary of State to agree with me, may I nevertheless point out to him that the study of Scottish history and of the Scottish trade union movement is as important academically as those applied subjects that much more readily earn revenue in industry and elsewhere? Where funding is concerned, may I ask him for an assurance that scholars and departments specialising in Scottish history and Scottish labour history will not be discriminated against compared with other departments and faculties, particulary those that are seen as revenue earners?
    Mr. Lang: As one who read history at university, I of course support the funding of history. The important thing is that one learns the lessons of history. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, while funding decisions of the kind that he describes are for the funding council

    345
    and not for me, the council has decided to increase the grant allocation for teaching and research to his own former university of Heriot Watt by 9·6 per cent.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the timing of his proposals for local government reform; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The Government have received a number of representations about the timing of our proposals for local government reform, offering a range of views.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the earliest possible date for the introduction of the popular single-tier authorities, which will be nearer to the people and better understood by the people and will get rid of the present confusion with the dual-purpose or two-tier authorities, can only be an advantage to, and will be welcomed by, the majority of people in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend I am sure that he is absolutely right. It is clear that our decision to go in favour of single-tier, all-purpose authorities is widely welcomed around Scotland.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State intend to set up a commission? During the previous period of local government reform, we had the Wheatley commission,
    and we had Bains Maude and Patterson Luke looking at
    management structure. Does the Secretary of State intend to follow a similar course, or will there be a ham and eggs solution for local government reform?
    Mr. Lang: No. The Wheatley commission had the task of reducing 426 local authorities of widely disparate and different types to a more rational organisation of 65 authorities. Our task is, therefore, much easier. For that reason, we see no need for a commission in Scotland, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales saw no need for a commission in Wales.
    Mr. Kynoch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my visit yesterday to the Under-Secretary of State, our hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), in the company of two representatives of Kincardine and Deeside district council, to present responses from 6,600 homes in Kincardine and Deeside, all of which support single-tier authorities and all of which support a single-tier authority based on the area of Kincardine and Deeside? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in rural areas it is more important to consider geographical area than population when considering the best and most cost-effective way to provide local services?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware of his visit and I congratulate him on the assiduous way in which he advances the interests of his constituents. I will take into account all the submissions that have come from that part of the country. My hon. Friend will also be aware that my hon. Friends and I have to take account of a broad range of issues that are applicable across the whole of Scotland in reaching our final decisions. We hope to do that towards the end of the summer. We shall then publish our results.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Secretary of State announce his plans to privatise Scottish water before or after he announces his plans to change Scottish local government? Does he concede that he will privatise against the overwhelming wishes of the Scottish people—including the business community, which wishes water services to remain as a local authority service? Does it not worry the right hon. Gentleman that the only person whom he has persuaded, albeit briefly, to accept the franchising of Scottish water is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have reached no view on the future of water and sewerage services. We have published a consultation paper, to which there have been many responses, and we are now analysing those responses carefully. The process is bound to take some time. We will bring forward our proposals in the summer and the House will then have an opportunity to consider them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my right hon. Friend listens carefully to the views of Opposition Members. Has he had a full submission from the Labour party and from other Opposition parties about how they wish local government to be set up? How many Opposition Members have written to my right hon. Friend asking for a particular form of local government in their area?
    Mr. Lang: That is a very shrewd question. We have heard a great deal about what Labour Members are against, but there has been a severe lack of positive and constructive suggestions from them—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—until it comes to their own areas, and self-interest then comes running through strong and fast.
    Mr. Hood: May I mention a little bit of self-interest? Are not the Government overcutting to fund the new local government reform? Some £14 million of road borrowing consent was cut in Strathclyde regional council, which means that the Stonehouse bypass will be cancelled once again and the Ayr road, which affects the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is also cancelled. That is what the Government are doing, and they should stop trying to kid us that they are not.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the question of self-interest. I know that he and the Clydesdale district have advanced a strong case for single-tier status for their area. On the question of cuts, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Funding for local government this year has been running at a level substantially higher than the current rate of inflation. The Ayr road will feature in the roads programme which is to be published very shortly.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State now willing to apologise to the House and to the Scottish people for the publication of the discredited and disgraceful document on cost prepared by Touche Ross? More important, is he willing to publish details of the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury asking him to cut £700 million from his budget over the next two to three years? Will he concede that proceeding with local government reform at this time would be an act of monumental stupidity as we face a financial crisis created by that lot on the Government Benches?
    Mr. Lang: If it is publication of correspondence that the hon. Gentleman is after, he has come to the wrong party. I am sorry about that. With regard to the cost of local government reform, the Touche Ross report was published with a very clear indication from the Government that further work might well be needed to refine the figures. In the light of further information, there are suggestions that the figures may not be quite so accurate as was originally indicated—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but the underlying trend is in no way changed by subsequent information. What is indicated by most submissions is that a small number of large authorities would not create such huge savings as was indicated, and that a large number of small authorities would not be so costly as was indicated. It is absolutely clear that the figures used by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)—additional costs said to range between £400 million and £600 million —are absolute rubbish.

    Village Schools
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further assistance he proposes to enable local authorities to maintain small village schools in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend already has regard to the needs of rural areas by taking sparsity of population and the percentage of pupils in small schools into account in distributing Government support for local authority spending. We are issuing guidelines for devolved school management today.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge the value of village schools in underpinning rural communities, notwithstanding the way in which consultation processes have been carried out by local authorities and notwithstanding their excuses in terms of educational need? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that rural education authorities are strapped for cash and cannot afford to keep some rural schools open? The Borders education authority is thinking of closing St. Abbs school and Heiton school in my constituency. Will the hon. Gentleman look very carefully at those proposals from the point of view of the Scottish Education Department? Will he come to the villages of St. Abbs and Heiton and talk to regional councillors, villagers and parents to assess for himself the damage that would be done by the closure of either school?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I realise that rural communities attach the greatest importance to their schools, but such areas are not immune from decline in school rolls and it is for local democracy and local authorities to determine provision of education in their areas. The Secretary of State is not entitled to intervene, except in a few cases in which the Secretary of State's consent is required by statute; for example, in the case of primary schools, such consent is required if a school to which it is proposed to transfer pupils is more than five miles from the school proposed for closure, or where a school is 80 per cent. full. I will be visiting schools in Scotland, and if the hon. Gentleman has particular proposals to make, perhaps he could let me know in due course. However, the Secretary of State has no plans at present to change the statutory arrangements.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In the case of my former primary school, I do not like the mathematical approach that the Scottish Office appears to adopt towards investment in primary education. There is a vast dividend in decency, manners and public responsibility to be derived from teaching in primary schools in rural areas. If we are to prevent crime, it would be very wise to spend much more in that area than is proposed by mathematics.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Expenditure per pupil has increased by more than half in real terms since 1978–79. Expenditure on educational building has increased from £61·3 million in 1988 to £82·8 million in 1992–93. However, we will bear the comments of my hon. and learned Friend very much in mind.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister recall that there are a large number of small village schools in my large rural constituency? Does he agree that there is much greater likelihood of those rural schools staying open if, under the reorganisation of local government, we have an all-Ayrshire authority as recommended by four out of five Ayrshire Members, by three out of four district councils, by Enterprise Ayrshire and by the vast majority of the people who wrote to the Secretary of State, as I did? And is the Minister aware that I would have made all those points if I had been called on the last question?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's bid, but that will, of course, be a matter for a future decision. With regard to rationalisation in Ayrshire, local circumstances and educational considerations will have to be a top priority so far as the regional council is concerned.

    Primary Schools
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Current expenditure per primary pupil in 1990–91 was 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. The latest figure is £1,508 per primary pupil.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say how those excellent figures square with claims of cuts in primary education in recent years?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, we have a very good record in that matter. Expenditure per pupil has increased enormously. It is particularly significant today, the day before Scots universities and further education colleges come under Scottish Office control, that Scots schools produce proportionally more young people who have obtained the normal entry qualification for higher education. The figure is 27 per cent. of school leavers in Scotland compared with 22 per cent. south of the border. That is a testimony to the effectiveness and strength of the Scottish education system.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Visiting primary schools in my constituency, I have found that the level of dedication among the teachers is second to none. However, I often hear complaints from teachers who say that the problems would be better resolved if school maintenance were

    349
    considered. Sometimes the facilities in which the pupils and teachers have to work leave a lot to be desired. I put that down to the fact that the local education authority has been starved of finance and I hope that central Government will put in more finance to help those dedicated teachers.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are today issuing guidelines for devolved school management to schools and authorities in Scotland. That can decidedly help in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Any scheme for devolved management should continue to make appropriate funding available to meet the needs, for example, of maintenance of such schools. Those authorities that have pioneered pilot schemes have proved that they are working well and have gained the confidence of the schools taking part.

    Nuisance Telephone Calls
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions for nuisance telephone calls have been taken out in the Elgin area in each of the past six months.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During the months of September, October and December 1992, and January and February 1993, there were no such prosecutions in Elgin sheriff court or Moray district court. In November 1992, however, there were two such prosecutions—one in Elgin sheriff court and the other in Moray district court.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I do not suppose that a nice young man like my hon. Friend has ever been pestered by unwanted telephone calls, even from double glazing salesmen. He will know, however, that that remarkable record has been achieved because British Telecom has piloted a new system of telephones in Elgin which display the number of the caller. Just by sprinkling 500 of those throughout the population, nuisance calls have been cut to almost nil because we can now pin the heavy breathers down. Will he join me in congratulating British Telecom on piloting that excellent scheme? We hope that, like many innovations that start in Scotland, it will be transferred to the British Isles generally so that we may all benefit from it.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is correct. The scheme in Elgin, which involved 500 customers, ends today and the results will now be assessed. Our first impressions are that it has been extremely well received and that similar schemes should be implemented elsewhere.
    Mr. Donohoe: Why is similar instrumentation 11legal in this country and cannot be connected to the British Telecom network?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I will look into it. As I said, it has been an extremely valuable scheme which should be taken forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) explained, the telephone number of the caller is flashed up, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. There are problems for those who are ex-directory for security and other reasons, but they can have their numbers excluded.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the change in the level of manufacturing output in Scotland over the last five years.
    Mr. Stewart: Manufacturing output in Scotland increased by more than 13·5 per cent. in the five years between 1986 and 1991.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging response. Is he aware that many people wishing to invest in manufacturing look to Scotland because of the area's fine history in manufacturing over the centuries and because of the work ethic and skills of the Scottish people? What steps are the Scottish Office taking to identify areas that are rich and ripe for import substitution—that is, to substitute goods that we import with goods that we can produce in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, especially as his knowledge of manufacturing industry is widely appreciated across the Floor of the House and outside. I refer him to the strategy document published by Scottish Enterprise, which refers to Scotland's outstanding record on exports, which reached their highest ever level in 1991, and points to areas with potential for import substitution. I can best answer my hon. Friend by saying that Scotland should develop as a niche economy, indentifying the best opportunities for a small economy operating competitively in European and world markets.
    Mr. Davidson: What is the Minister prepared to do to help maintain manufacturing in the west of Scotland? In particular, are the Government prepared to undertake any activity to help maintain Rolls-Royce employment levels in the area? What is the Scottish Office prepared to do to try to provide Kvaerner, Govan with the order for the new helicopter carrier about to be ordered by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that latter point, which is bound to be a competitive decision by the Ministry of Defence. In answering his earlier question about Rolls-Royce, I emphasise what the company has said—that it wishes to be, and is determined to be, competitive in a highly competitive world market and that it believes that both its plants, at Hillington and East Kilbride, have a continuing role in that endeavour. Of course, redundancies are always regrettable, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the general strategy of Rolls-Royce in ensuring that it remains competitive in world markets.

    A75 (Dual Carriageway)
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to provide a dual carriageway on the A75 between Stranraer and Gretna Green.
    Mr. Lang: At the present time, there are no proposals to provide a dual carriageway on the A75. The A75 was substantially upgraded during the 1980s and schemes planned for future years on this route will improve safety and overtaking opportunities further.
    Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how much the great improvements on that road over the years have been welcomed by people from Northern Ireland? Does he agree that due to the success of the Larne-Stranraer and Larne-Cairnryan routes, the increase in the volume of traffic has overwhelmed the speed of improvement on that important Euroroute? Does he recognise that a high-quality infrastructure of roads is necessary for development? Will he, therefore, make every effort to install as much dual carriageway as possible on that route in the near future? If money is available from Europe, when he is looking for it—as I hope he will—will he take with him his right hon. and learned Friend the
    352
    Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and treat the road through to Belfast as one Euroroute? That is the best way to approach the whole problem.
    Mr. Lang: I understand absolutely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As I am sure he will appreciate, he and I have a great affinity of interest in the matter. We have spent substantial sums on the route—about £85 million has been spent on the A75 since the Government came to office, and we have further plans for continuing work on the road. We are upgrading the A74 to motorway standard and we also have plans to spend more resources on the A76 and the A77. I share the hon. Gentleman's view about the importance of a good infrastructure, and it is something to which I am committed.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Scottish Office informed me by telephone today that the Secretary of State would be making a statement on the transfer of the Scottish prison service to an executive agency; that would be done in my constituency tomorrow at Polmont at the Scottish prison service college. The impression was that the statement and the framework document would be available to the House for discussion. It appears that once again the Secretary of State is using a planted question to provide the information. It is on the Order Paper but the answer will not be available until after today's sitting is finished. Is that not once again an abuse of the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Madam Speaker: On about three occasions in the last 10 parliamentary days I have made it clear to the House that it is for a Minister himself to decide how an announcement is made. Whether it is done at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written answer is up to the Minister. It has nothing to do with the Chair. I am sorry that I continually have to repeat myself on these matters. I regret that a point of order is used for that purpose.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 19 January, at column 261 of Hansard, you responded to a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), deploring the practice of civil servants putting in questions on behalf of Ministers. I have a letter, of which a copy has been made available, in which the private secretary to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment not only asks the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) to table a question but encloses the answer. The question was tabled subsequently by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). I should like your guidance on whether it is an abuse of the House when the Government and civil servants conspire to stitch up the business of the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in my earlier ruling, I deprecated the action referred to, on the sound grounds that the question itself had not been signed by the hon. Member. As I understand it, that is not so in this case. There is nothing wrong with a question being tabled for written answer, so long as the question has been tabled properly. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse this with the earlier incident; it is not the same. In the earlier instance, the question form was pre-signed. In this case, there is nothing wrong with it, so long as the question has been signed and tabled properly.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, which says:
"Following the practice agreed by the House in relation to other executive agencies, written questions about matters that fall within the Director-General's delegated responsibilities will normally be referred to him for reply."
That is about the question of the prison service, and the letter is an explanation of the new circumstances.
As Speaker, you are in charge of the procedure for allowing questions to be submitted and the provision of answers. I am concerned that there may have been a
354
practice, albeit a controversial one, in which questions have been allocated by Ministers to the directors-general of various executive agencies. Surely that was limited to those specific executive agencies which have to some degree been agreed by the House, albeit with great reluctance.
It now appears that the Home Office is simply allocating responsibilities to a new director-general for prison services without any consultation with the House, and presumably without any consultation with you, Madam Speaker. In that way, a serious erosion is taking place of the accountability by the House for Government administration, because, at the end of the day, the Government will still have responsibility for those executive agencies. The Minister is shifting responsibility to the executive agency by allowing questions to be answered in this way.
I ask you to examine the matter, because it is a creeping erosion of accountability and a serious removal of powers from hon. Members, especially those on the Back Benches.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a long point of order and has not, I regret, done me the courtesy of letting me see the letter. I have not seen the letter. If he sends it to my office, I shall look at it.
Mr. Cryer: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have made yourself clear, following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). The Secretary of State, who has not remained for further points of order, must be aware that it is entirely unacceptable for him to make major announcements on the Forestry Commission by way of a pointed question to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Monklands (Mr. Knox) yesterday and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) today.
With your normal sensitivities, Madam Speaker, you will know that the Scottish prison officers, among others, are concerned about Government policy and that the Government should simply leave a paper in the Vote Office at 3.30 and tell the House nothing whatever. That is an abuse of the House and of the Chair, and you have our support on that.
Madam Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is now moving into matters of policy, over which I have no authority. As he said, I have made myself clear on this issue not only today but on numerous occasions in the past two weeks.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will remember that two days after the previous Scottish questions, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised a point of order on a Friday morning complaining that one of our Ministers had challenged him on all sorts of funny goings on in Monklands council. Can you confirm that, following today's Scottish questions, he will not be able to do that, because he had every opportunity—
Madam Speaker: Order. I always knew that points of order were getting out of hand, but this is certainly going over the top.
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the reported

355
deaths and chaos on the humanitarian convoys out of Srebrenica? The mayhem which is apparent again today clearly demonstrates two urgent requirements: first, the United Nations must arrange a regular relief lifeline to not only Srebrenica but Gorazde and other enclaves—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter across the Floor of the House. He has rightly asked me a direct question. I must answer him: no, I have not been informed today that a Minister wishes to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on the matter.
Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been receiving letters from my constituents in which they complain about a letter which they have received as a result of a direct mail shot from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has sent thousands of letters to my constituents, in which he has asked them to write to him. I agree, of course, that they can write to Conservative central office, but I am concerned that they will be writing to the Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, where civil servants will be employed to respond to them. How can I raise the matter in the House, Madam Speaker? The letters are an abuse of my right to represent my constituency.
Madam Speaker: We shall soon begin a number of Adjournment debates. The hon. Member might try to raise the matter in one of those debates.

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

OPEN SKIES
That the draft Treaty on Open Skies (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 315) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND)
That the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 522) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service (Dental Services) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 523) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 524) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
That the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 568) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Education (Grant-maintained Schools) (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 843) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
That the National Health Service (Determination of Regions) Amendment Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 571) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service (District Health Authorities) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 572) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 574) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope].
Question agreed to.

Second Chamber (Reform)
3.40 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Second Chamber elected on the basis of selections from regional party lists of candidates in proportion to the votes cast for the House of Commons.
The Bill is designed to replace the other place with a democratically elected second Chamber by means of a regional list system of proportional representation.
We have grown comfortably accustomed to the ermine-edged quirks of the other place. They are all good chaps: indeed, mostly they are chaps. Whether out of deference to tradition or sheer apathy, there has been no will to reform the other place. Yet it is an anachronism. It is a rather fey survivor from the pre-democracy days; it is a constitutional dinosaur. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) wryly said:
"The House of Lords is the British Outer Mongolia for retired politicians."
I would go further and suggest that it is proof positive of life after death.
The House of Lords is unique, because no other parliamentary democracy has such an arrangement. No other parliamentary democracy rewards individuals with a seat at the centre of power on the basis of who their great-great-great-great-grandparents were. There are 759 such hereditary Peers, discreetly labelled Peers by Succession, of whom only 17 are women. For the past 35 years, 388 life peerages—only 60 of whom have been women—have been created. They owe their position to prime ministerial patronage rather than to democratic election. If we add 26 archbishops and bishops, 16 hereditary Peers of First Creation and 19 Life Peers under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, the numerical power of the other place is a staggering 1,208, which is almost double that of this place.
Not surprisingly, most Peers are Conservative. The latest figures show that 478 take the Tory Whip. There are 116 Labour Peers, 59 Liberal Peers and 272 Peers who are Cross-Benchers. Fewer than half of them bother to turn up. Although many are hard-working, the truly powerful are the backwoodsmen who sit idly at home on their huge estates, awaiting the clarion call of the Tory Whips to summon them to overturn the will of the working Peers. When crucial votes take place, like fungi in the dark, the number of Peers mushrooms to save the skin of successive Tory Governments.
This practice has not diminished with the creation of life peerages, as votes in the other place in the 1960s on what was the London Government Bill and on the sanctions order that applied to what was then Southern Rhodesia demonstrated. In addition, the decision of the other place to abolish the Greater London council bears testimony to that. The poll tax is another example. That constitutional monstrosity passed through Parliament with the help of the other place. It is perhaps appropriate that we are celebrating its abolition today.
What a shambles and an insult to the image of democratic government everywhere. Successive Tory Governments—the current one are no exception—have used the House of Lords in the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post—for support rather than 11lumination.
358
I would not be too fussed if individuals still claimed the title of Lord if they had been awarded or had inherited peerages. That title, however, should not entitle them to a vote at the centre of power. Total abolition is not the answer. There is a need for a second chamber to scrutinise legislation and, more and more importantly, to act as a constitutional check. That does not happen now. The last time the Lords made a fuss and used their power of delay was on the War Crimes Bill in May 1991. They threw it out by 207 votes to 74. The Government merely re-introduced the Bill, using their powers under the Parliament Act 1911.
Although they pay lip service to tradition, the Conservatives regard the Lords as irrelevant—not so much Mr. Balfour's poodle, more Mr. Major's mutt. So we need an elected second chamber. It should be similar to senates in other mature democracies. I think of Australia and America, for example. It should be a check and balance on the excesses of the Executive, but one which does not duplicate—or, more importantly, challenge—the responsibilities of the Commons. It could also draw on the experience of Germany's second chamber, the Bundesrat, which provides a direct regional input from the regional governments, the Landers.
The Lords should be replaced with a new second chamber, or senate, elected from party lists according to the size of the regional vote which each party polled at a general election. It would be simple. The same vote given to a parliamentary candidate locally would be allocated to that party in a regional pool. The percentage of that pool received by each party would determine each party's allocation of second chamber members from the relevant region.
Some may argue, "If this is such a good idea, why not advocate it for the House of Commons, too?" The answer is simple. The objection to the list principle for the House of Commons is that it would break irrevocably the link between the Member of Parliament and his or her local constituency, so undermining democratic accountability. That valid objection does not apply to members of the second Chamber, because they do not have any constituency duties or local representative responsibilities.
I believe that such a list system would not only give a voice to the regions of Britain, but allow action to secure fair representation for women and ethnic minorities. For example, each party could select its regional lists for the second chamber by democratic vote of either regional memberships or regional conferences. It could build in quotas, thus satisfying legitimate claims for equal representation within the party in a way that cannot be enforced, while retaining the local autonomy which is such an important tradition for the selection of Members of Parliament.
The result would be to meet in full aspirations for proportional representation in at least one half of Parliament. A new second chamber could also genuinely claim legitimacy as a constitutional check because it would represent literally all sections of political opinion. By such an approach, we could retain the advantages of single-member seats in the House of Commons—with or without electoral reform here—and the prospect of being able to form a single-party Government, together with a reform of the second Chamber which satisfied the demand for fairer representation.
A reformed second Chamber could have about 400 votes. On the basis of the distribution of votes in the last general election, there would be about 170 Conservatives,

359
140 Labour, 70 Liberals and 20 others. In Wales, for example, Labour would have 12 seats, the Tories would have six, the Liberals would have three and Plaid Cymru would have two.
Radical reform is vital because, despite this being the mother of Parliaments, British democracy is completely discredited. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it is. Unelected peers reflect an elitist state, which is one of the most unaccountable and secretive in the democratic world. It wields power by a combination of the royal prerogative, massive patronage and centralisation, with only a nod towards democracy.
One thing is certain: the demand for democratic reform will not go away. The question for the House is not whether the Lords will be reformed and replaced, but when. The House should cease acting like Canute holding back the tide of history, and replace its ossified appendage by supporting the Bill.
3.48 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: What a load of drivel, Madam Speaker. There were three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's speech and nothing right with it. First, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wants to enhance the power and prestige of the Liberal party—a political party which in Britain gives more commitment and importance to Brussels, Europe and European institutions than to the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce proportional representation by the list system. That is even after the debates that we have had in the past few days about the Maastricht treaty—the most important thing to happen to Britain for more than 25 years. A few of us, with the backing of our associations and the confidence to say and do what we believe is right for Britain, are able to represent the people of our constituencies and the country in this House because there is not a list system. If there were, would we not all be creatures of the party bureaucracy, the party hierarchy, central office and Walworth road? Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He wants to do away with, destroy or do something rotten with the other place. The House of Lords is a very interesting institution—it allows a second bite at the cherry; it allows us a longer period for scrutiny of legislation; it allows us to look at things in better ways.
The House of Lords is constituted in a way that many hon. Members would not support. It is difficult to support the constitution of the House of Lords, but certainly a House of Lords there should be—and I shall explain why. There is one reason above all others. We are faced with the degradation, the dispersal and the finalisation of the United Kingdom as we are sucked into a European federation. We have been told that the matter has been put before the people of this country. When was it put before them? Was it at the last general election, when the Front Benches were vying with each other in their Euro-fanaticism? Is that when the British people had the opportunity to debate and discuss the issue?
Yes, we can debate and discuss the matter here. We have tabled an amendment that would provide the British people with the opportunity to take a view and to vote on this monstrosity. But what about the Whips and the Labour Front Bench? We know what will happen. There
360
is only one hope for us, and it is that the House of Lords will give us the referendum that this House will deny us. God save the House of Lords. I hope that it has the guts to do its popular and constitutional duty.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can hear only one voice in opposition.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 77.

Division No. 225]

[3.51 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Alton, David

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Ashton, Joe

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Barnes, Harry

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Kirkwood, Archy

Boyes, Roland

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Bradley, Keith

Llwyd, Elfyn

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Macdonald, Calum

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

McKelvey, William

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Maclennan, Robert

Cann, Jamie

McMaster, Gordon

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Marek, Dr John

Clapham, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Martlew, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Connarty, Michael

Miller, Andrew

Corbett, Robin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cox, Tom

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Pickthall, Colin

Denham, John

Pope, Greg

Dixon, Don

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Radice, Giles

Dowd, Jim

Raynsford, Nick

Eagle, Ms Angela

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Etherington, Bill

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Fisher, Mark

Soley, Clive

Flynn, Paul

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Steinberg, Gerry

Fyfe, Maria

Stevenson, George

Galloway, George

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Garrett, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Graham, Thomas

Tyler, Paul

Gunnell, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Hain, Peter

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Mike Watson and

Harvey, Nick

Mr. John McAllion.

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cummings, John

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Alexander, Richard

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

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Ancram, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beggs, Roy

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fry, Peter

Boyce, Jimmy

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butler, Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hendry, Charles

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Congdon, David

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cryer, Bob

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

361

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shersby, Michael

Khabra, Piara S.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Skinner, Dennis

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spink, Dr Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Sproat, Iain

Madden, Max

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Mahon, Alice

Waller, Gary

Meale, Alan

Wareing, Robert N

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Watts, John

Moate, Sir Roger

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Whittingdale, John

Mullin, Chris

Winnick, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Nicholls, Patrick

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tellers for the Noes:

Page, Richard

Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

Pawsey, James

Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Roger Berry, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. John Denham, Mr. Paul Flynn, Dr. Kim Howells, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Ms Clare Short and Mr. Mike Watson.

SECOND CHAMBER (REFORM)
Mr. Peter Hain accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the abolition of the House of Lords and its replacement by a Second Chamber elected on the basis of selections from regional party lists of candidates in proportion to the votes cast for the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Legal Aid
[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee on Legal Aid: The Lord Chancellor's Proposals, House of Commons Paper No. 517 of Session 1992–93, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee on 23rd March, together with Memoranda, to be published in House of Commons Paper No. 574 of Session 1992–93.]
4.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move:
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amemdment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11 th March, be approved.
That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 565), dated 9th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 788), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 789), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 790), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
We are considering a number of regulations on legal aid —five sets subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and relating to Scotland, and four sets relating to England and Wales, which are subject to the negative resolution procedure and which have been prayed against by the Opposition. I am glad to be able to put the Government's case in support of these resolutions.
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 and indeed that our system of legal aid in Great Britain is undoubtedly one of the most generous in the world and the envy of many other countries, including several of our European neighbours.
Over the years, successive Governments have sought to ensure that the system of legal aid represents a level playing field as between Scotland and England and Wales. That, of course, means that there have always been significant differences between the detailed systems in the two countries, since their legal systems are very different. The changes we are bringing forward in the regulations

363
seek to continue to implement that principle. They are not identical as between England and Wales and Scotland, but they represent the realisation of a broad common policy. I therefore propose to deal first with the position in Scotland before going on to describe the proposed regulations for England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department, will deal with the English position in more detail on winding up.
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have hardly started, but I shall give way.
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. Does not he recognise that it is monstrous to conflate two debates about two wholly different legal systems and to spend less than three hours debating the entirely different circumstances of Scotland and England and Wales? This is the first step that has been taken since the Government's published papers on constitutional reform, which shows how little has changed under the Conservative party.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The broad principles are the same throughout Britain and, as a United Kingdom Parliament, we are entitled to consider these issues. The basic problem is that the figures have escalated out of all proportion.
On 19 April 1989, I revealed that £54 million was spent on legal aid in Scotland in 1988. With his characteristic directness, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Da!yell) said that that was
"a hell of a lot of money".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] The hon. Member for Linlithgow said that. Of course, it is far more today. In 1991–92, the figure was £86 million and it is about to be £104 million in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will appreciate this point. Nye Bevan said that the language of priorities is the religion of socialism. With greatly increasing expenditure on one service, what is at stake is whether that service should have higher priority than health, education, social work, housing and other essential services. The figures had escalated so much in all parts of Britain that something had to be done. That has been accepted.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Under-Secretary tell us by what standard one measures the proportionality? Is he saying that people have become greedy for legal aid, or does he accept that there is more reason for people to seek legal aid nowadays?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I am not saying either of those things. I shall give the hon. and learned Gentleman the figures. He will be interested to know that the cost in England and Wales was less than £100 million in 1979, but that, for the year ending today, the figure will be £1,100 million. If expenditure continues to rise, the figure will be nearly £2,000 million by the mid–1990s, so there is a need to contain the large and rapid growth in expenditure. However, I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that, under the Government plans, there is no question of legal aid being cut.
364
I confirm that expenditure in England and Wales will rise by 10 per cent. in each of the next three years, to a total of £1,528 million for 1995–96. Over the same period, we expect the number of acts of assistance in grants of legal aid on advice and assistance to rise from just over 3 million in the current year to about 4 million—an increase of almost 30 per cent.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop my argument? Legal aid—
Sir John Wheeler: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Sir John Wheeler: The figures that my hon. Friend has just given the House are astonishing. With public sector borrowing at £50 billion a year, it is not tolerable to consider the level of expenditure in the way that he has described. Will he assure the House that there will be a proper system of accountability covering the projected increases to which he alluded, to ensure that the taxpayers' money is properly and fairly used?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If one takes all the circumstances into account, and in view of the rises in expenditure that will take place, the approach adopted by the Lord Chancellor is certainly not ungenerous.
Legal aid, of course, involved the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayers' funds. Over the past few years, and especially over the past year or so, legal aid expenditure in Scotland rose 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 31 March 1988. It rose to £83 million in 1992 and will reach £104 million in the financial year that ends today.
The first two Scots sets of regulations before the House represent a major element in the response to that rise in expenditure.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop this point?
The Government have a general responsibility to ensure the best use of taxpayers' funds and to set spending priorities accordingly. It is in that context that we have had to consider carefully, as any responsible Government would have to, the recent rises in expenditure on legal aid.
I shall now describe the provisions contained in each of the sets of regulations in a little more detail.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there a relationship between unemployment and the sums in the legal aid budget to which the Minister has referred?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is especially relevant that the most vulnerable should be assisted. I accept that principle, and people on income support levels of income will certainly continue to receive free civil legal aid, advice

365
and assistance. Eligibility will continue to be based on an individual's disposable income—that is, his gross income less various allowances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the decision to retain a band of contributory advice and assistance to ensure that all people on modest incomes will continue to have access to legal aid in Scotland.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop what I have to say about some of the regulations first? The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will be able to comment in a moment. I am well aware that he has served on the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and has considerable experience in the matter; I shall give way to him in due course.
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 12 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—it is higher in personal injury cases, at £7,500—and the maximum contribution that 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 describe 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.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister is explaining the regulations in the context of an argument about priorities. What greater priority is there than that a person should have access to the courts of this country, irrespective of his or her means? Is the Minister not aware that, before a person is admitted to legal aid, he must establish probable cause and that it is in the interests of justice that legal aid be awarded to him? If the Minister is concerned about those on income support, does he not realise that these proposals will bite most strongly for those who fall just outside the very limits that he has described? It is these people to whom access to the courts will be denied.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member could perfectly well advance that argument to those who fall just outside the limits now. Wherever you have a cut-off point, there will be resentment among those who fall just outside it. In relation to Scotland, as the Secretary of State made clear a few minutes ago, only 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of those receiving civil legal aid and advice and assistance now will have no entitlement in future. That affects only some 7,500 people.
Mr. John McFall: One hundred thousand.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is our best estimate. It is certainly not 100,000, which is a ludicrous exaggeration.
Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend think it relevant in this context that while the cost of legal aid has doubled since 1988–89 in England, by no means have the clients seeking legal aid doubled? The figure is very much smaller than the doubling which we have experienced.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We anticipate that the rise will be from over 3 million in the current year to about 4 million. What has come through is that more and more people are applying for legal aid and for their entitlement, and that the figures of those receiving legal aid will increase by the mid–1990s.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us in the House who are not legally qualified have noticed in the past couple of years a growing number of constituents who come to us seeking legal advice because the legal profession has, for certain reasons, including difficulties with legal aid, been unable to assist them? Is he therefore aware that some of us are concerned that this tendency will increase as a result of these measures, and that a number of people, particularly those seeking redress over personal injury, may be unable to seek justice under these arrangements? What proposals has he for reviewing the consequences of the motions that he is asking us to vote on tonight?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said earlier that the upper limit for somebody who has suffered personal injury is £7,500, which is higher. The effect on eligibility is, as I said, in the region of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. It may be that my hon. Friend will be seeing a few more constituents. I am sure that, with his ability, he will be able to give them the same assistance that he has given to all his other constituents.
First, 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 according to the circumstances of each individual applicant. An applicant with a disposable income towards the upper end of the scale giving rise to eligibility could well have a gross income of about £15,000 or even more. The levels of eligibility, therefore, continue to represent generous provision. We estimate that 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of households in Scotland will remain eligible for legal aid under the new proposals.
Secondly, the contributions that 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 is certainly not the case. As at present, no legally aided person will be required to pay more than the 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.

367
Thirdly, our approach has not been to remove significant numbers of people from eligibility for legal aid altogether. We calculate that of the almost 300,000 people in Scotland who have received grants of civil legal aid and/or advice and assistance in 1992–93, only 7,500–2 per cent. to 3 per cent.—would not be eligible under the current proposals.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I know that my hon. and learned Friend has strong views, so I shall give way to him in a second.
The effect of the proposals is that some people who previously made no contribution towards the costs of their case will have to make a contribution, generally a very small one, and that the level of contribution of those who already contribute will rise. That is a fair and even-handed approach.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am most obliged to my hon. and yet to be learned Friend, who has frequently been my junior and who knows my views. There has always been a terrible gap in legal aid by which people were deprived of the ability to go to law. The proposals increase that gap. My main complaint is as follows. We have a Scottish Lord Chancellor who is the principal Law Officer in England. Why should we take the view that we must imitate his idocies in England when the cost of legal aid in Scotland has not increased, but decreased? If one divides the money that is being spent by the number of people seeking redress, one finds that the figure has gone infinitely down. Can my hon. Friend answer my question?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can, indeed. I have been junior counsel to my hon. and learned Friend and to the Lord Chancellor, as has the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). My hon. and learned Friend has also worked under the Lord Chancellor. I believe that his judgment in this matter is sound. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in Scotland since 1987–88 and even under the Government's proposals it is forecast to rise to 40 per cent. above the original planned figures for 1992–93 by the mid-1990s. The number of people helped has been rising, and will continue to rise to an estimated total of 425,000 or more in 1995–96.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Has the Minister made these proposals in conjunction with other Government proposals that involve the trade unions? As the Minister knows, the trade unions have an excellent reputation for taking up, for example, industrial injury cases. At the same time that the Government are introducing these proposals, they are requiring the trade unions to spend more on compulsory ballots because they propose to reduce the amount available for the ballots—which they are imposing.
Inevitably, this means that trade unions, which have been excellent self-help organisations, will not be able to spend so much money on legal representation of their members—a field in which they have an unquestionably excellent record. Thus, trade union members, as well as benefiting less from legal aid, will receive less assistance from their organisations. They will be caught on a fork of deprivation when it comes to obtaining justice in civil injury cases.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who has just come into the Chamber, will have heard his remarks. My understanding is that trade unions were against accepting funds when they were offered. Perhaps these matters can be followed up with the Department of Employment, as they relate primarily to employment.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their proposals generally. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is always right to disallow the capital value of a principal residence in calculating entitlement to legal aid? In my constituency, there is a widower who has a very low income but owns a house worth £300,000. That person, having obtained legal aid on the basis of low income, was able to harass a neighbour without mercy. As the neighbour—an engineer with a wife and three children to support—was in receipt of the income of a young professional man, he was unable to obtain legal aid for a dispute about a tree on the border between the sites. That is not a level playing field. Surely it is not right that such things should be allowed to happen.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to examine the circumstances of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I hope that it will be possible, in the winding-up speech, to provide a full response.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have given way to many Scotsmen, and I am always glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I should like to make a little progress first.
The remaining three sets of regulations give effect to the commitment given 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 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 that 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) Act. I hope that that support will continue in respect of the regulations that are before us today.
Before turning to the four sets of regulations relating to England and Wales, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
Mr. Graham: I have worked with many people who, because of the level of the income, were prevented from going to law. In this regard, I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). At the moment, I am dealing with a case involving folk in this situation. Many organisations in Scotland are saying clearly that the

369
Minister is wildly wrong and that if these proposals are accepted there will be great injustice and unfairness in Scotland.
The Minister has given a figure of 7,500 people. In my view, that is a doubtful number. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, if it proves to be wrong, he will instantly take steps to review the legislation? Scottish people who cannot afford legal representation should be provided with it. Let the Minister give us an assurance that everybody in Scotland will be entitled to representation in the courts.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I stand strongly by the figures that I have already given to the House. If the hon. Gentleman will let me know about the circumstances of the case in his constituency, I will ensure that it is examined very carefully.
The Civil Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 relating to England and Wales set the lower limit of disposable income, below which legal aid is available without a contribution, at the annual equivalent of the income support personal allowance for a single person aged 25 and over. In 1993–94, that will be £2,293.
The regulations also align allowances for dependants which are made in calculating disposal income for legal aid purposes with income support allowances. They increase the fraction of disposable income payable by way of contribution from one quarter of disposal income in excess of free limit to one third and provide that contributions continue for the life of the case—that is, for as long as the legal aid certificate is in force. They amend the regulations covering assessments and further assessments of means so that they are consistent with the new financial conditions; and, finally, they adjust the table of additional capital disregards for pensioners in line with the new financial limits.
The Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 provide that an area director of the Legal Aid Board may waive payment of contribution where it appears that the costs of the proceedings will not be more than contributions which have been paid. The regulations also amend the payment-on-account scheme to align the periods after which payments may be made to barristers with those applicable to solicitors.
The Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 make the same changes in respect—
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to barristers. There are no barristers in Scotland: they are called advocates.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that matters of substance and correctness or otherwise are not matters for the Chair.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have always said that my hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but not always necessarily correct. I am referring to England, where the term "barristers" is normally used.
The Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 align the free limit with the single adult income support rate, that is £44
370
a week. They also align dependants' allowances with income support allowances, raise the fraction of disposable income payable as contribution from one quarter to one third and provide for contributions to be paid for so long as the legal aid is in force.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 set the qualifying limit of disposable income for advice and assistance at £61 for 1993–94. They provide that assistance by way of representation shall be available to applicants with disposable incomes of between £61 and £147 a week, and that applicants with income between those two limits shall pay contributions for the life of the case of one third of the difference between actual disposable income and the lower limit of £61.
It may assist the House if I say a word about the differences between our proposals for Scotland and for England and Wales. In both cases, the changes are designed to address the very considerable increase in the cost of legal aid on both sides of the border. Where there are differences, they reflect differences in the legal systems and in legal aid practice.
In Scotland, we announced on 17 February that we had decided to retain a band of contributory advice and assistance for people whose weekly disposable income lies between £61 and £147. That reflects the greater reliance placed on the advice and assistance scheme in Scotland. On the civil side, many applicants who require to establish the probable cause in law of their proposed action are helped through the advice and assistance scheme, whereas in England limited grants of full civil legal aid are available for that purpose.
On the criminal side, defendants in Scotland who plead guilty are eligible for assistance by way of representation which is part of the advice and assistance scheme, whereas in England that is dealt with through full criminal legal aid. On the question of eligibility for criminal legal aid, the English arrangements for the assessment of income of applicants are broadly similar to those which apply to civil legal aid.
Mr. Gary Waller: Will the Minister accept that, just as in Scotland, there are great concerns among many people lest we are again hitting people who are just outside the income support level? As in many other areas of life, if one qualifies for income support, one will probably be all right, whereas, if one is just a little outside, one will probably be in trouble or will have much greater difficulty in getting access to justice.
As my hon. Friend said, the amounts involved have escalated. Even so, will he look again at the propositions that have been put forward by the Bar Council and the Law Society to save money, to see whether in future they might provide a better way forward than today's proposals?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whatever benefit or legal aid system we have, there will be huge objections, wherever the cut-off point is set, from those who are just omitted. That has always been, and always will be, the case. The system will be reviewed in due course, but I cannot hold out any hope in respect of the Law Society's recommendations. In relation to the Law Society of Scotland, I do not understand the basis of its figures. Under the new system, the maximum contribution for

371
ordinary cases will be £1,502. I do not understand where the Law Society can possibly have got the idea that contributions could be higher than that.
In England, the new regulations will provide for contributions to civil legal aid to continue for the life of the case, rather than being restricted to a contribution based on one year's income, as in Scotland. The equivalent change in Scotland would require amendment to primary legislation. We shall consider in due course whether any further action should be taken on that in the light of experience of the changes in England.
Working within the priorities set for public expenditure, we have set out our aims for legal aid for significant growth and we have targeted the available funds to where we believe they are most needed. We have a legal aid system of which we can rightly be extremely proud. I commend the regulations to the House.
4.37 pm
Mr. John McFall: I begin by answering the question, which the Minister failed to address, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I refer to the proceedings of last week's Scottish Select Committee on legal aid eligibility changes, in the report of which Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Minister of State, is reported as saying:
"In a recession and when there is greater unemployment, one would expect more people to be eligible for legal aid, and certainly more financial disputes and difficulties at home."
That answers the question eloquently.
In the previous legal aid debate I referred to the last Conservative manifesto, which contained the statement:
"We are committed to enabling people of limited means to have access to justice."
It is clear in the light of the regulations for England and Wales that that manifesto as a guide to what is likely to happen is somewhat less reliable than Old Moore's Almanac. What happened in April 1992 no longer applies because the recession is longer and deeper.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an increase of 10 per cent. Over the next three years is insufficient? If so, will he say what increase the Labour party would recommend?
Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman should accept that the Conservative manifesto, written in haste in April. was mendacious: it has no validity now. It is clear that people will be taken out of legal aid as a result of the regulations. If they are unamended, that manifesto statement, in its perfidiousness, will rank alongside the Prime Minister's outburst last March when he said that he had no plans to extend the scope of VAT. Just the poor and those on moderate incomes will be left to shiver in the cold in the coming winters, so potentially up to 14 million people in the United Kingdom will be left out of access to the courts. The core issue is eligibility of the public to gain access to the law. Justice is not optional in a society based on the rule of law.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: It is sometimes suggested that civil legal aid has gone up. It has not gone up in Scotland in real terms; it has gone down. We will leave aside criminal legal aid because that may raise another argument. Perhaps I should declare an interest in both. The amount of money cannot be limited because it is impossible to know how many people will fall over a paving stone, or will hit their heads, or will be hit on the
372
head, or what will happen. Therefore, we cannot say that legal aid will go up or down, and we cannot limit it; we cannot say that we are going to brush one tooth.
Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. and learned Member. I refer to his statement last week in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. At paragraph 97 he said:
"You cannot say to people that it is fair you will just give them one loaf of bread and if 3 million people want to eat they only get a crumb each and if 2 million people want to eat they get a crust. That seems to me the attitude to the matter. I do not understand that legal aid is other than a public service which must be given to those who ask for it and require it."
That was said eloquently, and my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with it.
Mr. Phil Gallie rose—
Mr. McFall: I shall refer to the hon. Gentleman later; perhaps I will let him intervene then.
The genesis of the regulations, as in England and Wales, lies in the autumn statement. To satisfy the Treasury, at the Law Society national conference in Birmingham in October, the Lord Chancellor said:
"The overall cost of legal aid must be made more affordable. It must be better targeted towards those areas of work where it provides the most cost-effective service."
The buzz word "targeting" is the Government's way of saying there will be cuts. And sure enough, four days after the Lord Chancellor announced his cuts in the other place, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in a written answer on 16 November, told the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that he would reduce the free income limit for eligibility from £3,060 per annum to the equivalent income support level of £2,213 per annum. In doing so, he admitted that it was in line with the proposals for England and Wales announced recently by the Lord Chancellor.
However, the system in Scotland is entirely different from the system in England. Scots law has Roman law roots, a distinct jurisprudence, its own statute and case law, a separate court system and a separate system for administering legal aid.
The Government have done no consultation and no research. No one outside Whitehall and St. Andrew's house knew until November what was happening. Indeed, the president of the Law Society, in his appearance before the Scottish Affairs Select Committee last week, made that very point. It all goes back to the autumn statement, when it was said that the recession was longer and deeper than expected.
I shall concentrate on Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will deal with England and Wales. The Government's attack on legal aid in Scotland has been disproportionate from the beginning. Criminal legal aid takes 70 per cent. of the budget in Scotland. Yet that is not being touched, and the Government have undertaken no investigation so far into that. I am aware that the president and vice-president of the Law Society have been invited to meet Ministers next week at St. Andrew's house on this subject. But that is a case of bolting the stable door after the horses have gone. As I said, 70 per cent. of budget is not being touched. Since then, the Minister has done a U-turn in restoring advice and assistance in Scotland. I submit that the Government were humiliated into that by public and political opposition in Scotland.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Department is carrying out a review of criminal legal aid in Scotland?
Mr. McFall: I stated that the Department is undertaking a review, but it is far too late. The regulations will come into effect tomorrow and up to 250,000 people may be affected. If the Minister is sincere about the investigation, he should have a moratorium on the cuts.
Civil legal aid will have to bear the brunt of the cuts. Why? The Government tell us that 4,000 more people have applied for civil aid until March of this year and that they must therefore save £2 million to £3 million. Lord Fraser said that. Is that justified, and what will the consequences be? In his written reply to the hon. Member for Ayr, the Minister said that the legal aid budget had doubled. Let us make it clear that civil legal aid has not doubled. If we take the figures for the past five years, we find that civil legal aid has fluctuated from a baseline of approximately £15·5 million, with a variance of approximately £1 million. Over that five-year period it has increased by less than £900,000 and has decreased in real terms by 20 per cent. There is no justification, therefore, for cutting back.
I asked the House of Commons Library to get me the statistics for the past 10 years. In five of those years, civil payments exceeded the forecast for this year and the cost per case exceeded the £873 projected for each case this year. The proposed figure for this year is therefore an aberration, for various reasons which were adequately explained by the Law Society in its submission to the Select Committee last week.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned criminal legal aid. As I would expect of a man of perspicacity, he has clearly read the proceedings of the Select Committee. I made a number of suggestions as to how the criminal system could be altered to save vast amounts of money. I have made those suggestions frequently. I trust that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will join us in doing that because there is a massive waste of money, time and resources.
Mr. McFall: I agree with the hon. and learned Member. From memory, I think that he told Lord Fraser that many defence lawyers asked clients to plead not guilty, and that that was one area where improvements could be made. The noble Lord decided not to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman down that path. Let us hope that he decides to do so and that we get the savings that the hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is making a most perceptive contribution to a debate on home affairs in Scotland. Does he agree that the cost of legal aid must be related directly to the cost of litigation? If we had a full-scale, wide-ranging review of the civil legal system in Scotland to reduce the costs of litigation, we would immediately bring about circumstances in which we could reduce the cost of legal aid as well.
Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As I said earlier, no mention was made of the situation prior to November so there could be no contributions or advice given to the Scottish Office. There was no justification for that.
It is tempting to see legal aid as a lawyer's issue. As a non-lawyer, that does not concern me. Undoubtedly, there are fat-cat lawyers who make some money, not on legal aid
374
but maybe elsewhere. Certainly, lawyers do not suffer from collective shyness, so they can make their own case on that. I am here to talk on behalf of people other than lawyers.
Mr. Barry Porter: I must declare an interest. Some years ago, I made a modest—indeed, humble—living as a solicitor, part of which came from the legal aid fund. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Perhaps he would care to address this point: some members of the profession, either solicitors or barristers, have milked the system. I shall give an example. In the past, a simple shoplifting case was dealt with by taking instructions from a client and doing the trial, which would be two hearings at the most. One now gets one, two, three or four hearings or remands, and then perhaps one goes to the Crown court. That is the reality. Some lawyers take advantage of the system and have brought this on themselves.
Mr. McFall: I agree that some lawyers take advantage. It is for Parliament to ensure that that system does not prevail in the future.
Why am I arguing at the Dispatch Box? I am here to argue on behalf of the potentially 250,000 Scots who will be affected by the Government's proposals. Who are they? Some would be tempted to say that they are not the very poor, but those who are slightly above the income support level or on moderate incomes.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Ayr has left the Chamber. Perhaps he does not care what he says today, but I care about what he said last week and yesterday. Last week at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the hon. Gentleman said rather adequately, but perhaps mistakenly from his viewpoint:
"I suggest that at present there are many, many people who just cannot afford civil legal aid—people on what you would describe as moderate means and reasonably well off, as seen by some in the community, but people who just cannot afford to go to law on civil matters."
We are here to argue on behalf of those people today. Who are they? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) says women, and I agree.
Last year, 23,000 people in Scotland received legal aid. Almost 19,000 were family law cases. The proposed changes will hit women and children the hardest. Those affected will include victims of domestic violence, the child caught between angry parents, the person trapped in an abusive relationship, the childless couple who want to adopt and the child abused by an estranged parent. Those people will be involved. Such cases are often emergencies which need immediate court action. Almost all such cases are started by women who have part-time or low-paid employment. The employment statistics published yesterday graphically describe that 22 per cent. of the population work part time and many more than 22 per cent. are low paid.
The Government talk about eligibility and affordability. I would contend that they are two different things. Anyone can book into the Savoy but not everyone can pay for it. That is the difference between eligibility and affordability. The poor and the needy are not the same: the need is greatest for those on moderate incomes and the consequences for them are greater.
Would it not be ironic that if the cuts go through it will be easier for a man to get criminal legal aid to defend a charge of wife or child assault than for a woman to get civil

375
legal aid to secure the safety of herself and her children in her home? That is iniquitous, but it is the situation that we shall have.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I expect that my hon. Friend has read the report on domestic violence of the Select Committee on Home Affairs which, with a Conservative majority, said:
"In the case of domestic violence, we have no doubt that the new restriction on legal aid will mean that the remedies of the civil courts will effectively be removed for a very large number of victims."
It is a disgrace that when I questioned the Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter on 3 March I was told that the changes would have no effect on the eligibility of that category.
Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes my point. Where will women in such situations go? They will go to the local authority for housing. Local authorities already face sharp rises in applications for housing under homelessness legislation. They are already under pressure and stretched. With the increased demand, they are likely to raise the level of proof required by women and others to establish homelessness. Some local authorities insist that women start court proceedings to put the husband out of the home and want affidavits and proof from solicitors.
Where do women go at present? Do they go to the Women's Aid Federation? In Glasgow in 1992, 1,000 women were turned away from the federation. In Scotland in 1992, 22,000 people went to the federation for assistance. The Women's Aid Federation freely admits that it could not adequately cope with that situation. What are the Government doing about it? They are condemning women and children to stay in violent relationships. It would not be over-dramatising to say that someone somewhere may be killed under such pressure—it could be a woman attacking her husband or a husband attacking his wife—because the Government have decided to sit on their hands and have people sitting in their homes with nowhere to go. What will be the effect on children? The growth of children will be stunted. What will be the effect of that situation on children's personalities? The Government have no answer.
Many bodies in Scotland have submitted their views to the Government and they all went unheeded. The Scottish Association for Mental Health contacted me yesterday —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) says that he is not surprised. Is that sympathetic or what we consider pejorative? Is that contempt for the Scottish Association for Mental Health? If it is, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. It was a despicable comment.
The Scottish Association for Mental Health contacted me because it wished its clients and the people involved to be catered for. I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. The association is concerned about the group of people who receive invalidity benefits and who could be badly affected by the changes—people who are unable to work because of mental health problems who could be entitled to invalidity benefit if they have paid the appropriate contributions.
The invalidity benefit ranges from £55·15 for a person over 60 to £65·70 for someone under 40 Under the present rules, older people are exempt from making any contribution for legal costs if their income is below the qualifying limit of £3,060 per annum. However, younger
376
people who receive the higher level of benefit would have to make a contribution of £89. Under the proposed changes, older people will earn more than the annual qualifying limit of £2,293 per annum and will have to pay £200 towards the cost of a mental health hearing while younger people on invalidity benefit will have to pay £300·85. To people on such an income level, that figure is unthinkable. I must condemn Lord Fraser when he said that £300·85 is a small contribution. In our experience, £300 represents a large, if not impossible, contribution for a person earning slightly more than £65 a week. The stress of having to pay such an amount can be enormous for some people.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McFall: I think that I have given way enough to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
People resort to the courts in extreme circumstances, often when there is no other means of salvaging the wreckage of their lives. They go to the courts when they are treated unfairly and they expect society to help in redressing the balance. In short, they go to seek justice. That is recognised in a letter which I received this week from the Episcopalian Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. He said that we as Christians have a special duty to be a voice for those who are the least noticed in society. We are concerned about the danger that is posed to the civil rights of disabled and disadvantaged groups, who under these cuts will no longer be eligible for legal aid in civil actions. I suggest that Conservative Members read the reports of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Scottish Affairs dealing with legal aid. They underline the point made by the bishop.
In short, people are looking for justice. Throughout the ages, every citizen of a civilised society has had the fundamental right to expect help from civil authorities to achieve justice. By their proposals, the Government are excluding a section of society from one of the basic rights of citizenship.
I began by referring to the autumn statement, and I shall finish with the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman is a confident young Cabinet Minister who deigned to appear on "Newsnight" on 12 November. He said:
"Legal aid is not a high priority for this Government." That statement fills us—the Opposition—with despair. More important, it fills with despair millions of people who are begging for justice or for access to the courts to secure justice. The Government's attitude will blight and possibly wreck their lives. That is why we shall vigorously oppose the Government on this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members have expressed their wish to speak in the debate. I ask that those who catch my eye exercise some self-restraint in relation to the length of their speeches.
5.1 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: First, I declare an interest as a practising barrister who derives some income from legal aid.

377
In the autumn statement on 12 November, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced that his proposals would curb the rise of legal aid costs. His proposals were greeted with horror. On 3 February they were attacked as
"draconian, deplorable and wrong in principle"
by the Lord Chief Justice. On 4 February, the Daily Mirror thundered:
"Law aid axe puts millions at risk."
The Times, with traditional understatement, stated, "Legal aid plans opposed." On 6 February, The Guardian asserted that the plans
"would deprive 7 million of free legal aid and impose increased charges on a further 7 million."
The next day, on Sunday 7 February, The Observer headline read:
"No justice for 12 million if Mackay cuts legal aid."
Hundreds of solicitors wrote to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were reported in the newspapers as saying that 14 million would be excluded from access to legal aid, that justice would be too expensive for all but the rich and the destitute, and that in a criminal trial
"you might as well plead guilty because you will not be able to defend your case properly."
They alleged, apparently, that the disabled and the sick would be denied legal aid if their incomes came to over £61 a week.
The House was lobbied by members of the Save Legal Aid campaign, which was supported by about 40 organisations, including citizens advice bureaux, Shelter, the Trades Union Congress, the British Association of Social Workers, Age Concern and the Bar Council. Almost everyone having attacked the controversial proposals, The House Magazine reported that
"Lord MacKay of Clashfern must have felt like a heavily impaled dartboard."
As there was clearly public alarm and as the job of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is to scrutinise the work of the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Committee decided to examine the proposals as quickly as it could and to report to the House before this debate. That we speedily did on 9 March, three weeks ago. I hope that hon. Members will now be more fully informed. We took oral evidence—[Interruption.] Opposition Members will be none the wiser, but they will be more fully informed.
The Committee took oral evidence from both branches of the legal profession and from the Lord Chancellor on 24 February. We, the Committee, read written memoranda sent to us by many organisations and individuals. We would have taken more evidence if we had had time to do so.
We concluded that the quantification of the numbers of those who would be deprived of legal aid was subjective, depending on what it took someone who was called upon to make a contribution to decide not to pursue the matter. We concluded, however, that the eligibility cuts would deprive some ordinary people of the access that they now enjoy to the law. It seemed, in practical terms, that as many as 150,000 people would not receive legal aid, including some of the 100,000 who would be cut from the green form scheme. In short, the numbers deprived would be nothing like the 14 million mentioned in the alarmist allegations. I was surprised that the hon. Member for
378
Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) echoed those allegations. As 14 million would not seek access to the courts, it is absurd to say that 14 million will be deprived of anything.
It was clear also that the sick and the disabled with incomes of more than £61 a week would not suffer because disposable income would be assessed, not gross income stemming from whatever benefits they receive.
We accept that the Lord Chancellor is faced with a legal aid budget that is apparently spiralling out of control. The cost of legal aid has risen from less than £500 million in 1988 to over £1·1 billion in 1992, a rise of 135 per cent. It seems that the budget is likely to increase to £2 billion by 1995–96 if nothing is done. That would be a rise of 68 per cent. in the provision of civil legal aid when the retail prices index has risen by only 27 per cent.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my hon. and learned Friend remember paragraph 23 of the report, which states:
"The Lord Chancellor emphasised to us that the limits for free and contributory legal aid and advice related to disposable income, a point which some of his critics appear to have overlooked. Disposable income is calculated by allowing costs against gross income. We were told that allowable costs included tax, national insurance, dependants, maintenance payments, rent or mortgage, council tax, some other housing costs, fares to work, subscriptions to unions or professional bodies, pension fund contributions and (on a discretionary basis) the costs of child-minding, repayment of loans for home improvements and school fees."?
Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that disposable income is a much smaller sum than gross income and other forms of net income?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for filling out the details of that which I was skirting.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A couple with two children with an income of £21,000 might well qualify for contributory legal aid when the deductions are taken into account.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for filling out the details even further. As I am trying to keep my speech short, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not go into all the details.
We, the Select Committee, concluded that the cuts were unfortunate. We found that they did not sit easily with the Government's strategy to make the consumer and the citizen generally more aware of his or her rights and more tenacious of them. In our view, the legal aid scheme exists to ensure that ordinary people can have the protection of the law. It gives many people access to the law and underpins justice and the freedom of the individual. It has obviously been a great success. More and more people have been helped by the scheme. The numbers have risen from 3·14 million five years ago to an estimated 4·1 million for 1995, even after the Lord Chancellor's changes.
The Committee looked ahead to the immediate future. My colleagues and I were struck that no one seemed to know in enough detail why the costs were rising so rapidly. We suggested that urgent work needed to be undertaken to find the answers.
We thought it a great pity that the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor's Department had not quite got their acts together. We hoped that out report might help to bang heads together so that both sides might co-operate in undertaking an inquiry into the scope for savings and efficiency in the way in which legal services are delivered

379
and how the courts operate. Radical changes might be the result. We felt that both sides needed to be prepared to commit themselves to such changes. But both the professions and the Lord Chancellor seem willing to start the process. We welcome that.
Mr. Alex Carlile: While we are talking about civil legal aid, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that virtually every bill for civil legal aid, whether from solicitors or counsel, is scrutinised by an official who is appointed essentially by the Government so that there is far less scope for fraud in the civil legal aid scheme? Does he agree that, in the absence of any evidence of lawyers acting improperly in claiming their fees, the scheme should continue much as before? Does he further agree that there is an enormous amount of room for efficiency savings in the courts? For example, pre-trial reviews are effective in civil cases.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. We did not find any fraud in the legal professions. We probably did not investigate for long enough to discover any. We were looking at what is happening now and what immediately could be done about it.
We felt that although it was too late to do anything about the orders that we are debating today, which are due to come into force on 12 April, if agreed savings were found between the professions and the Lord Chancellor's Department, it might be possible to restore the cuts in eligibility in real terms in the future. We said that the Government should set themselves that goal. If not, they would not achieve their manifesto commitment to give people of limited means greater access to the law, not less access to the law. Greater access means providing advice and assistance either free or at a price which they can afford.
We had a particular anxiety about the Lord Chancellor's proposals to end the contributory part of the green form scheme. That could affect access to legal services for up to 100,000 people, just at the time when it is most necessary because it can head off many legal actions, if the advice achieves a certain result. We could not see what objection there was to people making a contribution, if they could afford some, but not all of the costs.
We could not see any convincing reason why the Lord Chancellor proposed to leave the scheme in existence in Scotland for tapering off contributions, but to end it completely in England and Wales so that people will have no access to the green form scheme if their income is more than about £61 a week. Such discrimination in favour of the Scots by a Scot we found to be carrying kith and kinship too far. We recommended that such discrimination should cease. We are, after all, a united country.
We noticed in passing that a large part of the legal aid budget was eaten up by VAT. As VAT merely transfers public funds from the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor's Department and back to the Treasury, it serves no practical purpose except to complicate matters and boost bureaucratic costs. We were pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor thought its removal worthy of consideration.
Of course, there is a great deal more wrong with the legal aid system. We had time to examine and report on only some of it. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, we make a lot more law in
380
Parliament than we used to. We give more people more rights and make people more aware of them. It should not surprise us that they take advantage of that and, therefore, claim more legal aid.
However, too much money is being wasted. The money could often be better allocated. Furthermore, there is an inherent injustice about a system which encourages one party to a legal dispute to take legal action confident in the belief that it will cost him nothing or hardly anything, against another party who has to pay all his costs and who, if he wins, will receive not a penny of damages or costs. Justice should be open to all, not just the rich and the poor but the person in between.
We simply do not know how many people with a good case never bring it or defend themselves with it because they cannot afford to do so in case they lose and they cannot be helped by legal aid. That is the other side of the coin to those who are unjustly treated by the system because they cannot afford to contribute to legal aid, or because legal aid is simply not available. On that issue neither I nor the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee could offer immediate constructive suggestions. The matter needs a full and detailed study. Perhaps something will come out of the Runciman royal commission on that issue.
But many avenues for saving legal aid waste should be explored. Other hon. Members will want to speak, so I shall mention them only briefly. First, instead of paying criminal legal aid with inadequate assessment of means, we could be much more thorough. If a case is likely to cost the tax payer millions of pounds, those involved in large criminal inquiries might be invited to produce a thorough breakdown of their means and assets, with the assistance of a state investigator, before they are awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal aid. We might be surprised how many people would not choose to have their affairs investigated and would either pay the lawyers privately or decide to plead guilty whereas if they had got a free defence they might have had nothing to lose by pleading not guilty.
Secondly, in civil cases, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provided for conditional fees. That provision has not been brought into effect. It might help some. Clients may negotiate with solicitors a no-win, no-fee arrangement. The Bar is chary about that, but the provision is on the statute book, so let us introduce it.
Thirdly, a contingency fund could be set up, financed by a levy on all damages won in civil cases. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made the point persuasively in the Committee's questioning. Most civil claims end in success or at any rate end in one party receiving a substantial amount in damages. The levy could be used to relieve the burden on the legal aid fund. Such a scheme was set up in Hong Kong in 1984 and became self-financing after four years.
Fourthly, more use could be made of private legal insurance taken out by employers on behalf of employees similar to BUPA in medicine, the AA and RAC schemes and the Legal Protection Group, which is part of Sun Alliance. The more that such insurance was taken out, the less burden there would be on state legal aid.
Fifthly, we could deliver a cheaper legal service in some cases by having salaried lawyers working from law centres where there is an inadequacy of private solicitors in a particular area. I understand how small solicitors feel about that. Obviously, they should not be threatened. However, there are plenty of parts of the country,

381
especially following the Government's reforms of the professions, where there is simply no solicitor. The salaried service operating from law centres would obviously be sensible.
Sixthly, the Government are actively considering the franchising of legal advice as a contract between the Legal Aid Board and the franchisee, for block advice in a large number of cases at an all-in fee. That seems sensible.
Seventhly, we could resolve disputes, especially in matrimonial matters, without the need for confrontational legal appearances in court. Relate has recommended that system and achieved some success in it.
Eighthly, we could do more to expand the use of the small claims courts, where legal expenses are minimal and rough justice—not always so rough—is often, if not frequently, obtained.
I could go on. The field of possible legal reform is large. As the Select Committee reported, this corner—the financing of the law—is particularly fertile. Let us all—the politicians, the Lord Chancellor, his Department, the legal professions and the courts administration, judges included —seek to improve the system. The system can be improved. There is a large area in which those improvements could take place.
I finish by quoting the last paragraph of our report on
page xxvii. It says:
"Our inquiry has demonstrated that unless the whole legal aid system is fully reviewed and all the relevant parties act together and constructively in undertaking that review, cuts will continue to be forced on governments. The principal sufferer will then inevitably be the one person everyone seeks to help—the person of modest means with a legitimate case, who seeks the protection of the law."
5.18 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am grateful to you for calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intend to be brief, and I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. I served on the Select Committee which drew up the report. The cuts—I use the word "cuts"—in the number of people who will be eligible for legal aid were perhaps untimely. There are ways in which the matter could have been put off to enable people to examine the system. It occurred to me when the evidence was being taken, as it did to many members of the Committee, that one simple way of reducing the cost would be not to pay VAT on legal aid payments. The Government should not pay it out simply to get it back six weeks later. It is a waste of money. It causes bureaucracy. It costs money. It is waste.
There are various other matters. For example, the Lord Chancellor's Department did not appear to have taken into account the fact that the number of people charged in police stations during the last quarter of last year fell by some 12 per cent. Indeed, as the newspapers have reported, the number of reportable crimes has also fallen by 4 per cent. Therefore, there will be a reduction in the volume of cases going through the courts. Even now, court rooms are standing empty in major magistrates courts and legal aid certificates are not being granted because there are not the cases for them.
Criminal legal aid forms by far the largest proportion of the legal aid bill. As the number of cases is decreasing, the amount being paid out in legal aid in 1992–93 will also decrease.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the fairly typical metropolitan jurisdiction of Solihull, from where I come, there is already clear evidence that completions of caseload in January 1993 are up on January 1992? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's comparison of last quarters could be deceptive. Incidentally, I attach no more importance to my statistic than I do to his; I measure it with the same caution as I would the last quarters.
Mr. Bermingham: It appears that Solihull is a criminal place. The evidence from north London, Merseyside and elsewhere throughout the country goes the other way—but time will tell. The point is that it is the sort of factor that has never been studied. Indeed, we have never studied in depth the way in which legal aid is administered and where spending occurs. We all have anecdotes; I could keep the House up all night with them, but I do not intend to do that. It would serve no purpose, because there is no hard evidence. That will come only from a detailed and efficient inquiry into these matters. Therefore, my first request to the Minister is that such an inquiry be put in hand urgently.
In my experience of criminal legal aid, I have never understood why it is necessary to wait until the last possible moment to find out whether somebody has pleaded guilty or not guilty in what is a standard case. There are enormous savings to be made in that and other areas. For example, in a magistrates court, it is often to the advantage of a defendant to plead early, if he intends to plead. Very often, a good duty solicitor can assess within the first few hours whether in a simple case—I am not talking about complicated cases—there is to be a plea. If there is, the matter should be dealt with on the spot.
Unfortunately, there has been a slight complication because of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which has led to some sentencing problems. That has increased the cost of legal aid. However, with good will on all sides we could rectify the mistakes in the Act. I do not think that there is a lawyer in the country who would say that the Act is anything other than flawed.
It is wrong that the overall effect of the proposals is to attack civil legal aid. Criminal legal aid will emerge largely unscathed—although there may be a little more difficulty in getting expert witnesses and so on—while the real cut will be in eligibility for civil legal aid. I made similar points in Committee, and they are in the report. Some 92 per cent. of personal injury cases succeed, with recovery running at about £2 million a week in lost benefits, with the likelihood that that figure will rise. That is money going back to the state.
The overall cost of accident claims last year was a paltry £11 million. That is nothing. However, the proposals will affect a number of people—I will not play the numbers game—who will no longer be able to go to a lawyer and get legal aid to bring an accident claim. Of course, if that person was either a passenger in a car or had been knocked down, he would still be covered: many lawyers do not even bother to apply for legal aid for such cases, because their costs following the event are assured.
I met a number of solicitors in St. Helens last Saturday and discussed the issues with them. They were worried that the cases that would be most affected would be those with claims of about £1,000 or £2,000. The people who will

383
suffer under the eligibility cuts are the very people who want to bring such claims. They will be very much under attack.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is speculation that the arbitration system in the small claims court may be extended upwards to cover the claims to which he has referred. Does he have any observations on that?
Mr. Bermingham: I have only one brief observation. A solicitor that I met in St. Helens on Saturday, who is not of my political persuasion, said that that would close his litigation department. He said that, once those claims were taken away from him, his litigation department could not survive, because it does not attract the big claims. We must remember that many solicitors in rural areas and small towns rely for their livelihoods—and they are not the world's richest—on such claims, where they win their costs. In the end, there is no real cost to the taxpayer.
My cri de coeur to the Minister is that two groups will suffer most from what is being proposed—first, battered wives and other victims of violence; secondly, children. Those are the two groups where the greatest damage will be done. I hope that, for once, the House will put politics aside and think of human beings and the victims of abuse, domestic violence, car accidents, work accidents and so on. Let us all stand back, albeit for a few months, while we thoroughly investigate these matters and find where the savings can be made—and both professional bodies acknowledge that there are savings to be made within the system. Let us deny these regulations today; they can always be brought back before us after the inquiry, if they are justified.
I have a sneaking feeling that, once we begin to nibble away at eligibility, it will be nibbled and gone for ever. I ask the House and the Minister to think of the 100,000 or 125,000 people who will suffer. That is an incredible number. How much human misery is there in that figure? For once, let us not be partisan. We should stand back, gather the evidence and then act with realism and decision. I happen to believe that we could increase the net for legal aid without it costing any more money. That would bring a little more civilisation to many more people.
5.27 pm
Dame Jill Knight: My speech folows those of two colleagues who, like me, are members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).
Members of the Committee reached unanimous agreement on certain points. First, however we felt about the emotional aspects of legal aid, we were all appalled by the soaring cost. Legal aid has seen the biggest increase in the whole of the public sector during the past few years, and we cannot go on like that.
The most important discovery during our deliberations was the enormously fertile area in which we can look for ways to make savings. We have heard many suggestions about that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton made a point about VAT, which was taken up by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We cannot quantify it, because we have not done sufficient work yet.
384
It might also be worth considering the difference between the remuneration of barristers and the remuneration of solicitors. The Committee was told that there was a great scope for savings in barristers' remuneration. For example, if one counsel were used instead of two in a big criminal case, important savings could be made.
The figures surprised us very much. We were told that, for instance, a barrister acting in a child law case would receive £300 an hour for reading papers, and £2,000 a day in refreshers. A while ago, the Director of Public Prosecutions told us that her average brief fee payment to a Queen's counsel for a trial lasting the average length of 2·6 days was £7,585. Those are bizarre sums—and, moreover, the fees are paid on legal aid.
Mr. Lawrence: They are not. Such sums simply are not paid on legal aid.
Dame Jill Knight: On page 11 of the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, we find the question:
"Are those fees paid on legal aid?"
The answer was:
"Yes".
Perhaps the position should be clarified, but in any event —regardless of whether legal aid is involved—an enormous amount of money is being spent.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Is not the crux of the matter the fact that we have no facts and figures apart from those in the Select Committee report? Moreover, it is clear that there is a dispute among members of the Committee about whether such fees are paid.
Dame Jill Knight: I agree. As the Chairman of the Committee has pointed out, we were not trying to decide where savings could be made; the points to which I have referred simply arose as we went along.
In what I assure hon. Members will be a short speech, I wish to deal with the Legal Aid Board from a rather different angle. Its activities concern me very much. If a Member of Parliament has reason to question the allocation of legal aid, he had better understand that the board will deal with his inquiry with all the courtesy, helpfulness and understanding of a thug with a leaded sock. In cases brought to me, legal aid has been granted to would-be litigants with ample resources: indeed, that point was raised in an intervention. One such litigant had four cars, and lived very well in an extremely pleasant and expensive house.
Mr. Peter Butler: Everyone has four cars.
Dame Jill Knight: I assure my hon. Friend that I have only one. However, I am not applying for legal aid.
The parties against whom that constituent wished to act —this was not a criminal matter, but a neighbourhood dispute involving planning—were astounded to find themselves being taken to court. They lived next door to my constituent, and saw the style in which he lived: they saw unmistakable signs of affluence. Nevertheless, the grant was provided, enabling that man almost to ruin the people against whom he was acting. It was they, of course, who complained to me.
I felt that legal aid should not have been granted in that case. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which —in the time-honoured manner of Government

385
Departments—handed me on to another Department, or at least said that I had better write to the Legal Aid Board. I did so.
I believe that I had a perfect right to question the board about its decision. Public money was being used. I did not want to be given confidential facts about the case; I simply wanted to know that the full facts of the matter—which had been reported to me, and on which I had reported to the Legal Aid Board—had been properly considered. I felt that I had a right to a proper answer. I feel very strongly that all Members of Parliament have not merely a right but a duty to pursue what they consider to be genuine complaints.
Mr. James Pawsey: My hon. Friend is making a persuasive case, to which I have listened with interest. Is she aware that, in certain cases, it might be possible to refer such queries to the Parliamentary Commissioner, who would be only too pleased to pursue them in more detail and at greater length? My hon. Friend may agree with my view that the Commissioner's office is under-used by the House. In this regard, he could be the right arm of Members of Parliament.
Dame Jill Knight: I shall consider that helpful suggestion carefully.
It seems sensible to me for someone who queries what the Legal Aid Board is doing to go straight to the board itself. I did that: I wrote a courteous letter, giving the facts as I knew them. The answer I received was rude, dismissive and completely uninformative. It was a "Yes, Minister" version of: "Go to hell: we do what we want, and no one is allowed to question us." That will not do. Surely Members of Parliament form the only body that can question the Legal Aid Board; I know of no other organisation that can say to the board, "Are you sure you are absolutely right?" It appears, however, that no one has the right to expect a courteous and informative answer from the board.
Let me ask my hon. Friend a direct question: will he please examine this matter? It concerns not only me, but other hon. Members who have raised similar cases with the Legal Aid Board and have tried to persuade it to behave in a civilised and helpful manner.
5.36 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not often agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), although we have a long history of debating matters such as this. It goes back to the days when we sat our Bar exams together. However, I sympathised with a good deal of his speech, especially his positive suggestions for getting to the root of the problem of the rising cost of legal aid. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) wishes to intervene, he will take up a little of my time; if he does not, perhaps he will kindly refrain from gesticulating in a manner which suggests that he does.
The proposals that we are discussing will be extremely damaging to the rights of ordinary people. I shall not engage in an argument about the precise number who will be hit; even the Government have acknowledged that more than 120,000 people in England and Wales will drop
386
out of legal aid altogether. The Law Society of England and Wales properly drew attention to the much larger penumbra who will have to make contributions. No one has attempted to deny that the society was probably right in saying that as many as 12 million families could be affected by the Government's proposals.
Mr. Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: Madam Speaker has asked for short speeches. As I do not intend to speak for long, I should prefer not to give way. Mine will be the only Liberal contribution to this brief three-hour debate.
The Law Society of Scotland has also produced some figures, which no one has seriously contested, about the damage that the proposals will do. I find the lumping together of debates on the English and Scottish arrangements unacceptable; the two subjects are entirely distinct and require distinct solutions. There must be a proper review of the Scottish criminal justice system, not just the administration of legal aid in Scotland.
One significant difference between the Scottish and English and Welsh systems is that, although rising, the average cost of a case in Scottish courts is a little over half that in English and Welsh courts. It is perverse of the Scottish Office to beat the people of Scotland with the same stick as is being used in England and, on the coat tails of the Lord Chancellor, to impose cuts which are not necessary even judged purely in terms of public expenditure costs in Scotland. Indeed, the Government have predicted a long-term decline in the demand for legal aid in Scotland due to demographic changes.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the debate is not the hardship that these measures will create, appalling though it may be—hon. Members have said that family law cases are most likely to involve serious hardship—but that the measures will not even address the problem that they are apparently designed to address. On 3 February, in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I have the honour to belong, the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department told us that these measures will not reduce expenditure on legal aid but will merely restrain it—and only slightly at that. In other words, we are being asked to swallow something that will not tackle the problem that the Lord Chancellor's Department has identified. We have not had from the Lord Chancellor's Department, and certainly not from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, any evidence about how it is proposed effectively to tackle the problem of the spiralling costs of legal aid. We were told that the measures will not be terribly damaging to the interests of those whose eligibility has been reduced—the Department focused on that point—but the debate should address the question of how to get at the root problem.
The rights that these measures are interfering with are of no use unless they can be exercised, and liberties are of no value unless they can be protected. The purpose of the law is to ensure that our rights and liberties are protected. If a person cannot pursue his legal rights in court or defend himself against attack, those rights and liberties do not exist and, in a real sense, the Government's proposals contribute to the creation of a lawless society.
There is no doubt that the rising cost of legal aid is a challenge to everyone who cares about access to justice and that, unchecked, there would have to be a substantial further injection of cash to provide an adequate service

387
from the existing system, but I draw the House's attention to comments that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Taylor, made in another place in an earlier debate on the subject. He said:
"Experience shows that so far from saving overall costs by denying legal aid, costs may be incurred which legal aid may have avoided. There are many cases in which a litigant in person ploughs on when legal advice would have persuaded him that he had no case. He is likely to take more of the court's time partly because he may have difficulty in presenting his case intelligently and partly because the court needs to be more indulgent to him… The Master of the Rolls tells me that already about 20 per cent. of the sitting time in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is taken up by litigants in person."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 1993; Vol. 542, c. 282–3.]
In short, if economies are to be made which do not result in the denial of justice, there is little choice but to look seriously at the system of courts, advice and assistance. In so far as there is a royal commission sitting on the criminal justice system, it might be argued that no serious amendments of the kind being considered today should have been introduced before the report of the royal commission, which no doubt will have relevant comments to make on procedure and evidence.
I therefore—in no sense comprehensively—conclude my remarks by offering a few suggestions which are worthy of consideration as to how we might seek better to address the problem of how to spend the money that we have, rather than simply cutting to save money. First, the Government should consider the possibility of taking a firm step on the road towards a more comprehensive system of alternative dispute resolution than is currently offered. Demand on the courts could be reduced by diverting cases to tribunals and hearings, whose decisions could be made binding. Secondly, we should extend the requirement for compulsory insurance into areas where it is appropriate to do so, which could reduce the need of many to go to court, as it has in employment, personal injury and traffic accident cases.
Thirdly, we should consider extending the role of the ombudsman, encouraging trade associations to set up their own ombudsman for each industry as an alternative and cheaper means of satisfactorily resolving disputes outside the courtroom. Fourthly, we should consider introducing wider use of plea bargaining. A guilty plea would result in a lower sentence, less time in court and lower cost. Justice must still be done and innocents must be protected from pressures to plead guilty. The Seabrook model provides a starting point for such a system, but not a perfect one. Fifthly, we should consider wider use of judges' summonses for directions in criminal cases. This allows the judge to manage the progress of the trial by calling for documents at specific times, thus facilitating a speedier, and therefore cheaper, procedure.
We must also recognise the extent to which weak cases constitute an expensive and unnecessary burden on the courts. The Bar Council has recommended that the merits test of the Legal Aid Act 1988 should be tightened to provide a workable and sufficiently realistic equivalent to the pressures and choices imposed on private litigants.
We must find a more efficient and comprehensive means of providing advice and representation. I note, with approval, the proposal of the chairman of the Bar Council that every barrister might be asked to undertake at least one free case each year—pro bono publico. That is the kind of gesture which could make quite a significant impact on costs. The Lord Chancellor has signalled his
388
desire to introduce franchising and fixed fees, against many objections by the legal profession that neither of the proposals would have beneficial effects. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, I foresee that they will simply deprive large parts of the country of the benefits of legal advice from solicitors, who will close down their operations. That is entirely the wrong track to take.
Mr. David Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: I said that I would not give way, but as I have particular regard for the hon. Gentleman I will give way briefly.
Mr. Nicholson: I am most grateful. As a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee, and also as a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, I am following the hon. Gentleman's proposals with great interest and considerable approval. They are alternative ways of resolving a genuine problem. I have not yet heard him mention what role the Child Support Agency may have in moving into administrative procedures matters, which are currently resolved in the courts at great length and often unsatisfactorily.
Mr. Maclennan: That is one of the proposals to which the Government should give serious and constructive consideration.
I was about to mention the provision of advice through law centres. The funding and proper provision of law centres can be enormously helpful in creating an efficient, effective and accessible source of help, which can substantially reduce the costs of legal aid. However, local authorities across the country are finding it increasingly difficult to fund them, and 10 have closed in the past few years.
There could be tremendous savings if such organisations were properly funded. I acknowledge that it is difficult to give a precise estimate of their economic value, but their important scope and worth has long been recognised. As long ago as 1979, the royal commission on legal services concluded that their impact had been
"out of all proportion to their size".
I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that a large amount of work is pre-empted—for example, in the case of groups of tenants of housing estates. In such instances, their work can prevent expenditure.
I cite an example from, I believe, the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The Brent law centre represented 2,350 council tenants as a single group against the local authority. Had the cases been dealt with by a private practice, each of the 2,350 litigants would have had to be represented individually. In the future, law centres could offer still further scope for innovative and efficient means of delivering local services. For example, they are in an ideal position to provide a duty solicitor scheme in county courts for cases where representation is crucial, paid on a sessional basis.
We must examine the administration of the courts themselves. Delays in courts and the problems created by non-attendance are expensive. In 1991, the National Audit Office survey, which was conducted before the sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, found that 66 per cent. of clients had experienced delays in the handling of their case but the true causes of such delays are apparently unknown to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The technology that the Department says may help it to monitor such problems

389
will not be in place until later this year, despite the fact that the Public Accounts Committee recommended that it should be set up as long ago as 1986. It is clear from the National Audit Office survey that many court administrative practices are inefficient and inappropriate to the volume and complexity of today's cases.
I have suggested a substantial package of reforms which is illustrative rather than exhaustive. It is clear that we cannot continue year after year to try to shore up our crumbling system of legal aid by further cuts in eligibility. It is entirely misleading for the Government to suggest that the only people who will be adversely affected by what the Government are doing are those who are dropping out of legal aid. It is the people on low incomes, just above the income support level, who will be most adversely affected.
I believe that the measures should be withdrawn. They should not be implemented on 12 April as intended, and no measures should be brought before the House to cut eligibility for legal aid unless and until the Government are able to diagnose why legal aid costs are spiralling in some parts of the system and what steps they can and will take to reduce the unacceptable increases in costs. Such proposals must be more pertinent than those before us. The reform of our faulty system is necessary and urgent.
5.54 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: Thank you for calling me at this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall also endeavour to be as brief as I can. I had planned to make a three-hour or four-hour speech until your earlier admonition. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has, as ever, made a thoughtful contribution to our proceedings, and I am sure that he will have been listened to with great care.
Before coming to the guts of my speech, may I attempt to clear up an apparent confusion in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)? She mentioned some enormous figures for the daily rates for counsel f9r reading papers and so on. Page 11 of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs contains an exchange between the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and Mr. Birts QC, one of the barristers who gave evidence. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South said:
"It has been put to us, for example, that a barrister in a child law case would receive £300 per hour for reading papers and £2,000 a day as refreshers. The Director of Public Prosecutions said to us a while ago that her average payment brief fee to a QC for an average 2·6 day trial was £7,585. I have to put it to you that these are bizarre sums of money to those of us who are not lawyers."
Mr. Birts said:
"Are those fees paid on legal aid?"
One can imagine the inflection in his voice as he asked that question. The hon. Gentleman said, "Yes." Mr. Birts continued:
"I think it is important to know that and to know whether they have been through the taxation process or the assessment process. Are they taxation figures or not?"
It is likely that that question was based on a false premise or that there was a misunderstanding about the evidence that the DPP had given to the Committee on another matter.
390
What is more telling is that a little later, in paragraph 67 on page 12, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South wanted to know what was
"the average payment in a criminal case per hour, first of all, and then what is the average refresher?"
Mr. Calvert-Smith, a junior from the Bar, answered:
"The base figure is £29 an hour. That is the base figure upon which 86 per cent. of all criminal cases are paid because they are standard fee cases."
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South replied:
"You amaze me, I must say."
Mr. Calvert-Smith said:
"I am sorry, it is true."
The hon. Gentleman then asked:
"You are telling us—let us be clear—that the average barrister charges £29 an hour?"
Mr. Calvert-Smith replied:
"We do not charge the legal aid system in 86 per cent. of cases. We are sent a brief which says "Standard fee" on it. We know exactly to the last pound and shilling what we are going to get paid, and we know that that has been based on the figure of £29 an hour prep."—
preparation—
"as average in all standard cases, so that is the base figure.
That is what the Lord Chancellor thinks that he is paying as an average fee to 86 per cent. of criminal practitioners."
I hope that that has cleared up some of the confusion which arose unwittingly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston.
I start with one or two givens, which I am sure will be accepted by all hon. Members. The legal aid system was one of the great legal reforms of the century. Its introduction into our system of legal affairs just after the second world war was a benchmark. It was the intention of the Rushcliffe report, after which the system was established, that no one should be
"financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or defend a legal right."
That principle has been reasserted throughout the decades since 1949 and was endorsed in other words by the Lord Chancellor. He told the Home Affairs Select Committee:
"The legal aid scheme exists to ensure that ordinary people can have the protection of the law. It is the legal aid scheme which gives many people access to the law, and underpins justice and the freedom of the individual."
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman quote what the Lord Chancellor told the Home Affairs Select Committee of which I, too, am a member. How does he reconcile that with what the Lord Chancellor said in 1990:
"What we need to debate in the 1990s is the need to secure better access for those whose means exclude them from the legal aid scheme but are not sufficient to pursue cases through the courts"?
Do not the Lord Chancellor's present proposals run totally contrary to that, and to what the hon. Gentleman has just quoted?
Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to make a contribution in due course, and I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has already dealt with that question. There will always be a cut-off point; some people will always be on the wrong side of the boundary, and a humane society must seek to mitigate the effects of that as far as possible.
We must bear in mind the fact that it is estimated that, by the financial year 1995, we shall be talking about a legal aid budget of £1·5 billion in cash terms. That is a lot of money, even in the language of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). A substantial

391
proportion of the gross cost of some aspects of the legal aid budget is recovered—especially in cases such as personal injury. However, it has to be faced, whether we like it or not, that net costs have risen at well above the rate of inflation.
Perhaps I should make the declaration that I too am a member of the Bar, although, as I have probably done no more than four legal aid cases in 15 or 16 years at the Bar —I specialise entirely in defamation work, which is one of the exceptions to the legal aid provisions—I may be able to talk with some disinterest—
Mr. Paul Boateng: Being privately funded.
Mr. Garnier: Labour Members may think that I am one of the fat cats of the privately funded Bar, but I too was open-mouthed and most impressed by the figures presented by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South in his questioning of Mr. Birts. No one in my chambers would look askance at those fees.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: May I vouch for the moderation of my hon. Friend's fees?
Mr. Nicholls: They are all lawyers on that Committee.
Dame Jill Knight: No, they are not.
Mr. Garnier: They are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South are not lawyers; nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). All three of them have played a great part in our deliberations and have been most helpful to all of us.
Little research has been done into why the costs are rising at such a rate. Some limited research has been carried out by the Legal Aid Board, and the National Audit Office has reported on its behalf. The report shows a substantial rise in the numbers of letters written and telephone calls made per case, and so forth, but no single explanation is given.
Nor were the legal professions able to give us an in-depth analysis of the reasons for the growth in costs. Witnesses recognised a number of factors that might have been causes of the massive and increasing rise in costs. In civil cases, there are the effects of the Children Act and the growth of judicial review. Witnesses also identified an increased awareness of litigation and of legal rights, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), our Chairman, has already mentioned.
Other witnesses mentioned administrative failures in the legal system, including listing inefficiencies and adjournments in the magistrates courts. My experience in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court and in the civil jury list is that efficiencies have been manifest, and libel actions and civil jury actions set down come on for trial within 29 days after setting down, rather than the two-year wait on which we often used to rely some time ago.
Sir Michael Davies, the judge in charge of the jury list, and his successor in that office, Mr. Justice Drake, have done tremendous work to increase efficiencies. The need for efficiencies has been recognised and the efforts are bearing fruit, especially in the division in which I practise. With proper training of listing officers and the proper use of computers, and good will both from the administration
392
and from practitioners, there is no reason why further improvements could not be made in other courts, especially the criminal courts.
For reasons of time, I shall not detail all the factors that witnesses identified to the Committee as being responsible for the immense rate of increase in the cost of legal aid. Suffice it to say that that cost has effectively doubled as a proportion of Government expenditure. No Government, regardless of the economic circumstances that we are presently in but are shortly to come out of, could allow increased expenditure at that rate without some check upon it.
The Committee unanimously agreed that a full and detailed analysis of the reasons for the rise in demand for legal aid, and for the increase in costs per case, must be undertaken. I differ from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who said that the inquiry should take place before today's regulations came into effect. In my suggestion—I almost said "in my submission"—the regulations which, assuming a fair wind this evening, will come into force on 11 April, will act as a catalyst and encourage debate about that aspect of Government expenditure.
The Lord Chancellor told us in his evidence:
"if current rates of growth were allowed to continue, expenditure on legal aid would be likely to be close to £2 billion by 1995–96".
That would represent an exact doubling of the proportion of public expenditure devoted to legal aid in 1987–88.
Now I shall mention some of our suggestions about how savings could be increased. We concluded in our report:
"The savings forecast will be made under the legal aid head of the Lord Chancellor's budget. It is a notorious problem of public expenditure planning that savings in one area may result in costs in another, without any mechanism for properly judging those costs and taking them into account in the equation."
Clearly the Lord Chancellor had views on the matter, as did those who gave evidence to the Committee and supplied evidence in written form.
In my private conversations with members of the judiciary, especially members of the Court of Appeal, the question of the added costs to the system of administering justice brought about by an increase in the number of unprepared or incompetent—I use that term strictly litigants in person clogging up the system, especially in the Court of Appeal, is frequently raised. For example, the Registrar of the Court of Appeal now has five legal civil servants working for him, employed more or less full time in trying to untangle the propositions advanced by litigants in person who wish to apply to that court. I suggest that there are better uses of those civil servants' time than seeking to read the green ink—hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt recognise the green ink syndrome. It seems an utter waste of the intellect and time of Court of Appeal judges and of the registrar's civil servants that they should have to wade through all that before being able to reach a judicial conclusion. But identifying that problem does not mean that we can sit back and say, "More money, more money", irrespective of whether that money is being wisely spent.
Others suggested that people would bring cases at first instance which lacked merit, by virtue of their not having been given legal aid. Under order 18, rule 19, of the rules of the Supreme Court—I am sure that an equivalent

393
procedure is available in the county courts—there is a method by which cases can be struck out summarily if they want merit. I do not see why litigants in person should be treated differently from represented litigants. If their cases lack merit, they should be snuffed out at birth.
Mr. Donald Anderson: They are.
Mr. Garnier: I am told that they are. All the better for that.
Mr. Anderson: When I said that they are, I mean that it is my understanding that judges lean over backwards, understandably, to help the litigant in person. That will clearly be a further cog in the machine and another matter on the side of the equation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Garnier: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I should like to move on.
We must consider how we are to save money in the longer term as well as identifying the need to save money and deal with the problem as it is currently presented to us. The first area in which we in the Committee believe that savings can be made is in the administration of the present legal aid system. The matter was the subject of a recent report from the National Audit Office and has been the subject of hearings of the Public Accounts Committee, which will, I believe, shortly produce a report by which we will no doubt be informed. But that should not prevent us at this stage from doing our best and taking steps to check the unmitigated flow of money into the legal aid system without its being properly accounted for.
It is not just the mechanics of the present system that may need scrutiny. Others have talked about the need to look at the planning and overall strategy of the legal aid system since its inception in 1949. The furore that the Lord Chancellor's proposals have engendered may act as a catalyst to allow a more fundamental and strategic look at the purposes of legal aid and at the best means of delivering service to the consumer.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton has outlined a number of the alternatives that might be available—alternative legal disputes settlements and so forth. I would just caution the House about being too easily seduced by short-cut judicial remedies, because hasty court work is often not conducive to bringing justice into the world. There are a lot of criticisms to be made of the "no win, no fee" system. It simply does not apply sensibly to cases where injunctive relief or other equitable relief is being sought, and that is very often the case in legal aid matrimonial cases.
We all accept the need to find value for money, but I would suggest that we start that now rather than allowing the debate to rumble on without a proper date being put on it.
In his evidence to us, the Lord Chancellor has made it quite clear that he has an open mind—
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Garnier: I am conscious of the time, and I really must push on.
Mr. Llwyd rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that, if the Member who has the Floor does not give way, he must resume his seat.
While I am on my feet, may I remind the hon. Member that there are no bonus points for Members who make long speeches when the Chair has requested short ones?
Mr. Garnier: That was exactly the admonition I had in mind in not giving way. I do not wish to be unkind, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
All interested parties are now in a frame of mind where they are prepared to meet and, I would suggest, discuss constructively how best to achieve the common aim of us all, ensuring the best delivery of justice to the public. This set of regulations is just the beginning of assisting to that end. I commend the regulations to the House as but the beginning of the process.
6.13 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: If there is anything that I am famous for, it is the brevity of my speeches. I am not sure about the quality.
First of all, on behalf of Scotland and England and Wales, I protest at the fact that we have squeezed these two debates into one, in a time which is totally insufficient to begin to discuss the seriousness of these affairs. Only two weeks ago, we managed to get two separate debates on the late opening of betting shops in England and Wales and in Scotland, and, important as that subject may be, it pales into insignificance beside the importance of what is happening here. It is a disgrace, and it also confuses the issue. The Minister constantly moved back and forth between England and Wales and Scotland, yet it is impossible, because the two systems are not comparable. Because of that, there will be a lot more confusion of those who are listening to the debate elsewhere.
Before I am accused of being some sort of ethnic cleanser, I want to point out that I do not distance myself from the business of England and Wales and Ireland in this matter, because the justice which ought to prevail for everyone is equal in all those areas of the United Kingdom. I am an internationalist, not a nationalist, particularly where justice is concerned.
I notice with great interest that the Select Committee on Home Affairs spent a great deal of time discussing the reasons for the increase. That was understandable, although the Committee did not have the extended time that it would have needed to go into all the ramifications of trying to put that right. But my recollection, if it is correct, is that there was very little discussion of the recession as a contributory factor. This was in contrast to the 1991 annual report of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which observed:
"it seems likely that the recession has been a significant contributory factor"
in the growth in demand for civil legal aid and an
"exceptionally high and unexpected rise"
in the volume of accounts received by the board. At that time, it was indicating, at least to the Government, that, as regards Scotland, an increase was on its way. The Government had plenty of time to look at the reasons for the increase because they were given the warning then.
However, as far as I can gather, the most significant cause of the increase in the cost of legal aid in England and Wales identified by the Lord Chancellor—the rise in the average cost per case—appears not to be a factor in

395
Scotland. In fact, the average cost per case in Scotland was £815. I realise that it is unfair to compare the two costs because of different systems; nevertheless, in England and Wales it was £2,008 per case. Therefore, the Chancellor, having noticed the spiralling costs in England, had a knee-jerk reaction, Treasury-led, which fed through to Scotland. As was said earlier, we were hanging on the coat-tails of the action that had to be taken immediately here in England because of the spiralling costs.
Mr. Mike Watson: On that point of the cost, my hon. Friend will have heard the Minister say that the cost of civil legal aid had almost doubled in the past five years. Does he recall that, at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Mr. Brian Adair, president of the Law Society of Scotland, refuted that saying there had been no increase in real terms, and that it was only over the past year. He described the increase as a blip, and said that it was due to a number of factors, including the fact that solicitors are submitting their accounts faster because of the recession.
Is it not a fact that there is no demand for this review of legal aid in Scotland, and that we are just being tagged on the back of the English and Welsh review, for reasons which suit the Government but do not suit the people or the legal profession in Scotland?
Mr. McKelvey: That is indeed the case, but if there is—as there ought to be—an immediate investigation of legal aid costs in England and Wales, I would not object to a subsequent investigation into the costs of legal aid in Scotland, because, if there is any waste of money by virtue of the system, such money could be put to a proper use by making legal aid available to a larger number of people rather than a smaller number, as will happen under these regulations.
I cannot give evidence, because there has not been an investigation to provide it, but from a gut reaction and from my own personl experience as a constituency Member of the people who come to me seeking advice, I feel that there is no question but that the recession, with greater unemployment, has led to more domestic separations and violence, and more problems caused by the lack of jobs or money. It must have had an effect on people who seek legal aid, and it is those very people that we are going to bar.
I do not want to get involved in the numbers game, but if there is one person, one family, one group, who will be denied legal aid and yet who deserve it in all justice, there is something wrong with this process that we are going through today. Several groups of people have written to us—Family Law, the citizens' advice bureaux, Glasgow Women's Aid, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Law Society—and a common thread runs through their letters. They have made out a case not for themselves but for those who, they say, will suffer because of this legislation, and they are not just the poorest and neediest but include even those on moderate incomes. Are the Government seeking to turn this legislation into an extension of the benefits system? I suspect that they are. I object to that, and I support the objections from various groups.
Family law cases account for the majority of expenditure in civil legal aid cases and for half the expenditure in advice and assistance. It follows that any reduction in eligibility would have a major impact on that
396
area of law. The majority of initiators of family proceedings are women. The nature of the eligibility criteria for civil legal aid are such that only the woman's income is assessed, and the husband's is discounted. As women are traditionally responsible for child care, they are often in part-time employment to fit in with their child care obligations. Women are also traditionally at the lower end of the earnings scale. Any reduction in eligibility for civil aid will disproportionately affect women across a broad spectrum. I am not saying that there are not men in that position; of course there are. However, proportionately it is women who will bear the brunt of the cuts.
Glasgow Women's Aid says:
"Abuse of women takes place in every sector of society; both rich and poor men are abusive, and regardless of the financial situation within the family few women have control over the financial resources."
That is not a guess, but a fact. Women in Scotland will bear the brunt of the suggested cuts.
Although the Government announced on 17 February revisions to their proposals to change the legal aid system in Scotland, there remains concern that individuals' access to justice is under serious threat. The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties says of the legal aid system:
"This is an important right which has been recognised by many international treaties and courts and cannot be discarded lightly."
If the Government are modern, democratic and caring —they say that they pursue policies of charters for people: charters for patients, charters for pupils and charters for pupils' parents—they cannot turn their back on the basis on which the interests of people are looked after—the question of human rights.
The universal declaration of human rights, which has been adopted by 48 states of the United Nations General Assembly, says in article 7:
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
The people of Scotland, of England, of Northern Ireland and of Wales are entitled to that equality, and are entitled not to be discriminated against. They should not be concerned, as they are at the moment, about what will happen to them after today's debate.
The Scottish Association for Mental Health has outlined two important areas which we should consider: civil legal aid and mental health hearings. If the proposed changes to civil legal aid take place, people with disabilities might have to face large bills for legal fees if they were involved in court proceedings. Among the proceedings covered by the rules would be a hearing to determine whether a person should be detained in hospital under section 18 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
Among the people who might be affected by the changes are those on invalidity benefit. A person who was unable to work because of mental health problems could be entitled to invalidity benefit if he or she had paid the appropriate contributions. The benefits range from £54·15 for older people to £65·70 for a disabled person who is under 40. A person in the first category would have to pay £200 towards the cost of a mental health hearing, whereas the younger person's contribution would be £300·85. To pay such a sum out of such an income would be unthinkable for a normal person. It is intolerable that we should consider imposing such a burden on a person suffering the stress and strain of mental disability.
The effects of the cuts on people with disabilities are similar. They receive extra income only because the

397
benefits system recognises the extra living costs that are associated with disability. If we take the approach that we should penalise that group of people, how on earth can we be considered humane, modern, democratic or caring? It is because those concerns are shared by the disability movement in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland that we are grateful that the submissions of disability organisations should be circulated in the House today. Declarations made by hon. Members about those groups of people will be recorded and read, and should be acted on by the Government.
I have no overall solution to the problem of the growing cost of legal aid. The matter has never been investigated properly. However, I have one direct suggestion for the Minister. He should withdraw the motions and have a proper inquiry into the whole question not only of legal aid, both civil and criminal, but of the judicial system and its costs. I do not know why it is so much more costly to defend cases in England than in Scotland. The comparisons are worth making. If the Minister cannot do that, my advice to his hon. Friends, who I believe are genuinely concerned about the issue and about the groups of people who will be affected, is at least to abstain tonight, if they cannot join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government.
6.26 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: I listened with considerable interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It was an especially thoughtful speech and I congratulate him on it. I was interested in his passing reference to the ombudsman and I believe that he was right to make that reference. I believe, as I am sure other hon. Members agree, that the ombudsman has a part to play in this area. I find it significant that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who is sitting in his usual place in the Chamber, played a prominent part this morning in the activities of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which discussed the ombudsman. Mr. William Reed could do much to assist the House on matters relating not only to the health service, but to a wide range of other issues, such as the Legal Aid Board.
In considering the future of legal aid, it is necessary first to look at the nation's economic position. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget statement that we face a deficit of £35 billion this year, which will rise to £50 billion next year. We all know that the reason is a major recession and we all know that recessions squeeze Government revenues both ways. They reduce the amount coming in and they increase the amount spent on benefits. Given that position, it is necessary to take a long, hard look at the cost of legal aid.
The House will be aware that the cost of legal aid has risen dramatically. In 1988–89, the cost was £475 million. Four years later, it is well over £1 billion—a rise of about 130 per cent. Revised estimates for this year already show a substantial increase on that enormous figure. Like all other hon. Members, I understand the importance of legal aid. Without it, justice would be denied to a substantial number of those who are worse off, but action is necessary
398
to curtail the rising cost. Legal aid should not, therefore, be regarded as some form of income support designed exclusively for the convenience of the legal profession.
Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pawsey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has sat through the entire debate.
Mr. Llwyd: On the question of necessary action, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the courts could be run more efficiently? When I was in private practice as a solicitor, I appeared in court daily in a rural part of my constituency. I found that there were often five or six other solicitors waiting for their cases to come up. They frequently waited for half a day, which cost the country hundreds of pounds. Should not this matter be taken up immediately at the highest level? Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the practice, in civil listing centres, of listing three active trials per day on the basis of the often wrong premise that two will settle is also stupid, ridiculous and costly and ought to be looked at?
Mr. Pawsey: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes valid points, which I have no doubt will be referred to in my hon. Friend's winding up speech. Clearly, it would have been very helpful to listen to a major contribution from the hon. Gentleman, had time allowed.
It is argued that as solicitors are human there may sometimes be a level of abuse, with adjournments requested and granted by the courts even when they are not strictly necessary. Cases are sometimes disposed of with a slowness which may owe more to legal aid than to legal complexity. I readily accept that the fault is not all on one side. Were the clerk of a court to consider lists more carefully, it might prove possible to avoid having solicitors waiting in court while unrepresented cases are heard.
Mr. David Ashby: And barristers.
Mr. Pawsey: I take my hon. Friend's point.
It should always be remembered that the legal aid clock is ticking at the charge while the solicitor or the barrister is in court. Even if it is not his case, it is a matter of "They also charge who only sit and wait."
The Lord Chancellor itemised four principal factors affecting legal aid. Due to shortage of time, I shall not go through them, but I commend them to the House. These are admirable regulations which should be implemented as soon as possible.
6.32 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: As a practising barrister, I should first declare an interest.
We shall oppose these regulations in the Lobby because they represent a betrayal of the bipartisan approach to legal aid which has lasted in this House since 1949, when the Lord Chancellor's Department was able to announce, to universal acclamation, proposals
"as a result of which no one would be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right."
In 1979, during a debate on the outgoing Labour Government's proposals to improve legal aid, it was clear from remarks of the then shadow Solicitor-General—soon to be Solicitor-General Sir Ian Percival—that the

399
incoming Conservative Government would be committed to a legal aid system such as had been described by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General in 1949, as
"a charter for the little man to the British courts."
The Legal Aid Act 1979, under which these regulations are made, is a real charter—not a phoney charter such as has been introduced by the present Government. It is a charter providing that all people, regardless of their means, should have access to the courts. It is not the sort of access that we have heard described—access to the Ritz for someone unable to buy a meal within those sacred portals. The Act provides a right to legal assistance and advice, to ensure that no one is financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or to defend a legal right.
That cross-party consensus is betrayed in these regulations and by the Lord Chancellor, and Conservative Members who vote for the regulations ought to be ashamed of themselves. The right of all people, even the most deprived and regardless of means, to access to the courts ought not to be a matter of party political controversy. Legal advice and assistance for those who need it ought to be a right. In the course of the debate to which I have referred, Ian Percival drew an analogy. He said that this right ought to be comparable to people's right to health care. The then Mr. Percival, the Conservative shadow Solicitor-General of the day and Solicitor-General-to-be, said:
"Just as it was unthinkable that an accident victim's injuries should be untreated through inability to pay his doctor, so he should not be prevented through lack of funds from pursuing his just remedies at law."—[Official Report, 30 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 841.]
Mr. Percival was right then, and we are right in our opposition to these regulations.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Hon. Members will have seen early-day motion 1726, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), myself and other hon. Members, concerning benzodiazepine cases. Across the country, there are about 18,000 such people in great hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take a fresh look at such cases and at the way in which multi-party actions are handled? Does he agree that, in any review, the House should look very carefully at the possibility in such cases of the introduction of no-fault liability? That might assist—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The time available for the debate is limited, and this is a very long intervention.
Mr. Boateng: There is certainly scope for taking up the issues raised by that important early-day motion. It is possible, not least in the area of multi-party actions, to make some savings in terms of legal aid and to provide better protection from those affected by oppressive action.
Dr. Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman made a point about limited funds. The funds for the national health service are not unlimited. Does the Labour party believe that funds for legal aid should be unlimited? If not, what limit would it set?
Mr. Boateng: In this House it is customary, when someone has given way, to show a little more grace than the hon. Gentleman has shown. However, I shall respond in kind. We believe that it is as wrong for health to be
400
rationed in the way that the Conservative Government have rationed it as it is for access to justice to be rationed, as they propose to do under these regulations.
It is important that we put the interests of the consumer above all other considerations. Of course we should take note of the question of remuneration and of costs. It is important that we seek ways of achieving efficiency in these areas, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) indicated, but it is important also to look at how the interests of the consumer are affected by these regulations.
Like many other hon. Members on both sides, I expect, I have received letters from numerous solicitors—not only legal practitioners, but social work practitioners and others involved in this area—as well as from people in receipt of legal aid. Perhaps the most striking of those contributions came from a firm of solicitors called Daniel and Harris, which practises in north-west London. On behalf of solicitors who represent not the fat cats of the Queen's Bench division and their Fleet street employers —important though that area of law undoubtedly is and as erudite as the contribution from the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was—but the poorest and most disadvantaged, that firm stated:
"The majority of our clients do not choose to go to law. Battered women do not have a choice about taking injunction proceedings to protect themselves and their children. Local authority tenants do not have a choice about defending possession proceedings, often for rent arrears that have arisen because of the council's failure to pay itself housing benefit. The homeless do not have a choice about challenging the council's decision to refuse to house them. The social and human costs of the Lord Chancellor's proposals are enormous. The proposals are mean, short-sighted and unjust."
The people concerned in the field share that view without exception.
Although the proposals are unsatisfactory, it is no wonder that they fail to meet the interests of justice when we consider how they came into being. The proposals do not stem from research carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department into cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Opposition Members, and, I hope, hon. Members in all parts of the House, want that research to be carried out. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) have said, we want a thorough and comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness or otherwise of the legal aid system. To go beyond that, we would like a broad view taken of the whole of our criminal and civil justice system to see how it can be made more consumer friendly and how it can deliver the goods more effectively to people seeking justice.
The proposals do not emanate from that compulsion. They emanate from the Treasury. The origin of the regulations lies in the Treasury and in the desire to save money at the expense of justice. That is no basis on which to proceed, and we shall oppose the regulations for that reason.
The impact of the regulations on a particular section of the community which has not been mentioned very much in the debate causes particular concern and is illustrative of a wider problem in respect of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which deals specifically with the green form and advice by way of representation. The people about whom I am concerned here are those who require the assistance of the legal advice

401
and aid scheme when dealing with issues of mental health and care in the community. As a result of those regulations, many of those people will slip through the net. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) reminded the House of the Lord Chancellor's stated concerns in that area and his reference to the importance of a safety net to ensure that people do not just slip through the system as a result of the regulations. We are entitled to ask where that safety net is. What proposals are being introduced today to show that consideration has been given to that area?
I will give a brief example of the impact of the regulations in respect of mental health. Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will give carers and users of services legal rights to assessment from 1 April. From that date, too, however —it is ironic that it should happen on the same day—many of those people will be unable to afford the advice of a solicitor to enforce those rights. What is the point of giving rights with one hand while taking away the means of enforcing those rights with the other? That is unfair and it is not right. The House should reflect that in the Lobby tonight.
The problems do not end there. Let us consider the impact of the regulations on a person of modest means —I make no apology for joining my colleagues in emphasising that particular aspect of the regulations—and particularly the way in which they affect women. Time and again, women are disadvantaged. I have an example of that from Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. I will describe the lady in question as Ann T. She used to work as a part-time cleaner, but she is unable to work as she was badly injured by a motorist. Her husband earns £126 a week. She is currently entitled to legal advice under the green form, with a contribution of £12, so that she can be advised in respect of a possible claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau. Under the proposals, she will not be entitled to any subsidised or free legal advice or assistance. We have heard nothing from Conservative Members to show that people like Ann T. will be given any consideration in the regulations.
We shall oppose the regulations. They are a denial of justice. We intend to fight them tooth and nail now, and we shall continue to do so.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): In the 14 minutes left to me, I will endeavour to reply to the many points that have been made in the debate. I hope that the House will bear with me and not think me graceless if, in those circumstances, I take no interventions.
May I first of all congratulate the Home Affairs Select Committee and its learned Chairman, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), on their report. I thank my hon. and learned Friend and tell him that I have taken note of his remarks on conditional fees, private legal insurance, ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and small claims procedures.
May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on his thoughtful speech, which brought the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select Committee to life here in the Chamber. However, I would
402
not wish to raise his hopes on rapid progress on those matters of co-operation with the professions which have been on the agenda of the efficiency commission since 1986. Together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), I acknowledge the very remarkable talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn).
Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his congratulations to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Given those congratulations, may I remind him of the Committee's recommendation that
"the Government commit itself to restoring cuts in eligibility in real terms when compensatory savings are found, and that it set a long term goal of ensuring that citizens have access to advice and assistance either free or at a price they can afford"?
Will the Minister give that assurance?
Mr. Taylor: The cost penalty of allowing that intervention is probably a matter of regret. However, I promise the hon. Lady that I will very carefully consider that. In fact, having read the Select Committee report once, I will re-read it. I cannot say fairer than that.
I was addressing my remarks to the very unusual talents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. He said that expenditure on civil legal aid in Scotland has dropped. I am afraid that I must tell him that there has been a large surge in civil legal aid expenditure in Scotland over the past year—almost £24 million now compared with £16·5 million in 1991–92.
Several hon. Members spoke about improving the efficiency of court procedures. There is a Standing Committee operating in Scotland to that end and there is the royal commission in England and Wales. I am sure that all who follow these events look forward with interest to their results.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) looked for further instruments of control. I invite him to share our thinking in anticipation of standard fees, franchising and fixed hourly rates in non-matrimonial cases, alongside his proper hopes for alternative dispute resolution.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Birmingham) and others spoke of the vulnerabilities in certain circumstances of women. It is important to remember that for civil legal aid for women facing domestic violence, it is likely, where a husband or wife have contrary interests—where their means are separately assessed—that, women in those circumstances will be among the least affected by the changes and will be ready candidates for an emergency legal aid certificate.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that I shall be more than glad to look at the difficulties to which she referred with the Legal Aid Board and I shall be happy if she will pursue those matters with me and my Department.
I must tell the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I pronounced his constituency incorrectly; I shall content myself with referring to it simply as Kilmarnock. He detected the increase in Scottish expenditure as a blip. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explained, the caseload, measured by grants of legal aid, which will fuel future expenditure, has continued and is continuing to increase inexorably in Scotland.

403
In 1979, the cost of legal aid was less than £100 million. In the year which ends today, it will be £1·1 billion. Over the past four years alone, legal aid expenditure has risen by 130 per cent. That cannot be allowed to continue. If it were to continue, expenditure would be nearly £2 billion by the mid-1990s.
The measures which are contained in the instruments that are before the House will help to contain the large and rapid growth in expenditure. But in doing so, they will safeguard access to justice to the greatest extent possible and will target the available money to where it is most needed.
It is important to remember that there is no question of legal aid being cut. Expenditure will rise by 10 per cent., 10 per cent. and 10 per cent. over the next three years to £1·528 billion in 1995–96. Over the same period, we expect the number of "acts of assistance"—that is, grants of legal aid or advice and assistance—to rise from 3·4 million in the current year to over 4 million. That is an increase approaching 25 per cent. In 1979–80, there were fewer than 1 million acts of assistance. The legal aid scheme is not being destroyed. It is continuing to grow.
It would be wrong to deny—and we have not sought to hide—that, as a result of the changes, fewer people will take advantage of legal aid than otherwise would have been the case. But the figures that I have given put into context the suggestions that the changes will affect as many as 14 million people. Clearly, it is nonsense to suggest that 14 million people will drop out of a scheme that helps just over 3 million people.
Let us explore that by looking in turn at civil legal aid, criminal legal aid and advice and assistance. In calculating disposable income—we talk about disposable income and that is important—for legal aid purposes, allowances are made for tax and national insurance, dependants, community charge, which in future will be council tax, housing costs, being rent or mortgage, water and sewerage charges and upkeep and insurance, work-related expenses, being fares, subscriptions to trade unions or professional associations, and the cost of child minding. In addition, assessing officers have discretion to allow other expenses, of which repayments of loan for home improvements and school fees are examples. That is a pretty hefty list of items to be discounted in determining disposable income.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Taylor: I am sure that I shall regret it, but I give way to my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Put like that, my hon. Friend deserves to regret it. In fact, he probably will not, because I am simply asking him to confirm what the Lord Chancellor said and what has always been said—that disability allowances are also allowable.
Mr. Taylor: I think that is right—[interruption.] I read the litany once. I am not sure that the House wants me to read it all over again.
The amending regulations provide that from 12 April, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, constant attendance allowance paid as an increase to a disablement pension and any payment out of the social fund will be disregarded in the calculation of disposable income for advice and assistance. Those are additional disregards
404
which bring advice and assistance into line with legal aid. That additional help recognises in particular the needs of those with disabilities.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that explanation.
Mr. Taylor: I hope that I have been able to retrieve my apparent lack of grace and I thank my hon. Friend for asking an extremely helpful question.
It has been argued that the changes are unnecessary. It has been suggested that because there has been in recent months a fall in the caseload of magistrates courts and a fall in the volume of criminal legal aid orders, the necessary savings will be found without any changes. But the Lord Chancellor is committed to expenditure targets not only for 1993–94 but for the further two years of the public expenditure survey. We cannot change plans on the basis of what may prove to be merely a blip in the trend of criminal business.
It has also been suggested that civil legal aid and personal injury litigation in particular are self-financing. That is not the case. Civil legal aid as a whole carries a net cost to the legal aid fund and, although the recovery of costs is relatively high in personal injury cases, so too does that category of case.
The Lord Chancellor and I appreciate the sincerity of the arguments which have been put to us, not least by the professions. However, the fact which must be faced is that the Lord Chancellor must take steps now to ensure that the expenditure totals to which he is committed until 1995–96 will be achieved. Ifs and buts and maybes will not do. We need to be certain that expenditure will be brought under control. The changes in the regulations will provide the required certainty.
But in attempting to achieve that control, we have done all that we can to preserve access to legal services. The scope of the legal aid scheme is unchanged: legal aid and advice and assistance will continue to cover the range of legal problems which it now covers. Almost half all households will be eligible for civil legal aid. That is not a bad poor man's lawyer. More than a fifth will be eligible for free legal aid and the same number will be eligible for advice and assistance. Criminal legal aid will be largely unaffected. Over the next three years, expenditure will grow by over 30 per cent. and the volume of legal aid business will grow by 25 per cent. We shall, of course, keep all that under review.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
Mr. Taylor: I will not give way to my hon. and learned Friend at this stage. To do so would be even more hazardous. I am sorry that he did not hear my earlier remarks and those of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary about the great talent that he has and how seldom we find that he is mistaken in his contributions to our debates, although he managed it today.
Working within the priorities set for public expenditure, we have had to set our priorities for legal aid. We have planned for significant growth and we have targeted the available money to where it is most needed. We still have a legal aid system of which we can be proud. It is arguably the best in the world and arguably the most expensive, too. But, as the Lord Chancellor said, every pound that is spent on legal aid is a pound that cannot be

405
spent on housing, education, transport or the health service. This is a debate about priorities and we have taken a responsible position on the priorities.
I shall end with a quotation from Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said, since the autumn statement:
"Ours is probably the most generous system of legal aid in the world."
He is a former chairman of the Bar Council and he speaks for Labour in the other place. I agree with him and I commend his words to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 259.

Division No. 226]

[7 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Aitken, Jonathan

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Couchman, James

Amess, David

Cran, James

Ancram, Michael

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

Arbuthnot, James

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Ashby, David

Day, Stephen

Aspinwall, Jack

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dover, Den

Baldry, Tony

Duncan, Alan

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dunn, Bob

Bates, Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Dykes, Hugh

Bendall, Vivian

Eggar, Tim

Beresford, Sir Paul

Elletson, Harold

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Boswell, Tim

Evennett, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Faber, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fabricant, Michael

Bowden, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowis, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fishburn, Dudley

Brandreth, Gyles

Forman, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bright, Graham

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Freeman, Roger

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

French, Douglas

Budgen, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Burns, Simon

Gale, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Gallie, Phil

Butcher, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Butler, Peter

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butterfill, John

Garnier, Edward

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gill, Christopher

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carttiss, Michael

Gorst, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grylls, Sir Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Colvin, Michael

Hague, William

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Conway, Derek

Hampson, Dr Keith

406

Hanley, Jeremy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hannam, Sir John

Moss, Malcolm

Hargreaves, Andrew

Needham, Richard

Harris, David

Nelson, Anthony

Haselhurst, Alan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawksley, Warren

Nicholls, Patrick

Hayes, Jerry

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Heald, Oliver

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Norris, Steve

Hendry, Charles

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Ottaway, Richard

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Page, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Paice, James

Horam, John

Patnick, Irvine

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

Pawsey, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunter, Andrew

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Powell, William (Corby)

Jack, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Redwood, John

Jessel, Toby

Richards, Rod

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robathan, Andrew

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Key, Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knapman, Roger

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sackville, Tom

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knox, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shersby, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Legg, Barry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Leigh, Edward

Soames, Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lightbown, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spring, Richard

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sproat, Iain

Lord, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Luff, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Steen, Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stephen, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David

Stewart, Allan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sumberg, David

Madel, David

Sweeney, Walter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sykes, John

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Thomason, Roy

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mates, Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thurnham, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Merchant, Piers

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

Miiligan, Stephen

Tracey, Richard

Mills, Iain

Tredinnick, David

Mitchell, Sir David (Wants NW)

Trend, Michael

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Trotter, Neville

Monro, Sir Hector

Twinn, Dr Ian

407

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Viggers, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Wilshire, David

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ward, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wood, Timothy

Waterson, Nigel

Yeo, Tim

Watts, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Whittingdale, John

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dalyell, Tam

Ainger, Nick

Darling, Alistair

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

Dewar, Donald

Ashton, Joe

Dixon, Don

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dobson, Frank

Barnes, Harry

Donohoe, Brian H.

Barron, Kevin

Dowd, Jim

Battle, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bayley, Hugh

Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Eagle, Ms Angela

Bell, Stuart

Eastham, Ken

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Enright, Derek

Bennett, Andrew F.

Etherington, Bill

Benton, Joe

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Berry, Dr. Roger

Fatchett, Derek

Betts, Clive

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Blunkett, David

Fisher, Mark

Boateng, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Boyce, Jimmy

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradley, Keith

Foulkes, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fraser, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Fyfe, Maria

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

Gapes, Mike

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Garrett, John

Burden, Richard

George, Bruce

Byers, Stephen

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)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Gunnell. John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hain, Peter

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hall, Mike

Clelland, David

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hardy, Peter

Coffey, Ann

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cohen, Harry

Harvey, Nick

Connarty, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Henderson, Doug

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Heppell, John

Corbett, Robin

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hlnchliffe, 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

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hoyle, Doug

Dafis, Cynog

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

408

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hutton, John

Parry, Robert

Ingram, Adam

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pike, Peter L.

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pope, Greg

Jamieson, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Janner, Greville

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Prescott, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Primarolo, Dawn

Keen, Alan

Purchase, Ken

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Radice, Giles

Khabra, Piara S.

Randall, Stuart

Kilfoyle, Peter

Raynsford, Nick

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Reid, Dr John

Kirkwood, Archy

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Lewis, Terry

Rooker, Jeff

Litherland, Robert

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livingstone, Ken

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Llwyd, Elfyn

Salmond, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Sheerman, Barry

McAllion, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAvoy, Thomas

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McCartney, Ian

Short, Clare

Macdonald, Calum

Simpson, Alan

McFall, John

Skinner, Dennis

McKelvey, William

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

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McLeish, Henry

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Maclennan, Robert

Snape, Peter

McMaster, Gordon

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Madden, Max

Steinberg, Gerry

Mahon, Alice

Stevenson, George

Mandelson, Peter

Stott, Roger

Marek, Dr John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Straw, Jack

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martlew, Eric

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Maxton, John

Tipping, Paddy

Meacher, Michael

Turner, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Tyler, Paul

Michael, Alun

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Warded, Gareth (Gower)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Wareing, Robert N

Miller, Andrew

Watson, Mike

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Welsh, Andrew

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wicks, Malcolm

Morley, Elliot

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Wilson, Brian

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Winnick, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Worthington, Tony

Mudie, George

Wray, Jimmy

Mullin, Chris

Wright, Dr Tony

Murphy, Paul

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshlre)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Tellers for the Noes:

O'Hara, Edward

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

Olner, William

Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved,
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions on the remaining motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang, pursuant to order [26 March].
Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Resolved,
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11 th March, be approved. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Resolved,
That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Mr. Deputy Speak then put the Question on a motion in the name of Mr. John Smith.
Motion made, and Question put:—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 790), dated 17th March 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be annulled.
The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 301.

Division No. 227]

[7.16 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ainger, Nick

Coffey, Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cohen, Harry

Allen, Graham

Connarty, Michael

Alton, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Corbett, Robin

Armstrong, Hilary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corston, Ms Jean

Ashton, Joe

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cox, Tom

Barnes, Harry

Cryer, Bob

Barron, Kevin

Cummings, John

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dafis, Cynog

Bell, Stuart

Dal yell, Tam

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Darling, Alistair

Bennett, Andrew F.

Davidson, Ian

Benton, Joe

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Betts, Clive

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

Blunkett, David

Denham, John

Boateng, Paul

Dewar, Donald

Boyce, Jimmy

Dixon, Don

Boyes, Roland

Dobson, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Dowd, Jim

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Eagle, Ms Angela

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

Eastham, Ken

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Enright, Derek

Burden, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Byers, Stephen

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Callaghan, Jim

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Canavan, Dennis

Foster, Don (Bath)

Cann, Jamie

Foulkes, George

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Fraser, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fyfe, Maria

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Garrett, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

George, Bruce

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

410

Godsiff, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Gordon, Mildred

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gould, Bryan

Morley, Elliot

Graham, Thomas

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Grocott, Bruce

Mudie, George

Gunnell, John

Mullin, Chris

Hain, Peter

Murphy, Paul

Hall. Mike

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hanson, David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hardy, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Harman, Ms Harriet

Olner, William

Harvey, Nick

O'Neill, Martin

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Henderson, Doug

Parry, Robert

Heppell, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pike, Peter L.

Hinchliffe, David

Pope, Greg

Hoey, Kate

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Home Robertson, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hood, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Hoon, Geoffrey

Purchase, Ken

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoyle, Doug

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Raynsford, Nick

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Reid, Dr John

Hutton, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Ingram, Adam

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Rooker, Jeff

Janner, Greville

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Ruddock, Joan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Salmond, Alex

Keen, Alan

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Short, Clare

Khabra, Piara S.

Simpson, Alan

Kilfoyle, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Leighton, Ron

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

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Litherland, Robert

Soley, Clive

Livingstone, Ken

Spearing, Nigel

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Steinberg, Gerry

Loyden, Eddie

Stevenson, George

Lynne, Ms Liz

Stott, Roger

McAllion, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McAvoy, Thomas

Straw, Jack

McCartney, Ian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Macdonald, Calum

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McFall, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McKelvey, William

Tipping, Paddy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Turner, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Tyler, Paul

Maclennan, Robert

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

McMaster, Gordon

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McNamara, Kevin

Wareing, Robert N

McWilliam, John

Watson, Mike

Madden, Max

Welsh, Andrew

Mahon, Alice

Wicks, Malcolm

Mandelson, Peter

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wilson, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Winnick, David

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Worthington, Tony

Martlew, Eric

Wray, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Wright, Dr Tony

Meacher, Michael

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Tellers for the Ayes:

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Mr. Eric Illsley.

411

NOES

Adley, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Elletson, Harold

Aitken, Jonathan

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Alexander, Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Amess, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Ancram, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Arbuthnot, James

Evennett, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Faber, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fabricant, Michael

Ashby, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Aspinwall, Jack

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Fishburn, Dudley

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Baldry, Tony

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Freeman, Roger

Bates, Michael

French, Douglas

Bellingham, Henry

Gale, Roger

Bendall, Vivian

Gallie, Phil

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gardiner, Sir George

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Garnier, Edward

Body, Sir Richard

Gill, Christopher

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Booth, Hartley

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell, Tim

Gorst, John

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowden, Andrew

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bowis, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Grylls, Sir Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brazier, Julian

Hague, William

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hanley, Jeremy

Budgen, Nicholas

Hannam, Sir John

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butler, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Nick

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayes, Jerry

Carrington, Matthew

Heald, Oliver

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hendry, Charles

Churchill, Mr

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coe, Sebastian

Horam, John

Colvin, Michael

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Congdon, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

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

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Couchman, James

Hunter, Andrew

Cran, James

Jack, Michael

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

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jessel, Toby

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Devlin, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dorrell, Stephen

Key, Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Dover, Den

Kirkhope, Timothy

Duncan, Alan

Knapman, Roger

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Dunn, Bob

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Durant, Sir Anthony

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

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

412

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Sackville, Tom

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Shaw, David (Dover)

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lidington, David

Shersby, Michael

Lightbown, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

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

Maitland, Lady Olga

Steen, Anthony

Malone, Gerald

Stephen, Michael

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan

Marlow, Tony

Streeter, Gary

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Sumberg, David

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sweeney, Walter

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sykes, John

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Milligan, Stephen

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mills, Iain

Thomason, Roy

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Moate, Sir Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Monro, Sir Hector

Thurnham, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Moss, Malcolm

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

Needham, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Nelson, Anthony

Tredinnick, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Trend, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trotter, Neville

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Viggers, Peter

Norris, Steve

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walden, George

Oppenheim, Phillip

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Ottaway, Richard

Waller, Gary

Page, Richard

Ward, John

Paice, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Patnick, Irvine

Waterson, Nigel

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wells, Bowen

Pawsey, James

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Willetts, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wilshire, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Redwood, John

Wolfson, Mark

Richards, Rod

Wood, Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Yeo, Tim

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Robathan, Andrew

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CHILD SUPPORT
That the draft Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
That the draft Land Registry Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

LAND REGISTRATION (COSTS)
That the draft Land Registration (Determination of Costs) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Question agreed to.

Agricultural Prices
[Relevant documents: European Community Document No. 4620/92 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18th March 1993, on temporary national compensation for farmers in Germany, European Community Documents Nos. 4821/92, on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco and on the 1992 tobacco harvest, 5018/93, on the allocation of quotas for certain varieties of tobacco in Greece, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18th March 1993, on the progress made by Greece, Spain and Italy in the effective application of the milk quota scheme and on the situation on the market for milk and milk products, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22nd March, on national aid for sheep farming in France.]
7.28 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4608/93, on the prices for agricultural products and on related measures, 1993–94; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms, and takes full account of the realities of the budgetary situation.
The prospects for the farming industry are brighter than they have been for several years. I think that the House will agree that the first reason for that is that the uncertainty which has hung over the industry for so long has been lessened by the completion of the major part of the proposals for common agricultural policy reform. That provides a framework for the development of a competitive industry for the rest of the century. It gives farmers the stability they need to plan ahead. There is a great deal more to do, but for the major products that so dominate the British farming scene, we have laid the pattern for the coming decade.
The agreement contains several positive features. By cutting prices and reducing the role of intervention, it will bring farming nearer to the market and encourage farmers to pay much greater attention to the demands of consumers. It will reduce the resource costs of agricultural support in the Community. Overall, the costs imposed by the CAP on the consumer and taxpayer will be lower as a result of the agreement. The agreement marks a major step forward in the integration of environmental considerations into the CAP.
A last but important element of the agreement is that it does not discriminate against our farmers. The burden of reform will be borne by all producers—not, as the Commission proposed, simply by larger, more efficient farmers. Many people, including Labour Members, openly doubted that that was possible. They could not have been more wrong. None of the Commission's proposals which would have discriminated against larger producers was carried through to the final agreement. All the producers will benefit from the various compensation payments which now constitute such an important part of the reformed CAP. It was essential for the future of our farming industry that we won that point.

415
This year we shall begin to see what the agreement means in real terms. Whereas previously 7 per cent. of spending on the CAP came to Britain, now 9 per cent. will come to Britain. If the MacSharry proposals had been accepted, Britain would have received less than 7 per cent. So the increase that has been achieved by the negotiations is considerable. It will be seen in the returns that farmers will have this year and in future years.
In 1992 we also saw a welcome recovery in farm incomes. There is no doubt that farmers have done less well year by year. They often look at the rest of the country and point out that increases in food prices have been much outdone by increases in the prices of other products. It is surprising that, despite the excellence of food in Britain, every year a smaller proportion of the household budget is spent on food. It is a constant concern of farmers that their work is less respected and encouraged by the rest of the community.
Nevertheless, farm incomes rose by some 11 per cent. in 1992. That improvement was from a higher level than we predicted last year. The recovery is from a low base. Farm incomes have been under severe pressure in recent years and in real terms remain below the levels achieved 10 years ago. Those in the more exuberant organs of the press who tend to believe that farmers are doing extremely well should look at their own incomes and ask themselves whether they would like it if their income was lower in real terms than 10 years ago. It is important to make that clear lest people run away with the idea that the farmers are back to the income levels which were expected in the past.
However, there are encouraging signs for the future. The fall in interest rates is a major boost to many farmers.. Overall the industry's interest charges fell by 16 per cent. last year. Currently interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years. Inflation is also down. Farmers are affected by inflation perhaps more than most other sections of the community, for they find it much more difficult to get back from the marketplace the inflationary additions which they have to pay on their inputs and their wages.
The farming industry has also benefited significantly from the green pound devaluations that have taken place since September, with support prices increasing by some 23 per cent. I wonder whether we might concentrate for one moment on the increase in the green pound and its effect on farmers.
In the past those in the sheep industry have reasonably groused that the arrangements for changes in the green pound have always been organised in such a way that they had to wait a whole year before they received the benefit. It is important to recognise that we ensured that the changes took place early enough for sheep farmers to benefit a year earlier than most would have expected.
So much of the extra money that will go to sheep farmers, especially to those in the less-favoured areas, has come not from the automatic reaction of the green pound but from the specific decision of a Government determined to protect the farmers' interests. As a result of the changes, farmers can be cautiously optimistic about their prospects for the year ahead. However, it is not feasible to look much further into the future because it contains other uncertainties, albeit fewer than previously.
The industry needs to make the most of the opportunities that exist now, using this better time to prepare for periods that may be more difficult in the future. We should take advantage of the competitive level of sterling. Already, exports of sheepmeat were up in 1992 by
416
30 per cent. Exports of pigmeat, in which we often think that we do not do so well, were up by 25 per cent. The industry must build on those successes and make itself fit for the rigours of the future.
We now have to implement the reformed CAP schemes. I know that there is considerable anxiety among farmers about the administrative burdens which they fear that the schemes will impose upon them. I am cheered that several people, including those who are not at all happy with the place of Britain in Europe or with Maastricht and the like, have said to me that they are pleased with the quality and care with which we have produced the documentation and forms that farmers have to fill in. That is a great tribute to staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have brought farmers in at every point to ensure that the forms are as they would wish them to be—as simple as possible.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the forms. I put a towel round my head and went through them last night. I thought that it was going to be awful. But they are extremely well designed, simple to follow and virtually foolproof. My right hon. Friend will be glad to know that the chairman of my local county farmers union has gone on record today saying emphatically that farmers must get the forms in by the crucial date of 15 May and no bones about it. I am convinced that farmers will be able to fill in the forms without making mistakes.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that, whatever their concerns and wherever they stand on the issue of European integration, they must ensure that every farmer returns the forms before 15 May. That is crucial. A great deal of money hangs on it. There is almost £1,000 million this year and there will be almost £1,500 million next year. That money needs to come through.
There is a second important date to which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) would have referred, if she had had time. We have put the date on a special piece of paper inside the package that will come to every farmer this weekend. I hope that every farmer will have it by Monday; some will have it on Saturday. The special piece of paper reminds farmers of the second date, which is 17 April. That is the last date on which Ordnance Survey can guarantee in its one-stop system to provide the maps that farmers need.
I hope that most farmers have sought the maps already. Anyone who has not done so should do so at once. The quicker that farmers obtain the maps, the quicker they can fill in and return the forms so that we have some chance of checking that they are right. I hope that there will be every opportunity to help farmers fill in the forms. Our regional service centres are staffed up to give advice. But again, the quicker that we receive the requirements, the quicker we shall be able to answer them. [Interruption.] It is all right for Opposition Members who will not have to fill in the forms. They will not receive the money and they would not lose out if they had not filled in the forms. I know that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will go round his farmers making sure that they fill in the forms properly.
The penalty for mistakes in filling in the forms could be severe. But we are talking about a great deal of money. We are determined that the same rules will be carried through

417
in every country of the European Community. I have looked at the forms in most other countries and our forms are very similar. However, the explanatory documentation that we have issued is much clearer. It is all in one place. Farmers will not have to scrabble around for different booklets and so on. This has been an example to others. I suspect that other countries will follow us in the future. I assure the House that the same information will not have to be produced next year. We hope to use a database to send the documentation to every farmer in the country, who will then only have to update it. That will make a major difference.
We are doing our best to keep the demands on farmers as low as possible. However, we also want to meet their major requirement, which is that they should not be asked to do in Britain what farmers are not asked to do elsewhere. That is why the forms are standard throughout the Community. The Commission and the Council will be able to check whether the forms are properly filled out and, if they are not, the farmers will not get the money. That will be as true in Italy as it will be in Britain. That will be a major change.
Labour Members who are keen on the European Community—[Laughter.] I understand that those hon. Members are publicly committed to a closer union in Europe and therefore share my attitude to the Community. They would do better if they giggled less and supported more. Many of us spend a great deal of time —[Laughter] When I make a joke, I shall ask hon. Members to laugh. It would help a great deal if we could get the rest of the Community to follow the high standards that we have maintained in Britain. However, I question whether the Community has the same determination as Britain to keep the documentation and the demands at the lowest level. We have therefore asked the new commissioner to consider ways to simplify the rules and he will come forward with proposals. We are also seeking to achieve that through the Council and other available mechanisms.
It is against that background that we should consider the Commission's proposals for price fixing. Quite frankly, they are disappointing. They are largely a roll-over collection of proposals at a time when there is a need for some fairly substantial changes. The reform of the CAP is not complete; we still do not have an up-to-date wine regime, we do not have changes in the sugar regime, we have not completed the work that we need to do on the beef regime and we still have the enormous expense of intervention hanging over the market. It is regrettable that the Commission has not even brought forward its proposals on fruit and vegetables, olive oil, rice and cotton. There is a need to reduce expenditure in all those sectors. Unless we do that, we will face real difficulty in paying the bill and meeting our expenditure within the guidelines.
We have made substantial progress in the reform agreement on integrating environmental considerations into the CAP. I should have liked there to have been more and I still want cross-compliance. I think that, in the end, the public will demand that, where the taxpayer pays out money, it must be to farmers who practise environmentally friendly farming. The farmers who are doing that—and
418
they are the vast majority—will increasingly demand that their peers come into line, because the small number who do not farm in that manner harm the reputation of all.
Earlier today, I spent some time addressing the Association of Small Farmers, when it was brought home to me that the farmers felt considerable concern about their status and reputation, which are not what they were. Part of the reason for that has been the activities of a very small number of farmers and cross-compliance could go a long way to putting that right. If there was a more generalised system of cross-compliance, every suburban dweller and urban liver would know that, at the core of the system, was a concern for the countryside and the environment and a respect for the soil and husbandry.
I fear that the Commission's proposals take too little account of the difficult budgetary position that the Community is likely to face in 1994. With lower estimates of Community GNP, the guideline next year is now expected to be little higher than this year. With the increased costs of CAP reform beginning to have a real impact on the budget of 1994, there are fears that, on current trends, expenditure could be set to exceed the guideline even before the costs of the recent ERM realignments are taken into account. The Edinburgh Council agreed to some easing of the current rules to help with the latter costs, but any increase in the guideline remains out of the question.
In those circumstances, I feel that a prudent price settlement is required. We need now to bring spending under control, because otherwise the decisions later in the year will be much tougher. It is also essential that we do not agree anything that would increase the cost of the CAP. In particular, the agreement reached in December on the reform of the agrimonetary system must not be reopened.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the complicated nature of that system. You are no doubt familiar with the way in which the switchover mechanism works. If that has temporarily escaped you, I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington can explain it in detail. The system has an artificial effect on prices in countries with hard, tough currencies. One of the reasons why Germany has been able to maintain its view on the deutschmark is that the German farmer has been protected, because of the switchover mechanism, from the effect of too strong a currency. That is why it was only with the greatest reluctance that we agreed to the mechanism continuing for two years. Now, there is pressure on us to protect countries with strong currencies against even the small effect that the switchover system allows. That we cannot and will not do.
In addition to the price-fixing proposals in the dairy sector, the Commission has presented two reports to the Council. As, to some extent, they overtake the price-fixing proposals, it would be misleading if I did not mention them in the context of the debate. The first report considers the case for the 1 per cent. quota cut for 1993–94 that was provisionally agreed last year. The House will know that it is not the Government's policy to support further cuts in quota. We already produce less butterfat than we need—that has been so for most of the century and we have always imported large quantities of dairy products. A 1 per cent. quota cut has a much greater effect on a country that is 85 per cent. self-sufficient than on countries that produce considerably more than they need. Therefore, I have always believed that a cut in the butter price rather than in

419
the quota is a better way to deal with these matters. For that reason, I am pleased that the report concludes that the market for milk and milk products has improved and that it proposes that the quota cut should be deferred and reconsidered next year. It also concludes that the butter market is very weak and proposes that the support price for butter should be cut by 5 per cent. for the coming marketing year, rather than the 2·5 per cent. provisionally agreed last year.
The House will recognise that that is another example of the Commission moving towards the United Kingdom's position rather than the position taken by other Community countries. That small group of hon. Members who still find themselves unhappy and uncomfortable within the European Community should recognise the degree to which decisions now being made are the same decisions that Britain would have made were it making them on its own, outside the Community.
There has been a fundamental change in the way in which the Community is moving, not least on agriculture. We should consider how the CAP is now operated. At a meeting earlier today someone said to me, "It is surprising how far we have moved away from the system that we took on when we joined the Community, towards the system which we once had and which was much closer to the market and to the mechanisms that we know to be good." Those are real victories for the United Kingdom.
The second report covers the implementation of the milk quota system in Spain, Greece and Italy. I hope that the House will distinguish between those three countries because they all have different issues at stake. There is no doubt, for example, that if Spain had had accurate production figures in the first place, it would have had a higher quota. Spain is, in any event, a deficit producer. It now has accurate figures and has already begun to cut its production. It is important for us that Spain should do that: the less that Spain produces, the greater will be our opportunity to oppose a cut in quota and the more markets there will be for over-production in France.
We have said that the Spanish will be given no help with their quota until they have made the necessary cuts. One million tonnes must be taken off the system before we can accept that Spain should have the quota that she would have secured historically.
Greece has a deficit in regard to the production of fresh milk. It cannot import from the rest of the Community and does not produce enough milk for its own internal needs. Obviously, Greece should be able to produce enough for fresh milk consumption; that is entirely sensible and does not interfere with our markets.
In Italy, the issue is much sharper. For years, the Italians promised us that the quota system was being implemented; later, it became clear that it was not. I have therefore made it plain to the Commission and the Council —as have a sufficient number of my colleagues—that we will consider very carefully before providing any help on the quota front. In its first report, the Commission says that Italy has not yet done what it must do before the Commission can make a recommendation on the basis that Italy has taken the necessary 1 million tonnes of production out of the system. We shall want clear proof of that.
I have made clear my feelings about the way in which Italy has dealt with these matters. I can, however, give one piece of good news. This year, for the first time, the Italian Government reported their own failures to the
420
Commission. Some of the popular press said how appalling it was to discover the perpetration of fraud in, for example, the growing of durum wheat; what was not mentioned was the fact that that fraud was detected by the Italian Government. Satellite pictures were taken on the Italian Government's demand and they accepted that there would have to be a reduction in the money that they received.
That is a big change, which must be supported. I have seen no such development in my earlier dealings with the Italians. I think it only fair to draw attention to the change, given the tough way in which we must approach such matters. I hope to be able to discuss it with the new Italian Minister, who is the fifth with whom I have had to deal in recent times. I am sorry about the demise of the last Minister, in circumstances of which I know nothing; for the first time, an Italian Minister appeared to be on top of the job and to be getting on with the business of dealing with these matters. I shall, however, chase his replacement: I hope that he, too, will be on top of the job, with none of the attendant disadvantages.
There is already a success to report. I found it intolerable that the Commission presented proposals on vining peas, for example, when they were not supposed to be introduced to the arable area scheme and then took them out after people thought that they would be included. That left us all in a difficult position, legally and morally. The same seemed likely to happen with linseed; that would have been very serious for farmers in Britain and Germany, the two countries in which linseed matters most.
We have persuaded the Commission to announce that there will be no question of linseed's inclusion in the arable area scheme this year and that has set many farmers' minds at rest. We secured that assurance in the teeth of opposition and I believe that it shows that the Commission and, indeed, the Community are becoming much closer to the realities of life.
The decisions that we make each year in the annual price fixing are important to farmers, but they are concerned with the detailed workings of the common agricultural policy. In focusing on the detail, we must not lose sight of the larger picture—the reasons why we need a thriving farming industry and the reasons why that objective merits support from both Government and Opposition.
We need farmers to produce food. We may have surpluses in the European Community, but we would be very foolish to assume that surplus will never again be followed by shortage. The world is not as it has been in the past and it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which shortages might arise. There need not be much climatic change, or a great increase in the taste for "temperate" food in developing nations—which is one of the first consequences of improved living standards. There need not be much effect on the speed with which technological change is introduced, because of environmental questions, for a change to take place in the whole way in which the supply of food is kept ahead of the population increase.
Why, in past years, were the gurus wrong—all those who told us that world population would change the patterns of life, and that the battle beteen south and north would replace the east-west battle? Because the population increase was outpaced by the rapid technological advances in husbandry. Such a result is possible only if the speed of development is maintained. Now, more and more people have real concerns, insisting that we take longer to license,

421
take more care in what we do and are more sure of what we let into the atmosphere. Such action changes the pattern fundamentally.
I do not think it helpful to suggest that we rest on the assurance that there will always be a food surplus. I cannot say when the change will take place; indeed, I cannot be absolutely sure that it will take place. I know, however, that no Government or potential Government can sensibly leave the feeding of their people to such a hazard. It is essential that Britain's land continues to produce food and to be available for increased production; it is also essential for farmers to be able to bring about that increased production should the need come about.
It is no longer sufficient, however, for farmers simply to produce food. In the past, producing enough food to feed the whole population was an achievement in itself; nowadays, people want more. Consumers are used to a wide choice of foods and, to compete, our farmers need to produce what consumers want at attractive prices. I still hear farmers say that they do not want to produce a particular type of potato, or a particular weight of lamb, because they do not like it—although the customer demands it. In the end, it does not matter what the producer likes; what matters is what the customer demands. The producer can obtain a price—certainly, a premium price—only if he adjusts his production to meet the needs of the market. The farming industry must be focused increasingly on the market. It must be able to add value, diversify into new enterprises, lower costs and sell its products; it must be able to take a growing share of home and export markets.
We also need farmers if we are to retain our landscape and the countryside for which we care. That countryside was created by 2,000 years of farming and only by farming can we keep it—with all its glorious variety—for the next 2,000 years. It must be farmed in ways that respect its traditional characteristics and the natural environment. The great majority of farmers already farm in that way: they take pride in their role as custodians of the countryside.
That rôle deserves public support and is increasingly receiving it. Where we ask farmers to go beyond good agricultural practice to benefit the environment, it is surely right for the general public to pay. People cannot be asked to do what is expensive for the general good unless they are provided with some help. That is the principle that underlies the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which was pioneered in this country—not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—and has now been extended to the rest of the Community.
This is one of the ways in which Britain is leading the Community. All the major environmental schemes in Europe bear the stamp of Britain: we led the way. We persuaded Europe to make such measures the centrepiece of its CAP reform and we are generally regarded as the country that uses the most practical means to bring together the needs of the environment and the demand for food production. I took it a step further last week by announcing proposals to implement the Community's new agri-environment regulations. We are planning to build on the success of the ESA Scheme, with proposals for six new ESAs, and to introduce a number of new schemes,
422
including measures to conserve moorland, to promote improved access to the countryside and to encourage organic farming.
I well remember that when I first joined the Ministry as Minister of State I was not allowed to use the words "organic farming". I remember finding it rather difficult to make an appointment with the Soil Association. I am not suggesting that the Government should say that organic farming is better than conventional farming; I am merely saying that Government should provide the opportunity for the choice to be made.
We are a nation that believes in choice and the pioneering work of my former constituent, Lady Balfour, who began the work of the Soil Association but who died recently, taught an attitude to the land that goes much further than the narrow tenets of the Soil Association. It was the concept of respecting the soil. I visited a farm that is farmed by one of our major farming companies—a very efficient outfit—and was extremely pleased when the first thing that the farm manager told me was, "That is where it is made: it is that soil, that tillage. Getting that right and respecting it is how we make the difference between profit and loss." That attitude should go much further than those who, properly, are the heralds of a different way of looking at the future of the countryside.
The proposals will add £31 million a year to the Ministry's expenditure on environmental schemes by 1995–96, bringing the total to more than £100 million by that time. When one recalls the small amounts that were possible when we piloted the first Bill through Parliament six or seven years ago, one realises that there has been a huge change throughout the country. No doubt the Labour party will suggest that more might be done—it did so at that time—but we have tried to build on our achievements and will continue to do so.
We can honourably say that every scheme that we have introduced has been a success and we have been able to extend it because of success rather than fear for its future because of failure.
I believe that the proposals will be money well spent if they contribute to the preservation of our countryside. We all need that countryside because the unfortunate fact is that the majority of our citizens live in towns and suburbs. They need the countryside for their green lung, which will be increasingly essential as the tempo of urban life accelerates. Rural life remains the guardian of continuing values. We would all be the poorer if they were lost. Farming families are at the heart of rural life. To produce food, to conserve the beauties of our countryside and to sustain working rural communities we need farmers farming the land. That belief is at the heart of the Government's policies on farming and rural society.
8.4 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from '1993–94' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the reduction in support prices contained in 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms; opposes the introduction of rotational set aside which will damage the rural economy and environment; regrets that the reforms do not adequately address the failures of the Common Agricultural Policy including its exorbitant cost to EC taxpayers; and calls upon the Government to press for a Common Agricultural Policy which breaks the link between subsidies and

423
production, rewards environmentally sensitive farming, reduces the cost of food to the consumer and encourages employment in agriculture and the countryside.'.
I agree with the closing remarks of the Minister. Indeed, all hon. Members would agree about the importance of the agriculture industry to our people. It is important because of the farm gate value of its output and because of the number of farmers and farm workers who are directly dependent on it.
It is even more important than that, because it provides the raw material for our food industries, which represent a large amount of investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Furthermore, the agriculture industry, in most rural parts of Britain, represents the core of the rural economy. Few employed in the industry are farm workers, but many jobs are dependent on agriculture. There can be no dispute about the importance of agriculture to our economy.
The Minister acknowledged—I was pleased that he did so—that the 1980s have not been easy for the agriculture industry. The Government cannot shirk their responsibility for these hard times. Britain's farmers did not see any of the Lawson boom. The latter half of the 1980s was disastrous for the industry, and only now are we beginning to see some slight recovery. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, that recovery still has not restored us to our position at the beginning of the 1980s.
The Minister said that the main factor for the increased optimism in the industry was that the CAP reforms had been settled. Who is he kidding? He does not believe that the MacSharry reforms are leading to increased confidence and hope in the British industry. He knows, like every other hon. Member, that the industry is looking forward to a better future because of black Wednesday—Britain's forced withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism, the devaluation of sterling and the consequent increases in support prices. That is the first, second and third reason why British agriculture can, we hope, look forward to higher returns, which we want to see translated into more jobs and higher investment.
Last week, we debated the Agriculture Bill, in the course of which the Minister and I referred to the Agriculture Act 1947 and the good old days when we had an agricultural price review and all that the House had to concern itself with was support prices and the bargain struck between the Government and the agriculture industry. In some respects, those were halcyon days, since when things have become so much more complicated. We then had a far better system of support for the British consumer and the industry, but the reality is that the European Community is where all the major decisions on agriculture policy are taken, and have been taken for a long time. That is why this debate is the major agriculture debate in the parliamentary calendar.
I turn now to the documents, some of which the Minister, for reasons which may become obvious, managed to avoid referring to. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but at least two of the documents have something to do with tobacco production. I remind the Minister of what he said a couple of years ago:
"It is outrageous that we should subsidise the increased growth of tobacco … when most member states are seeking to reduce the consumption".—[Official Report, 6 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 789.]
He has changed his position a bit since then. On 12 June 1992, he said:
424
"It is not feasible to end … tobacco production."— [Official Report, 12 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 565.]
The Minister avoided the problem this evening simply by making no reference to the tobacco documents which are before the House. As the tobacco regime is costing the European Community about £1 billion per annum, and as the cost of the regime has been ratcheting up every year and was estimated to rise again in 1992, one is entitled to say that the Minister, by failing to refer to that regime, is guilty of a certain degree of complacency.
Mr. Gummer: I should hate the hon. Gentleman to feel that I am complacent. I could easily have said that under this system we are reducing the amount of tobacco which receives support from 460,000 tonnes in 1982 to 350,000 tonnes in 1994. In Greece, 200,000 small farming families are dependent on tobacco production. I believe that what I said on those occasions remains true. It is outrageous that we should be spending that money. We should reduce it—and we are reducing it, but it must be done at a pace which ensures that villages and small communities in southern countries are not wiped out at once. I believe that at the end of a reasonably short period of time there should be no support for tobacco. We are on the way. The measures have been so tough that the Greek Minister has held up many meetings because of the effect on his rural community. We can only move at a pace which takes account of the many livelihoods which depend on tobacco.
Dr. Strang: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He has mentioned some of the points that I was going to make at the end. Tobacco is a labour-intensive sector. It is true that many jobs in southern countries depend on it, but it happens to be the most costly regime per hectare of all the regimes.
My final quotation in this respect is from the British Journal of Addiction. An article written by two authors —one French and one British—states:
"The common agricultural policy of the European Community subsidises tobacco production to the tune of … £900 million. This amounts to … £1,700 per minute, and is more in one year than the total amount spent on tobacco subsidies by the US in the last 50 years. The purpose of this policy was to maintain farmers' incomes and adapt community production to demand … The policy has failed. Expenditure has spiralled out of control, production of unmarketable tobacco varieties has risen enormously, and the EC is the world's largest importer of raw tobacco."
Despite the efforts to switch to alternative tobaccos, the regime is a disaster.
We must adopt a position of principle. Yes, we have to support the rural economy of the areas involved, but instead of talking about supporting the tobacco industry it is high time that the Government considered ways of enabling tobacco producers to move to other economic activities so that they are provided with alternative employment.
Did the right hon. Gentleman omit to refer to the document on national aid for sheep farming? I believe that he mentioned the document which provides for a continuation of temporary aid for the German agriculture industry when talking about the switch-over mechanism. I do not wish to make a major point of it, but does he accept that the Council of Ministers should make it pretty difficult for such national measures to be passed? If there is to be a level playing field and a common agricultural policy, it is not in the interests of our industry for other Governments who are prepared to spend their own money

425
to be allowed to provide additional, large-scale subsidies over and above those available to our producers under the CAP.
The Minister referred to the documents on milk, especially the milk quota. He seemed to be trying to talk tough on the Italian milk quota, but if hon. Members take the trouble to read his words I do not think that they will find he was being so very resolute. Milk quotas were introduced in 1984, and the Italian Government have failed to operate the system for all those years. It would be utterly unacceptable if the Italian Government were to receive an increase in their quota as a bribe for implementing the system from now on. I should have thought it sensible for any increase in the Italian quota to depend on at least one year's operation of the existing arrangements, which they should have been operating since 1984. That is a very important issue for this country.
I was rather surprised that the Minister made a great deal of our lack of self-sufficiency. I do not disagree, but the problem with the British milk quota is that we have a very competitive industry. It is generally accepted, especially with the increase in support prices and the devaluation of the pound, that we would be able to increase our share of milk production in the European Community if there were no milk quotas but a genuinely free market, because of the efficiency of our milk processing industry and its scope for expansion.
Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. I find his argument difficult to believe. If we were using all our milk quota for high value products, which were to be found on supermarket shelves in France and Germany, I should be much happier. At the moment, however, we are turning our milk quota into skimmed milk powder which we are exporting at a subsidised price. That is outrageous. It shows that the system does not produce the competitive edge that it should, so the hon. Gentleman's case does not stand up.
I hope that there will be changes in the milk industry so that it will be possible to claim what he claims. Perhaps we can then buy quotas across national borders and do what we should be doing, which is making milk products in the countries with the rain and grass to do so.
Dr. Strang: There is more to the system than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have a built-in preference in the pricing arrangements for liquid milk in that we have rightly attached a high priority to maintaining higher liquid milk sales. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman disputes the fact that Britain's fundamental climatic advantages, as compared to much of the Community, and the fundamental efficiency of our milk processing companies are such that, if we were operating in a genuinely free market without quotas, we would have more investment and more jobs.
It is indisputable, as many of the dairy companies agree, that investment in many aspects of processing, including those which do not need a great deal of milk, is inhibited because there is concern about obtaining an adequate supply of milk. In a speech at the end of last year, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to agree that it was regrettable that quotas had become a permanent feature of the milk regime. There is an implicit agreement that as part of the MacSharry reforms quotas will continue until the
426
end of the century. I am not over-enthusiastic about the sale of quotas across national boundaries. I should like to think that Britain would buy the quotas, but I am a little uneasy that some countries, especially France, will find a way of loading the system so that we shall not see the desired movement of quotas to this country.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Would the hon. Gentleman favour the complete free sale of quotas within the United Kingdom?
Dr. Strang: I am in favour of getting away from quotas as soon as we can and of incorporating in the milk support arrangements other ways of maintaining the livelihoods and jobs in our industry. I shall finish with the milk issue because I have much more to say.
We welcome the decision to remove the co-responsibility levy. I was a member of the Labour Government when the levy was introduced in 1977. We opposed it then, and I think that we have been fairly consistent in our opposition to it since. School milk is currently financed from the co-responsibility levy. I hope that the Minister of State will give a clear undertaking that there is no question of school milk being jeopardised in the long term as a result of the removal of the levy and that the Government will accept the obligation to continue the funding.
I will deal briefly with the price proposals. The price proposals for the maor commodities were predetermined by the agreement last year on the MacSharry reforms. The cuts in cereal and beef prices are positive measures. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that reform of the wine and the sugar regimes is of enormous importance because of the huge costs to the overall EC agricultural budget. Our amendment says that there are some positive elements in the reforms, but that judged against the scale of the problem and the enormity of the CAP they are totally inadequate.
To appreciate that fact, we must take a minute or two to remind ourselves of how big a disaster the CAP is and continues to be. It continues to force up food prices and maintain them at an unacceptably high level, imposing high costs on all families in this country, especially on the poorer families who tend to spend a higher proportion of their household budgets on food. The CAP represents a monstrous cost to the taxpayer; the sums of money involved in intervention buying and export refunds are mind-boggling. It damages international trade, and especially the positions of many developing countries, because of the policy of subsidising our surpluses and effectively almost dumping them on world markets. In essence, considering the money that the CAP costs, it fails to provide anything like the support that we should expect for the industry and for employment in rural areas.
I remind the House of the issue of fraud within the CAP. An excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities entitled, "The Fight Against Fraud" was published at the end of last year. An interesting study had been carried out on milk refunds and the money spent on them, centring on two companies, described as company A and company B, in two different countries which account for a high proportion–10 per cent.—of all the money spent on milk export refunds. The report showed that the companies had not been audited since 1966 and concluded:
"There is strong evidence that fraud and irregularity continue on a large scale, not only in the agricultural sector,

427
but with the Structural Funds also, and that controls within the system are not sufficiently effective throughout the Community … As things are at present detected fraud is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, and serious dangers will remain until all concerned with the collection, administration, disbursement and use of these funds accept in full the principles of sound financial administration, reporting an audit … Notwithstanding the continuing efforts which have been made, the Committee are convinced that a great deal more needs to be done if fraud and irregularity are to be contained within tolerable limits."
That in itself is a major indictment of the CAP as it stands.
What about the so-called fundamental reforms agreed last year? First, I shall examine briefly the accompanying measures. When the reforms were debated last June people were in the dark about much of the detail of what had been agreed, and much still had to be worked out. I hope that when the Minister of State winds up he will tell us about the early retirement package. Why is it not being applied at all in this country? I do not see that as a rationalisation measure but as a measure whereby older farmers can be helped to move out of the industry and provide opportunities for other farmers; every time that happened, it would mean that another person had been found a job at a time of high unemployment. Secondly, what about the regulation on the forestry measures? I am sure that most of us would agree that they would be positive. What is the Government's attitude?
Thirdly, what about the agri-environment programme? The Minister said quite a lot about that and, as he reminded us, on Friday he announced his proposals to meet the requirements of the programme. It is with some satisfaction over the years that we in the Opposition have seen the importance of the environment dawn on the Government. We support the change that has taken place over the years in their attitude, following the policies adopted by the Labour party. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members read the documents the Labour party has published over the years, they will see that we have led opinion in this country on the environment, and that the Government and the Conservative party have followed.
We must welcome the Minister's proposals, but an increase in his Department's environmental expenditure by only £31 million over three years, in the context of a departmental budget of about £8·5 billion over that period, cannot be said to represent a major shift in priorities. When my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) replies to the debate for the Opposition he will say more about the environmental impact of the changes and of the Government's policy.
Set-aside is the major supply control measure in the reforms, and the Opposition have deliberately singled it out in our amendment, because we do not believe that it is the right policy. We are sceptical about whether it will be effective—certainly about whether it will be as effective as the Government and the Commission try to suggest—in cutting cereal production. We believe that some of its effect will almost certainly be offset by greater intensification by farmers in their reduced acreage.
Of course, we strongly support breaking the link between subsidies and production, but we want the payments to be made for a positive purpose and to provide employment. We do not believe that we can possibly justify spending such huge sums on paying farmers to do nothing and to leave the land fallow. That is not an acceptable system, and we do not believe that it will be acceptable to the British people in the medium to long
428
term. Rotational set-aside is not an environmentally positive measure and does not provide anything like the environmental benefits that we would like to stem from the policy of reducing cereal acreage in this country. Permanent set-aside is a different matter, into which it would be possible to build more effective environmental benefits, but here we are talking about rotational set-aside. For those reasons, we believe that the policy of set-aside should be opposed in principle.
Some of us were probably rather amused at the Minister's reference to the forms. He seemed to present as some great achievement all those documents that the farmers will have to complete. Yes, perhaps the Minister's civil servants have done quite a good job in producing all those publications—but does he not recognise that the very fact that they have had to go to such lengths, and that so much time and effort will be devoted to the forms, is in itself a fundamental criticism of what the Council of Agriculture Ministers agreed last year? The set-up is utterly indefensible.
If hon. Members have not read it already, I commend to them an article by David Brown, agriculture correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, which says:
"More than 240,000 farmers are affected by what is being described as the biggest farm information gathering exercise since the Domesday Book was begun in 1086 …
The National Farmers Union has been running a series of road shows to keep farmers up to date with developments. So far about 30,000 farmers have turned up and thousands more are expected from this weekend.
The Country Landowners Association has established a nationwide network of land agents to give 15 minutes of free advice to its members"—
[Interruption.] I am quoting from The Daily Telegraph; I thought that Conservative Members might appreciate that. The article continues:
"While assuring that efforts would be made to simplify the forms next year, Mr. Gummer said that the Government had always feared such a system would bring too much bureaucracy."
It certainly does. To try to make out that this is some great virtue is nonsense. It is itself a criticism of the system and of its complexity.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman went on at great length about fraud in the tobacco regime. If he is so concerned about fraud in the common agricultural policy, how does he expect this considerable sum of money—amounting to £1 billion extra this year—to be given out without proper checks being made on those who apply for it?
Dr. Strang: That is the point. That is what I am saying. Given the system that was agreed at the level of the European Community, for which the Minister must share some responsibility, it was almost inevitable that one would end up with this sort of bureaucracy and with farmers having to spend hours of their valuable time filling in forms. But the hon. Gentleman is right: once you have the system in place, it follows that you must have all these forms.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has just said that his real objection to the system is not that we are having a system like this, but that it is not quite so environmentally directed as it ought to be. His own propositions would end up with precisely the same need for precisely the same information on precisely the same forms. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the country. He would need

429
the same information produced on the same forms, but he would not have bothered to spend the time that we have spent, making it easy for people to fill in the forms. He must not mislead the country.
Dr. Strang: No, I will not mislead the country. I am not convinced that the environmental policies that we have been advocating would require this kind of form, but even if they did the British people would understand because they would see some real environmental benefit. They will see nothing from this. This is simply another way of spending their money. It is a way of spending their money which constitutes direct aid to the industry and to that extent we support it, but I cannot believe that it is impossible to develop a better system of making these direct payments to producers than the one currently in place.
That is not our major criticism of the system, however—far from it. Our criticism is that it does not address the real weaknesses in the CAP. To a limited extent—we acknowledge this in our amendment—it addresses the issue of the inflated prices of the CAP. The cut in the cereal price and the cut in the beef price are positive, but they fall a long way short of what is required. Does MacSharry adequately enable the Community to look forward with confidence to any GATT agreement?
It was somewhat surprising that the Minister did not mention the word "GATT". Surely if there is a major issue on the horizon of the agriculture industry it is the implications of GATT. We do not know what the position will be in relation to the United States and the GATT agreement, or what the attitude of the new French Administration will be, but we must recognise that any test of the CAP reforms must include a reference to the GATT agreement and to the need to cut the volume of subsidised agricultural exports from the European Community. Many of us are not convinced that these reforms will adequately render the CAP acceptable to the proposals in the GATT agreement.
Labour has been consistent in its pressure for a swift settlement to those negotiations. Subsidised exports of surplus United States and European Community agricultural commodities have swamped and depressed international markets, disastrously pricing farmers in the developing world out of their own domestic markets. The House will remember that an EC/US GATT agricultural settlement was reached in November, including a commitment from the EC to reduce over six years the volume of subsidised exports of each product by 21 per cent. The Minister and the Commission insist that the commitments can be met as promised within the limits of the measures agreed in the CAP reforms, but many authorities disagree. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the way in which the Council of Agriculture Ministers has shaped up on this price package so far does not encourage much optimism about meeting the objectives, particularly in the dairy sector. The Minister himself implicitly acknowledged that.
Our major criticism of the so-called reforms of the CAP, however, is that they have failed to address the biggest problem—the huge cost to the Community taxpayer. The cost of the CAP has risen again in 1993. In the past couple of weeks the Commission has confirmed that expenditure this year will be higher than anticipated.
430
Much more serious, it has acknowledged that the cost of the CAP will go through the roof next year. It will certainly not come within the guideline. I quote from Agra Europe of 5 March:
"The senior controller of EC farm spending has conceded that the EC Commission is likely to have to resort to 'creative accounting' in order to avoid exceeding the budget guideline in 1994 … Michel Jacquot [director of the agricultural guarantee fund] stated that the combined impact of a lower budget ceiling next year … and the higher cost resulting from the maintenance of the switchover system would cause serious problems for the Commission next year."
He goes on to explain what these creative accounting devices are, and they are pretty mind-boggling. They might include counting payments incurred in 1994 against the 1993 budget, closing the budget a year early or further delaying payments to member states—that is, the payments in our country by the intervention board to the agencies which intervene in the market.
The CAP reforms do not adequately address the huge cost of the CAP to British taxpayers and to taxpayers through throughout the Community. Because they fail to do that, because they fail to give confidence that we can meet the GAIT obligation, and because they fail to give any confidence that we shall see any reduction in expenditure in the long term, they are inherently unstable. That is a bad thing for the industry because, as hon. Members will acknowledge, there is rightly a limit to the amount of money that the taxpayer is prepared to spend on agricultural support, especially when it is spent as wastefully as it is in the common agricultural policy. Against that background, producers cannot be confident about what the long-term future holds for them.
The reforms which continue to dominate discussion about the CAP do not meet what is required. They introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. They fail to cut the cost to the consumer sufficiently. They will not provide long-term support to which the industry is entitled. They will not reduce the cost of the CAP to anything like a level acceptable to British taxpayers and taxpayers throughout the Community. For those reasons, we urge all hon. Members to vote for the Labour amendment this evening.
8.37 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is very easy for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) to stand on the sidelines and throw brickbats at the common agricultural policy because we all know that in many respects the common agricultural policy is a fairly unlovely creature. But it is all that we have and we must make the best of it.
I am grateful to be called first from the Back Benches tonight because it gives me the opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and his team for what they have done in recent years to make the common agricultural policy far more acceptable, certainly to Conservative Members. They have improved it. They have moved it closer to the way that we wanted it, to the benefit of our farmers.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to say that we should dump Greek tobacco farmers or that we should take a stern view of assistance given by the German Government to German sheep farmers, but if we do not concede this kind of compromise with our fellow members of the CAP, what will they do when we go, as we did recently, to seek an additional 70p on a ewe for hill farmers in my constituency? We must live together, which means from time to time swallowing things that we do not

431
like to swallow. Improvement in the CAP has come slowly and that is why my right hon. Friend and his team have been impressive. The system is better because prices are Row closer to world prices and that has been our aim.
I intend to deal with some of the environmental aspects of the CAP. Once again, the Government have a very creditable record in dealing with the environmental aspects of set-aside in particular. We have certainly moved the environmental aspect of the CAP to the top of the agenda. It was of no interest to France, to the Italians or even to the green Germans. It was this country that pushed forward the cause of environmentally friendly set-aside, and that is another credit to my right hon. Friend and his team. Only the other day, there was the £31 million package for new environmentally sensitive areas arid for the restoration of moorlands and intensive grazing of hills. That is another great credit to our agricultural team.
There are problems—I accept what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said on this—about rotational set-aside or fallow. I hope that, just as my right hon. Friend has improved things in the past, he will be able to get a better system for rotational set-aside. It is no good opposing set-aside. We cannot magic it away. The system has been adopted by Europe and, again, we have to live with it and to make the best of it. The problem of rotational set-aside is the requirement that fields should be cut on or after 1 May. In environmental terms, May day is as much of a disaster as it has been for the country generally, although it is enjoyed by people over there. I should like the May day bank holiday to go and the May day set-aside day to go as well.
The problem with rotational set-aside and the 1 May date is that if one allows a field to go wild up to 1 May, it becomes a honeypot for all wildlife, especially game birds and ground-nesting birds. They move into the area because it provides them with shelter and with food left by the combines in the previous season. It is also a reservoir of insect life and of weeds that grow in May. If the farmer starts to work on the field on 1 May, he is not only cutting the grass or ploughing it up, but cutting or ploughing the young partridge and the partridge chicks. That is why I was pleased that there was a meeting yesterday between the National Farmers Union and a number of bodies interested in wildlife to see whether they could reach a better compromise on the date. I am sure that many farmers who are environmentally responsible will move that day back from 1 May at least to 1 June so that the chicks, the ground-nesting birds and other wildlife have been reared by the time the mower or the plough goes over the land. I welcome any changes in that rule.
The reason for the rule is the prevention of fraud, which is a real problem with which our Ministers have to deal. It is not beyond the wit of Greek or southern Italian farmers who farm cereal on rather sparse fields to claim that a field that appears to be growing crops is growing nothing more than volunteer grain from seed left over by the previous combine. I urge that in our continuing review and improvement of this aspect of set-aside, we try to reach a better date for the mowers to begin their work.
The recent meeting shows that Britain's farmers are concerned about the environmental aspects of their policies. They know, as everyone does, that the CAP is costing a great deal of money and that the public are entitled to something for their cash. That is why farmers will enter the longer-term set-aside schemes, the woodland schemes and the permanent set-aside schemes. They
432
believe that the public are entitled to a return on that money. I urge Ministers in the coming year to try to re-negotiate that system and not to let a load of more crafty Greeks or Italians do a lot of damage to a scheme of set-aside that is potentially beneficial for our wildlife.
8.44 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: We may find that there is an unusual degree of consensus about objectives across the Chamber this evening. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has just said about the long-term advantages that can be achieved by non-rotational set-aside. I shall come back to that point.
We get an opportunity to range over the strategic objectives of the CAP only once a year. In previous years, there has been a full six-hour debate whereas this evening, we may have four hours of debate. In the interests of restricted production, about which we are all talking this evening, I intend to be brief.
It is extremely important that the Minister's words about surplus and shortage should be at the heart of our debate. After a period of considerable surplus, it is all too easy to forget that shortage is even more dangerous. Surely a modest surplus is better than even the most marginal shortage. That must be true not only of the United Kingdom, but of the Community generally and of the world at large and it should be in the back of our minds throughout all our discussions.
Like the Minister, I have addressed meetings of and have had discussions with the Small Farmers Association today. One of the reasons why there is increased interest —outside the House at least—in all parts of the country, urban and rural, in the way in which the CAP is developing is not only that the CAP has got to a watershed in terms of cost, but that many people—non-farmers as well as farmers—are more aware of the visible products of the CAP than has been the case in recent years.
In the similar debate in February 1989, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), stated:
"one of the biggest threats to the CAP and hence to our farmers would be failure to achieve a successful outcome to the GATT Uruguay round".—[Official Report, 27 February 1992; Vol. 148, c. 28.]
Those who now have their body clock adjusted to "Farming Today" and who woke up early this morning will have heard the new Trade Secretary of the United States speaking on the subject. It is far from clear, four years after the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South made his prediction, whether the GATT round is any closer to completion than it was six months ago, let alone 12 months ago. If anything, we seem to be slipping back rather than going forward.
Although it is true that in the autumn there seemed to be some ground-breaking in an agreement on agriculture, that is surely now under threat and there is still no GATT resolution in sight. I know that some Conservative Members were delighted by the recent election results in France. I wonder whether they will still be delighted when our Minister meets the new French Minister, Jean Puech, and discovers whether there is a meeting of minds on the future of GATT and of the CAP. I believe that a time-bomb may be ticking away there. If so, we may find that even the comparatively small advance made in the latter part of last year is now at risk.

433
When the CAP reforms were brought back to the House last May, the Minister did not use the phrase "peace in our time", but the piece of paper that he waved at us was represented as a major triumph. It was represented as a triumph for simplicity, as a triumph for economy and as a triumph for an even playing field. On 22 May he said:
"This was a major step forward … for British consumers and taxpayers".—[Official Report, 22 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 629.]
When we debated the agreement in full in June, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"Overall, the cost to the consumer and taxpayer will be lower under the reformed CAP."—[Official Report, 12 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 555.]
This evening, the Minister said firmly that what we are now debating is the increased cost of the CAP reform. Surely that is the issue about which people are concerned. Moreover, there appears to be no beneficial result from that increased cost. To many people, it is totally inexplicable where all those billions are going. It is clear that they are not going into the pockets of the comparatively badly off small farmers whom the Minister and I met today. Equally clearly, it is not going to the marginal parts of the country—the less-favoured areas. On the whole, it does not seem to be going to the livestock producers. Where is it going? Is it going into intervention costs, distributors, and processors' costs or supermarket profits? Of course, it may be going into fraud, in which case we shall no doubt see, with the tightening of the fraud provisions that the Minister has claimed are now coming into effect, where savings can be made.
As has already been said, there are in this bundle several detailed documents relating to farmers in the eastern Lander of Germany, tobacco growers in southern Europe, and so on. However, there are one or two significant omissions. It is true that there is a very useful document on attempts to tighten up in the case of the approach of three member states to milk quota, but a universal review of the milk quota system is surely long overdue. This matter was referred to in last week's debate. The Minister and I had an exchange on the whole issue of quotas and there was another brief exchange this evening. The Commission, under instruction from the Council of Agriculture Ministers, should undertake a universal review. The ad hoc attempt to deal with the Italian problem or the Spanish problem is not sufficient.
Similarly, for the reasons given a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Hexham, there is an urgent need for a complete analysis of the real alternative of non-rotational, permanent set-aside. Not only is this the core of the problems that affect the United Kingdom; the country is uniquely affected by them. From an answer that the Minister gave me a few weeks ago, it is apparent that we are imposing upon ourselves a degree of set-aside that is totally unrepresentative of the scale of our agriculture and is not reflected in any way in other member states. I believe that over 60 per cent. of the farmers of this country will be affected by the set-aside provisions. The nearest figure—34 per cent.—is that of Denmark and the level falls right away in many other countries. Set-aside has become the core of the United Kingdom's approach to the CAP reforms, rather than something that we can simply blame on Brussels. Indeed, this country has a terrible tendency—perhaps the Government encourage it—to believe that
434
everything that is wrong with the CAP is "over there", or that if it is "over here", it must be the fault of people "over there". In this case, the reliance on set-aside is home-grown. It is a major mistake. This is only one of the reasons for the fact that the reforms that were put before the House last year, and are now coming slowly through the mincing machine, will prove to be very transitional. They are not a permanent solution to the major problems of the CAP.
On the question of environmental implications, I welcome all converts. I am delighted that there is unanimity in the House. I do not adopt the grudging attitude that Opposition Front-Bench Members display towards converts. My party and I were promoting these policies as long ago as 1978, when I co-authored a document entitled "New Deal for Rural Britain". I do not take any great pride in being 10 years ahead of others. Indeed, I am delighted that everybody else is with me now. However, if that is to be the approach, this country's insistence on relying on rotational set-aside flies in the face of all sensible and expert opinion.
It is impossible to provide new habitats for species by rotational set-aside. It is impossible to plan, on a long-term basis, to meet the needs of conservation with rotational set-aside. Even if it were sustainable as an environmental policy, it is quite unsustainable as a political policy to ask the people of this country, when they holiday in Cornwall—as I am sure they will—to pay' for organised dereliction: nettles, docks, and so on. Surely the appearance of total neglect is too high a price to ask the taxpayer to pay in tight times. It might work for a year, but I do not think that it would work for longer.
In this regard, we shall have a major problem in the near future. There is the question of a wider awareness in this country of the needs of a hungry world, including the needs of a hungry eastern Europe. I believe that rotational set-aside will prove to be the undoing of the whole of the package. It is as if the package contains the seeds of its own destruction.
There has been much reference to the integrated administration and control system forms. The Minister was kind enough to reassure me last week that these would be in the hands of the entire farming community by 2 April. For a reason about which we agreed—All Fools' day—he said that 1 April would not be appropriate. What is important is the way in which the forms will be processed and treated. I have asked that the comparable forms to be used in the other 11 member states be placed in the Library for us all to see. I hope very much that those will be available before the House rises at the end of the week. With the new system of monitoring the whole way in which the CAP is operating, it is critical to ensure that the same amount of information is available to all Governments and that those Governments are in a position to act on it.
Of course, we support attempts to control fraud. Of course, we are anxious to ensure that the right information is available. It will be difficult enough in this country to ensure that maps are sufficiently up to date to meet the requirements. Are we confident that, in the case of peasants in Greece, the right information will be provided? Are we confident that if information is not provided, or is provided in a deliberately misleading way, Ministers in other Community countries will insist on the same attention to detail, monitoring and policing as applies in this country? We are not against the IACS forms; what we

435
are against is an unreasonable degree of bureaucracy in this country which is not matched by effective monitoring in the other member states. The Minister was quite right in referring to the need for a system of uniform effectiveness throughout the Community. One of the advantages of the Maastricht treaty is that it will give more teeth to the implementation of such systems.
We are not discussing potatoes in this debate. Potatoes do not yet feature in an EC regime. However, I hope that the Minister takes very seriously indeed the widespread misgivings—misgivings expressed in all parts of the House last week—about too fast a transition from the present managed market to the unknown of a regime that we do not understand. We do not yet know how it will work. That all-party concern is reflected by all sectors of the industry and by many other parts of the agricultural community.
There is a specific mention in the package of the sheep regime in France. The concern expressed earlier about the extent of derogation to national Governments will be widely supported. If we are to have a common agricultural policy and if there are broadly similar circumstances for particular sectors, it should be the exception rather than the rule that a Government, like the French Government, should be able to come forward with quite specific proposals for their sheep sector when that will obviously affect the competitive advantage of other sheep sectors in other member states.
It is difficult to ensure that the level of derogation is kept to a reasonable limit. However, we should be conscious of the potential conflict between increasing subsidiarity on the one hand and the initiative to which I have just referred on the other, which then calls into question the overall common agricultural policy. That may also affect what is eligible and what is not eligible for the so-called green box in the GATT negotiations.
If there is too much derogation and subsidiarity among member states' Governments, the green box might be called into question. That, again, is why there is an advantage in a Community-wide approach to issues such as set-aside and environmental advantages. Those issues will clearly fall in the green box and should therefore not be subject to any undermining by the GATT negotiations.
I have been brief as I am conscious that other hon. Members may want to contribute to what should he an overall assessment of what is happening to the CAP. There will be widespread support in all parts of the House for the concern expressed this evening for the health of the agriculture community. However, in my book, that is only part—although a vital part—of the concern that we should all share for the health of the rural economy, of the rural environment and of balanced communities in rural areas.
Of course, agriculture remains the core industry for most parts of the countryside, but it is not the only part. One of the complaints that is often voiced by many interests is that in the past the CAP has concentrated far too much on a selection of agriculture production objectives rather than on the health of the rural economy as a whole. That was why many of us were so concerned about the way in which the hill livestock compensatory allowances were downgraded in the past few weeks.
I hope very much that the new regime in France will not destabilise the CAP. However, we should all be conscious of the fact that, even with everything going the right way, the CAP reforms are by no means as permanent as they looked last summer. The Minister said this evening that
436
uncertainty has been lessened. Last summer he said that it had been removed. The best that we can say this evening is that the CAP reforms may last a year or two, but, before very long, Ministers will be around the table again.
9.2 pm
Mr. David Harris: I hope the fact that the House sat all night has not upset my normal placid attitude and reputation. However, I want first of all—I have given notice of this—gently to chide the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). While he was speaking, I could not help noticing that his Bench was as empty as most Benches. I mention that simply because he wrote a letter to the Western Morning News which I found rather silly and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, a little sactimonious. In reference to last week's debate on agriculture, the hon. Gentleman wrote:
"Conservative MPs representing Cornish and Devon constituencies were, however, conspicuous by their absence."
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we often speak in the House to a less packed audience than we would perhaps like. For my part, I was missing last week because I was in Brussels on business as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's leader, who did not vote at the end of last week's debate, also had an equally good reason for being absent.
Mr. Tyler: I must confess that my colleagues have a curious choice of priorities in that they came to listen to the Minister this evening, but did not stay to hear me.
Mr. Harris: They did pop in for a few minutes and then left to return to their dinners or to their pressing engagements. I fully acknowledge that we all have many engagements. I will not labour the point, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to acknowledge it.
My real criticism is directed at my right hon. Friend the Minister—and perhaps this is the effect of an all-night sitting. I said that I was in Brussels last week as a member of the European Legislation Committee. Last night, during the all-night sitting, I read the papers relating to that Committee. A particular paper was tagged to the papers for this debate—so that I am able to refer to it—on national aid for French sheep farming, a subject to which the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) referred.
I have had the advantage of seeing some of the papers in more detail because of my position on the European Legislation Committee, and I have been astounded by what they contain. During a meeting of the Agriculture Council on 17 March, the Minister—I informed him that I would refer to this issue—apparently agreed to a proposal that France should be allowed to put in place an £8 million subsidy scheme for its sheep farmers. The papers to the European Legislation Committee point out clearly that the Commission had considered that the provision of that national aid to French sheep producers was
"incompatible with the Common Market."
The reason given in the papers was that a letter had been written by the Minister of State
"to the Chairman … of the European Legislation Committee … explaining why Mr. Gummer gave his agreement, thus contributing to the unanimous decision, as required if the Commission's ruling was to be overturned. This involved

437
assurances by the then French Minister of the Interior that his Government would take all necessary steps to secure the free flow of goods, particularly fish."
Two points immediately arise. First, should our Ministers have put faith in the assurances of the then French Minister of the Interior on 17 March, knowing that the following Sunday was to see the first round in the French general election? As we know, that saw the exit of the previous French Government and, with them, the exit of that socialist Minister of the Interior. But apparently his assurances were worth while, and for that reason we went along with giving that extra aid to French farmers.
The second point is more fundamental. I do not for the life of me see why the British Government should be giving a special dispensation to the French Government to do what they have a duty to do, which is to allow and facilitate the import into France of legitimate produce from this country, be it sheepmeat, poultrymeat, dairy produce or fish. Whatever assurances were given, there have been continuing difficulties in getting produce into the French market.
I praise the Minister for doing his utmost to get the French Government to behave in a more reasonable manner. It is true that arrangements have been put in place to enable convoy facilities and protection to be given in respect of fish going into France, and I welcome that; but we should not have gone along with giving national aid to French farmers, apparently on the basis of assurances that the French Government would behave in a proper manner on matters on which they had an absolute duty—in particular to facilitate imports into France. There may be a completely different aspect to the story which has not been brought out in the documents which I have quoted. I am ready to listen to any explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Minister, and perhaps there is one.
We all know about the disgraceful behaviour in France, particularly over imports of lamb from this country, let alone fish. When a Government, be they French or any other, in the European Community do not carry out their duty on imports of agricultural produce, our Government should make it clear that, instead of giving them special dispensation to get their co-operation, we will, if necessary, in conjunction with the Commission, take action against them by using article 169 of the treaty of Rome, which makes it clear that a member state has a duty to ensure that legitimate imports get through.
I am sorry to go on about the matter, but there is another important aspect. The Community is in the process of giving £8 million as national aid to French sheep farmers. That may well make it more difficult for sheep farmers in the south-west of England, for example, to export legitimately to France, because the French farmers will have additional assistance. Earlier, I chided him, but I will support what my hon. Friend—I call him that deliberately because we both represent Cornish con-stituencies—the Member for North Cornwall said about the position of farmers in the south-west when we are considering national aid by other member states to their farmers.
Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made heavy weather, as does the amendment, of trying to attack my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister has done a good job in trying to lead the reform process on the common
438
agricultural policy. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is correct; this is not the end of the story. I would be appalled if it was. I hope—not fear—that Ministers will be back round the table working for further sensible reforms. Despite the great advances that have been made, aspects of the common agricultural policy still need to be reformed; it is a continuous process.
I welcome various points in the price review and the measures surrounding it. I was very pleased that there is not to be a further cut in milk quotas in the coming year. That is welcomed too by milk producers.
Having read the briefing notes provided by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association, I cannot help contrasting the nature of those notes and their comments on the current position with the briefing notes which we all received a few years ago. There has been a distinct change in the reaction of farming unions, farming organisations and other bodies associated with rural life. That is very welcome.
For example, the National Farmers Union welcomes the Commission's intention to end the milk co-responsibility levy from 1 April this year. We can all say amen to that, because hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed that nonsensical levy. The Country Landowners Association starts its briefing note by saying:
"The annual European Community CAP prices negotiation may be less controversial than usual this year."
We can read between the lines of that and see that, the position is not too bad. The association goes out of its way to congratulate the Minister, rightly, on the green package and other aspects of the matters which we are debating tonight.
If I considered agriculture in my constituency and the county of Cornwall, I would conclude that there was a distinct and significant improvement in the returns for farmers, despite their difficulties. Farmers have not stopped grumbling and they still have problems. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is correct to say that the improvement in returns is due partly to the value of sterling, but I do not think that it is entirely due to that. For example, I noted that broccoli—Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know it as cauliflower, but in Cornwall we refer to it as broccoli—and spring cabbage prices have been fairly good this year. The price of livestock has also been good: one need look only at beef prices. I am in no way saying that everything is wonderful or that the agricultural industry does not have its problems.
I take the proper point that my right hon. Friend made—that the improvements, which we all welcome, start from a low base as far as incomes are concerned. I am not for one moment suggesting that everything is wonderful but, when there is an improvement in income, at least we should point it out and say that that is good and we are moving in the right direction.
Attendance at this debate, which is not overwhelming, is perhaps in some way a reflection of the fact that there is not the anxiety about agriculture that there has been recently.
Mr. John Greenway: Quality.
Mr. Harris: The quality is high.
My mind goes back to previous debates on agriculture when the House was fairly full. I agree that the attendance tonight should not be interpreted as in any way detracting from the importance of agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of my constituency and of the economy in

439
Cornwall and in many other parts of the country. We all want to ensure that agriculture has a future, in which people in it can have confidence. Without wishing to overstate the case, I believe that we are at least debating the issue in a much better atmosphere than in the past and with more knowledge of where we are going.
9.17 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: The motion asks us to take note of
"the prices … and on related measures, 1993–94: and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome … that will take account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms,".
I read that out purposely, because we need to examine carefully exactly what we are building on.
The Government say that the general principle underlying the price package is stability. We can all say "Hear, hear" to that, because, if there is one thing that agriculture has been lacking for many a good year, it is a set of objectives and a sense of stability to which the industry can look forward. That principle is extremely important. When we talk to farmers, as we all do from time to time, the one thing that they impress on us is the need for a set of clear objectives—where we are going—and a need for stability. On that basis, I shall judge whether we can build on the reforms that were agreed in 1992.
It seems that the Government's measure of stability is that prices this year are unchanged. Vital long-term stability is not especially evident. The Minister said that it is not feasible to look further into the future than next year. What sort of confidence does that give agriculture? However, I do not blame him for saying that. When we consider what we are facing as a result of the so-called reforms, I think that the Minister was wise to say that we should look no further than next year. Short-termism is evident throughout the so-called reforms.
There has never been any doubt that the CAP was in need of fundamental reform; we know that it has been a spectacular failure. Unfortunately, I have severe reservations about the deal that was reached in May 1992, which is contained in the documents that are before us. It does not constitute the fundamental reform that will bring stability and confidence to agriculture throughout the Community, and especially in the United Kingdom.
With cereals, there has been reform, but even that is flawed. The system still discriminates against larger producers, who must still put 15 per cent. of their land into set-aside to qualify for compensation. Those with holdings of up to 20 hectares—there are many such holdings in other EC countries—do not have to do that.
The Commission says that at the heart of the reform of the CAP is the desire to sharpen or reduce price support, to compensate farmers for a fall in income and to preserve the level of agriculture that is based on family farms. For my sins or otherwise, I have spent some time as a Member of the European Parliament. I know that, if one issue has been discussed more often in agriculture debates than anything else, it is what constitutes a family farm. My clear impression is that what we in the United Kingdom describe as a family farm is far distant from that which is recognised as such in the rest of the member states. Unfortunately, the so-called CAP reforms have been
440
slanted heavily towards the interpretation of a family farm in the rest of the Community, to the disadvantage of United Kingdom agriculture.
The so-called reform that we are discussing will benefit smaller and less efficient producers. That needs to be underlined. Some systems of agriculture in the Community are relatively old-fashioned. They are relatively less efficient, but we must be careful about how we judge efficiency. It can be judged by how much money comes out of the public purse to a producer. If it is judged by how much is produced per hectare, the clear result is that United Kingdom producers are very efficient. That is not the position in many member states, because of the size and structure of agriculture.
The various reforms reflect a dramatic shift in emphasis. There is the danger that they will lead to the support of less efficient producers instead of efficiency. That will lead in turn to the danger of an ossification of backward practices. That could affect the ability of European Community agriculture to compete on the world market. That is particularly important when we consider that all the evidence shows that efficiency is likely to be penalised and lack of efficiency likely to be supported. We shall say to Portuguese farmers who work on very small holdings, "Do not change. We will support what you are doing," while at the same time we are in danger of penalising the more efficient producers. That is not the right framework to take us into what we hope will be a more liberalised world market in which competition will become more the order of the day.
Some Conservative Members have criticised my hon. Friends for criticising the Minister of Agriculture too much. I suppose that we are all sorry about that, but it is not my intention to do that. I certainly do not want to be accused of being churlish. There have been some improvements on the original package. The cereals compensation has been improved. Larger farms will receive compensation for all the land that they set aside. However, I still argue that the system discriminates against United Kingdom producers. We must never forget that. Larger producers will still have to set aside 12 per cent. of their land to qualify for compensation. That is not the case for smaller producers.
In the sheep regime, the headage limit has been increased from 750 in the original proposals to 1,000. That is to be welcomed. I also welcome the increase from 350 to 500 for lowland areas and the continuation of the 50 per cent. of the premium above those limits. All those improvements came out of the negotiation, and we should recognise and welcome them.
I also welcome the environmental moves that have been made. Certain CAP subsidies will be tied to observation of basic environmental standards by the producer. The Minister referred to the so-called cross-compliance when land is set aside. These are all small but welcome developments. I also welcome the greater emphasis on projects such as the creation of environmentally sensitive areas, although the amount of money involved remains lamentably small.
I have mentioned the most notable examples of the improvements that resulted from the negotiations. However, by no stretch of the imagination do even those improvements provide a stable framework for agriculture, especially in the United Kingdom. If one asks farmers the length and breadth of the land whether they feel more

441
confident now about the future, they may say that they feel more confident about the coming year, but they may not feel so confident about the future.
Agriculture has to be a long-term project. One cannot turn the tap off from one year to the next. Therefore, while we shall see improvements this year, we shall be in danger of deluding ourselves if we consider that they represent the confidence and stability which farmers look for. Indeed, there are already signs that the deal is falling apart at the seams.
There is a continuing controversy about the compatibility of CAP reform and the GATT agreement. A special committee meeting of the Council of Ministers on 18 February reported little progress on the issue. It recorded that some member states had severe doubt about the compatibility of the CAP reform and the GATT agreement. Heaven knows what will happen when the new French Government carry out their threat. Perhaps they are another Government who will not keep their promises.
However, let us ignore that controversy for the moment and examine the issues that cause anxiety to everyone in the agricultural industry. People know that it is not possible to continue pushing costs up and up. They are not daft; they are business people.
Let us consider the reality. The 1993 budget for agriculture was set at 34 billion ecu. There is about 80p to an ecu, but I shall not do the conversion; I shall leave that to hon. Members. In mid-January, just two weeks into the budgetary year, the Commission said that it wanted a 1 billion ecu increase. Some of that, but not all, was due to currency changes. Some was due to the considerable increases in unplanned costs resulting from additional production. The estimated result for the 1993 budget is now 3·9 billion ecu above the 1992 budget. That is significant because the 1992 budget showed little increase over the 1991 budget. It is therefore obvious that the position is rapidly deteriorating.
Before I am again told that that is a one-off problem, I want to go into a little detail about the projections for 1994. The documents give estimated costs of 36·7 billion ecu, which is 2·7 billion ecu above the original 1993 budget and a staggering 5·6 billion ecu above the 1991 budget. In just three years, the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund has increased from 31 billion ecu to 35·5 billion ecu. There is the prospect that, if we do not take account of the coming year, farmers' incomes will not increase. That is hardly an example of budgetary control.
The level of stocks also gives rise to significant concern. No one could argue that we should continue to hold such massive stocks. I accept that we need to be self-sufficient and to have a buffer, but there can be no justification for holding such enormous stocks. Indeed, it has been a central part of policy to try to reduce them.
This year, 30 million tonnes of cereals will be in stock. That is a dramatic increase, despite a relatively poor harvest. There are also high stocks of beef, despite a very costly programme under which 1·1 million tonnes were exported. According to the Commission, beef stocks are now approaching 1·2 million tonnes, which is a record high. Stocks generally are now reaching record proportions, although, to be fair, stocks of butter and skimmed milk powder have fallen.
442
If we take account of the various scenarios being considered by the Commission, the impact of the proposals on cereals—the one area that could rightly be described as reformed—over five years could result in 1997–98 production being as high as 173 million tonnes. If that estimate is correct—I think that it is on the low side —that is only 7 million tonnes less than production in 1991–92. It is only a 4 per cent. reduction in cereal production despite measures which, on the Commission's own admission, will cost 5–6 billion ecu more than they cost in 1991.
Beef production is set to increase up to 1997 and the Commission expects a considerable rise in both surpluses and stocks.
Hon. Members have mentioned milk reform: they have mentioned the agreed cut in the quota of 1 per cent. in successive years from 1993 onwards. That has already been deferred. I suppose that the milk industry and the farmers will be pleased, but the position cannot be described as consistent. It cannot be consistent to agree a reduction of 3 per cent. over three years in May, and to change one's mind within months.
If I were a milk producer, I would say, "Hang on a second: if that can happen in a matter of months, they can change their minds again. How am Ito plan for the future? How will my investment be affected? I do not know what is happening from one month to the next." The documents before us present an inherent threat of inconsistency, instability and short-termism.
Other hon. Members have mentioned Italy. I see no justification in agreeing—even in principle—to a 900,000 tonne increase in the Italian quota, even if such an increase is circumscribed by the conditions mentioned by the Minister. His faith in Italy is touching: he assured us that he would expect the Italians, as well as us, to fill in the forms to which other hon. Members have referred. I hope that that happens, but I cannot embrace that touching faith, given the Italians' record—particularly their record in regard to milk. The 900,000 tonne increase is unjustifiable, especially as neither the Minister nor anyone else has asked the question that I would ask. We are not self-sufficient in milk production; are we fighting for additional quotas for our producers?
It is no good saying that quota is useless because we cannot convert it into added-value goods. That is because, owing to our not having sufficient quota, we are closing down processing factories. We are in a vicious circle, but the Minister did not seem to recognise that.
Italy has never implemented the system, and I believe that this agreement defies even the most charitable logic. According to European Community officials, consumers —a group we all represent, but who are not mentioned in our debates as often as they should be—may benefit from a paltry 2 per cent. reduction in food prices in three years. Devaluation has put paid to that. Already the pressure on food prices is increasing, especially in the case of sugar.
The Court of Auditors usually delays judgment until after the event, but it has seen fit to comment on the so-called reforms before the event. It has said that the reforms are a bureaucratic nightmare and a recipe for fraud.
I see no real, long-term progress towards the objectives that are in the interests of agriculture, the consumer, the environment, budgetary control and a system that will lead us into the next century. There is no perceptible benefit for consumers; indeed, as I have said, devaluation has brought

443
about the opposite. As the documents demonstrate, the taxpayer will be asked to dig deeper into his pocket to fund additional expenditure, and fraud is certain to increase; indeed, I believe that the fraudsters are already doing their homework. Meanwhile a volatile, uncertain future remains for farmers, particularly in the United Kingdom.
Even according to the most favourable assumptions, this reform is designed not to eliminate but to mitigate the problems. There must be a will for such fundamental reform, and that demands a basic rethink. It is complacent in the extreme to base future policy on so-called reforms, as the Government motion proposes, and I hope that the House will support, in strength, the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
9.39 pm
Mr. John Greenway: As usual in these annual CAP debates, the debate has been good natured. I do not wish to spoil the consensus, but I must take issue with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who complained that the Government deserve no credit for the increased farm incomes which have resulted from sterling's departure from the exchange rate mechanism. Until black Wednesday, the official Opposition supported sterling's exchange rate in the ERM at DM2·95. Some Conservative Members called for devaluation and for sterling's exit from the ERM, which has had the beneficial effects that we now see and which is why most Conservative Members refer to it as golden Wednesday.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East overlooked the fact that the benefit of devaluation flowed to United Kingdom farmers only because of the reform of agri-monetary arrangements which my right hon. Friend the Minister negotiated. If we still had the nonsense of the green pound and monetary compensatory amounts. which used to characterise these debates, we would have been given much more meaty briefs from farmers. Thankfully, all that is past, thanks to my right hon. Friend's initiative and persistence.
The debate always enables us to look at where we have reached in the long process of CAP reform. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Minister at a Back-Bench meeting yesterday, I was musing about the complaints of farmers and others about the common agricultural policy: it is expensive, bureaucratic, open to fraud and, despite the cost, does not give adequate support to farmers. There is a lack of environmental safeguards and some member states do not play by the rules, about which we have heard much tonight. It discriminates against United Kingdom farmers, especially on the agri-monetary arrangements, to which I have referred; thankfully, it no longer does. It distorts world markets, encourages over-production and fails to encourage farmers to produce what the market wants.
Not surprisingly, many proposals for change have been made: that farmers need to produce for the market and that we need to reduce cost, direct support at the producer rather than at the intervention store, reform the green pound system, end discrimination, strengthen enforcement and limit production. There have been many arguments at the farmers' meetings that I have attended, not about whether we should have set-aside but about whether it
444
should be voluntary or compulsory. We have heard much argument about the need to incorporate environmental safeguards.
We can take stock of several years of debate and argument about how all the changes should be achieved. We should also recognise that the hand of the European Commission was eventually forced by budgetary pressures —the need to keep the CAP within Budget. I remind the House that my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher campaigned repeatedly year after year on this point, and she deserves much credit for our current position in controlling the European Community budget.
I recall that for about three years we had a series of proposals from the European Commission, the central feature of which was discrimination against United Kingdom farmers. Despite what has been said tonight, it is still my view that, by and large, my right hon. Friend negotiated most of that discrimination out of the eventual package of measures which was agreed last year in the CAP reforms.
That is not to say that there are not protectionist pressures in other member states. Such pressures clearly exist, as can be seen in France at the moment. Nor does it mean that there will not be other member states of which it is valid to say that they are not complying with the regulations. Both those issues imply certain discrimination, but my right hon. Friend consistently refused to accept the discrimination that was central to the MacSharry reforms and he won the argument.
We should also remind the House that the package of reforms is not my right hon. Friend's package, but the European Commission's. The price fixing that we are debating follows on from that package. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the set-aside policy was my right hon. Friend's policy, but that is not so. Over the past three or four years in these debates, I have heard my right hon. Friend say repeatedly that set-aside seems to be the only proposal that we have, and that we must argue with other member states that they must play by the rules. I do not think that he has ever stood at the Dispatch Box and said that such supply management was his preferred option. I do not believe that it is. I note from his reaction that he confirms what I say.
If we are to have a supply management package, there is bound to be a great deal of paperwork involved. That is the central problem. I have outlined some of the things that we have said are wrong with the CAP and some of the things that people say we should do, but some of those objectives militate against one another. The most obvious relates to bureaucracy. A supply management scheme cannot work without a great deal of paperwork.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. I know that he has put a great deal of effort into producing the forms so that farmers can understand them. I read the article in The Daily Telegraph to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, but it did not appear to be too critical of what the Minister had done. It may have been critical of the fact that farmers will have to fill in forms, but if there is to be supply management there must be forms to fill in. I expect that in my constituency and those of other hon. Members there will be merry hell to pay initially, but I do not doubt that with the help of the farming unions we shall persuade farmers that it is not quite so bad as it seems, that the scheme can work and that if they do not fill in the forms and send them off by 15 May they will lose out financially.

445
I do not want to be churlish and break the spirit of our good-natured debate but I must take issue briefly with something else that the hon. Member for North Cornwall said. We are all worried to death that member states will not play by the rules, but it does not help one jot for us to say so in the House. We should take the opportunity to tell my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State, who has a lot of negotiating to do, that they have the House's support. If other member states do not play by the rules, every hon. Member should give the Ministers the support that they need to ensure that the reforms are properly implemented. The Commission should be forced to tell other member states that unless they fill in the forms and play by the rules they will not get the money. Unless we are really firm, the whole system will collapse, as some hon. Members have said.
I believe that farmers now recognise that reform of the agri-monetary system, coupled with the devaluation of the green pound, has had a profound effect on agricultural prices. That is extremely welcome and was much needed. Farm incomes have been at rock bottom for some time, with farmers struggling along hoping for better times. For the moment, to a degree, those better times have come —but I am not sure how long they will last. There are signs that sterling may revalue upwards a touch. There have been suggestions of that in the financial pages of the heavy press for some time. There may be some technical revaluation, which will immediately have the effect of reducing prices under the system. Cuts in support prices will therefore follow, but under the reforms there will be cuts in support prices anyway. I believe that from the year beginning 1 July cereal support prices will be cut by up to 25 per cent. That was the central thrust of the package; in time, it must have an effect on the market price and eventually on the price that the farmer gets.
There has been some adverse effect on food prices, but by and large that is overstated. We have heard some criticism tonight to the effect that food is expensive. I do not believe that it is. Over the past 14 or 15 years food price rises have generally been below the rate of inflation. If we take a longer-term view we find that it is not so much the price at the farm gate which affects the price of food in the shops as all the other pressures in the commercial world —pressures in the grocery trade and the retail trade, the cost of transporting food around the country, the cost of imported food, and so on—which have a much greater effect.
Tonight we must consider whether the proposed CAP reforms will have the desired effect. I have asked three questions. First, will they direct more money to the farmers? I think that they will, and that the new set-aside scheme—the cause of all those forms that farmers will have to fill in—will provide almost £1 billion in income for United Kingdom farmers in the year ahead, and nearly £1·5 billion for the year after that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his opening speech that the United Kingdom's share of the common agricultural policy budget will increase from 7 to 9 per cent. That welcome 30 per cent. increase in money was much needed.
My second question is whether the reforms will reduce output. There is more reason to doubt whether they will
446
have the effect that we want in terms of reducing output because farmers constantly strive for greater efficiency. Year on year, we have seen yields rising.
Thirdly, will the reforms encourage production for the market? I think that there will be some limited success there, especially when we see the impact of the fall in support prices central to the reform package.
We also need to consider other ways of helping farmers to become more market oriented. I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's continuing commitment to helping with marketing grants to marketing schemes, in which farmers can effectively combine together to gain a little more power in the market place and to improve the quality and consistency of their products.
There is an important stumbling block, however. I still feel that consumers generally do not know enough about where their food comes from. I want to mention to my right hon. Friend an article which he may have seen and which appeared in The Sun yesterday. It is not just where the food comes from; it is what people drink as well—they do not know where that comes from. The article tells us that my right hon. Friend
"pushed a bottle of the famous spring Perrier water out of his sight after finding it in front of him at a London conference. Mr. Gummer said, 'Perrier fizzy water is not as good as those produced in the UK.' A Sun survey agreed."
The best is yet to come—just remember that bit about the United Kingdom.
"Here are three brands that are TWICE as nice and only HALF the price—Strathmore … Buxton … and Evian".
That is one for a "Tell me another" book, I am sure, but it makes me think that we need to do a lot more to inform the consumer, the housewife and the busy shopper where the food that they are buying is produced. We have nothing to fear in the United Kingdom across our agriculture sector in marketing British products wherever we can.
I would like to mention three specific issues to my right hon. Friend. First, the beef special premium scheme is exceedingly unpopular in my Ryedale constituency and I dare say that it is unpopular in other hon. Members' constituencies. I have been in the House since the debate began and I am surprised to find that I am the first hon. Member to mention it. Auctioneers and farmers in my area tell me that they will have grave difficulty making it work. I implore my right hon. Friend to be as flexible and helpful as he can. I am sure that he will be as I know that he is concerned particularly about the beef sector, especially in relation to the continuing fall in demand for red meat. Even Dr. Peel, following my three yearly medical check-up here in the House, advised me to eat less red meat. I am not sure that I shall take much notice as I enjoy beef and Yorkshire lamb, but it is advice that I suspect that many doctors are giving to other people, too.
I should like also to mention the linseed regime. The decision to drop set-aside for linseed was very welcome, but some United Kingdom growers have planted or are ready to plant on land which has now been declared ineligible for arable crops because it was outside the arable rotation at the end of 1991. I find this very difficult, but I have one young farmer who is a new entrant and who spent £1,500 on the seed. He was all ready to go and has now been told that because of the change in the rules he cannot have the money. Because of the support for linseed, what he would get for it on the market will not make the exercise worth while. I understand that within the linseed

447
regime there is still a deficit across the Community. That in itself suggests that more support might be justified and that we need perhaps to re-examine that.
Thirdly, I want to mention sugar. There is as yet no proposal from the Community, but my right hon. Friend knows the great importance of the sugar crop to farmers in the vale of York, around Malton and in the vale of Pickering. When it comes to arguing in Brussels, as I know that he will with all the power and strength at his disposal, will he please bear in mind that we produce about 50 per cent. of our sugar needs in the United Kingdom on United Kingdom farms? That suggests that we should not suffer sizeable quota cuts. This crop has helped to sustain many farms in my constituency through some difficult times in recent years.
This year's price proposals carry forward the process of reform agreed last year. The CAP is far from perfect. We all have our doubts about its future and more reforms seem inevitable to many of us. Two crucial points matter: first, we must keep within budget; secondly, there must be no discrimination against United Kingdom farmers.
9.59 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: Many hon. Members have referred to the fact that agriculture is a vital part of the rural economy and I do not contradict them. However, west Wales and especially the county of Dyfed comprise an area which, by the EC's own data, could be considered as having the same problems as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, because it has only 76 per cent. of the average per capita income of the EC and thus would qualify for objective 1 status. Unfortunately, that is not a possibility because of its population size, although the statistics on income would merit that status. For an area such as west Wales, which is so dependent on agriculture, any changes will have a significant effect.
I am worried about compulsory set-aside, about the reduction in cereal support in Wales compared to the reduction in England, and about the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which we debated a few weeks ago. My farmers do not believe any of the figures given by the Minister. I am also worried about the fact that, even after the 1984 imposition of milk quotas, Britain remains at an enormous disadvantage compared with many other European countries.
As a member of the Committee on the Agriculture Bill, I had an interesting meeting yesterday with representatives from Unigate, which runs the creamery in my constituency. The representatives made the point forcefully that Unigate, as a major producer of cheese, wanted to purchase at least another 20 per cent. of milk in my constituency. Unigate cannot do so because of the quotas and, as a major British food manufacturing company, it is extremely annoyed to see on supermarket shelves significant amounts of cheese imported from Ireland, from EC countries and from Canada.
It is important, when considering the reforms, to address the issue of income for our rural areas. Conservative Members have almost congratulated the Minister on the effects of black Wednesday. It is rather peculiar for policy to appear to be set by accident rather than by design. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to tell us that they had been calling for devaluation before September. I do not recall hearing such voices on
448
Conservative Benches. I have never believed that we should have supported the benchmark of DM2·95 to the pound.
The current levels of surplus in storage, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) referred, and the cost of maintaining those surpluses, are robbing the rural community. On current levels, only £3 out of every £10 of expenditure on the CAP goes to the farmers. A significant proportion of the remaining £7 is wasted in storage costs, intervention costs and export subsidies. That issue must be addressed fundamentally if there is to be a significant improvement in the CAP regime generally.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) let the cat out of the bag when he indicated that he sees set-aside as a means of increasing farm incomes, while admitting that it is highly unlikely to reduce production. If that is the case, why on earth have it? Why should British cereal producers be told, in effect, that they will have to set aside 15 per cent. of their land if this is to have no effect on surpluses? For the reasons that I gave earlier, I hope that it will have some effect. In the long run, farmers are robbed of income.
It is rather worrying that, in a debate of this nature, which many Conservative Members have described as important, there are no representatives of the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office on the Government Front Bench to reply to points relating to Scotland and Wales.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Nor is there a representative of the Northern Ireland Office.
Mr. Ainger: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point.
I do not know the reason for the absence of such representatives. Perhaps Ministers have business elsewhere. Agriculture is the mainstay of the rural economy in Wales, and we have significant numbers of people employed in the food industry generally. That being the case, it is strange that no Welsh Office Minister could be bothered to come along to what is a relatively rare debate.
Mr. Gummer: Given that agriculture is so basic in Wales and that there are more than 25 Welsh Labour Members of Parliament, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us why he is the only one who has bothered to turn up. I exclude the Whip, who has to be here as he is on duty.
Mr. Ainger: I do not have to defend my position, and I certainly do not have to defend the position of my Labour colleagues.
It is also significant that not one representative of the Welsh National party is present, despite the fact that all Welsh nationalist Members represent rural constituencies. I admit that, in one respect, I am unusual. However, I like to think that I represent a trend—Labour Members from Welsh rural constituencies.
With regard to set-aside, the farmers of my constituency say that it is far better to use land productively—not for food production, but for industrial production—than to abandon it to weeds and brush, in which small partridges can find nesting places. This is a matter to which the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) referred. The National Farmers Union branch in Haverfordwest has considered in great detail the option of producing rapeseed oil on set-aside land, perhaps taking

449
over land used for cereal production, in the hope that the Government will recognise the importance of bio fuels, which are environmentally friendly.
The energy technology support unit has estimated that, if all the United Kingdom's 1992 set-aside land were turned over to the growing of rapeseed, 743,000 tonnes of fuel could be produced. That would replace more than 600,000 tonnes of conventional, mineral-based diesel. The effect of that on the environment would be a 3.5 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions. Not only is that a way of increasing incomes in the rural economy and of making good productive use of land without adding to the surpluses, but it also assists by cleaning up the environment and reducing the problem of global warming.
Among the many disappointments in the Chancellor's Budget speech was the lost opportunity to assist the farming industry in a move to industrial crops. Under the current EC regime, pilot schemes for such crops receive a specific tax benefit. It was unfortunate that the Chancellor missed that opportunity. I understand that, in a new directive, the EC tax Commissioner is proposing the possibility of a 90 per cent. reduction in duty on biodiesel. If that is true, it is welcome, and I hope that the Government will push for it in negotiations in Brussels.
Instead of setting land aside and reducing farming incomes, and thereby further reducing prosperity in our rural economy, it is a great shame that that opportunity is being missed. Following the Rio summit, it has been acknowledged that all countries should take steps significantly to reduce carbon dioxide production. By moving to far more environmentally friendly fuels such as biodiesel, we could at a stroke solve some of our problems in relation to global warming, and also add value to land that is currently set aside.
It is extremely worrying to hear constant assurances from Conservative Members that the deal has overall been a good one. They rightly admit that the increases that have stemmed from the package, although small, are from a low base. As I have said, the rural economy in my constituency is in a crisis that is linked to other problems, such as the closure of Ministry of Defence bases.
It is no good the Government saying that they are trying to reduce the effects of the CAP, when at the same time they are reducing incomes in the rural economy. Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill in one way or another. It is important to try to reduce our surpluses significantly. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will refer to biodiesel and to biofuels, as they are a far better way of using productive land than producing weeds.
10.13 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Speaker, I hesitated before rising as I was hearing some most useful technical information from behind when you called my name. However, I am very grateful to you for calling me. I am also grateful for the fact that I have passed the magical witching hour of 10 pm. I would not have liked to foul up the 10 o'clock rule, so that I was responsible for keeping my hon. Friends here all night listening to me. That would have been most unfortunate.
450
I will be extremely brief. However, this is a very important debate. We are talking about the third largest industry in the country, after the combined chemical industries and the North sea oil industry. This subject affects all our constituents, because they are all consumers. It also intimately affects the performance of our economy. Although it is such a large industry, we have a £5·5 billion deficit in the food and drink section. It is therefore vital that we promote policies which boost the performance of that industry. That is why I welcome the new Agriculture Bill, for in the potato and milk sectors we shall have the opportunity to compete on equal terms in an unrestricted way and add value in both sectors.
I thank my right hon. Friend for writing to me in the past week announcing the new Cotswolds environmentally sensitive area. It is part of his new agri-environmental package amounting to £31 million, with an extra £12 million for the six new environmentally sensitive areas. My farmers in Cirencester and Tewkesbury and in the Cotswolds will be grateful for his action, and will grasp the opportunity with alacrity. I quote my right hon. Friend's description of the Cotswold hills, because it sums up my constituency beautifully
"The Cotswold hills are an outstanding example of limestone scenery. The area is dominated by steep escarpment rising dramatically from the vales of Berkeley, Gloucestershire and Evesham."
[Interruption.] I suggest to some of my hon. Friends who are conducting conversations that, if they listened more and came to my constituency, tourism might benefit considerably.
The many hours that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State spend in Brussels trying to negotiate a satisfactory reform of the CAP must be frustrating in the extreme. I assure them that I am aware of the hours, days and nights that they spend there trying to produce a suitable package, only to return here to be greeted with carping criticism, more carping and more criticism, from Opposition Members who never produce any positive proposals of their own.
The package that the Minister managed eventually to negotiate, contrary to the original prediction that Ray MacSharry would sell us all down the river and that our farmers would be put out of business, represents a considerable step forward. In the current economic climate, with GATT not having been renegotiated and the CAP in the middle of renegotiation, no Minister or farmer can be certain what the future holds.
I am delighted that the socialist Government of France have been chucked out. They were unreliable and useless. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, Mr. Balladur, and his Ministers will not seek to revisit the agricultural part of the GATT negotiations. If they do, the whole thing will unravel and we shall not stand a chance of securing the Uruguay round.
I remind the House that not only the farmers of the western civilised economies benefit from the GATT round —[Interruption.] I urge Opposition Members to listen to me more carefully. Instead of being critical, they should listen and learn. Those who benefit most from the conclusion of any GATT round are the poor countries of the third world. They desperately need to trade their produce. If trade barriers are erected against them, they will continue to remain poor and rely on overseas aid. I am all for trade with the third world and want open and free trade to remain the order of the day for as long as possible.

451
The shift in support from the processor to the producer is an important part of the reform. Much has been said about CAP money merely going to producers and lining the pockets of skilful entrepreneurs instead of going to the farmers, the primary producers, who need the aid. Support is best given in that way, for four reasons. First, we need to target the huge amount of money that will be given out under the CAP. We can target it to produce benefits that the public really want, environmentally friendly farming systems and more organic farming. Organic farming is not the panacea that many environmental organisations would claim, but at least it has a place. Any mechanisms that my right hon. Friend can negotiate under the CAP reforms to encourage it must be of benefit to the general public, and particularly to those who want to buy organically produced goods. An increasing number of consumers want such goods.
Secondly, it has been possible to produce a Communitywide scheme. In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), I made the point that a Communitywide scheme would cut out fraud. It does not behove any hon. Member to say, "Why have we got this scheme, when the Italians, the Greeks, the Portuguese and the Irish will not enforce it?" My right hon. Friend should go to Brussels with all guns blazing and produce a scheme which everybody will enforce. It we enforce a scheme and others do not, we will become less and less competitive. I shall come back to anti-fraud measures.
Thirdly, contrary to all the rumours and predictions about what Ray MacSharry would inflict on us, the package has not discriminated against our large farmers. There were scare stories about them being penalised, but there will still be a level playing field. That was a significant achievement by my right hon. Friend.
Fourthly, the package is particularly advantageous to the United Kingdom, because it will increase our proportion of the CAP budget from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale: (Mr. Greenway) said, that represents a 30 per cent. increase. There will be an additional £1 billion this year and an additional £1·5 billion next year. These are important extra funds which my right hon. Friend has managed to negotiate for our farmers.
On the enforcement aspect of the package, as hon. Members will be aware, part of the package is the production of a new, integrated administrative control system. If I achieve one thing in the debate, it is to say to farmers that, if they do not fill in the forms by 15 May, they will not get the money to which they are entitled.
The package is not complicated. I have read all 80 pages which accompany it. The booklet is fairly readable for those who take time to peruse it. Much information is needed to fill in the forms. No doubt we will get many letters from our constituent farmers in the next few weeks about the forms. Farmers should sit down and read the booklet. It is not complicated: my right hon. Friend and his civil servants have done a good job in making it as simple as possible.
I do not believe that it is beyond the capability of most farmers to fill in the forms correctly. I stress that they should get on with it as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend said, they have to lodge an application to the Ordnance Survey to be sure of getting the maps. The date of 15 April is not far hence. Therefore, the loud and clear message to all farmers is that they should get the maps and
452
get their forms into my right hon. Friend's divisional offices. If the forms are submitted in good time, officials will have a chance to look at them and send them back if they are wrong. If farmers submit their applications on 15 May, the deadline, there will be no time for the Department to send them back. I urge farmers to fill in the forms correctly. The message is that they should fill in the forms if they want the money. As my right hon. Friend said, an important point about the forms is that similar requirements will be produced for the other 11 member states.
The committee which will be responsible for implementing the system will be able to scrutinise the forms after 15 May. It will be able to scrutinise and demand production of the forms of individual properties of farmers in the member states to see whether they have been filled in properly. All sorts of new enforcement-checking measures, including aerial photography, will be available. It will be easy for us to demand that aerial photographs be taken of areas of Greece, Portugal and Spain to see whether farmers in those countries have completed the forms and whether the aggregate figures on the forms confirm the totals which one is able to glean from the photographs. The age of compliance is upon farmers in all the member states.
An important part of Maastricht is the new increased powers provided for the Court of Auditors. We have been told that the common agricultural policy budget this year will be 34 billion ecu. I do not want my taxpayers' money to go to Spanish, Portuguese, German or any other farmers if it does not go to the people who are entitled to it. As a British taxpayer and a British farmer, I want to see enforcement across the Community, and I will be urging my right hon. Friend every step of the way to ensure that that happens.
We all want security in the future for our farmers. For the past 15 to 20 years, farmers have been telling us that that is absolutely paramount. However, it is difficult, especially with the new Democratic Administration in the United States. I was in the United States before Christmas, and there is no doubt that those Democratic senators whom Labour Members so revere are increasingly protectionist. They do not want to see a GATT agreement or the north American free trade agreement: they want protectionism.
For all the reasons which I gave earlier, it is absolutely essential for the United Kingdom—where 40 per cent. of our total gross domestic product is exported—that we have as free and fair trade across the world as we can possibly manage. I repeat loud and clear my earlier comments: I hope that no EC Government will want to renegotiate the agricultural part of GATT. It will be difficult enough to get the textile, steel and various other parts of GATT negotiated. I hope that Labour Members will welcome the motion and support it in every possible way.
My right hon. Friend has worked extremely hard to get a fair package for our farmers. The package will give them a thoroughly good deal in the current economic circumstances provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, of low inflation, no unit wage cost increases at all this year and low interest rates. Those are precisely the conditions which farmers and all businesses need to succeed in the United Kingdom. They now have the opportunity. They should reduce their debts, accelerate

453
their investment programmes and make hay while the sun shines, because things may not be quite as rosy in the future.
I hope that Labour Members will welcome what my right hon. Friend has achieved. When I explain my comments to constituent farmers up and down the country, they will realise that this Conservative Government have treated them as well as could possibly be done in the circumstances by any Minister negotiating for us in Brussels.
10.28 pm
Mr. George Walden: I shall be brief, not least because I was, unfortunately, not able to be in my place for the earlier part of the debate, for which I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State was kind enough to meet Buckinghamshire farmers recently. Many issues were discussed, and he produced a persuasive and useful performance, not least on the potato issue. Buckinghamshire farmers are grateful to my hon. Friend.
I shall not say that my right hon.Friend the Minister is said by the farmers in my constituency to be doing a good job; they have not said that. I judge from the relative lack of complaints that he is doing a brilliant job. Nowadays, I do not hear so often the traditional complaints. Instead, I am told about bureaucracy and petty controls. Time and again, individual farmers and the National Farmers Union, at group meetings in my constituency, produce the most mind-boggling examples of ever-increasing bureaucracy.
Despite what has been said about the integrated support system, a farmer who is engaged in small or medium mixed farming is almost overwhelmed with form filling. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will remember that the matter was raised when he met Buckinghamshire farmers. If it is conceivable, I ask him at Brussels to find ways of reducing the bureaucracy that is being imposed on farmers, and especially those who run small and medium farms.
The Government are right to say that farming incomes have increased considerably–22 per cent. is quoted. However, farmers are hard-headed people, and after being a Member for about a year I stopped trying to soft-soap them in any way. Nowadays, we tend to talk rather more realistically, and it seems that there are three realistic things that have to be said about farming in future.
First, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) was right to say that we should not make too much of the improvement in farm incomes, which has come fortuitously through the revaluation of the pound. But how far can we base the future of the industry on devaluation? I think that my doubts are felt generally by those who are engaged in agriculture.
454
My hunch is that, over the next few months, the French Government will decide that they cannot sustain the power of the franc and will find a way to devalue it. Leaving aside what will happen to the exchange rate mechanism, that will have a damaging effect on the United Kingdom. We shall find that we are engaged in competitive devaluation. Farmers had a good year last year, and things may not be too bad this year, but we must be realistic. It must be accepted, however, that the way forward for us and the French is not competitive devaluation.
Secondly, there is the general agreement on tariffs and trade. It is not popular to say this—for that reason, I shall say it—but the French have a point on GATT. Perhaps that is a terrible thing to say, but it is true. It is not by chance that all French political parties feel constrained to support the farmers. It is because the social structure of France is entirely different from that of the United Kingdom. Agriculture in France is crucial for the viability of many small towns, as well as for individual farmers. Enormous numbers of people live in small towns, rather than the huge and anonymous areas of suburbia in the United Kingdom. That is a fact of life.
Political pressures in France, whether we welcome them or not, to take a tough line on the GATT will not go away. We might as well reconcile ourselves to a tough struggle. The French will be pretty hard-line after their election, and we know the presidential election is due in two years. We do not make life easier for ourselves by denouncing the French as self-seeking or as wreckers. There are strong social and political pressures, and the French Government, whatever complexion they may have, will react to them. If we do not take account of that reality, we shall make life difficult for ourselves. When I talk to farmers, I find that they recognise that reality perfectly, because they are in the same business. So let us be realistic about that.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister understands that, in the long term, British and western European agriculture has not even started to face difficulties. We shall face increasing competition from eastern Europe. Only the artificial sterilising effect of communism has stopped us facing that competition in the past. People in eastern Europe and Russia are not congenitally unable to produce things: it is only that their political system has prevented them from doing so. So, one of these years, they will start growing and exporting things.
If western Europe wants to export industrial products to former communist countries, it will have to come to some accommodation with them. I shall not go into that now, but my local farmers and undoubtedly the farmers in my hon. Friends' constituencies are perfectly aware that the troubles of British agriculture are not over. They know that geographical—and, if you like, historical—pressures will come to bear on them.
Diversification will be the name of the game in future, as it has been in the past few years. That is not new to my hon. Friend the Minister, but, while respecting all the environmental desiderata, we need realism in the planning regime if farmers are to be kept in business.

Agricultural Prices
10.35 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been a wide-ranging and important debate. It is an opportunity to discuss the common agricultural policy, which is of major significance to the people of Britain, given the enormous amounts of money that they contribute. The fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised serious and important issues demonstrates that people's attention is directed towards the CAP.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). It is not carping to express some reservations about the operation of the CAP, given the problems with it. We are still saddled with a Frankenstein's monster. It is hugely expensive. It is inefficient. It is damaging to world trade. It traps farmers into growing simply for subsidies, not to meet market demands. Almost every hon. Member would accept that that is the fundamental weakness of a system of the nature of the CAP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said in his excellent speech, even though the purpose of the CAP reforms was to bring the budget under control, the cost is still spiralling.
The debate is an opportunity to evaluate the reforms of May 1992. The Opposition are entitled to criticise certain aspects of the review. When the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the reform, he was treated as a hero coming back from some battle abroad. One was surprised that some of his Back-Bench Members did not throw down rose petals and offer him a laurel crown. We should evaluate just what was achieved in May 1992, whether the reform of the CAP has been the great success that was claimed by the Minister and whether it will meet the objectives that were laid out then.
I remind the House that the Minister said last year that the reforms would cut £8 billion off the CAP budget. At the time the Labour party expressed some doubt about that. I still express doubt about it, given what we have heard today about the problems of controlling the CAP budget. There is also the question whether the reforms have helped all our farmers, as some people have claimed.
Like other hon. Members, I attended a conference of small farmers today. The Minister was present. It was a pity that he did not share the platform with me and other parliamentarians, as was originally promised and was on the agenda. Those small farmers made it clear that they did not believe that the CAP would work to their advantage as it has been reformed. I am sure that they made their views known to the Minister when he addressed them this afternoon.
We need to consider the attitude of the incoming French Government to the CAP. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made some pertinent and sensible points about that. The French Government are not sending the right signals to either their farmers or their fishermen by suggesting that they can renegotiate GATT and CAP agreements. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to the French Government that that does not set a good example to their farmers and fishermen, who now think that they can ignore bilateral agreements made in good faith.
456
At the heart of last year's reforms is compulsory set-aside. I shall concentrate the majority of my remarks on that and on the agri-environmental programme. Both are important areas that need reform. Although we have made valid criticisms of the agreement, I also want to make some suggestions, which I hope the Minister will think are constructive.
Set-aside was advocated by the Government even before the MacSharry proposals. It was introduced in Britain on a voluntary basis in 1988. I believe it to be a negative way to use large sums of public money and a number of hon. Members have clearly stated that they share that view. In its current form, the benefit of cutting production is doubtful. Like the previous system, the scheme benefits large farms—the larger the farm, the greater the benefit. Indeed, a report in The Sunday Times suggests that at least one landowner is receiving an income of £30,000 a year for putting his land into the voluntary set-aside scheme. Taxpayers and owners of small businesses will want to question whether that is good value for public money and whether the scheme actually provides worthwhile benefits.
The new scheme is virtually compulsory for larger farms, which must put 15 per cent. of their cereal production land into set-aside. In crude terms, the potential of that is enormous: 1·5 million acres, which is an area the size of Lincolnshire, being put into set-aside. The package of set-aside payments—the compensation that farmers can claim if they meet the targets—has increased CAP costs by 5 billion ecus, which at current prices is £3·5 billion. How can that help to achieve the target of reducing CAP costs by £8 billion?
So far, even the curbing of production—the very principle underlying set-aside—has not been that successful. Cereal production has actually risen since 1988, when the voluntary scheme was introduced. According to MAFF's figures, in 1988 some 21·1 million tonnes were produced; by 1991 that had increased to 22·6 million tonnes; and even in 1992 the figure was 21·1 million tonnes —the same as 1988—despite the fact that it was a wet year, which affected production.
I am sure that farmers would agree that set-aside is a public relations disaster for them. A Friends of the Earth publication "Set-aside: money for nothing" quoted a Northumberland farmer, Mr. Adam Harrison, as saying:
"If the object of the exercise had been to make farmers look feather-bedded, parasitic, corrupt and incompetent, then the new-look CAP could hardly have been bettered."
Those are strong words, but farmers in my constituency tell me that they are concerned about the way in which set-aside is used and about the image that it reflects on them.
Set-aside has also cost jobs. Research by the Centre for Agricultural Studies shows that a full-time job is lost for every 130 hectares set aside. Moreover, under the present scheme the environmental benefits of set-aside are extremely doubtful. It is certainly not a return to the old system of rotation in the modern agricultural system; it means that production is intensified in the parts of farmland that are not set aside. Some of the more sensible uses of set-aside have not been encouraged.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) about biofuels. I do not think that the recent Budget helped to encourage their use, although it surely gave the Chancellor an opportunity to provide some tax encouragement. At present, biodiesel is treated in

457
exactly the same way as ordinary diesel in terms of duty. Rather than allowing fields to be set aside, doing nothing, the Government could encourage biofuel production—not only in the context of oilseed, but in the context of fast-growing coppice, which can be cropped and used for biofuel. That was not encouraged in the Budget; nor has it been encouraged in provision for research and development.
This morning I attended a conference with small farmers. It emerged very strongly that they feel betrayed in relation to research and development. Organisations such as ADAS—a useful organisation with a proud track record—are being turned, more or less, into private consultancies. Many small farmers simply cannot afford the assistance provided by such consultancies. If we are to encourage a more constructive use of set-aside—biofuels are just one example; there are one or two others—both ADAS and the Government have important roles to play.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what the Select Committee on the Environment said this week? The Committee said that it was extremely important for forestry to have its proper place in set-aside and that permanent set-aside—as it comes to be discussed by the European Commission—included the possibility of long-term planning for extra forestry in this country and elsewhere, involving all sorts of environmental benefits, both global and national.
Mr. Morley: I acknowledge that, and I pay tribute to the Select Committee's report. I thought that it made a useful contribution to this issue and, indeed, to forestry in general. I will go further and commend to the Minister the recent report of the Countryside Commission, which has also considered farm forestry and the expansion of forests. Our country has one of the lowest levels of afforestation in Europe and set-aside certainly provides opportunities in that regard—particularly in the agri-environmental package, to which I shall refer later.
We need a major reform of the common agricultural policy. We need to sweep away as many forms of production and intervention support as possible, along with all the bureaucracy that goes with them. United Kingdom farmers are efficient; they can stand up for themselves and compete, as long as they are given a level playing field. The massive sums involved in the CAP should be shifted towards environmental support and away from production support—and, if necessary, towards social support, so that people can be maintained on the land. We should ensure that small farmers are supported and rural communities and their social fabric are protected.
The Minister may well refer to the advantages of the agri-environmental package and to measures that the Government have introduced—for instance, environmentally sensitive areas, countryside stewardship schemes and naturally sensitive area schemes. I shall not be churlish; those schemes are very welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out, they have long been Labour party policy and we argued for them long before they were fashionable. However, all those measures —welcome though they are—must be seen in the context of the huge spending involved in the CAP. They are tiny in comparison with the money directed towards them.
458
As we said earlier, diversification will become increasingly important. I accept that; I also accept that we need an integrated approach to rural policy. Diversification need not go against present planning laws, but the number of applications for golf courses shows that certain forms of diversification can go too far. I have nothing against golf courses, which sometimes are a useful form of diversification, but the number of applications for golf courses in, for example, the Sevenoaks area makes one wonder where all the golfers will come from and who the proposed courses are for, because they cannot be for the benefit of local people. At the current rate of applications in the Kent area, there will be one golf course for each Kent resident.
I recently visited Kent and was accompanied by the excellent Labour councillor, Sarah Goodall, who showed me around the area and drew my attention to the problem. A balance needs to be struck, and I hope that the Minister will issue guidance to local authorities in this respect.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I live in the middle of a golf course in Kent—it has been built around me—for which there is a considerable waiting list. The demand to play golf in Kent seems insatiable.
Mr. Morley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that it is so insatiable that everyone will live in the middle of a golf course, because some people might object to how that affects the traditional countryside in Kent. Although there is a role for golf courses in diversification, a balance must be struck.
The Minister recently announced a number of proposals, the first of which was the extension of ESAs, which is very welcome. Secondly, there is the moorland scheme to reduce grazing and, thirdly, the meadowland scheme to create public access and a review of set-aside management, which will include wildlife corridors on margins and watersides and specialist options, which I presume would involve conservation headlands.
All those measures are welcome, but if the Minister is proposing to use public money to negotiate public access, to which I do not object, I hope that he is not agreeing with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who was talking about charging for public access. If taxpayers' money is used for such a scheme, the public will contribute twice. Although it is a legitimate use of taxpayers' money, I do not think that the public should pay twice. I hope that the Minister is not contemplating such a payment, which could be regarded as a stroll tax on using the countryside.
If the Minister is reviewing set-aside management as part of the agri-environmental package, will he argue for the use of light grazing on set-aside land, which currently is banned, as a conservation measure to control meadows? I believe that such use is proper and I hope that he will raise that point with the Commission.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the dates for mowing set-aside land and the effect that that has on ground-nesting species. That important point was well made.
I note that the habitat improvement scheme, which is linked to water margins, includes coastlines. Is that part of the planned retreat concept that the Minister has discussed, although it is not spelt out in the package? Nevertheless, it is welcome and useful.
Proposals have been made to assist organic farming. I hope that the Minister notes the comments of the Soil

459
Association and the SAFE—Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment—alliance, which argue that existing organic farmers—those who have made an investment—should receive some support.
Those are the suggestions that the Minister has made. We believe that that is exactly the kind of policy that we want to see.
We part company with the Minister, however, over the fact that the total finance for the agri-environmental package comes to a measly £19 million over three years, taking away the ESA element. The Community's budget for the agri-environmental package is less than 1 per cent. of the CAP budget. I do not believe that environmental issues will be given a high priority when only 1 per cent. of the CAP budget is being devoted to them. That pales into insignificance when compared with the £2 billion which the United Kingdom will spend on the CAP.
It is no wonder that the Council for the Protection of Rural England said of the scheme in its press release "MAFF Misses Target" that
"serious funding has not been attached to it".
Although the Country Landowners Association welcomes the measures, in a press release that hon. Members will have seen, it said that the funding was totally inadequate.
With reference to moving to a more sophisticated range of measures, I commend to the Minister the CPRE document "Green or Mean", which outlines an extremely constructive method of using the agri-environmental package and reforming the CAP as we would wish.
The House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities produced a report entitled "The Environmental Aspects of the Reform of the CAP". It included a detailed set of environmental measures as an alternative to the set-aside proposals which are currently the heart of the CAP package. I took special note of the following comment:
"The Committee supports the call for payments to be made to farmers for delivering positive environmental benefits rather than doing environmental mischief. We favour payments for achieving certain pre-determined targets."
I noted the Minister's opening remark that he favoured cross-compliance and wanted to target environmental support. I very much welcome that, but it is important that any shift of CAP funding to environmental support for agriculture is not used to pay farmers to stop doing what they should be doing in the first place. Payment should be made for improvements in countryside and environmental management.
As yet, there is no evidence that environmental measures are at the heart of the CAP. When the Minister returned from Brussels last year, he said that environmental measures were at the heart of the CAP but, as I have said, only 1 per cent. of the budget and a measly £19 million over three years are being devoted to such measures. At present, the CAP is a wasteful system which distorts markets. There needs to be a complete change. Environmental changes should be an integral part of the CAP and should not be regarded as a bolt-on extra as they are now.
We want a comprehensive and integrated approach to rural issues, which notes not only the cultural and social values of farming but the rural infrastructure of which the Government should take account. There should be proper rural transport, affordable rented homes, job and training
460
opportunities and support for small village schools, shops and sub-post offices. Many of the latter are threatened by privatisation, which will not help rural communities.
We want clear objectives for support payments and a proper evaluation of the schemes that have been introduced. We welcome the identification of ESAs, which we regard as the way forward, but the money must be spent wisely. We want a rethink on the set-aside policy as it forms the basis of the CAP package.
We hope that the Government will recognise that there is now an opportunity to assist and stabilise agriculture, to protect and enhance our environment and to bring the benefits to all people, whether they live in urban or rural areas. We are currently spending a great deal of money on a wasteful and destructive system. The Opposition believe that people in this country, including farmers, are entitled to a better deal than the one that they are getting under the CAP.
We believe that we have to move in the direction suggested by the agri-environmental package and we want the CAP to be completely restructured. I do not say that that can be done overnight, or that it will be easy to negotiate with other countries to achieve it. But I believe that there is widespread support for such action across all European member states and certainly among the people of this country, whether they live in villages, towns, cities or hamlets. If the Government really believe that environmental measures should be at the heart of the CAP, they should demonstrate that by arguing for such restructuring and certainly by devoting more than a measly and inadequate £19 million over three years to it.
10.59 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I shall begin with one piece of arithmetic that is essential in discussing what happens with the CAP in Brussels. There are 76 votes in the Council of Ministers, and a qualified majority consists of 54 votes. Even if one is the archangel Gabriel—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is probably closer to the archangel Gabriel than is any other member of the Council—if one does not get 54 votes one does not get one's policy adopted. So it is no earthly use Uncle Tom Cobbley and all telling us what they will do, how they will do it, and what they will insist on; if they do not get 54 votes, that is all words, words and nothing but words.
I know that this is all most offensive to the Opposition, but the fact of the matter is that that my right hon. Friend came back with a triumph for Britain. The MacSharry proposals had to be our starting point. And what were those proposals? They were a massive piece of institutionalised discrimination against British farmers—and we wiped them out. The Opposition said that we could not do it, and of course they did not want us to do it, because that would be inconvenient for them, but we delivered on what we had promised and the farming community knows that we did.
Mr. Morley: If the Minister has delivered what he promised, will he tell us whether the £8 billion will be cut from the CAP budget?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely innumerate. There has been a major switch in the CAP from commodity support to direct support. That is what

461
the hon. Gentleman says that he favours, because that is what his amendment says. There is a switch in support to budgetary cost from economic cost. The gain to the consumers is the gain in total economic transfers, not a gain in budgetary costs. We have said that from the start. That is at the heart of any policy designed to switch support from the commodity. To switch support to direct income aid and support to farmers will show up in enhanced budgetary costs, because to do so reduces the economic transfers at the heart of the income switches within the system.
There have been changes in the Council. Many hon. Members have referred to the new French Government. My right hon. Friend is now the doyen of the Agriculture Council. After only three and a half years we are on our fourth French Minister, there have been three or four Irish Ministers, and I believe that the Italians have reached number five. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will be glad to hear that Alfredo Diana, a former colleague of ours in the European Parliament, is now the Italian Minister of Agriculture. He has a significant stake in the Italian buffalo herd, so no doubt that will give the Opposition something else to complain about. The number of Greeks has been beyond count, on immediate recollection. If we have done so badly, it is amazing that we are still there and all the others have gone. I believe that we are still here because we have delivered.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) talked about GATT. It is amazing how such talk is usually framed in terms of what Europe has to do to deliver. It takes two to tango on the GATT, and we have to hear from the United States, too. We have to hear that the Americans wish to renew their fast track authority, and that the Blair house agreement remains the foundation for the agreement on agriculture. The simple fact is that we shall not see a major departure from that agreement constitute the basis for an agreement on agriculture. Many other sectors have to be dealt with, too.
Let me answer directly what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said about national aid to France and to the sheepmeat sector. May I ask him if he would put these figures into the equation? I am talking now about exports of British products to France, and about live sheep. In 1991 they were up by 48 per cent. over 1990. In 1992 they were up by 63 per cent. over 1991. On sheepmeat, they were up by 36 per cent. in 1992 over 1991. In other words, we are capturing that French market. We are successful in that market. Then look at the help for British producers. Of course the devaluation helped us on our way—we do not pretend that that is not the case—but it is there and it is real, and if we had not negotiated the end of the monetary compensatory amount system that would not have come through in the benefits for farmers. It is clear what we have achieved.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Devaluation is an indicator of a policy failure.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the devaluation was an indication of the reverse of Government policy. What I am saying is that, as far as that affects farmers, unless we had abolished the MCA system,
462
we would have had what existed when Labour was in power—a massive green pound gap and farmers denied the benefit of that. We have brought that to an end.
Mr. Stevenson rose—
Mr. Curry: I will give the figures and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who has kept his practice from the European Parliament of making long, boring speeches.
Look at the help for producers. The ewe premium increase from the green pound factor is up by £2·65, and the additional payment for less favoured area producers is up by £2·20 a ewe. So who is winning in the battle for sheepmeat production and the battle for lamb production? It is clearly the United Kingdom. That is the point that I would ask him to put into this equation.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is absolutely bursting to get in.
Mr. Stevenson: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that the Minister is obviously bored to tears. That is obvious from his presentation. He referred to the unanimous agreement of the Council to allow the French Government to subsidise its sheep producers, and then he related that to the way in which we were capturing more of the French market. Surely the logic of that is that if we capture even more of the market we shall allow the French to give even more national aid. Would he care to comment on that? What he said did not quite gell.
Mr. Curry: That is not how it was at all. We had a request from the French Government. The Council of Ministers traditionally shows a certain competence when member Governments have problems that they wish to solve. That is what the Community is about. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the European Parliament, will know that that is the case. He has sat in the Agriculture Committee, among others. He will know that that is the tradition by which the Community does business. There comes a point where we can say that we want nothing to do with a particular matter, that we will stick out against it and that this particular thing will not pass, and we all know that there is a point at which we are going to say that we need some benefit for ourselves or a difficulty that we need to resolve.
This happened when we came up to the problem on linseed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. There we pointed out that the Commission had made a mess of it, that we were in danger of linseed being put into the area aid payment while the seed was in the ground and that before farmers knew where they were we would have an absolute botch-up, and we needed to get an agreement that such a thing would not happen. The export of live horses has also been mentioned. Hon. Members will have received more letters on that subject than on many other issues. That and whales appear to command the particular affection of the British population. If we had not argued a special case, we would not have got the ability to do it. So I make no apology for it. It is part of the lubricant, part of the way in which the Community works.
Mr. Harris: If I may say so, my hon. Friend has missed the point that I was making. I do not necessarily blame him for that. The point that I was making was that the trade-off which was apparently entered into by our right hon. Friend was on the assurance that the French Government would do what they were supposed to do

463
anyway, guarantee reasonable access for our products into France. That is how it appears in the letter that he himself wrote, and of which I have a copy, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
Mr. Curry: What my right hon. Friend said was that there was no way that we would even agree to this being on the agenda for discussion unless the French made it clear that they would fulfil their obligations as members of the Community in respect of our trade. I must point out to my hon. Friend that we do not have a quarrel with the French Government in this respect. We have a quarrel with a good many of its citizens because of their actions, but when it came to encouraging the French Government to resolve the difficulty we had an effective response; and now that there is a new Government in power and we have opposite numbers at last we shall seek to renew those responses as soon as we can make contact with them.
Many hon. Members mentioned the GATT talks. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, a crucial decision has to be made. The talks have wide implications and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, GATT is one of the fundamental questions that will determine the way in which agriculture goes in future. I accept his point that eastern and central Europe is the shadow looming just over the horizon at the moment. It may change our agriculture more fundamentally than will the GATT and the CAP reforms put together. That is a fundamental question that we must face.
We debated the sugar regime in Committee this morning, so I will not repeat the points on that on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I dealt with the matter at some length this morning. Clearly, reform is necessary for that regime. It could be argued that it is the least attractive part of the CAP—there are a fair number of candidates for that appellation. The implications for developing countries are especially important. It is, therefore, one of the regimes that need change both because it says something about the way in which the Community works and because it has particular relevance to countries that are dependent on it.
We have rotational set-aside because we needed to take action quickly to reduce production. That has been the story of the CAP over the years. A number of years ago, people said that we needed change and that we must have high prices. There has been a history of Ministers not wishing to grasp those decisions. One gets to the point at which one must take more radical action to deal with the matter quickly. We wish that that were not the case. We are not the Government who have been unwilling to take those more difficult decisions early on. We have found that because of the 54 votes, other Governments have not been willing to take such decisions. We end up with a far more radical proposal. If one is sensible, one tries to build on that and to make something constructive out of it. We are trying to build the non-rotational scheme on to it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) welcomes that, because of the environmental benefits that can be attached. Permanent set-aside was suggested because the creation of woodlands and habitats can be linked. That will make out of a scheme that has its disadvantages something that can create a positive good.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who is overcome with tiredness at this stage, proposed a
464
series of objectives, but no mechanisms by which to reach the objectives. The amendment is full of many extremely virtuous objectives that we should probably all like to attain, but no mechanism is specified as to how we can get from here to there. It is easy to list virtuous objectives, but if one wants the 54 votes one must have the mechanism and it must be agreed by everyone else on the Council. If not, it is not even worth trying.
Let us be equally clear about the forms. Farmers will receive a lot of money through the post. There is no point in blinking that fact or pretending that it is not the case. It will be the taxpayers' money that they receive. We must therefore ensure two points—that those who are entitled to the money get it, and that those who get the money know that it is properly accounted for because it is part of public expenditure. If one is running the scheme through the framework of supply management, there is no way in which to achieve those two points without ensuring that one knows who is getting what. That means that farmers will have to fill in forms to get the money. Farmers are filing in forms for their own income. We have, of course, made the forms as simple and sensible as we can. However, the need to have such forms is inescapable because taxpayers' money is involved. Next year, about 1·7 billion of taxpayers' money will ride on those forms. It is therefore reasonable that farmers —who are, after all, business men although they may not perceive themselves as such should deliver the forms that will guarantee their own livelihoods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the problem of the mowing and cutting date and referred to I May. The date of I May is fixed for the United Kingdom as the first date on which a farmer can replace winter cover with bare fallow or with another cover, but not a crop. However, he does not have to cut as early as 1 May. He must cut at least once by 1 July, so the cutting can be delayed into June for environmental reasons, such as nesting birds. Farmers may apply to delay the cutting beyond 1 July if there are genuine environmental reasons. I am sensitive to these issues as there is in my constituency an environmentally sensitive area where late cutting dates allow seed pods to settle, flowers to seed, and nesting birds to complete their cycle of reproduction. That is very important.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South made at least one point with which I agree—that farming in Europe will have to face more competition in the world market if we are genuinely in a liberalising environment. We do not yet know whether we are. The GATT deal has not been multilateralised; it is simply a bilateral understanding between the Community and the United States, which has to be transformed into a deal. Because we saw that competition, we wanted the aids to be transitional and degressive. We did not want them to be permanent and, indeed, they are not permanent. We want to move agriculture to a lower-cost structure to make it more competitive. We all recognise the danger that the Community could lock itself into a high-cost system and then turn a protectionist face to the outside world. That is why we would have preferred to look for a more subtle mechanism.
Farming has got over the hump of great uncertainty, but there are more uncertainties to come, as much reform has still to be pursued. In addition, some things have not been reformed sufficiently or well enough. We all know that the beef sector is a particular problem which will

465
return. At this time last year we would have been arguing that MacSharry was the great threat on the horizon. That threat has now dissipated, the situation has been brought under control, and farmers have benefited significantly. Thus, we are at last able, on the basis of an improving income, to say that it is a time for investment, for confidence and for opportunity, and that the Government have delivered it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 209.

Division No. 228]

[11.16 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Ainger, Nick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Ashton, Joe

Keen, Alan

Austin-Walker, John

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Khabra, Piara S.

Barnes, Harry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Battle, John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Bayley, Hugh

Leighton, Ron

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Loyden, Eddie

Benton, Joe

McAllion, John

Bermingham, Gerald

McAvoy, Thomas

Betts, Clive

McCartney, Ian

Boyce, Jimmy

McFall, John

Bradley, Keith

McKelvey, William

Burden, Richard

McWiiliam, John

Callaghan, Jim

Madden, Max

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Meale, Alan

Cann, Jamie

Michael, Alun

Chisholm, Malcolm

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clapham, Michael

Miller, Andrew

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Morley, Elliot

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Coffey, Ann

Mowlam, Marjorie

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mudie, George

Cousins, Jim

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Cryer, Bob

Pike, Peter L.

Darling, Alistair

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Davidson, Ian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

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

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Denham, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Dixon, Don

Purchase, Ken

Dowd, Jim

Quin, Ms Joyce

Eagle, Ms Angela

Raynsford, Nick

Enright, Derek

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Etherington, Bill

Rooker, Jeff

Flynn, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Sheerman, Barry

George, Bruce

Short, Clare

Gerrard, Neil

Simpson, Alan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Skinner, Dennis

Godsiff, Roger

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

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

Gordon, Mildred

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Soley, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Spearing, Nigel

Grocott, Bruce

Stevenson, George

Gunnell, John

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Hanson, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hardy, Peter

Turner, Dennis

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Wareing, Robert N

Hoey, Kate

Watson, Mike

Home Robertson, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Hoon, Geoffrey

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ingram, Adam

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Mr. Jack Thompson.

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

466

NOES

Adley, Robert

Gorst, John

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Aitken, Jonathan

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Alexander, Richard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Amess, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Arbuthnot, James

Hague, William

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Hannam, Sir John

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Bates, Michael

Harris, David

Bellingham, Henry

Haselhurst, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hayes, Jerry

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Heald, Oliver

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Boswell, Tim

Hendry, Charles

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Horam, John

Bowis, John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Brandreth, Gyles

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Brazier, Julian

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hunter, Andrew

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Jack, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Jenkin, Bernard

Burns, Simon

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Burt, Alistair

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Butler, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Butterfill, John

Kilfedder, Sir James

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Carrington, Matthew

Kirkhope, Timothy

Chapman, Sydney

Knapman, Roger

Churchill, Mr

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Knox, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Coe, Sebastian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Colvin, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Congdon, David

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Legg, Barry

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Leigh, Edward

Couchman, James

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

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

Lidington, David

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Lightbown, David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Lord, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Luff, Peter

Day, Stephen

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Madel, David

Devlin, Tim

Maitland, Lady Olga

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Malone, Gerald

Dover, Den

Mans, Keith

Duncan, Alan

Marland, Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Eggar, Tim

Merchant, Piers

Elletson, Harold

Milligan, Stephen

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Mills, Iain

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Moate, Sir Roger

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Evennett, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Faber, David

Moss, Malcolm

Fabricant, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Nicholls, Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Paice, James

Freeman, Roger

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

French, Douglas

Pickles, Eric

Fry, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gallie, Phil

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Rathbone, Tim

Garnier, Edward

Redwood, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Richards, Rod

467

Riddick, Graham

Thomason, Roy

Robathan, Andrew

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Thurnham, Peter

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Trend, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sackville, Tom

Walden, George

Shaw, David (Dover)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Shersby, Michael

Waller, Gary

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Ward, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Smith, Tim (Beaconslield)

Waterson, Nigel

Spencer, Sir Derek

Watts, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Spink, Dr Robert

Whittingdale, John

Spring, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Sproat, Iain

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Stephen, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Allan

Wood, Timothy

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Irvine Patnick and

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 70.

Division No. 229]

[11 29 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Aitken, Jonathan

Day, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Dover, Den

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan, Alan

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bates, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Bellingham, Henry

Elletson, Harold

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

Boswell, Tim

Faber, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Fabricant, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowis, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Brandreth, Gyles

Forman, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

French, Douglas

Butler, Peter

Fry, Peter

Butterfill, John

Gallie, Phil

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garnier, Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Chapman, Sydney

Gorst, John

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Flochford)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coe, Sebastian

Hague, William

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hannam, Sir John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Harris, David

Couchman, James

Haselhurst, Alan

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

Hawkins, Nick

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hayes, Jerry

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Heald, Oliver

468

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hendry, Charles

Rathbone, Tim

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Redwood, John

Horam, John

Richards, Rod

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hunter, Andrew

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jack, Michael

Sackville, Tom

Jenkin, Bernard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shersby, Michael

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Spencer, Sir Derek

King, Rt Hon Tom

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Knapman, Roger

Spink, Dr Robert

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Spring, Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sproat, Iain

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Steen, Anthony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Stephen, Michael

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Stewart, Allan

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Sweeney, Walter

Legg, Barry

Sykes, John

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lidington, David

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Lightbown, David

Thomason, Roy

Lord, Michael

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Luff, Peter

Thurnham, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

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

Madel, David

Trend, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Twinn, Dr Ian

Malone, Gerald

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mans, Keith

Walden, George

Marland, Paul

Waller, Gary

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Ward, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Merchant, Piers

Waterson, Nigel

Milligan, Stephen

Watts, John

Mills, Iain

Wells, Bowen

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Moate, Sir Roger

Whittingdale, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Widdecombe, Ann

Moss, Malcolm

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Willetts, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Wolfson, Mark

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wood, Timothy

Paice, James

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pickles, Eric

Mr. Andrew MacKay and

Porter, David (Waveney)

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Gerrard, Neil

Ashton, Joe

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Austin-Walker, John

Godsiff, Roger

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Barnes, Harry

Gordon, Mildred

Battle, John

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bayley, Hugh

Hanson, David

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Harvey, Nick

Bermingham, Gerald

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Boyce, Jimmy

Home Robertson, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Callaghan, Jim

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cann, Jamie

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Khabra, Piara S.

Chisholm, Malcolm

Leighton, Ron

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Loyden, Eddie

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Cryer, Bob

McFall, John

Davidson, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

Dixon, Don

Madden, Max

Dowd, Jim

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Meale, Alan

Enright, Derek

Michael, Alun

469

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Skinner, Dennis

Miller, Andrew

Spearing, Nigel

Mudie, George

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Stevenson, George

Pike, Peter L.

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Tyler, Paul

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Watson, Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wicks, Malcolm

Purchase, Ken

Wilson, Brian

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Rooker, Jeff

Tellers for the Noes:

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Simpson, Alan

Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4608/93, on the prices for agricultural products and on related measures, 1993–94; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate an outcome on the price proposals which takes account of the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers, builds upon the 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reforms, and takes full account of the realities of the budgetary situation.

PROCEDURE (PUBLIC PETITIONS)
Ordered,
That this House approves the recommendations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Fourth Report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure, relating to Public Petitions (HC 286).—[Mr. David Davis.]

PETITIONS

  Health Nursing (Liverpool)
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I present a petition that has been signed by 8,000 citizens of Liverpool who are concerned about the reorganisation of district health nursing, which is being reduced from 89·5 FTE to 57. The people of Liverpool depend more and more on qualified nurses in the district health service. It is interesting that Liverpool pioneered district nursing in the 1860s when Florence Nightingale and a social worker in Liverpool, a man who wrote much about the problems of the city, William Rathbone, joined to make, as it were, the first district nurse in the United Kingdom. It is significant that the response of the people of Liverpool to cuts in the service has reached the level of open opposition to the trust scheme.
  Therefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House requests that the Secretary of State for Health intervenes to ensure that this reduction in service is prevented and that the level and quality of services provided by the district nursing service in North Mersey is protected and enhanced to meet the real needs of the community.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  A92 (Traffic)
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I present a petition that has been signed by 2,239 of my constituents in the communities that are affected by the Government's failure to fulfil their commitment to upgrade the A92, which runs between Aberdeen and Ellon, to the north of the city. The collection of the petition has been co-ordinated by local, regional and district councillors. A vital role has been played by the pupils of Foveran primary school, which is close to the road along which an increasing volume of traffic thunders at ever increasing speeds. The children presented the petition to me so that I could bring it to the House. It reads:
  The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Gordon showeth that we express deep concern that the Balmedie to Tipperty section of the A92 road is extremely dangerous in its present condition, has been the site of too many serious accidents, and that this road is very close to Foveran Primary School.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland the need to improve the road by the construction of a dual carriageway, and to announce an early starting date to such improvements.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Walton Neurosciences Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I was moved to initiate the debate because of the fear that has arisen throughout Liverpool—certainly through the north side of the city—that the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery was at real risk because of developments within the Mersey regional health authority. It is a specialist centre and was one of the trusts in the vanguard of the Government's changes to the national health service. When it opted for trust status, it was driven—I choose my words carefully—by the then chairman of the RHA, Sir Donald Wilson.
  Hospitals and services within the Mersey region, including the centre in Walton, sought trust status on the basis of promises that there would be funding availability and that flexibility would be given to ensure that the trusts were successful in their own right and in their right as hospitals. However, after they became trusts, the pan-Liverpool review body reported. The body was set up to examine health care provision throughout the area. Tucked away inside one of the consultation documents was the suggestion that neurosciences should be relocated away from the Walton hospital site at the Royal Liverpool hospital in the city centre. That was despite the investment of millions of pounds in the site at Walton. I stress that the centre is highly specialised.
  The proposal to relocate the unit also ignored the view expressed in the review body document of 31 July 1989. It said that the neurosurgeons and neurologists were more than happy where they were. The decision seemed to be administratively driven to ease Walton away from that site.
  The fate that was dangled before the Walton was a different scenario—a transfer from the Walton site to a new purpose-built unit at Fazackerley hospital. Such a move would have required a massive infusion of cash—a projected cost of about £40 million. That was hardly likely to happen, given that, right next door to the Fazackerely hospital, the Government were committed to wasting £110 million on a new prison. I doubt whether the money would be found to provide the hospital extension that would have been required.
  The Walton centre is developing into a centre of excellence. It serves a catchment area of about 3 million people. That includes Merseyside, north Wales, the Isle of Man and west Lancashire. In certain circumstances, it takes cases from much further afield. It provides a high-quality integrated diagnostic and therapeutic service on that site. It has a highly skilled team. It caters particularly for patients with disorders of the nervous system.
  If the service is to be successful and effective, it must continue to be an integrated multidisciplinary neurosciences unit. That cannot be the case if the neurosciences unit is fragmented by parts of it being dispersed to district general hospitals. The unit must be developed. The people who run the place want to develop it as a centre for head, neck and spine surgery, neurology and neurological rehabilitation. Thus, the centre is an ideal site for a major trauma centre. It remains under some threat, because
  472
  saving pounds appears to be more important to some people than saving lives.
  We need to put the specialist centre into context. The same pan-Liverpool review body has been a source of contention in many parts of health service provision on Merseyside. Only yesterday, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), we had a visit from the nurses of the north Mersey community trust. As my hon. Friend said, the trust is the first of its type. I believe that it is being watched by bodies around the country to see what happens. It was set up in 1859 by William Rathbone and Florence Nightingale. It is going through what can only be described as a de-skilling exercise, which will lead to a diminution of the services offered to people by the dedicated, skilled nurses who go out into the community.
  Broadgreen hospital is to lose its accident and emergency department, as is the Walton site. It has been said that the casualty department of a hospital is literally and metaphorically the doorway through which patients come. It keeps the complimentary and acute services busy.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I wish to amplify my hon. Friend's point about Broadgreen hospital. It relates directly to the wider implications of the York review, which refers to the Walton unit. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the national health service, visited Mersey regional health authority in December. I wish to quote a section of the document that he produced then. He referred to the main bed reductions that would be made in the Liverpool area. There are several reasons why such bed reductions are being considered. He said:
  "Main bed reductions would need to take place at the Aintree and Broadgreen Trusts … The configuration options for"—
  what the document described as—
  "the rump of Broadgreen would then be to merge with the CTC Trust"—
  the other trust on the Broadgreen site—
  "or to become an annexe of the Royal".
  It then referred directly to the neurosciences unit and said:
  "The other provider issue concerned the Aintree Trust moving off the Walton site"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is making a speech rather than an intervention.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the many uncertainties. If different voices are heard on behalf of the health service, that undermines those people who want to put their faith in a particular site.
  I used the metaphor of closing the door. If it is closed, inevitably the acute services will be relocated to those hospitals with accident and emergency provision. If there is no such provision, as sure as night follows day, many of the services currently located at the Walton centre will go. That will be no fault of those trying to do a job there, but because the means to do the job will not be at their disposal.
  The logic is inescapable: if the casualty provision is taken away from Walton hospital, it will be difficult for the neurosciences experts there to defend their wish to remain at that site. The ideal of Walton becoming a major trauma

  473
  centre then becomes a distant dream. A sham exercise is taking place, under the guise of consultation, on accident and emergency provision in the city.
  It is strange that, while that consultation is taking place, £1·9 million has been granted to the Royal Liverpool hospital, through the outpost system, to expand its accident and emergency unit. That seems to pre-empt the outcome of any independent consultation. It shows that the regional health authority is determined to have its way, come what may. I fear that we will soon be faced with a fait accompli in accident and emergency provision for the area.
  If the health authority's preferred option—No. 2.2.1 —is implemented, on my computation it will mean that about 690 beds will have been lost since the creation of the trust in the area covered by the pan-Liverpool review. It would mean the loss of 34 of the 135 beds that existed at the Walton centre when it originally took trust status.
  The accountants who seem increasingly to be in charge of the health service would not think it viable, in terms of numbers, for the centre to continue on that site; yet the centre is an extremely valuable resource—not just its buildings and equipment, but its highly skilled, dedicated, motivated and professional teams of staff.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that the number and range of specialisms at the centre are quite remarkable. It does neurosurgery, spinal surgery, head injuries, intensive care, paediatric neurosurgery, neurology, disability and rehabilitation, pain relief neurophysiology, neuroradiology and neuropathology. The list goes on and on. In addition, the centre is heavily involved in teaching and research, and it has strong links with Liverpool univerity's department of neurosciences. There is also the adjacent Pain Foundation, of which the Minister will be aware, as I understand that it is the only one of its kind in the country, if not in Europe.
  The Walton centre has every intention to develop those links. It wants to establish chairs in neurosurgery, pain science and rehabilitation, to add to the new chair that has just been established in neurology. All those welcome and progressive developments are under threat.
  Walton is a hospital with strong community links. Everybody in north Liverpool knows it—all have had some dealings with it at some stage. Despite its faults, it has a reputation as a good, caring hospital that clearly identifies with the local community.
  The "strategic direction" document for 1993–98, put out by the centre itself, contains four important points about future site options. The first is:
  "We will continue discussions with Aintree Hospitals Trust to reach an understanding of the final disposition of services and the timescale of any changes."
  That is important because, effectively, there are still two trusts on one site: the Aintree hospital trust and the Walton centre.
  The second says:
  "we plan to remain on the Walton site so long as the other specialties remain or can be attracted to this site."
  Obviously, without those specialties, the site is not viable.
  The third point is:
  "The best option is to develop the Walton Centre as a Centre for Head, Neck and Spine Surgery, Neurology and Neurological Rehabilitation. With this combination of specialities it would become an ideal site for a major Trauma Centre."
  Last but not least, there is a
  474
  "need for a separate in depth study of the possible options for the provision of Neurosciences which will clearly include the preferred option for staying on the Walton Site."
  In the summer of 1991, I visited the hospital to see the opening of the latest state-of-the-art technology—a huge scanner. As an Evertonian, I was pained by the fact that it was opened by Graham Souness; nevertheless, the scanner had cost millions of pounds, which had been paid by public subscription. The working people of Liverpool are renowned for the generosity they show to charitable causes: anyone who knows anything about Alderhey children's hospital knows about the funds that are raised. More important, this instance was undeniable proof of the commitment of the people of Liverpool to the centre, which is very popular and very effective.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The people of Liverpool may strongly support Walton hospital—as they support Broadgreen—and the trust itself may have plans for its own future that it is seeking to develop. However, Mersey regional health authority clearly has other plans. Over the last five years, three separate documents have been issued, each saying something different. The document issued in December included a third option for the neurosurgical unit.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite all the protestations of the people of Liverpool —even when the trusts were being established—despite the huge number of petitions that were collected and despite united opposition, the regional health authority, under the chairmanship of Sir Donald Wilson, seemed hell bent on using Liverpool and its hospitals as a test bed. I hope to say more about that later.
  I was talking about the generosity of Liverpudlians to causes such as the Walton hospital. I hope that the Minister will reciprocate by giving an unequivocal commitment that the Walton centre will remain where it is, and substantially as it is. We all recognise that change is inevitable, but I have given my reasons for hoping that the Minister will make such a commitment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) suggested a moment ago, there has been a recurrent theme in the Mersey region—the theme of health care being used as a test bed for the latest cost-cutting exercise devised by those who are motivated by cost saving rather than life saving. I do not like to say that, but it is the only conclusion that I can reach.
  What is perhaps unique about the Walton centre is that, having followed the line of Sir Donald Wilson and Tory ideologues who forced through these so-called reforms, the trust is now discovering that the idea that it—the trust —was the way forward for the centre is not all that it seemed at the time. The blunt truth is that the money for further developments has run out: it is not there on the scale that is required for rationalisation of the kind that was planned—for example, the transfer to the Fazackerley site.
  The health authority is looking for ever more ways of cutting costs, without proper regard to patient care of the need to keep specialist units together in the only way that will ensure their viability. Tonight, the Minister should consider—it is an important point for him politically—not only the opposition that he would naturally expect from Labour Members but the concerns of those who believed the Government and their promises and involved

  475
  themselves in trusts. Will the Minister tell us whether those people are now as dispensable as many of the health facilities on Merseyside appear to be?
  11.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad to have a chance to respond to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in this debate on the future of the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery.
  The centre has been an NHS trust since April 1992. It is situated in the grounds of Walton hospital, and for many years has provided a service to patients from all 10 districts in Mersey region, as well as Clwyd and Gwynedd in north Wales, parts of west Lancashire and the Isle of Man. The total population it serves is about 3 million. It is recognised as a centre of excellence, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it enjoys a first-class reputation in the local community and beyond for neurosurgery, pain relief and neurology services.
  I was pleased to visit the centre last October and to open the excellent new operating theatre suite—I am afraid that I am not a footballer—which was hugely impressive. It had been refurbished with the addition of a fourth operating theatre and a new five-bed recovery suite. I saw a presentation of the centre's fully integrated computer system, which is the first of its kind in the country.
  Waiting times in the centre are extremely encouraging. No one is waiting more than 12 months for treatment. The new scanner, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was opened 12 months ago at a cost of £1·4 million, is being used with great success. Other encouraging developments include the refurbishment of the centre's out-patient facilities and the appointment of two new consultants. The centre received recognition from the NHS Management Executive for meeting its financial duties and is reporting an encouraging financial outturn.
  Why are we having this debate? I well understand the hon. Member's concern about the future of the centre, stemming immediately from the recent review of hospital services in Liverpool conducted by the York Health Economics Consortium. The hon. Member is aware that the York study was set up to see how the recommendations of the "Pan-Liverpool" report could be developed and implemented. "Pan-Liverpool" made a number of recommendations, including the future of acute services and neurosciences.
  The York review must be viewed against the background in Liverpool of a population that has declined by more than 8 per cent. in the past 10 years up to 1991, the fact that Liverpool health authority is a loser under weighted capitation funding; changes to clinical practice that affect everywhere—not only Liverpool—moves to more day-case surgery; development of so-called keyhole techniques; and other developments that involve fewer days having to be spent in bed.
  A key conclusion of the York study was that, due to the factors that I have just mentioned and others, fewer people in Liverpool will need to stay in hospital, and that those who stay will do so for a shorter time and will benefit from non-invasive techniques and improved rehabilitation. This suggests that the health care of the future will be much less dependent on hospital beds and much more community-focused.
  476
  The study recommended that the city would be best served by two district general hospitals based at the Royal Liverpool and Aintree hospital trusts, supported by facilities at Broadgreen.
  I have already said that "Pan-Liverpool" made recommendations on neurosciences. The clear recommendation was that services should be moved to Fazackerley, part of the Aintree trust. Although the regional health authority welcomed the general direction of service development proposed in "Pan-Liverpool", no further action has been taken on the recommendation. That is how we stand today.
  However, I well understand concerns about the future. I have said already that a fundamental part of the Liverpool health authority's proposals is the development of Aintree hospital trust as one of the two centres for the city's acute centres. Allied to that, Aintree has had to consider its configuration.
  The first stage of implementation, in the shape of major capital investment in a new £7 million accident and emergency unit at Fazackerley, is already under way. The new unit is due to open in summer 1994 and will provide one of the most modern and the third largest A and E departments in the country. The trust plans to transfer all in-patient acute services to the Fazackerley site over approximately the next three years, with out-patient services, day surgery and diagnostic services remaining on the Walton site to provide continuing access for the local community.
  Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, the proposed changes on the Walton site of the Aintree trust may have consequences for the Walton centre for neurology and neurosurgery. The future location of the centre can be determined only by the demands of the service. I am sure that the Walton centre is correct in approaching the "problem" as an opportunity. The trust board is aiming to retain the Walton site as the preferred option. As I said, there is clear evidence of the significant progress that the centre has made since being established as a second wave trust. The centre has strong links with the university of Liverpool, the Pain Foundation and many voluntary agencies which assist it in carrying out its work throughout the region.
  As I said, the future location of the Walton centre must be determined by the demands of the service. Some patients treated at the centre require the skills of other specialties in addition to those of the centre. Co-operation is more successful when staff are on the same site. The centre plans to remain on the Walton site as long as the other specialties necessary remain on, or can be attracted to, the site, thus monitoring the well established patterns of co-operation of clinicians and support services.
  Another factor that needs to be taken into account in a transfer off site is the cost in both revenue and capital terms. The cost may be considerable. The current purpose-built accommodation was built in 1972 and is in good condition. Recent improvements have been the completion of an upgrading of the new theatre facility to provide a fourth theatre and a new recovery suite. They are strong arguments for retaining the site.
  However, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the commitment he seeks, that there will be no changes. I must emphasise, however, that decisions have not yet been taken. "Pan-Liverpool" remains the definitive statement of

  477
  Mersey's policy, and the region intends to revisit the specific recommendations when other developments become clear.
  Let me emphasise that any change will be purchaser-driven. In other words, it is about patients and a perception by the purchaser of the needs of patients, not about institutions. We have faced the same problem in many large cities, including London where, recently, well established and well loved institutions, which have been in existence for many years, have become vulnerable because of changes in population and clinical practice. It may become necessary to take very difficult decisions based on two things.
  First, such a decision would have to be based on the fact that, as a result of the separation of the purchaser and provider, purchasers have the obligation to purchase provision in line with the needs of a specific population —no more, no less. If they do more than that, other parts of the NHS must, by definition, make sacrifices.
  It is a difficult balance to strike. Difficult decisions have had to be made in London. I myself have recently been involved in difficult decisions involving well loved and well established hospitals in Birmingham, and there is a similar situation in south Manchester. It is a feature of the large conurbations of this country that historical factors have often resulted in over-provision and duplication of services, which cannot but have an effect on the rest of the NHS.
  478
  As I have said, we have to find out, from the point of view of the purchaser—
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the Minister see the distinction between the Walton centre and the type of hospital that he is talking about? I have explained, and the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that the catchment area of the specialist unit is far wider than the urban areas of Liverpool, and includes north Wales, the Isle of Man, west Lancashire and the whole of Merseyside. So the catchment area does not fluctuate a great deal.
  Will the hon. Gentleman also deal in more detail with the withdrawal of other acute services from the site? What does that mean for the future of the Walton centre?
  Mr. Sackville: We are not talking about the future of the centre as an entity. It is a centre of excellence; it is needed; it will be provided. We are talking about the knock-on effect of changes to acute services in the Liverpool area. There are various possibilities, as I have said, and the decisions have not been made, and cannot be made at this stage.
  I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the value of the centre is well recognised, and that it provides an excellent service. Its future must be decided in tandem with changes that may be made to acute services in Liverpool, but the hon. Gentleman need not doubt that the centre will remain, and will continue to serve the people of the north-west of England in the excellent way in which it has done since 1972.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any of Her Majesty's armed forces(a) have been equipped since 1963 or (b) are currently equipped with United States weapons tipped with depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only equipment which falls into this category is the US-manufactured Vulcan phalanx close-in weapons system which uses US-manufactured depleted uranium tipped ammunition, and which has been fitted in some Royal Navy surface ships since 1982.

  The Army has United Kingdom-manufactured depleted uranium tank ammunition which was procured for, and used during, the Gulf conflict.

  Army Static Workshop Productivity Scheme
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Touche Ross was given the task of reviewing the Army static workshop productivity scheme by means of competitive tender.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. Touche Ross provided the winning bid from six competitors.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the Touche Ross Army static workshop productivity scheme review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The fees paid for the report are a matter of commercial confidence between the Ministry of Defence and the company. It is not our practice to disclose such costs.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence establishments which were covered by the Touche Ross Army static workshop productivity scheme review.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The review was conducted at a representative sample of three sites:

  34 Base Workshop REME, Donnington

  35 Base Workshop REME, Old Dalby

  31 District Workshop REME, Catterick

  A further seven sites will be affected by the review:

  18 Base Workshop REME, Bovington

  26 District Workshop REME, Stirling

  27 District Workshop REME, Warminster

  36 District Workshop REME, Colchester

  43 District Workshop REME, Aldershot

  44 District Workshop REME, Ashford

  Engineer Resources Workship REME, Long Marston

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Army static workshops.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army static workshops in Great Britain are to be established as a defence agency of 194
  the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1993, under the new title of the Army base repair organisation. The Army base repair organisation comprises its headquarters at Andover, a contract repair branch and a network of base and district workshops. Together they employ some 3,581 civilian and 219 military staff.

  The role of the Army base repair organisation ranges from minor repair to full refurbishment of equipment for the Army. The chief executive has to ensure that the service is available in peacetime and that it has the capacity to cope immediately with increased workloads in times of crisis and war.

  Strategically placed workshops will provide a 24-hour, 365 days a year recovery service in direct support of Army units together with a repair facility to effect repairs beyond the capability of local units. Four workshops will provide an in-depth refurbishment and modification service, which is essential to the operational readiness of Army equipment. In addition, a separate division of the agency will provide a complementary service by contracting with industry for repair and refurbishment of equipments.

  As the first chief executive, Brigadier J. R. Drew will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. Through a more commercial approach, the chief executive will actively seek to improve the efficiency and value for money of his organisation.

  The chief executive has been set the following targets for 1993–94.

  1. To complete the repair programme to plan.

  2. By 1 April 1994, to conduct a customer survey of quality and to institute a system for measuring the timeliness of the agency's output and to set improving targets for both.

  3. To complete the market test of 18 base workshop by 1 April 1994.

  4. To reduce by 5 per cent. the ratio of labour costs to hours of production by 1 April 1994.

  5. By 1 October 1993, establish the value and the proportion of risk price contracts placed by the agency, and by 1 April 1994 set targets for increases in 1994–95.

  6. To operate a full cost, accruals accounting system by 1 April 1994.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which expenditure heading within his Department's budget includes the cost of employing management consultants; and what has been the total expenditure under this heading, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The costs of management consultancy contracts can be attributed to various vote sub-items of the Defence budget. The total costs of employing management consultants for each of the last five years have been as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1987–88

  5·140

  1988–89

  3·109

  1989–90

  5·292

  1990–91

  3·935

  1991–92

  5·700

  Heavy Airlift Capability
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Ministry had with the United States Department of Defense on the latter's building up of military heavy airlift capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We maintain regular routine contacts with the United States Department of Defense on a range of issues including discussion of plans for military airlift capability.

  Nuclear-powered Warships (Safety Committee)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to list the Departments and agencies of Her Majesty's Government which are represented on the nuclear-powered warships safety committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The membership of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee includes experts from the Ministry of Defence, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate (Scottish Office), the Atomic Energy Authority, the National Radiological Protection Board and the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. Blackburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future plans for the defence married quarters estate.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In February 1992, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that the Ministry of Defence's housing task force had recommended that in order to provide a more responsive and cost-effective housing service for service personnel, the ownership and management of the Department's stock of married quarters in mainland Great Britain should be transferred to a new, non-profit making body in the private sector. The prospective transfer offered the prospect of providing a better planned, better maintained married quarters estate for our service men and service women. Service men and service women would continue to pay rents for their married quarters at levels recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. My Department has been giving this proposal detailed consideration. I now propose to establish a non-profit making housing trust with a view to negotiating the terms of any eventual transfer to it of a long lease of the married quarters estate. Further detailed work will be required to evaluate and develop the concept before a final decision is taken on how best to proceed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Landlord and Tenant Law
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission's report "Landlord and Tenant Law, Privity of Contract and Estate" (Law Com. No. 174).
  196
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have decided to implement these recommendations for the future leases but not for existing leases. This decision will affect only those agreements entered into after the commencement date of the necessary legislation, which will also provide for a statutory requirement in respect of both future and existing leases to encourage landlords to act promptly when suing for arrears of rent or service charges. Notice of any such claims against a former tenant will in future have to be served within nine months after the money becomes due.

  Commercial Court
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of how the dates set for commercial court cases are affected by the changes in the number of judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Day-to-day deployment of High Court judges in the Queen's Bench Division is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice, but dates set for cases are affected by a number of factors apart from the availability of judges, including the length of case, interruptions of unplanned emergency business and cases overrunning the time estimates of the parties. In the recent announcement of plans to appoint additional High Court judges it was made clear that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice had agreed that additional judge power would be made available to address any continuing problems in the commercial court.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the number of commercial court judges in each of the last four years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under section 6 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the Lord Chancellor nominates the High Court judges who may be deployed to sit in the commercial court. Apart from the commercial judge himself, who is in charge of the list and who sits full time, the others who sit there are drawn according to need and availability from that pool of nominated judges. The number in the pool fluctuates from time to time because of promotions or retirements. In January 1990 there were 11 nominees and in July 1991 there were 12. At the end of December 1992 there were 10 nominees and at the present time there are 11. Throughout the period the equivalent of either five or six nominated judges have been deployed from the pool by the Lord Chief Justice to sit in the commercial court.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the time it would take to recover the delays of cases taken from the commercial court list if there were available(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven specialist judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no fixed time within which cases before the commercial court are expected to come to trial. Dates set for cases are affected by factors beyond the number of judges sitting, including the readiness and availability of the parties and their witnesses. The commercial court operates a system of providing fixed dates and cases are generally listed for dates when parties have indicated they will be ready for trial. Though there has had to be some replanning of lists
  197
  recently, in relating cases the convenience of the parties has been taken into account, particularly as many parties and their witnesses are from overseas. It is planned to make additional judge power available to the commercial court and there will be additional flexibility in the range of dates which may be offered to parties.

  Land Registration
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of land acreage in(a) England and (b) Wales which is not currently officially registered.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of her Majesty's Land Registry is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 30 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive, it is my responsibility to answer questions on operational matters concerning HM Land Registry. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has consequently asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question to him concerning the percentage of land acreage in (a) England and (b) Wales which is not currently officially registered.
  >I regret that statistics relating to registered land acreage are not maintained by the Registry. However, out of an estimated 19·7 million titles in England, 13·6 million are registered and out of an estimated 1·3 million titles in Wales 0·6 million are registered. The majority of registered titles relate to residential properties in urban areas.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the House library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to secure that compulsory registration of all land is undertaken in England and Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the existing provisions of the Land Registration Acts, land is compulsorily registered on sale throughout England and Wales. Over 14 million titles are now registered at Her Majesty's Land Registry and this will increase progressively as transactions occur.

  In the citizens charter White Paper in November 1992 the Government announced their intention to explore

  Court building

  Scheme

  Service

  Company

  Docklands

  Feasibility and design Estate surveying Quantity surveying

  Kyle Stewart Knight Frank and Rutley C. F. Baker & Partners

  Cardiff

  Project management

  W. S. Atkins

  Crawley

  Feasibility and design

  PSA Projects

  Staines

  Feasibility and design

  Kyle Stewart

  Neath

  Project management Design Civil engineering

  W. S. Atkins Powell Dobson Travers Morgan

  198
  ideas for completing the land register. Her Majesty's Land Registry has now issued a consultation document, "Completing the Land Register in England and Wales", which seeks views on whether the Land Registration Acts should be amended to speed up eventual completion of the register.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  In the last 12 months the Lord Chancellor's Department has let 29 commissions for the professional services required to manage its accommodation and develop new court buildings. Previously these services were provided by PSA Services. Lists of the commissions let follow.

  The Department is currently market testing its internal audit services. The results will be known in the next few months.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department's plans for next year are still under consideration.

  The Lord Chancellor is also responsible for two executive agencies, the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry. These are separate Government Departments and questions should normally, therefore, refer specifically to them. In this instance, as the questions concern an operational matter on which the chief executives of the agencies are best placed to provide an answer, I have asked them to reply direct.

  Estate Management

  Group/Circuit

  Managing Agent

  Kingston Group

  Drivers Jonas

  M. & O. Circuit

  E. C. Harris

  M. & O. Circuit

  Bernard Thorpe

  N. E. Circuit

  Bernard Thorpe

  HQ Building

  PSA (BM) SE

  London Group

  McBains

  N. Circuit

  Grimley J. R. Eve

  Maidstone Group

  McBains

  RCJ

  Turner & Townsend

  Wales & Chester

  Torpy

  199

  Scheme

  Service

  Company

  Pontypridd

  Project management Design Structural engineering Civil engineering

  W. S. Atkins Alex Gordon Veryard and Partners Hubert Jenkins

  Leicester

  Project management Design and engineering Quantity surveying

  CS Project Management W. F. Johnson and Partners Silk and Frazier

  Newport, Isle of Wight

  Project management Design

  TT Project management Rainey Petrie

  Bournemouth

  Project management

  Widnell Project management

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Spencer Batiste, dated 25 March 1993:
  As part of his reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as set out below, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to write to you about market testing in the Public Record Office.
  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, 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.
  Date appeared: 24 March 1993. For Written Answer: 31 March 1993. PQ reference No. 93/261.
  No professional services have been market tested at the Public Record Office within the last 12 months. The only professional service the Office is proposing to test within the next 12 months is internal audit.
  If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask me.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Spencer Batiste, dated 30 March 1993:
  As Chief Executive, it is my responsibility to answer questions on operational matters concerning Her Majesty's Land Registry. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has consequently asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question to him concerning the Agency's market testing of professional services.
  Within the last 12 months, market testing exercises have been concluded on professional Building Management and Estates services and on certain professional legal services provided to the Land Registry. In both cases, contracts were awarded to organisations from the private sector.
  The surveying services provided by both the Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry are currently being market tested but the review has not yet been concluded.
  No further professional services are the subject of market testing in the current programme which ends on 30 September 1993. The Registry's programme for the following twelve months has not yet been finalised.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the House Library.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department within what period he expects to introduce competitive tendering for legal aid franchises.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Any such developments will be discussed with the Legal Aid Board and the legal profession. No timetable has been set.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the issue of competitive tendering for franchises to undertake legal 200
  aid work has been discussed with members and officials of the Legal Aid Board (a) by Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) officials.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The board has been kept in touch with the Lord Chancellor's thinking on the development of the legal aid scheme in the longer term, but no formal discussions have been held on competitive tendering.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to seek compulsory competitive tendering of legal aid work.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Competitive tendering may be an appropriate longer-term arrangement for the provision of certain publicly funded legal services. The Legal Aid Board and the legal profession will be consulted at the appropriate time.

  Mary Winch
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will order a full investigation into the case of Mary Winch previously of Caernarfon now of Eastbourne; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to be able to reply to letters concerning Miss Mary Winch dated June 1991, 12 August 1991, 26 September 1991, 11 October 1991, 26 October 1991 and 16 May 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Miss Mary Winch has taken legal action against the public trustee which has not yet concluded. It would not be appropriate to comment whilst those proceedings are before the courts.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Attorney-General what amendment he proposes to make to the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General on 25 April 1986 in relation to the reinstitution of proceedings which have been terminated, consequent upon the post of deputy Director of Public Prosecutions being put into abeyance.

  The Attorney-General
  The hon. Member refers to an assurance given during the course of the debate on 25 April 1986, at column 640, on prosecution policy.

  The fundamental consideration remains that individuals should be able to rely on decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. The policy of the Director of

  201
  Public Prosecutions is that a decision to terminate proceedings or not to prosecute should not, in the absence of special circumstances, be altered once it has been communicated to the defendant or prospective defendant unless it was taken and expressed to be taken because the evidence was insufficient. In such a case it would be appropriate to reconsider the decision if further significant evidence were to become available at a later date—especially if the alleged offence is a serious one.

  Special circumstances which might justify departure from this policy include:

  (1) rare cases where reconsiderations of the original decision show that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

  (2) those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted.

  In the circumstances described at 1 and 2 the decision will be taken at chief crown prosecutor level with effect from 1 April 1993.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the report of the review of public appointments.

  The Prime Minister
  I will arrange for a copy of the latest report of the review of public appointments (1969) to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will now publish the report of the Central Policy Review Staff in 1973 on the system of public appointments.

  Grants1 to British Coal and payments under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme2

  Financial year

  Deficit and Deficiency Grants £ million

  Operating Grants £ million

  Social and Restructuring Grants £ million

  Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme2£ million

  Total£ million

  1979–80

  159

  30

  62

  15

  266

  1980–81

  149

  26

  79

  15

  269

  1981–82

  428

  27

  120

  48

  623

  1982–83

  374

  12

  134

  80

  600

  1983–84

  875

  —

  270

  190

  1,335

  1984–85

  2,225

  —

  189

  200

  2,614

  1985–86

  50

  —

  513

  563

  1,126

  1986–87

  288

  —

  594

  610

  1,492

  1987–88

  200

  —

  477

  295

  972

  1988–89

  0

  —

  297

  168

  465

  1989–90

  6,153

  —

  1,090

  126

  7,369

  1990–91

  0

  —

  141

  93

  234

  1991–92

  0

  —

  457

  61

  518

  1992–933

  0

  —

  622

  43

  665

  TOTAL

  10,901

  95

  5,045

  2,507

  18,548

  1 Grants to British Coal are at outturn prices, on an accruals basis, taken from British Coal's Annual Report and Accounts.

  2 Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme. Figures exclude administration costs.

  3 1992–93 figures provisional.

  202
  The Prime Minister
  I do not know of such a report. The hon. Member may have in mind an interdepartmental working party of officials in 1974 which studied certain aspects of appointments in the public sector. Their advice recommended the establishment of the public appointments unit. I will arrange for a copy of the working party's report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those non-departmental public bodies which(a) have been abolished since 1979 and (b) have been established since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  A full list of non-departmental public bodies in existence for each year since 1979 is available in the following publications: "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies" (Pliatzky Report, Cmnd 7797, January 1980), "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1980", "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: Facts and Figures 1981", and "Public Bodies" published annually from 1982. Copies of these publications are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  For each year since 1986, a press notice has listed separately public bodies which have been created and abolished. Copies are being sent to the hon. Member, and to the Libraries of both Houses. Such summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 do not exist, and could be reconstructed only at disproportionate cost.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 25 March,Official Report, column 1223, if he will set out a detailed itemised breakdown of the annual expenditure of 18 billion invested in the British coal industry since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Grant aid made available to the coal industry since 1979 is set out in the table:

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 467, if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that a cessation of United Kingdom underground nuclear tests is dependent on the negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy has always been to keep our testing programme to the minimum necessary to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent. In the absence of a comprehensive test ban, whether we continued to test would naturally depend on our needs at the time, and whether they could be met by means other than testing. We believe any restraints on testing should be negotiated and verifiable.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom of legal and other restrictions applying to states to prevent their conducting nuclear tests.

  The Prime Minister
  The effect would depend on the scope and nature of such restrictions. If backed by effective verification and inspection mechanisms they could play a useful part in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In our approach to these issues we shall be seeking an outcome which ensures this objective is achieved, but which enables us to maintain the safety and credibility of our deterrent.

  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what detailed measures he is taking to satisfy himself that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise possess the expertise in timber technology to assess whether imports come from legal or illegal sources in relation to CITES.

  The Prime Minister
  In their enforcement of the CITES controls Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are assisted by a wide range of qualified experts from outside the Department. Where the identification of particular specimens of timber and their sources is necessary Customs will continue to seek the advice of qualified experts in this field.

  Council Tax (Care Homes)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultation there has been between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health on the imposition of council tax on charitable residential care accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The two Departments have discussed a number of representations which have argued that residential care homes should be exempted from the council tax. Care homes will receive a number of reliefs, which will together mean that their council tax bills will be small. These bills represent a reasonable contribution to the cost of the local authority services from which care homes and their residents benefit.

  Security Service
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.
  204
  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's third annual report, for 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the tribunal as provided in the Act. I note that he is satisfied that the Secretaries of State have properly exercised their powers under the Act and that the arrangements in force for ensuring that the service discloses information only in accordance with the provisions of the 1989 Act are working satisfactorily.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the right hon. Sir Thomas Bingham's first report, covering 1992, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential appendix to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act. I am grateful to the commissioner for his report. I note in particular his observations that the Secretaries of State take great care to satisfy themselves that the warrants are necessary for the purposes stated in the Act, and that the system for the issue of warrants is working as intended by Parliament.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advertisements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to produce a code of practice on the use of women in advertisements.

  Mr. Leigh
  The codes of advertising practice administered by the advertisting industry's self-regulatory bodies require that advertisements be legal, decent. honest and truthful. Complaints about advertisements are judged against the prevailing standards of decency and acceptability and a separate code concerning the portrayal of women in advertising is unnecessary.

  British Approvals Board for Telecommunications
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long is the average time taken for a modem to receive BABT approval; and what steps he intends to take about misleading advertisements which do not clearly state when advertised modems are unapproved.

  Mr. Leigh
  The time taken for a modem to receive British Approvals Board of Telecommunications approval will vary greatly according to the design and complexity of the equipment, whether or not it complies with the standards, or requires further work by the applicant before compliance is achieved. BABT statistics indicate that a fully compliant "standard" modem, requiring no alteration at the testing stage, will take six to eight weeks from the date of acceptance of the test sample by the
  205
  laboratory to the issue by BABT of the type approval. BABT would expect to take two weeks of that period to evaluate test results, manufacturing details and documentation and, if satisfied, issue the certificate. The minimum recorded time is three weeks from application to approval.

  Advertisement and display of the approval status of telecommunications terminal equipment is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications. He takes whatever action is appropriate to enforce the orders. The Department and Oftel, in consultation with manufacturers, operators and users, will continue to monitor and review the operation of the advertising orders.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current procedures for the obtaining of BABT approval for devices connected to the public telephone network, the length of time such approvals take and on his assessment of the need for the approval system as it currently operates.

  Mr. Leigh
  In common with virtually all developed countries, telecommunications terminal equipment must be approved before it can be legally connected to the United Kingdom public telecommunications network in order to protect the PTN, and its operators and users, from harm.

  The British Approvals Board for Telecommunications is the approval authority in the United Kingdom for all types of telecommunications terminal equipment. It evaluates the applications, accompanying documentation, manufacturing details and test results on the equipment and, if satisfied, issues a type approval. As far as categorisation is possible, a "typical" type approval, for a single-line apparatus, would be expected to take eight to 12 weeks from the date the applicant submits a sample of the product to one of the five designated laboratories, to the issue of the type approval by BABT. The time spent at the test laboratory, in particular, necessarily varies greatly; major determinants include the complexity of the equipment and the level of testing required, whether the equipment passes first time or fails part of the testing schedule, needs adjustment by the manufacturer and testing again. For its part, BABT will normally carry out evaluation and issue of the approval within two weeks for a compliant product.

  The United Kingdom is an acknowledged leader in Europe in liberalisation of equipment approvals procedures. Consistent with our EC obligations, we will continue to review, with BABT, Oftel and terminal manufacturers, network operators and users, ways of simplifying the United Kingdom approvals regime.

  Assisted Area Status (Portsmouth)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement on the result of the application by Portsmouth for assisted area status.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The needs and circumstances of all areas are being carefully considered in the assisted areas map review. The results will be announced as soon as possible, after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.

  Cohesion Instrument and Fund
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he will take to ensure that all projects supported by the EC cohesion instrument and fund comply with EC environmental legislation and policy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The regulation governing the cohesion financial instrument will require the Commission to satisfy itself, before approving a project and during its implementation, that it complies with EC environmental legislation and policies, including where appropriate the carrying out of environmental impact assessments.

  Energy Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the criteria by which his Department assesses which energy technologies should receive research and development funding from his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department is currently carrying out a review of the basis of its support for science, technology, and innovation. Pending the outcome of that review, the aims of the Department in funding R and D into energy technologies remain broadly as they were for the former Department of Energy:

  (a) to support work which would not otherwise be undertaken on an appropriate timescale or to the necessary extent to:

  (i) contribute to the maximum economic exploitation of the United Kingdom's energy resources;

  (ii) establish and develop economic options for energy supply and distribution;

  (iii) enable the Department to carry out its statutory and regulatory responsibilities;

  (b) to encourage United Kingdom industry to develop capabilities, services, and technologies which will enable them to compete successfully in energy markets;

  (c) to ensure the effective dissemination of the results of R and D work.

  Trading Standards
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to transfer responsibility for the enforcement of part 2 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 from his departmental officials to local trading standards officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Part 2 of the Fair Trading Act concerns references to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee and contains no enforcement provisions.

  Direct Selling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made as to the enforcement of the current legislation covering direct selling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  We are reviewing the legislation governing pyramid selling and similar trading schemes.

  EC Regional Funds
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now give his support to Britain seeking objective 2 status for the London region from the European Community.
  207
  Mr. Heseltine
  The criteria for eligibility under objective 2 for the period from 1994 will be decided during the review of the structural funds regulations which has just begun. I do not expect decisions on the designation of specific areas to arise before the summer. It would therefore be premature to state now to which, if any, particular areas, we can give support.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet a delegation of Ford representatives of employees, hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament at an early opportunity to discuss the future of the British car industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have regular contact with people throughout the British motor industry. In particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I met Ford senior management in January and discussed a wide range of issues with them. Further, last October my right hon. Friend met a delegation of Ford representatives and others led by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and Carole Tongue, MEP for London East.

  If the hon. Member, however, has specific issues about the industry that he wishes to raise I suggest that he write to me setting out his concerns.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any insurance company is currently in breach of its solvency margin.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Yes, and those that are in breach are the focus of regulatory action.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what exemptions from normal Companies Acts disclosures are allowed to insurance companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  They are entitled to draw up their accounts in accordance with schedule 9A of the 1985 Companies Act, instead of the usual schedule 4, and may obtain various exemptions from disclosure in that way.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the required solvency margins of insurance companies; what monitoring of these margins is undertaken by his Department; and in what form the results of this monitoring are published.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The margin of solvency for each insurance company is determined in accordance with part II of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1981. The principal method of monitoring the margin is the examination of the annual accounts and statements submitted in accordance with the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) Regulations 1983. Copies of these accounts and statements, which include the solvency margin calculation, are available from Companies House. The Department's own monitoring results are not published.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether insurance companies are required to show equity assets at current market values in their accounts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In their accounts filed under the Companies Act 1985, schedule 9A allows equity assets to 208
  be valued at either cost or market value. In the annual returns made under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 it is normal to show equity assets at middle market value in accordance with section 46 of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department takes when it discovers an insurance company has breached its solvency margin.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Department issues a notice in accordance with either section 32 or section 33 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 requiring the company to submit a plan to restore a sound financial position or, in the case of the latter, a short-term financial scheme. It is also usual practice to hold a meeting with the company as a matter of urgency to try and establish what has caused the breach and to discuss remedies.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many sub-post offices have been proposed for closure since 1 October 1992; and how many were proposed for closure in the period between 1 April 1992 and 1 October 1992.

  Mr. Leigh
  Post Office Counters Ltd. has proposed 16 sub-post offices for closure since 1 October 1992, of which five have closed to date. Between 1 April 1992 and 1 October 1992, 25 sub-post offices were proposed for closure of which 23 have closed to date.

  In addition, closures may occur, particularly in rural areas, where it has not been possible to find suitable replacement candidates for sub-postmasterships.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to promote participation in the one-day workshop on local community wind energy projects being held at the Open university on 22 April, sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has agreed to provide £2,000 towards the running costs of this workshop, which is being organised by the British Wind Energy Association and the Energy and Environment Research Unit of the Open university. The promotion of participation in the workshop is the joint responsibility of those organisations.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the reasons why it is not practicable to supply full design information questionnaires on nuclear installations for the purpose of safeguards as stated in departmental memorandum EC/4140/93 on SEC(92)2360, at paragraph 5.1, dated 5 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  Much of the safeguards design information, which the present amendment envisages operators providing for new nuclear installations under the proposed new article 2 to the Regulation (Euratom) 3227/76, may not be available nine months before commencement of construction of an installation.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement compulsory electro-magnetic compatibility testing for certain electrical goods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans to implement compulsory electromagnetic compatibility testing for electrical/ electronic products. The European Community directive on electromagnetic compatibility (89/336/EEC) was adopted in May 1989 and the United Kingdom regulations (SI 1992/2372) came into force in October 1992. They set down the basis for satisfying the essential protection requirements of the directive and the routes for demonstrating compliance. The most common route is likely to be by reference to harmonised standards and these determine, among other things, the tests which manufacturers may wish to conduct or have conducted on their behalf.

  It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to decide which route to compliance is the most appropriate to ensure that the performance of his product satisfies the protection requirements of the directive.

  Fuel Cell Technology
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of current assistance provided to British firms to help the development of fuel cell technology; and what forms such assistance takes.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department promotes the development of solid oxide and solid polymer fuel cell systems through its advanced fuel cell R and D programme. Under this programme financial assistance is available for appropriate projects and the results are disseminated in order to guide future work. The programme budget for 1993–94 is £1·1 million.

  South Africa
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on how British companies have complied with the European Community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa during the 12-month period to 30 June 1992.

  Mr. Heseltine
  By 1 March 1993, 100 companies had submitted reports to the DTI under the code of conduct. Copies of the reports and of the Department's analysis and summary have, as in previous years, been placed in the Library of each House. These documents may also be inspected at the Department's export market information centre, at the British embassy in Pretoria, at the British consulate-general in Johannesburg, and at the British consulates in Cape Town and Durban.

  The analysis and summary is the seventh since the adoption of the revised code of conduct by EC Foreign Ministers in November 1985. Reports were received from all British companies, except two, whose interests are known or believed to warrant a full report under the code. The two companies not reporting were reminded of the existence of the code and of the importance the Government attach to it.

  The reporting period under review has seen a further decrease in the number of black employees of British
  210
  subsidiaries being paid below the code's recommended minimum level. Companies' reports indicated that nearly 99 per cent. of employees were paid above this level.

  The level of companies' involvement with trade unions representing black workers was maintained, with the majority of companies reporting formal involvement with the trades unions. Many companies have taken steps to alleviate the particular hardships experienced by their migrant workers.

  As in previous years, all companies provided "on-the-job" training and many provided additional training facilities. Companies continued to report impressive levels of involvement in projects benefiting not only their employees and their families but the wider communities from which their work forces were drawn. Companies also continued to encourage the growth of black business.

  The period covered by the report has seen the continuation of the recession in South Africa, with unemployment steadily increasing. Progress on the political front has been slower than expected. However, positive steps have been taken towards the achievement of a new democratic constitution and we hope that this will be taken forward when multi-party talks resume early next month.

  The Government are once more grateful to companies for their continued co-operation in providing reports and urge them to maintain this performance and to comply fully with the code.

  Export Intelligence Service
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the results of his review of his Department's export intelligence service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  A study was conducted for my Department by consultants KPMG and I am grateful to all those who contributed to it. I have accepted the key finding of the review that the present system of matching United Kingdom firms expressed export interests with business opportunities reported from abroad does not fully meet the needs either of the United Kingdom which subscribe to it or of the potential foreign buyers seeking a United Kingdom source of supply of goods and services. But the review did conclude that the system generated some £200 million of extra exports annually. I have therefore decided that these sales justify continuation of export intelligence, but with operational improvements and the creation of a parallel source of supply system to answer foreign buyers' inquiries.

  The contract signed in 1989, now with Prelink Ltd., to operate the marketing, matching and distribution of export intelligence has generally worked well. Consequently, I have decided to accept its proposal for introducing the changes to export intelligence and for setting up a new source of supply service from 1 April 1993. I am extending its contract to 31 March 1998.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the contribution to British Coal from privately operated opencast sites and (b) the subsidy to British Coal from the Exchequer for the latest year for which both figures are available.
  211
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 March 1993]: The contribution to British Coal from private sector licensed opencast sites is not recorded separately in their accounts. However, the total royalties receivable from licensed opencast sites and deep mines amounted to £14 million in 1991–92. The corporation's opencast sites are operated by private sector contractors and generated an operating profit of £171 million in that year. Government grant income credited to the corporation's accounts in that year was £457 million.

  Fuel Costs
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the expected effect of the imposition of value added tax for domestic fuel bills on(a) energy consumption, (b) the demand for electricity and (c) the market for coal-fired electricity.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 March 1993]: The impact of introducing VAT at the standard rate would reduce energy consumption and electricity demand in the aggregate by less than 1 per cent. Decisions in the market place would determine the effect on coal-fired among sources of electricity.

  Aviation Committee
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how often Ministry of Defence representatives have attended meetings of the aviation committee in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Representatives of the Ministry of Defence or its agencies have attended every meeting of the aviation committee held over the last three years.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the aviation committee was established within his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The answer is 1986.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in each year the aviation committee has met.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The Aviation Committee has met on three occasions each year except for 1986 when it met twice, 1987 when it met on four occasions, and 1989 when it met once.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the current membership of the aviation committee.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gave on 11 February 1993, Official Report, column 720.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the launch aid given to each sector of the manufacturing industry in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Launch aid is provided under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and is
  212
  available only to the aerospace industry. Launch aid received by the aerospace industry in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1992–93

  31·3

  1991–92

  78·7

  1990–91

  141·1

  1989–90

  133·6

  1988–89

  98·4

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the projected launch aid to be given to each sector of the manufacturing industry for each of the next two financial years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Launch aid is provided under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and is available only to the aerospace industry. Projected launch aid to be given in 1993–94 is £2·6 million. At this stage there are no plans to provide launch aid in 1994–95.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the repayments of launch aid made by each sector of manufacturing industry for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Launch aid is provided under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and is only available to the aerospace industry. Repayments of launch aid received by the aerospace industry in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ millions

  1992–93

  69·5

  1991–92

  82·9

  1990–91

  51·8

  1989–90

  41·9

  1988–89

  19·9

  Coal Mines
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that, as part of any deregulation steps being taken by the Government in relation to the coal mines, there is full discussion with the trade unions on questions relating to safety standards in private coal mines; and if he will consult the Health and Safety Executive before taking any final decisions.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The Government are determined that there should be no lowering of safety standards in coal mines. It is for the Health and Safety Commission and its executive to regulate safety in the coal industry in consultation with all interested bodies, including the trade unions. My Department will continue to keep the Commission informed about developments in the industry.

  Timber and Paper Products
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been brought under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, concerning claims of the environmental friendliness and sustainability of timber and paper products in each of the last five years; and how many such prosecutions have been successful in each year.
  213
  Mr. Leigh
  [pursuant to his answer, 28 January 1993, column 817]: It has been brought to my attention that the statistics provided in that answer were incorrect. Regrettably, those statistics, which were produced by the Office of Fair Trading, concerned prosecutions under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 involving all types of statement, rather than only environmental claims, about timber and paper products. In fact, none of the
  214
  prosecutions covered by the statistics involved environmental claims. Thus, my reply should have stated that the OFT has not been notified of any prosecutions by local authorities under the TDA concerning claims of the environmental friendliness and sustainability of timber and paper products over the last five years–1988 to 1992 inclusive. I offer my apologies to the House for giving incorrect information in my original reply.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Departments appointed consultants or accountancy firms as advisers on market testing after seeking competitive bids.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held centrally.

  European Social Science Project
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 604, on costs of European science projects, if he will list the annual costs of the four largest European social science research projects.

  Mr. Jackson
  Full information is not available. The following are the four largest social science research projects within Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded centres which have received European Community (EC) funding and which have a European dimension:

  1. The ELSNET (Network of Excellence in Language and Speech), operated by the ESRC-funded Research Centre in Human Communication at the University of Edinburgh, is wholly supported by European Community (EC) funding at a cost of £162,000 per annum.

  2. The ESRC-funded Research Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics received £118,000 from November 1991 to August 1992 from the EC for its Technical Assistance Programme to the Russian Government.

  3. The ESRC-funded Research Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford attracted direct funding from the EC of £63,000 for a project "Sixth European Development Fund: MSc teaching at Addis Ababa University".

  4. An ESRC-funded project entitled "Farm Structures and Household Pluriactivity in Europe" is being undertaken by Arkleton Trust Research Ltd. over a period of three years and nine months, at a cost of £45,932 per annum.

EDUCATION

  English Tests
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 408, if he will publish the name of the agency, commissioned by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, to undertake an internal evaluation of the 1992 pilot English tests for 14-year-olds; and what was the cost of the evaluation;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 19 March, Official Report, column 408, if he will place a copy of the report of the evaluation commissioned by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, of the 1992 pilot English tests in the Library.

  Mr. Forth
  The evaluation was undertaken by the Northern Examinations and Assessment Board (NEAB) as part of its contract with SEAC to write tests for 14-year-olds in English. The total cost of the contract was £206,000, covering the period September 1991 to September 1992. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost of the evaluation in particular.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number and percentage of women and disabled staff in each grade requested and the overall number in the Department as at 1 March 1993 are as follows:

  Grade

  Women

  Per cent.

  Disabled

  Per cent.

  1–4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  14

  32

  1

  2

  6

  1

  6

  0

  0

  7

  49

  29

  0

  0

  Overall

  1,280

  59

  68

  3

  The figures for disabled staff cover only those registered as disabled. The Department also has members of staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  We do not hold information on the ethnic origin of all our staff but of those who have responded to date to the ethnic monitoring survey—98·5 per cent.—those from ethnic minorities are as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Per cent.

  1–6

  0

  0

  7

  6

  4

  Overall

  173

  8

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  A survey of the ethnic origins of staff was undertaken in 1990, since when our database has been continuously updated as new staff join the Department. We currently hold ethnic origin data on 98.5 per cent. of our staff. The number of women in the Department is monitored annually in December.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  Recruitment of grades above administrative officer is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency on behalf of the civil service commissioners. Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Orders in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community. These steps include extending links with institutions of higher education; equal opportunities training for those involved in selection; and using validated selection procedures.

  Undergraduates (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total expenditure in respect of tuition fees for undergraduate courses in universities and
  217
  polytechnics for 1991–92; and how much of this was for students not qualifying for a mandatory maintenance award on grounds of high parental income.

  Mr. Boswell
  The total expenditure in the academic year 1991–92 by local education authorities in England and Wales on fees paid by them as part of mandatory awards for students attending first degree courses is provisionally estimated at £1,021 million. It is not possible to estimate how much of this expenditure was for students not qualifying for a mandatory maintenance award on the ground of high parental income. However, about 27 per cent. of all first degree students in receipt of a mandatory award received no maintenance grant as a result of means-testing.

  Further Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what conditions are attached to the disposal of Exchequer-funded land and buildings by colleges In the new further education sector.

  Mr. Patten
  The conditions will be the same as those which have applied to universities since 1985, and to institutions in the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council sector since 1989—Official Report, 15 January 1985, columns 91–92 and 26 March 1991, column 359. They will similarly allow colleges in the further education sector to retain the proceeds of sale of Exchequer-funded land and buildings, within specified limits agreed by the Secretary of State, without reference to the annual supply procedures. These conditions are among those set out in the financial memorandum between the Department and the Further Education Funding Council, a copy of which I will be placing in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Squatting
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to change the law on squatting; and what conclusions he has reached as a result of responses made last year to his consultative paper on unlawful occupation of property.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 3 February 1993 at column 203.

  Keith Twitchell
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be in a position to conclude whether there are grounds to refer the conviction of Keith Twitchell to the Court of Appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 following representations made by Mr. Twitchell's solicitors in June 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be in a position to reach a decision shortly.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reaching a common position with respect to the European 218
  Commission's proposals for a data protection directive; and what level of support the United Kingdom Government have obtained from other member states with respect to (a) the inclusion of manual files, (b) data subject consent, (c) restrictions on the processing of sensitive personal data and (d) notification to the data subject of the first disclosure made by a third party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The council working party has not yet concluded its initial consideration of the revised text of the draft directive. The range of views expressed on each of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member is very wide, but it would not be appropriate for me to disclose the negotiating position of individual member states. The extent of agreement with the United Kingdom position varies from issue to issue. A closer alignment of views may be expected as negotiations continue.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has which relates to the costs already experienced by other member states who have extended data protection to(a) include manual files, (b) require data subject consent, (c) place restrictions on the processing of sensitive personal data and (d) include notification to the data subject of the first disclosure made by a third party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no such information.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the estimated costs of the United Kingdom satisfying the European Commission's data protection directive in relation to(a) the inclusion of manual files, (b) data subject consent, (c) restrictions on the processing of sensitive personal data and (d) notification to the data subject of the first disclosure made by a third party.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has asked a wide range of organisations for their views on, and estimates of the cost of complying with, the draft directive. Only a proportion have felt able to make such estimates, and there is insufficient consistency in the methods used for any composite figures to be meaningful. It is clear, nevertheless, that the cost implications for many sectors would be substantial.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the cancellation of the Taurus computer system by the stock exchange has had on the need for the Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter LLoyd
  The continuing need for the order will be considered following the report of the task force on securities settlement which has been set up by the Bank of England to consider the way forward following the cancellation of the Taurus project.

  Police Forces (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he has had in Wales with (i) the Magistrates Association, (ii) chief police officers and (iii) the Assembly of Welsh Councils, concerning changes in the organisation of police forces;
  219
  (2) if he will meet the Assembly of Welsh Councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend made a statement about the future of the police service in England and Wales on 23 March. On the same day he met the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the chairman of the Association of County Councils to discuss the proposals which were set out in his statement. He has no plans at present to meet the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Magistrates Association or individual chief police officers.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police headquarters he has visited in Wales.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Dog Attacks
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his best estimate of the number of attacks carried out by dogs on(a) human beings and (b) other animals each year; and what information is available on the type of dog responsible in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Magistrates Association
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he met the Magistrates Association.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met members of the Magistrates Association at its Nottinghamshire branch on 19 February. He will be meeting the chairman and other representatives of the association shortly.

  Coroners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made about coroners in 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have received 25 such complaints.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  On the most recent figures for those who have responded to ethnic origin surveys carried out by the Department, in the unified grades 1 to 7, 42 —that is 10 (5·2 per cent.) at grade 5; 24 (10·5 per cent.) at grade 6; and eight (0·7 per cent.) at grade 7—classified themselves as being of ethnic minority origin, representing 0·2 per cent. of the total number who responded in all main grades.

  On 25 March 1993, 180 staff in the unified grades 1 to 7 were women, representing some 22 per cent. of staff in
  220
  those grades. In the unified grades, 7 (28 per cent.) staff at grade 3, 22 (23 per cent.) at grade 5, 10 (10 per cent.) at grade 6 and 141 (25 per cent.) at grade 7 were women. There are no women in grades 1, 2 or 4.

  On 1 July 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, 185 members of staff in the Home Office were registered disabled, representing 0·4 per cent. of all staff. There were no registered disabled staff at grades 1 to 7. The Department employs many other people with disabilities who have chosen not to register, but no record has been kept of such staff.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Most senior posts in the Department are filled internally by promotion. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that all staff—regardless of race, gender, disability or any other relevant factor—have equal access to opportunities for training, promotion and career development. A wide range of measures is in place to give effect to this policy.

  Recruitment direct to specific senior posts is generally conducted by the Recruitment and Assessment Services on behalf of the Home Office, on the basis of fair and open competition.

  In the prison service, particular efforts have been made in recent years to recruit women and members of the ethnic minorities to the accelerated promotion scheme, which prepares staff for senior positions in the service.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  All non-industrial staff in the Home Office who had not responded to earlier surveys were asked to state their ethnic origin in a further voluntary survey, conducted over the past 12 months. This has significantly increased the database of staff ethnic backgrounds, which now covers 90 per cent. of staff in the Home Office (non-prisons) and 74 per cent. of non-industrial staff in the prison service. Further steps will be taken to maintain and increase the database. People seeking posts in the Department are asked to state their ethnic origins when making their applications. No survey of industrial staff in the Department has yet been carried out, but measures are in hand to address this. There is no need for a survey of women since the gender of employees is identified in staff records.

  Crime
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to reduce the level of crime committed by those of school age in the north-west region;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to combat crime in the north-west region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have encouraged the police and other agencies in the development of effective crime prevention programmes and have funded a number of
  221
  initiatives aimed at tackling crime, including youth crime. The Home Office safer cities projects in the north-west—Rochdale, Salford and Wirral—are major crime prevention initiatives which include schemes aimed at diverting the young away from crime. We have also established local drugs prevention teams in Manchester, Salford and the Wirral with the aim of tackling the spread of misuse, particularly amongst the young. In addition the probation service grant scheme provides funding for eight projects in the north-west region, which in the main provide programmes of supervision or support for young offenders and defendants. There are also over 16,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in the region covering almost 500,000 households.

  The Department for Education announced recently that Lancashire and Manchester are each to receive £147,000 under its grants for education support and training (GEST) programme for youth crime prevention schemes in 1993–94. School community action teams are also in operation in secondary schools in Lancashire carrying out a range of crime prevention activity. Diversionary projects for young people and other schemes to reduce crime and the fear of crime, including property security measures, will be financed under the Department of the Environment's city challenge programme in Wirral, Manchester, Liverpool, Blackburn, Wigan, Sefton and Bolton.

  Under its estate action programme Lancashire will receive £7·9 million, Greater Manchester £29 million and Merseyside £36·8 million in 1992–93 for improvements to run down council estates. These improvements will, among other things, led to reduction in crime and vandalism.

  As part of its programme of action on youth crime for 1993, the Government-supported independent organisation Crime Concern is planning a series of regional seminars, one of which is to be held in the north-west, on best practice in diverting young people away from crime. The Government recently announced plans to introduce a new sentence of detention to secure facilities for 12 to 15-year-old boys and girls who persistently re-offend and for whom supervision in the community has been ineffective.

  Violence Against Women
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to adopt the draft international declaration on violence against women into British law.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government take very seriously the need to tackle violence in society and have taken a number of steps in recent years against violence against women. A summary was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on 29 March at columns 103–04. We have strongly supported the development of the draft United Nations declaration on the elimination of violence against women, and share its aims of encouraging internationally both condemnation of violence against women and commitment to its elimination. Any implications of the final declaration for the law in this country will be considered carefully.
  222

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish arrest rates for cases of domestic violence for each police authority area.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department is in the process of market testing its internal audit and accountancy advice services and we expect to reach conclusions by the end of September.

  The market testing programme for 1993–94 has yet to be settled.

  Sexual Crimes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory commitments are currently in place to help victims of sexual crimes to resume a normal life; and what plans he has to extend such statutory provision.

  Mr. Jack
  Some of the most important means of helping victims of all crimes recover from their experiences are non-statutory. These include the work of the national charity Victim Support which, with Home Office funding, provides much-appreciated emotional support and practical help to victims, including victims of rape and other serious crimes of violence. Victims of sexual offences, as of other crimes of violence, are also eligible for compensation from the non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Statutory provisions, in addition to the national health service—which may be able to provide counselling for victims—and Department of Social Security benefits, include the power of courts to order offenders to pay compensation to their victims, and protection—for the complainants' lifetime—from publicity in cases of rape and sexual assault.

  There are no plans to extend statutory powers in this area.

  Royal Households (Police Protection)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make the police officers assigned to protecting royal households supernumerary to the force establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. Where there is a permanent need for protection duties, additional posts are approved and incorporated into force establishments.

  Gloucestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that Gloucestershire constabulary is staffed to the level recommended by the chief constable; and if he will make a statement.
  223
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the present system, approvals of bids for extra posts for police forces are given on the basis of relative need. As a result of current economic circumstances, no increases have been approved for the coming financial year.

  Parole
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given for the Parole Board to take into account when considering the release, transfer to open conditions and recall of mandatory life sentence prisoners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  For reviews of mandatory life sentence prisoners which begin at the prison from 1 April, the parole board will be giving reasons for recommendations and Ministers will be giving reasons for their decisions. It is important, therefore, that the board and prisoners have a clear understanding of the criteria against which recommendations and decisions are made. I have, therefore, written to the chairman of the parole board giving him directions under section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 setting out the matters which the parole board should take into account when discharging its functions. I have also provided the board with guidance for the training of its members. Copies of the letter, the directions and training guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rave Parties
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to tackle the problems caused by illegal raves and by mass trespass on land.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment today announced a package of proposals designed to tackle illegal camping as a consequence of his review of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  The Government recognise that these measures alone will not be sufficient to deal with all types of illegal camping. Since the enactment of the Public Order Act 1986 there has been special provision for dealing with aggravated trespass: that is, trespass where, either because of the sheer numbers involved or because of the behaviour of trespassers, it is right that the police should have powers to intervene. Section 39 of the 1986 Act has worked well, but the Government believe that it can be made more effective. Therefore, we propose to apply section 39 to a wider range of circumstances, principally extending it to minor highways—including green lanes and byways open to all traffic—and reducing the number of vehicles required to trigger the powers from 12 to six.

  We also propose to take additional measures to deal with the illegal large raves which made life so miserable for so many people last summer. We propose to provide new powers to enable the police, where they reasonably believe that 10 or more people have gathered on a site and that a rave will take place with the result that a local community
  224
  will suffer serious distress on account of music played during the night, to direct those people to leave. Failure to heed such a direction will be a criminal offence. In order that the police may enforce this effectively, we propose to provide them additionally with powers to turn back within a radius of five miles anyone they reasonably believe is intending to go to the rave site.

  These measures are unusual, but the Government believe that they are justified in the light of the serious mischief they are seeking to prevent and that they will be welcomed by law-abiding citizens throughout the country.

  Immigration
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for introducing an independent element into the procedures for handling complaints against the Immigration and Nationality Department.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Complaints against the Immigration and Nationality Department—including those involving the immigration service—are thoroughly investigated, and complainants informed of the outcome. My right hon. and learned Friend has, however, decided that confidence in the complaints system would be enhanced if there were an independent means of monitoring the health of the system. He intends to appoint a complaints audit committee, comprising three members. The committee's remit will be to satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints; to draw IND management's attention to any weakness; and to make an annual report to my right hon. and learned Friend. The committee will have access to ail papers on complaints investigations, but will not be involved in the investigation of individual complaints or decisions in individual cases. The powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are unaffected.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Indirect Taxes
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 684, on the level of indirect taxes, giving figures for 1993–94.

  Sir John Cope
  At this time it is possible to give the answer only in respect of current duty levels. The figures in the table therefore relate to duty rates immediately after the Budget. This is different from the method used in the previous answer which covered the whole financial year, so for comparison the equivalent figures for 1992–93 are also shown. These differ from the answer of 25 November also because the method of calculating real increases has been adjusted. Ad valorem taxes have not been covered, except for cigarettes where the ad valorem element is included in addition to the specific duty. Aviation gasoline was not subject to duty in 1978–79.
  225

  Duty Unit

  Post-Budget Duty Rate:

  Percentage increase in real terms from 1978 to:

  1987

  1992

  1993

  1992

  1993

  Hydrocarbon Oils

  Leaded petrol

  Pence per litre

  6·60

  27·79

  30·58

  49·6

  61·6

  Unleaded petrol

  Pence per litre

  6·60

  23·42

  25·76

  26·1

  36·1

  Derv

  Pence per litre

  7·70

  22·85

  25·14

  5·4

  13·9

  Made Wine

  not exceeding 18 per cent.

  £ per hectolitre

  76·45

  217·25

  220·43

  11·0

  10·6

  exceeding 18 per cent.

  £ per hectolitre

  84·14

  250·59

  220·43

  16·4

  0·6

  Spirits

  £ per litre

  5·96

  19·81

  19·81

  18·1

  15·9

  Beer

  £ per hectolitre for each degree above 1,000

  0·35

  1·108

  1·163

  12·5

  15·9

  Cider and Perry

  £ per hectolitre

  5·32

  21·32

  22·39

  42·4

  46·8

  Tobacco

  cigarettes

  £ per 1,000

  17·70

  67·53

  72·45

  35·5

  42·8

  cigars

  £ per kilogram

  20·94

  67·89

  72·30

  15·2

  20·4

  hand rolling tabacco

  £ per kilogram

  20·28

  71·63

  76·29

  25·5

  31·2

  Bank of England
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1963 the Treasury has exercised its power under section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946 to give directions to the Bank of England.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Family Expenditure Survey
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to publish the results of his Department's family expenditure survey; what has been the cost of carrying out this survey; if he will send the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the questionnaire that interviewees were asked to complete over a two-week period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I hope to publish the 1992 family expenditure survey in October 1993. The running cost of the family expenditure survey for the year 1992–93 is approximately £3·4 million. A copy of the 1992 questionnaire and diary has been sent to the hon. Member and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Nelson
  No such services have been tested within the last 12 months. The Treasury's market testing programme for the period up to 30 September 1993 was set out on page 64 of the first report on the citizens charter (Cm 2010) and covers a number of professional services including economic model building and development, internal audit and consultancy inspection services. No decisions have been taken about market testing in 1993–94.

  National Debt
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current ratio of United Kingdom national debt to gross domestic product; and what it will be in 1997–98 on the assumption that the public sector borrowing requirement will increase as set out in table 2B.5 of the financial statement for 1993–94.
  226
  Mr. Lamont
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on 29 March 1993 at column 17.

  Overseas Securities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulations he intends to introduce to implement the legislation for the lending of overseas securities and for payments of manufactured overseas dividends on such securities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regulations are being laid today to bring into effect the new legislation on payments of manufactured overseas dividends in section 58 and schedule 13 of the Finance Act 1991. Further regulations will shortly be made under the provisions contained in schedule 23A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act —introduced by schedule 13 of the Finance Act 1991—to set out the arrangements for accounting for tax on manufactured overseas dividends. Regulations will also be made at the same time to bring into effect, for overseas securities, the amendments to the stock lending rules contained in section 57 of the Finance Act 1991.

  The amendments to the stock lending rules will allow lending chains to contain more than three parties without tax charges arising on disposals of securities from one party to the next. This relaxation is designed to enhance the liquidity of the London market in overseas securities and the role of London as a major financial centre.

  The arrangements for accounting for tax on manufactured overseas dividends have been discussed in detail with market representatives over the past two years. They differ from the proposals outlined by my predecessor in the Committee stage debate on schedule 13—introduced as schedule 12—of the 1991 Finance Bill. However, the new arrangements, like those originally envisaged, aim to balance freedom for the markets with adequate protection for the Exchequer against the main risks of tax loss.

  Inheritence Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many landowners in(a) Pendle, (b) Lancashire and (c) England have been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures are not available on a constituency basis but in Lancashire six properties have benefited from conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital
  227
  transfer tax. There have been 121 designations of land for conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax in England and 104 designations of historic buildings in England.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 418, what criteria are used in determining the extent of the publicity on public access to land where the owners are claiming exemption from inheritance tax by virtue of section 31 of the Inheritance Taxes Act 1984.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The heritage advisory agencies will discuss, with each owner, the appropriate level of publicity

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  Local VAT Office

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Aberdeen

  2,440

  2,378

  2,021

  2,036

  1,862

  1,818

  2,080

  1,832

  Accrington

  2,807

  2,680

  2,298

  2,114

  2,200

  2,050

  2,911

  2,369

  Balham

  3,959

  3,097

  2,791

  2,545

  2,304

  2,468

  3,282

  3,282

  Bath

  3,259

  2,545

  2,168

  2,297

  2,103

  2,114

  2,848

  2,912

  Bedford

  3,222

  2,909

  2,160

  1,784

  1,742

  2,359

  2,550

  2,389

  Belfast

  1,497

  1,611

  1,273

  1,343

  1,190

  1,165

  1,413

  1,557

  Birmingham North

  2,631

  2,372

  2,068

  1,983

  1,747

  1,729

  2,470

  2,552

  Birmingham South

  2,246

  2,080

  1,840

  1,842

  1,651

  1,560

  2,116

  2,168

  Bradford

  2,781

  2,584

  2,160

  2,162

  1,937

  2,007

  2,857

  2,434

  Brighton

  4,317

  3,448

  2,756

  2,646

  2,848

  2,682

  4,268

  3,513

  Bristol

  3,387

  2,908

  2,416

  2,049

  1,982

  2,338

  3,221

  2,479

  Bury

  2,312

  1,980

  2,086

  1,893

  1,767

  1,575

  2,333

  2,163

  Cambridge

  0

  0

  2,094

  2,056

  0

  0

  2,673

  2,726

  Canterbury

  3,610

  3,062

  1,931

  1,668

  2,612

  2,662

  3,322

  2,779

  Cardiff

  3,171

  2,841

  2,209

  3,029

  2,124

  2,090

  3,168

  3,334

  Carlisle

  2,040

  1,783

  1,466

  1,351

  1,596

  1,462

  1,932

  1,743

  Carmarthen

  1,492

  1,285

  1,023

  0

  1,044

  1,136

  1,586

  79

  Cheadle

  3,177

  2,803

  2,873

  2,532

  2,108

  1,965

  2,763

  3,005

  Chester

  3,033

  2,852

  2,736

  2,501

  2,211

  2,259

  3,334

  3,269

  Chesterfield

  2,787

  2,320

  2,198

  1,980

  2,026

  1,982

  2,519

  2,607

  City

  2,590

  2,510

  2,146

  4,750

  2,110

  2,414

  2,318

  4,525

  Colchester

  3,484

  3,243

  2,588

  2,556

  2,224

  2,489

  3,760

  3,482

  Coleraine

  1,195

  1,218

  1,014

  1,354

  1,008

  937

  1,158

  1,088

  Colwyn Bay

  1,835

  1,699

  1,415

  1,247

  1,367

  1,369

  1,960

  1,739

  Coventry

  2,607

  2,439

  2,203

  1,993

  1,708

  1,895

  2,540

  2,560

  Croydon

  3,428

  3,076

  2,303

  2,120

  2,122

  2,070

  3,220

  3,077

  Derby

  2,643

  2,310

  1,978

  1,805

  1,892

  1,652

  2,475

  2,168

  Doncaster

  2,877

  2,389

  2,081

  1,989

  2,231

  1,949

  2,590

  2,464

  Droitwich

  3,023

  2,528

  2,275

  2,016

  2,182

  1,880

  2,672

  2,440

  Dudley

  2,738

  2,131

  1,889

  1,730

  1,871

  1,748

  2,475

  2,424

  Dundee

  2,693

  2,645

  2,152

  2,080

  1,996

  2,099

  2,372

  2,384

  Edinburgh

  3,095

  2,850

  2,494

  2,488

  2,184

  2,148

  2,988

  2,541

  Enfield

  3,583

  3,087

  2,459

  2,595

  2,367

  2,575

  3,263

  3,533

  Euston

  1,429

  1,493

  1,264

  22

  1,034

  1,081

  1,399

  184

  Exeter

  3,160

  2,771

  2,165

  1,886

  2,229

  2,341

  3,397

  3,049

  Finchley

  3,635

  3,124

  2,575

  2,287

  2,063

  2,342

  2,964

  3,070

  Glasgow North

  3,454

  3,129

  2,615

  2,526

  2,599

  2,492

  2,987

  2,818

  Glasgow South

  2,327

  2,172

  2,138

  1,840

  1,642

  1,569

  2,612

  2,160

  Gloucester

  3,532

  3,102

  2,746

  2,261

  2,305

  2,465

  3,417

  2,680

  Greenock

  2,516

  2,176

  1,975

  1,822

  2,038

  2,117

  2,436

  2,055

  Grimsby

  3,190

  2,657

  2,073

  1,924

  2,347

  2,254

  2,930

  2,840

  Halifax

  3,284

  2,646

  2,486

  2,147

  2,256

  2,318

  3,043

  2,652

  Hammersmith

  2,435

  2,363

  1,967

  2,043

  1,481

  1,660

  2,038

  2,807

  Harlow

  3,409

  2,981

  2,008

  1,917

  1,803

  2,009

  2,510

  2,333

  Hastings

  0

  684

  2,371

  2,180

  0

  554

  3,229

  3,251

  Holborn

  1,327

  1,287

  1,204

  0

  1,088

  958

  960

  130

  Hull

  2,739

  2,483

  2,164

  1,954

  1,939

  2,039

  2,746

  2,416

  Ipswich

  2,820

  2,463

  1,811

  1,634

  1,930

  2,141

  2,457

  2,211

  Kennington

  2,676

  2,173

  2,114

  2,025

  1,750

  1,916

  2,720

  2,436

  Kingston

  2,842

  2,956

  2,614

  2,523

  1,850

  2,157

  3,004

  2,875

  Leeds

  2,443

  2,394

  2,144

  2,004

  1,678

  1,971

  2,385

  2,417

  Leicester

  3,216

  2,879

  2,161

  2,072

  2,229

  2,121

  2,792

  2,536

  Lisburn

  1,682

  1,397

  1,320

  977

  1,026

  1,011

  1,212

  950

  Liverpool

  2,309

  2,217

  1,868

  1,761

  2,068

  1,790

  2,273

  2,531

  Luton

  2,574

  2,200

  2,320

  2,166

  1,510

  1,549

  2,708

  2,544

  Lytham

  3,243

  3,084

  2,596

  2,382

  2,472

  2,476

  3,167

  2,976

  Maidenhead

  3,033

  2,630

  2,189

  2,285

  1,806

  1,783

  2,581

  2,515

  Maidstone

  3,942

  3,358

  2,273

  2,011

  2,340

  2,520

  3,214

  2,885

  Manchester

  2,903

  3,358

  2,646

  2,452

  2,041

  2,223

  2,903

  2,774

  Middlesbrough

  3,156

  2,631

  2,158

  2,212

  2,102

  2,416

  2,825

  2,818

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  2,909

  2,806

  2,081

  2,064

  2,018

  2,089

  2,567

  2,653

  228
  to be given to public access arrangements agreed in return for conditional exemption from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax. Each case is considered individually and all relevant factors, including the existing level of publicity, are taken into account.

  VAT
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each VAT office the number of registrations and deregistrations for each year since 1989.

  Sir John Cope
  The information requested is as follows:
  229

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  Local VAT Office

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  2,349

  2,041

  1,744

  1,624

  1,743

  1,681

  2,119

  2,061

  Northampton

  3,523

  3,051

  2,134

  1,957

  2,211

  2,219

  2,785

  2,544

  Norwich

  3,321

  2,769

  2,071

  1,815

  2,369

  2,524

  3,133

  2,676

  Nottingham

  2,793

  2,535

  2,155

  1,730

  1,752

  2,080

  2,909

  2,209

  Oldham

  2,814

  2,756

  2,196

  2,268

  2,132

  1,828

  2,661

  3,076

  Orpington

  3,572

  3,149

  2,383

  2,213

  1,921

  1,824

  3,752

  3,535

  Oxford

  2,907

  2,439

  2,370

  2,081

  1,813

  1,871

  2,684

  2,529

  Peterborough

  3,136

  3,325

  2,446

  2,191

  2,282

  2,600

  3,106

  2,797

  Plymouth

  4,019

  3,139

  2,671

  2,390

  2,765

  2,702

  3,955

  3,981

  Poole

  3,791

  2,941

  2,304

  2,116

  2,615

  2,360

  2,943

  3,583

  Portsmouth

  4,344

  3,409

  2,876

  2,641

  2,601

  2,260

  3,872

  3,688

  Reading

  3,303

  3,238

  2,728

  2,603

  1,906

  2,151

  3,137

  2,961

  Redhill

  2,946

  2,793

  2,301

  2,211

  1,933

  2,018

  2,913

  2,782

  Romford

  3,413

  3,071

  2,596

  2,210

  2,094

  2,104

  3,738

  3,697

  Sheffield

  2,941

  2,278

  2,188

  1,990

  1,763

  2,058

  2,425

  2,411

  Shrewsbury

  3,008

  2,579

  2,238

  2,198

  1,996

  2,018

  2,692

  2,787

  Southampton

  3,809

  3,105

  2,772

  2,255

  2,377

  2,437

  3,393

  2,999

  Southend

  3,839

  2,900

  2,179

  1,899

  1,993

  2,035

  3,701

  2,852

  Staines

  2,554

  2,755

  2,430

  2,145

  1,484

  2,141

  2,757

  2,648

  Stratford

  3,000

  2,216

  2,205

  2,573

  2,370

  1,774

  2,836

  3,499

  Swansea

  3,421

  3,135

  2,366

  2,141

  2,827

  2,728

  3,531

  3,022

  Taunton

  2,997

  2,440

  2,261

  2,343

  2,234

  2,256

  3,040

  3,390

  Uxbridge

  3,155

  2,865

  2,077

  1,923

  1,926

  2,002

  2,652

  2,515

  Washington

  2,904

  2,618

  2,040

  1,920

  2,153

  2,260

  2,742

  2,363

  Wembley

  3,093

  2,866

  2,369

  2,108

  2,101

  2,108

  2,848

  3,145

  West End

  4,160

  4,033

  3,113

  2,949

  2,948

  3,102

  3,245

  3,271

  Westminster

  2,414

  2,423

  2,054

  1,967

  1,592

  1,522

  2,039

  2,089

  Wigan

  2,819

  2,696

  2,082

  1,924

  1,943

  2,108

  2,473

  2,476

  Woking

  3,556

  3,412

  2,979

  2,767

  2,161

  2,070

  3,224

  3,514

  Wolverhampton

  2,015

  1,941

  1,688

  1,663

  1,470

  1,618

  2,123

  2,205

  "Other Receipts"
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, provide a table disaggregating the series "other receipts" published in table 2B.4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1993–94" into its principal components together with a table indicating how these figures compare with the equivalent series in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1992–93".

  Mr. Portillo
  A detailed breakdown of "other receipts" for 1992–93 and 1993–94 can be found in the general government column of table 6.9 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (FSBR). They comprise lines 6, 7, 10, 11, and 28 to 31. The 1992–93 figures can be directly compared with projections made in the same table in the 1992–93 FSBR. For the medium term, 1994–95 and beyond in the 1993–94 FSBR, 1993–94 and beyond in last year's FSBR, the figures are stylised projections.

  Lloyd's Names
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the changes in tax treatment for Lloyd's invested premium, set out in his Budget, will have for names currently benefiting from capital gains tax indexation allowances under current arrangements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals gains and losses on assets held by Lloyd's names in a premiums trust fund will be brought within the computation of trading profits chargeable to income tax. Capital gains tax treatment, including the availability of indexation allowances, will therefore no longer apply.
  230

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of additional income tax payers in 1993–94 as a result of freezing rates of personal allowances; and how much extra income tax will be raised as a result.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Compared with statutory indexation, the revenue yield from not changing personal allowances will be about £700 million in 1993–94, and about 300,000 more people will pay tax.

  Gilt-edged Securities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about purchases of gilt-edged securities by individuals.

  Mr. Nelson
  Over recent months, there has been an increase in interest among personal investors in finding out about the gilt market and the investment opportunities in gilts.

  The Government have decided to respond to that interest in two ways.

  First, the Bank of England will be issuing on 5 April a new booklet providing clear information for the personal investor about the gilt market and how it works.

  Secondly, the Department for National Savings will be improving the service it offers to personal investors through the National Savings Stock Register (NSSR), with effect from 7 April. The upper limit on the amount that may be invested in any one existing stock which can be bought on any one day will go up from £10,000 to £25,000. This is the first increase in this limit for 10 years. The upper limit on the nominal amount of stock bought in a public offering which personal investors may ask to have registered on the NSSR will also go up from £10,000 to £25,000. The increase in this limit is the first for over five

  231
  years. The order to put these changes into effect was laid before the House on 18 March. And in future, DNS will arrange for all existing stocks to be available through its system.

  The costs of producing the booklet will fall to the Treasury's 1993–94 vote (class XVII, vote 1). Parliamentary approval for this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for this vote. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure of £309,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund. The resulting increases in the Treasury's cash limit and gross running costs limit will be fully offset by a reduction in the Bank of England's cash limit and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the relocation of HM Customs and Excise headquarters work from the south-east to the north-west is proceeding to timetable; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  To date 350 Customs and Excise headquarters posts have been relocated on schedule to Liverpool and 270 to Manchester from London and Southend. But organisational changes, efficiency savings and market testing are significantly reducing the size of the Department's central operations and particularly its ability to absorb surplus staff in Southend. In addition, turnover of the Department's staff at Southend is at an historic low and the planned changes would therefore lead to considerable compulsory redundancy. The board of Customs and Excise has therefore reviewed its relocation programme. The board and I have decided to rephase the programme by creating in Liverpool some 300 more posts in the next phase rather than the 850 extra posts previously planned.

  This rephasing not only represents best value for money for the taxpayer but also strikes a balance between the need for jobs both in Southend and Liverpool and the business needs of Customs and Excise. The position in Southend will, however, be reviewed in four years' time, in 1997, in the light of the economic situation and job prospects in both Southend and Liverpool.

  I recognise that this decision will be disappointing for the people of Merseyside and for the many organisations which have worked with Customs and Excise to make a success of relocation. But I do not believe that it would have been acceptable to have continued with a relocation programme which would have created new jobs in Liverpool but which in the changed circumstances would have left some hundreds of people in Southend facing compulsory redundancy. Customs and Excise will still be a major employer on Merseyside with more than 1,000 staff and a major headquarters office.

  The number of households with negative equity (thousand)

  1988Q4

  1989Q4

  1990Q4

  1991Q4

  1992Q4

  North

  —

  —

  0

  20

  100

  South

  —

  20

  190

  320

  930

  Total

  —

  20

  190

  340

  1,030

  Note: The South is defined as Greater London, South East, East Anglia, South West, East and West Midlands. The North includes the rest of the United Kingdom.
  232

  National Insurance and Income Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total revenue raised from(a) national insurance contributions and (b) income tax in each year from 1978–79 to 1996–97 in (i) cash prices and (ii) 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]: Available information on receipts of income tax and national insurance contributions is as follows:

  £ billion

  National Insurance contributions1

  Income Tax

  prices2

  Current prices

  1978–79 prices2

  Current prices 1978–79

  1978–79

  10·1

  10·1

  18·7

  18·7

  1979–80

  11·8

  10·1

  20·6

  17·7

  1980–81

  14·0

  10·1

  24·3

  17·6

  1981–82

  16·0

  10·6

  28·7

  19·0

  1982–83

  18·9

  11·7

  30·4

  18·7

  1983–84

  20·8

  12·3

  31·1

  18·3

  1984–85

  22·3

  12·5

  32·5

  18·2

  1985–86

  24–5

  13·0

  35·4

  18·8

  1986–87

  26·5

  13·7

  38·5

  19·8

  1987–88

  29·1

  14·2

  41·4

  20·2

  1988–89

  32·4

  14·8

  43·4

  19·8

  1989–90

  32·9

  14·1

  48·8

  20·8

  1990–91

  35·0

  13·8

  55·3

  21·9

  1991–92

  36·3

  13·5

  57·5

  21·3

  1992–933

  37·4

  13·4

  56·5

  20·3

  1993–943

  39·1

  13·6

  57·5

  20·1

  1994–953

  44

  14¾

  —

  —

  1995–963

  47

  15¼

  —

  —

  1996–973

  50

  15¾

  —

  —

  1 Excluding national insurance surcharge.

  2 Using the GDP deflator at market prices.

  3 1993–94 Financial Statement and Budget Report estimates or forecasts.

  Households (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of households with negative equity in each region in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 9 March 1993]: There is considerable variation in estimates of the number of households with negative equity, reflecting the uncertainties involved in such calculations. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 February to my hon. Friend the member for Hazel Grove (Sir Tom Arnold) by the Minister for Housing and Planning at column 522. The following table provides figures for the north and south calculated on the same basis, which excludes those who have increased their indebtedness since buying their house, and those who have since sold or had their house repossessed; it is based on the DOE house price index. It would not be possible to produce a more detailed regional breakdown without disproportionate cost.
  233

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Aid Foundation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support his Department is giving to the Sports Aid Foundation Charitable Trust in 1992–93.

  Mr. Brooke
  We have paid to the Sports Aid Foundation Charitable Trust grant of £17,000 for the current year in respect of its administration costs. This is a new service to be provided within class XII, vote 5 of my Department's estimates provision for 1992–93. The full amount of the grant will be met from savings made from other sub-heads within vote 5.

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what offers in lieu of tax have been accepted or allocated since his last announcement on 26 March,Official Report.column 729.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my last announcement on 26 March,Official Report.column 729, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of two offers in lieu of taxation. The offers consist of the Barrington archive together with a model gun ship which will satisfy £147,000 tax and a group of chattels from Nostell priory which will satisfy £30,820 tax.

  The Nostell priory chattels will be allocated to the National Trust and will remain "in situ" at Nostell priory. This allocation is in accordance with the conditions on which the offer was made. No decision has yet been made on the allocation of the Barrington archive, or on the model gun ship.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa (Nuclear Devices)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information Her Majesty's Government have on the nuclear devices produced by South Africa in the 1970s.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 March 1993 to the honourable Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) at column 46.

  UAE
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British embassy in the United Arab Emirates made regarding the two men recently sentenced to have an arm and a leg amputated for theft.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's Consul-General raised with the Fujairah authorities on 23 March the case of two men convicted of piracy and sentenced to have an arm and a leg amputated. He was informed that the case is going to appeal. A final decision on sentencing will be taken only then. While the sentences were passed in accordance with UAE federal criminal judicial procedure, the Government of the United Arab Emirates can be in no doubt as to our views on such punishments and on human rights generally.

  Embassy Staff
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in relation to the appointment to the staff of British embassies of individuals with experience in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We attach great importance to strengthening the diplomatic service's links with industry and to our programme of interchanges with the private sector. It is also our policy to recruit as locally engaged commercial officers business men with appropriate experience, including those from the manufacturing industry.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many retired civil servants of the Hong Kong Government were registered at the latest available date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are some 41,000 retired Hong Kong Government civil servants.

HEALTH

  Information Technology
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total bill to the national health service for computer systems including software in the last 10 years; what is the current projected budget for computers over the public expenditure planning period; and what is the nature and cost of each child surveillance computer system for each region in the last 10 years;

  (2) what were the total amounts written off in respect of ineffective computer systems in each of the last three years per region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure incurred by health authorities in England on computers and related costs became separately identifiable in their annual accounts from 1983–84. Figures for the financial years 1983–84 to 1991–92, which cover all relevant expenditure incurred by the health authorities in their management and direct provision of all hospital and community health services (HCHS), are shown in the table.

  Comprehensive information on health authorities' projected expenditure on computers, on the costs incurred on child surveillance computer systems, and on any ineffective computer systems is not available centrally.

  Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS)— Expenditure on computers and computing

  Revenue Purchase of hardware and operational software £000 (cash)

  Revenue Maintenance of hardware and software (including licensing fees)£000 (cash)

  Revenue Contract Services £000 (cash)

  Capital Purchase of hardware and operational software £000 (cash)

  1983–84

  6,311

  5,715

  2,980

  21,335

  1984–85

  9,658

  7,469

  4,750

  35,523

  1985–86

  12,414

  11,198

  5,618

  47,175

  1986–87

  16,347

  15,365

  9,041

  65,025

  1987–88

  19,657

  32,129

  7,576

  68,892

  235

  Revenue Purchase of hardware and operational software £000 (cash)

  Revenue Maintenance of hardware and software (including licensing fees) £000 (cash)

  Revenue Contract Services£000 (cash)

  Capital Purchase of hardware and operational software£000 (cash)

  1988–89

  26,603

  28,893

  8,800

  62,465

  1989–90

  41,357

  32,261

  13,091

  94,522

  1990–91

  61,538

  44,216

  28,809

  119,233

  1991–92

  49,871

  65,268

  35,281

  131,710

  1 Main frame systems only. Excludes an element within a total of £103·5 million for office and information technology equipment. (Note 3 to the table refers).

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts (1983–84 to 1990–91) and annual financial returns (1991–92) of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  (b) 1991–92 annual financial returns of the first wave NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. HCHS covers all services directly managed or accounted for by the health authorities and NHS Trusts including hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. Revenue "purchases" may include elements for rent and leasing. There is some discontinuity in the series of figures for "maintenance" and "contract services" as since 1987–88, the latter category is intended to include only expenditure incurred on contracts for data processing services.

  3. The figures for 1991–92 (which are derived from annual financial returns rather than accounts) are provisional. Following the introduction of capital asset accounting and changes to the analyses provided in annual financial returns the figure for capital expenditure is not comparable to those for earlier years. It represents expenditure only on mainframe information technology (IT) systems and excludes additional expenditure on computers within a total of some £103·5 million for "office and IT equipment" and which is not separately identifiable centrally.

  4. The table excludes the comparatively small costs incurred by family health services authorities and special health authorities providing central services to the National Health Service.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the strategy for implementing "The Health of the Nation" is going to take into account the needs of people from black and ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Sackville
  The White Paper "The Health of the Nation" (Cm. 1986) and the supporting key area handbooks, copies of which are available in the Library, identify particular health needs of people from black and ethnic minorities and indicate that health authorities and others must concentrate efforts on such needs if the White Paper's targets are to be achieved. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on 23 March at column 589,which stated that we have set up a task force to examine and recommend action at all levels in the Department, and in the national health service to ensure the application of current best practice in the provision of health services for black and ethnic minorities.

  Image Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the budget of the management training for women in the health service is to be spent on image training; how many women this involves; and at what levels in the health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Individual positive image sessions are no longer available through the women in the national health service management development programme.

  Prescription Charges
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on evidence which compares chronic conditions related to the pre-payment certificate scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Prescription pre-payment certificates, which offer real savings to anyone who needs more than 14 prescribed items in a year, or more than five in a four-month period, are not linked to any medical conditions. They are available to anyone who is not entitled to free prescriptions on application, and payment of the required fee, to their local family health services authority.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which professional services within her 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. Sackville
  The citizens charter first report published Departments' plans for their initial market testing programmes covering the period to 30 September 1993. The Department's programme includes the following professional and related services:

  —internal audit

  —the Department of Health library service

  —certain statistical support functions

  The market testing process for these services has begun.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of money has been allocated in each of the financial years ended March 1991, 1992 and 1993 by Waltham Forest health authority for the treatment of patients requiring IVF; how many patients have been refused IVF because of insufficient funds on(a)primary cycle and (b)subsequent cycles; and what is the current waiting time from referral to primary treatment and from primary to subsequent treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Miss Delva Patman, chairman of Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, for details.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library copies of letters and reports sent by the Audit Commission to her Department on fund holding in 1991–92.
  237
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Formal audit reports covering matters of major concern, which are reports in the public interest (RIPI), are issued under section 20(3) of the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act and are public documents. No RIPIs have been issued concerning general practitioner fundholding in 1991–92. Management letters, summarising matters arising during the course of an audit are routinely sent to each family health services authority. These are not available centrally.

  Paracetemol Overdoses
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the number of suicides and suicide attempts arising from overdoses of paracetemol in the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available figures for the number of people who have been recorded as having committed suicide and where paracetemol is mentioned in the records is shown in table 1. Table 2 combines the information provided in table 1 with statistics on the number of people where paracetemol is mentioned in the records and where it was undetermined whether death was accidentally or purposely inflicted. Information on the number of people who have attempted suicide by use of paracetemol is not available centrally.

  A recent article1 published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, suggests that a significant number of the undetermined deaths are in fact suicides. A copy of this article is available in the Library.
  1 Charlton J, Kelly S, Evans B, Jenkins R, Wallis R, (1992). Trends in suicide deaths in England and Wales. Population Trends, 69 10–16.

  Table 1

  Numbers of recorded deaths from suicide where paracetamol is mentioned in the records. England and Wales, 1990, persons only

  Total

  Paracetamol

  101 (51)

  Paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Paracetamol Salicylate (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Temazepam Tricyclic Anti Depressant (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Triazolam

  1

  Paracetamol Warfarin

  1

  Table 2

  Numbers of recorded deaths from suicide and undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted where paracetamol is mentioned in the records. England and Wales, 1990, persons only

  Total

  Paracetamol

  185 (131)

  Paracetamol Propoxyphene

  5 (11)

  Paracetamol Propranolol

  1

  Paracetamol Prothiaden

  1

  Paracetamol Salicylate (NOS)

  5 (11)

  Paracetamol Temazepam Tricyclic Anti Depressant (NOS)

  1

  Paracetamol Triazolam

  1

  Paracetamol Warfarin

  1

  Paracetamol Verapamil

  1

  1 Number of deaths with mention of alcohol. NOS Not otherwise stated.

  The inclusion of a substance in this list does not imply that it is necessarily toxic. Where two or more substances
  238
  are mentioned together the contribution, if any, of each to the death is unknown; even where one substance is listed alone there may well be other factors with an important bearing on the death.

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's timetable for introducing the new selected list regulations to cover 10 additional therapeutic categories of NHS medicines; and what parliamentary procedures will be applicable for debating the new regulations before they are enacted.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Orders to amend the list of drugs which cannot be prescribed under the national health service are made under the negative resolution procedure. They are normally made twice a year. We expect the next order to be made before the summer recess.

  Blindness
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the incidence of blindness caused by unsatisfactory contact lenses; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Three per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom use contact lenses. There are no available figures to indicate that using contact lenses may cause blindness. There are indications that although the risk is low, contact lens wearers do have an enhanced exposure to factors that can result in ocular infection and keratitis.

  The Department, in co-operation with the professional bodies concerned, is producing information documents to help wearers of contact lenses and eye care practitioners.

  Mental Health Review Tribunals
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how members of mental health review tribunals are appointed; what training they are given; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for the appointment of legal, medical and lay members of mental health review tribunals (MHRTs) by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Secretary of State for Health in respect of medical and lay members. Candidates are appointed on the basis of their professional background, qualifications and other relevant experience. Training includes courses provided by the Judicial Studies Board in tribunal practice generally; MHRT induction training and peer conferences provided under the auspices of regional MHRT chairmen; and observation of hearings. All training takes account of the detailed rules of procedure laid down in the MHRT Rules 1983, made under the 1983 Act by the Lord Chancellor.

  Medicines
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the proposed new regulations to limit the number of medicines available to NHS patients in 10 new therapeutic categories will apply to hospital doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The regulations giving effect to the selected list scheme apply to prescriptions issued by hospital doctors for dispensing in community pharmacies, but not to prescriptions dispensed in hospital pharmacies.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from patient, consumer and medical groups in respect of the proposal to extend the NHS limited list regulations to 10 new therapeutic categories; and if she will place copies of her replies in the Library.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received and replied to a number of such representations. It is for the parties concerned to decide whether such correspondence should be made public.

  Census Data
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current position on the statement of policies governing the confidentiality and security of personal data held within the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Registrar General for England and Wales and I attach the greatest importance to maintaining the confidentiality and security of personal data about members of the public held within the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). A comprehensive review of how this could best be achieved was completed in 1992. A draft statement of policies was produced, and a copy was placed in the Library. The Registrar General has sought the views of a range of outside bodies before formally adopting the statement. In particular the Data Protection Registrar has commented that it serves to confirm the ongoing OPCS commitment to maintain high standards in the handling of information about individuals. The consultation process is now complete, with the statement reciving general support. The statement as adopted has been published today, and a copy placed in the Library.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her response to the proposals made by the South West Thames regional health authority for improved accountability arrangements for the London Ambulance Service; and if she will make the proposals public.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following publication of the independent Inquiry into the operation of the computer aided dispatch system of the London ambulance service (LAS), I asked the South West Thames regional health authority chairman, Professor Marian Hicks, urgently to draw up proposals to strengthen lines of management accountability for the LAS. I have decided to accept the proposals she has put to me.

  Under the new arrangements, the LAS board will be replaced by direct managerial accountability to the regional health authority. The LAS chief executive will be directly answerable to the regional health authority for all aspects of the performance and management of the LAS. Through the existing lines of national health service accountability the regional health authority will report to me. I shall expect to be kept in close touch with developments and have asked the authority to publish a report in the autumn on progress in implementing the recommendations of the independent inquiry into the LAS.

  A special sub-committee of the regional health authority is to be established to assist in the oversight of
  240
  LAS performance. The sub-committee will have available to it the expertise of a small group of external specialists who will be appointed to advise the LAS on matters such as information technology. These advisers will have direct access to the regional chairman in the event of their having any concerns they believe are not being addressed by the line management system.

  The LAS will also be open to greater public scrutiny. Its performance will be regularly considered in the public meetings of the regional health authority and it will publish an annual report. Regular performance reports will also be made available to Members, community health councils and other interested public bodies.

  I am satisfied that these arrangements will provide an effective framework for accounting to the public for the performance of the LAS. Details of the arrangements are being placed today in the Library.

  Archives (Microfiche)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to place information regarding births, marriages and deaths on microfiche and make it available at archive houses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  All but the more recent indexes held in the public search room of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys are already available in microfiche form in many local libraries and record offices.

  The Government White Paper, "Registration: proposals for change" (Cm 939) published in 1990, recommends that in England and Wales the civil registration records older than 75 years should be opened to public scrutiny. These records are held in hardcopy form and on microfilm. The Government proposed in the White Paper that the provision of a central record library should be offered as a contract to those who might wish to run it outside government, either as a non profit-making trust.or a commercial concern. A decision on whether the microfilm should be converted to microfiche and/or other media would have to await the outcome of negotiations with interested bodies. Open public access to the information contained in these records requires legislative change which the Government will introduce when a suitable opportunity occurs.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are proposed for those who are unable to obtain a national health service dentistry service to be recompensed for the additional costs of treatment and travel involved in obtaining alternative dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There is no need for any patient to seek alternatives to national health service dentistry. Patients experiencing any difficulty in obtaining NHS dental treatment should contact their local family health services authority, which will be able to help.

  Royal Marsden Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Charity Commission over the refurbishment of offices at the Royal Marsden hospital; and if she will make a statement.
  241
  Mr. Sackville
  The Charity Commission has been in contact with my officials concerning the refurbishing of the reception area at the Royal Marsden hospital.

  Deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning in the home 1980–1990 England and Wales

  ICD Codes

  1980

  11981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  E868·0

  5

  4

  2

  8

  2

  5

  5

  2

  3

  0

  8

  E868·1

  3

  2

  1

  0

  2

  4

  11

  8

  9

  5

  5

  E868·3

  34

  23

  30

  36

  16

  23

  32

  23

  22

  10

  11

  E868·8

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  E868·9

  7

  41

  18

  0

  4

  2

  7

  3

  0

  3

  5

  E982·1

  9

  6

  11

  3

  4

  3

  3

  2

  7

  9

  5

  Total

  60

  76

  62

  49

  28

  37

  58

  38

  42

  29

  35

  1 The data for 1981 were affected by Industrial action by registration officers.

  Note:Excludes deaths from motor vehicle exhaust.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current membership and outline the constitution of the veterinary medicines directorate.

  Mr. Soames
  Membership of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, together with its aims and objectives, is set out in the VMD annual report and accounts for 1991–92, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the current level of costs associated with submitting an application by a manufacturer for a licence from the veterinary medicines directorate for a product licence.

  Mr. Soames
  The level of costs associated with submitting an application for a veterinary medicine product licence will vary considerably, dependent on the target species, active ingredient, indications for use, and type of application. In some cases, the simplified licensing procedure introduced in 1990 may be appropriate. As a consequence, no information is held centrally on such costs. Ultimately, it is for the individual pharmaceutical company to decide what investment may be needed to meet the licensing requirements of safety, quality and efficacy, and whether that can be justified bearing in mind the likely return from the market.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has concerning the number of applications for a veterinary medicine product licence which have been considered in total by the veterinary medicines directorate in connection with the implementation of the European directive on these matters; how many of those applications were accepted; how many were withdrawn; and how many were declined;

  (2) what information he has concerning the number of veterinary medicinal products which were formerly available in the United Kingdom but for which

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning in the home have occured in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]:The information is given in the table.

  manufacturers have not applied for a product licence from the veterinary medicines directorate either on the grounds of the cost of making such an application, or upon other grounds.

  Mr. Soames
  I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the EC wide review of pharmaceutical veterinary product licences issued before 1984, which is currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom in accordance with directive 81/851/EEC. At 2 March 1993, 2,731 products had been called for review. Of these, 504 reviewed licences have been issued, 506 applications are still under assessment, and 1,721 licences have been withdrawn or expired at companies request. The grounds for decisions either to apply for, or to withdraw, licences are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of the relevant industries and professions are fully represented among the membership of the veterinary medicines directorate.

  Mr. Soames
  The veterinary medicines directorate holds regular meetings with representatives of consumer organisations, the National Office of Animal Health, the British Veterinary Association, and other representative organisations and professional bodies to ensure that their views are fully represented.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost of the veterinary medicines directorate in each year since its establishment; and what percentage of these costs have been raised by fees from industry in each of those years.

  Mr. Soames
  The veterinary medicines directorate (VMD) was established on 3 April 1989, and as a next steps agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 2 April 1990. The total annual costs of the VMD, and the percentage raised by licence fees, have been as follows:
  243

  £'000

  Per cent. raised by licence fees

  1989–90

  2,300

  65

  1990–91

  3,100

  68

  1991–92

  3,700

  65

  1992–931

  3,800

  63

  1 Forecast.

  Medicinal Products
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers and veterinary surgeons continue to have access to the full range of medicinal products which are available in the United Kingdom and in other member countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Soames
  Community law currently requires that no medicinal product may be marketed in a member state, unless there is a market authorisation issued in that member state. In the United Kingdom that means a United Kingdom product licence. Subject to that requirement, the licensing authority will continue to take advantage of any developments in the EC arrangements for the control of veterinary medicines, intended to make it easier for applicants to obtain licences to market products not previously available in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those veterinary medicinal products of which he is aware for which a licence has been given by the French authorities, but for which a licence has been either declined, or not sought in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  I understand that the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) has identified approximately 70 veterinary medicinal products available in other member states but not licensed in the United Kingdom. For reasons of commercial sensitivity, however, NOAH has felt unable to identify the individual products concerned so that the circumstances can be explored. I regret therefore that such a list cannot be compiled, although I remain willing to look into any specific examples of products licensed in one member state but not in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made since 1981 in implementing the European requirement for all veterinary medicinal products to be licensed.

  Mr. Soames
  It has been a requirement of United Kingdom law since 1972 that all veterinary medicinal products must be licensed before they can be marketed.

  VMD
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Office of Animal Health about alternative ways of meeting the costs of the veterinary medicines directorate.

  Mr. Soames
  I regularly receive representations from the National Office of Animal Health about alternative 244
  ways of meeting the licensing costs of the veterinary medicines directorate. The latest have been in response to a consultation letter on options for 1993–94 fee levels issued in December 1992. As with previous representations these are being given full and careful consideration. I hope to announce my decision shortly.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the veterinary medicines directorate in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The chief executive of the veterinary medicines directorate (VMD) has submitted his proposals to me and I have agreed that the VMD should be set the following performance targets for 1993–94:—full cost recovery for the three business activities of licensing, policy work and residues monitoring;
  —70 per cent. of new licence applications to be issued within 120 clock days; 95 per cent. within 200 days;
  —an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  These are challenging targets, given the increased volumes being forecast for the VMD's business. They will build on the improvements already made in the efficiency and quality of service provided by the directorate since its establishment as a next steps agency, and for which I commend the chief executive and his staff. In addition, I have agreed the VMD's corporate plan for 1993–94–1995–96, and copies are being placed in the Library of the House and the Public Information Office.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Recruits to the senior grades as to any grade in the civil service are selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including:

  (a) extending links with institutions of higher education;

  (b) equal opportunities training for those involved in selection;

  and

  (c) using validated selection procedures.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department last conducted surveys of(a)ethnic origins and (b)the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department completed its survey of the ethnic origin of staff in 1987 and keeps this up to date with information on new staff and leavers. Some 96 per cent. of staff have volunteered information on their ethnic origin. The Department's personnel records include details of the number of men and women and there is, therefore, no need to undertake particular surveys on the number of women employed. The Department is fully committed to the programmes for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for people of ethnic minority origin and women.
  245
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a)women, (b)from ethnic minorities and (c)disabled people.

  Grade equivalent

  Women

  From Ethnic Minorities

  Registered Disabled People

  Number

  Per cent, of total staff

  Number of respondents to question-naire

  Per cent, to-tal of all res-pondents to questionnaire

  Number

  Per cent, of total staff

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  14·3

  —

  —

  1

  14·3

  3

  1

  4·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  9

  7·8

  1

  0·9

  1

  0·9

  6

  13

  7·9

  1

  0·6

  1

  0·6

  7

  134

  14·5

  13

  1·5

  2

  0·2

  All staff

  4,519

  46·1

  416

  4·4

  138·5

  1·4

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of badger setts, by county, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials in each month from October 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Tuesday 30 March 1993.

  Milk Development Council
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to create a milk development council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government will consider any proposals from the milk industry for the establishment of a development council. Ministers would decide whether to make an order establishing such a development council in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. This requires them, among other things, to be satisfied that this is desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry.

  The Agriculture Bill would enable an agricultural development council to collect a levy through intermediaries. This provision is designed to facilitate the efficient operation of such a council. The industry may, therefore, wish to consider making proposals after the enactment of the Bill.

  Dairy Crest
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the status of Dairy Crest to a private limited company; if he will allow it to have access to outside equity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Dairy Crest Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the England and Wales milk marketing board. The Agriculture Bill would enable the board to apply to Ministers for approval of formal proposals for the future ownership of its assets. The board currently intends that Dairy Crest should be established as an independent company listed on the stock exchange. This would enable it to raise equity capital.
  246
  Mr. Curry
  The information for MAFF and its executive agencies is as follows:

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will have access to the information stored in the computer database which is to be set up under the integrated administration and control system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Access to the information held on the IACS computer database will be restricted to officials who need to have access. All officials with access to the information will be bound by the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. If external contractors were to be used, they would be bound by the normal rules of confidentiality.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will accept integrated administration and control system forms submitted by farmers where they have calculated their land size in acres rather than hectares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The explanatory booklet explains clearly that farmers are required to submit details of areas in hectares and not in acres. If a farmer nevertheless gives the figures in acres, we shall be able to accept the application only if we are satisfied that it meets the rules relating to genuine errors referred to in the explanatory booklet.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds he will make available to help farmers who incur costs when having to complete the integrated administration and control system forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No funds are available for this purpose. The costs incurred in completing the IACS forms and supplying supporting information will, for most farmers, represent a small proportion of the payments for which they are applying. They are a normal expense of the farm business.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances farmers will be allowed extensions to the deadline for completing their integrated administration and control system forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC regulations do not include provision for any extensions to the deadline of 15 May for the receipt of IACS applications. The rules provide that,
  247
  except in cases of force majeure, farmers whose applications are received after the deadline will lose 1 per cent. of the aid to which they would otherwise be entitled for each working day that the application is late. However, if the application is received 20 or more calendar days after the closing date, no aid will be payable under the affected schemes.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Dr Twinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the central science laboratory in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The efficiency of the agency will continue to be judged primarily through cost recovery. Additional performance measures relating to the objectives of the agency will also be used to measure operating efficiency and quality of service.

  The financial targets for the central science laboratory for 1993–94 will be:

  100 per cent. cost recovery of full costs;

  an overall efficiency gain of 2·5 per cent;

  a reduction of 5 per cent. in real term of representation unit costs for services;

  The targets for delivery of services by the central science laboratory will be:

  at least 90 per cent. of work completed to time and within budget;

  at least 95 per cent. of contracts delivered to the customer's satisfaction;

  The central science laboratory will continue to implement during 1993–94 arrangements for the independent assessment of the quality of the scientific work and publications. The measures of performance for the agency are set out in the central science laboratory framework document.

  Central Veterinary Laboratory
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets he has set for the central veterinary laboratory in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The chief executive of the central veterinary laboratory has submitted his proposals to me and I have agreed that the laboratory should be set the following strategic performance target for 1993–94:

  Financial Performance—full cost recovery for all CVL services

  Efficiency—an overall efficiency gain of 2·5 per cent.

  Service Delivery—80 per cent. of ROAME R & D milestones achieved

  Service Quality—achievement of a satisfactory report from a Visiting Group

  —achievement of laboratory accredi-tations of the Quality Control Unit

  These are demanding targets which challenge the laboratory to build on its achievements to date. I commend the chief executive and his staff for the improvements they have already made and wish them well in their endeavours in 1993–94.

  Pesticides Safety Division
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards establishing the pesticides safety division as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.
  248
  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to confirm that pesticides safety division is to be established as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1993, when it will become the pesticides safety directorate.

  I have set the directorate the following targets for 1993–94, relating to financial performance, efficiency and the delivery of pesticide approval services.

  The financial and efficiency targets will be:

  100 per cent. recovery of full costs; and

  an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  The targets for delivery of pesticide approval services will be:

  Type of approval

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time (working days)

  Technical secretariat stream

  Normal

  400

  450

  Administrative fast

  250

  20

  Fast

  370

  125

  Experimental permits

  70

  200

  Off label (emergency)

  150

  60

  Rapid

  75

  125

  Upgrade

  100

  —

  Committee stream

  Sift

  21

  120

  Active ingredient

  15

  250–290

  For 1993–94, the targets for maximum processing time will apply to 75 per cent. of the applications received in the year. This percentage is planned to increase progressively in future years.

  In addition, the scientific quality of the directorate's work on the evaluation of pesticides will be monitored by the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  A copy of the directorate's framework document is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Food Science Laboratories
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in his review of the status of the laboratories dealing with food science.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have concluded that it would be right for the food science laboratory, Norwich and the Torry research station, Aberdeen to achieve agency status. The best and most efficient mechanism is to merge both laboratories with the existing central science laboratory agency with effect from 1 April 1994. I intend to proceed accordingly. There are no plans to move the laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen from their present locations. Both will continue to support the food safety work of the Department.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is able to report on the outcome of the independent review of slaughterhouses, and of the recent consultations on the Government's proposals to limit meat inspection charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to announce three measures to ensure that veterinary supervision of slaughterhouses is
  249
  provided in a manner which will enable small slaughterhouses to meet proper hygiene requirements without placing unnecessary burdens on them.

  I am determined that cost-effective, consistent and proportionate arrangements for veterinary supervision should be put in place so that public health is protected and the whole industry given the best chance to provide an efficient and competitive service.

  There has been considerable concern about the cost of veterinary supervision which has been widely quoted at sums of £40 or more per hour. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) in my Department has been consulting closely with the British Veterinary Association about the fees being charged by veterinary surgeons. The House will be interested in the results of a survey of veterinary costs recently carried out by the Association. This survey attracted responses covering over 400 official veterinary surgeons working in more than 600 plants in over 200 local authority districts. The average hourly rate being charged was £25·70. This yardstick will ensure that industry and local authorities can more easily check that they are obtaining a cost-effective service.

  Up to now, the arrangements for supervising hygiene in slaughterhouses have been carried out by local authorities. It is obviously important that they should provide this service at a reasonable cost. In small slaughterhouses in particular it is an appreciable component of the overheads. We issued proposals on these costs for consultation on 14 January. Although in most cases inspection services are being provided within reasonable limits, the Government are concerned to protect the interests of slaughterhouses where charges have been unnecessarily high. As a result we are introducing a strict upper limit of £40 for up to four livestock units and £6.30 per livestock unit thereafter. Where the cost of existing or prospective arrangements would exceed the limit, local authorities will have the option of renegotiating contracts with veterinary practitioners. They will no doubt find the British Veterinary Association survey useful in this.

  The third measure I am announcing today will enable small slaughterhouses to make use of local large-animal practitioners to provide the veterinary supervision service. Already, the Government have issued guidance to enable large-animal practitioners to carry out ante-mortem inspection work. We will shortly issue additional guidance to help them carry out the full veterinary supervision of low throughput slaughterhouses. Most small abattoirs have at least one such veterinary practice within five miles. Slaughterhouses will be able to seek a service from practitioners who are willing to provide it, and this alternative ought to ensure cost-effective and competitive provision. Above all, a great deal of expensive waiting and travelling time will be avoided. In the rare event that a local authority is not prepared to sanction such an arrangement, there can be a direct appeal to the Minister.

  The Government will shortly consult on proposals on monitoring hygiene standards in meat plants, The proposed monitoring system is intended to assist local authorities in ensuring that the level of veterinary supervision is proportionate to the risk arising at the individual premises, so that plants operating to high standards can benefit from lower levels of supervision.

  I have also received the report I commissioned from two independent experts, Dr. Johnston and Mr. Spurr, on hygiene and structural standards in slaughterhouses. This has been placed in the Library and I commend it to the
  250
  House. The authors concluded that overall the improvements being required by the state veterinary service do not go beyond what is necessary to rectify structure-related hygiene problems. I shall continue to ensure that we do not ask anything more of the industry than is essential to achieve this end. I shall also seek to carry forward the other recommendations of the Johnston/Spurr report.

  Ministers are taking the closest possible personal interest in the way these regulations are enforced. We are very conscious of the importance of slaughterhouses to the local economy of the countryside. As I have made clear on many occasions, there is no question of any slaughter-house being refused a licence under the new regulations without a personal decision by myself or my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.

  We recognise that the process of implementing these regulations has been a difficult one for the industry and enforcement authorities. In applying them, we will continue to seek practical solutions to problems and to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on businesses. In this context as in all areas of food law, the Government are committed to ensuring that the requirements imposed by the legislation are proportionate to the risk involved. We propose where necessary to continue discussions between slaughterhouse operators, local authorities, veterinary surgeons and meat inspectors with a view to achieving high standards and harmonious working relationships during the transition to the proposed national meat hygiene service.

  Farmers (Suicides)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from Wales on the levels of suicides among farmers and their families.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply. None.

EMPLOYMENT

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in her Department are(a)women, (b)from ethnic minorities and (c)disabled people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers and percentages of women and ethnic minority officers in grades 1 to 7 and overall in the Department at 1 April 1992 are set out in the tables. Information on disabled people cannot be provided in the form requested, but overall numbers were 2,066 registered disabled people, or 3·4 per cent., at 1 July 1992.

  Table 1

  Women in the Employment Department Group (Grades 1 to 7) at 1 April 1992

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  1

  20·0

  Grade 3

  2

  7·1

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  22

  15·6

  Grade 6

  31

  13·4

  Grade 7

  165

  15·6

  251
  The Department employed 41,555 women who comprised 66·5 per cent. of the total staff.

  Table 2

  Ethnic minority staff in the Employment Department Group (Grades 1 to 7) at 1 April 1992

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  9

  0·9

  The Department employed 3,607 staff from the ethnic minorities who comprised 6·4 per cent. of respondents to the ethnic origin survey.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at her Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the Civil Service Commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including:extending links with institutions of higher education;
  equal opportunities training for those involved in selection;
  using validated selection procedures.

  Additionally, the Department:
  has developed and run pre-recruitment training for ethnic minority candidates to its Management Trainee Scheme; was one of the first employers to join the Opportunity 2000 campaign;
  has signed up to the 15 per cent. benchmark figure for the proportion of women holding posts in the Senior Open Structure by 2000.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when her Department last conducted surveys of(a)ethnic origins and (b)the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The survey of the ethnic origin of staff which took place in 1986 is continually updated to take account of those entering and leaving the Department. No survey for women is needed as the gender of employees is identified in staff records.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average number of unemployed in each travel-to-work area in Gloucestershire in each year since 1979; and what percentage of the work force this represented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is available from 1983 and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Travel-to-work-areas do not correspond exactly to county boundaries. Gloucestershire is made up of the
  252
  TTWAs of Gloucester, Stroud, Cirencester plus parts of Cheltenham, Evesham, Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye, Malvern and Ledbury and Swindon.

  Miners' Redundancy Payments
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she plans to start the £75 million package of additional assistance for redundant miners announced in October 1992.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Contingency plans drawn up by TECs for additional assistance for redundant mineworkers and others will be implemented if we reach a position where two thirds of the work force employed at the pit in October 1992 have left.

  This arrangement will apply to collieries on which British Coal is already consulting about closure and to collieries announced as being put on a care and maintenance basis. This will also apply to two collieries which are remaining open, but making substantial redundancies for which contingency plans were originally drawn up and to the colliery which will be put under development.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what public expenditure cover will be made available in 1993–94 for European regional development fund projects relating to her responsibilities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This Department will be providing public expenditure cover in 1993–94 for applications for European regional development fund support in respect of the Department's responsibilities. The amount of cover necessary is estimated to be £4 million in 1993–94.

  Restart
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many unemployed people were referred to Restart courses by Employment Service counsellors(a)between April 1991 and March 1992 and (b)from April 1992 to the latest available date, showing for each period how many of them were unemployed for over two years, how many attended and completed the course, what were the outcomes of the participants and how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the Restart course; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his answer, 12 March 1993, Official Report, col 747–48]:The chief executive has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, 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 Restart Courses. These are matters which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, our reply of 12 March did not include the figures about Restart courses. This reply now contains the tables; please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.
  As you will know from our previous correspondence, Restart Courses are short courses aimed at helping people

  253
  who are having the most difficulty returning to work. They are not an alternative to regular job search or other employment or training programmes. Essentially they provide people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them confidence to take the next step back to work.
  Since 1990, people who have been unemployed for 2 years or more who refuse or fail to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme at their Restart interview, are asked to attend a Restart Course.
  As your question has raised a number of specific points, I am setting out the information you have asked for in the four tables attached. Tables 1 and 2 deal with all Restart Course attenders, and tables 3 and 4 refer to those covered by the requirement to attend. As explained in previous replies, we

  Table 1

  All restart course attenders April 1991 to March 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. People referred to Restart courses

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  2. Starters

  12,807

  14,631

  9,591

  21,358

  6,608

  6,929

  15,489

  26,239

  20,188

  133,840

  3. Total completers

  12,084

  13,492

  8,439

  19,046

  5,744

  6,166

  13,226

  24,017

  18,208

  120,422

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  2,519

  3,357

  2,529

  3,838

  1,080

  1,612

  3,273

  5,133

  9,633

  32,974

  Employment training

  1,079

  1,433

  1,081

  3,747

  927

  1,124

  3,237

  3,423

  1,921

  17,972

  Jobclub

  971

  937

  995

  3,602

  772

  1,007

  1,517

  2,752

  1,126

  13,679

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  7,545

  7,745

  5,157

  10,755

  3,043

  3,107

  6,057

  12,065

  7,509

  62,983

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up1

  10,636

  11,028

  7,537

  16,943

  4,782

  5,175

  11,805

  20,648

  16,177

  104,731

  N/a—Not available.

  1 Some people will be referred to more than one option.

  Table 2

  All restart course attenders April 1992 to December 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. People referred to Restart courses

  N/a

  N/a.

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  2. Starters

  6,430

  8,631

  7,085

  20,903

  5,150

  4,556

  10,850

  15,175

  8,537

  87,317

  3. Total completers

  6,031

  7,871

  6,346

  18,605

  4,551

  4,050

  9,487

  13,639

  7,518

  78,098

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  1,944

  2,127

  1,901

  3,680

  861

  818

  2,482

  2,791

  4,643

  21,247

  Employment training

  659

  1,095

  930

  3,449

  654

  833

  2,333

  2,156

  795

  12,904

  Jobclub

  560

  741

  803

  2,823

  508

  623

  891

  1,455

  464

  8,868

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  3,535

  5,705

  4,923

  13,878

  2,981

  2,720

  4,695

  8,141

  3,925

  50,503

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up1

  5,493

  7,118

  5,812

  16,829

  3,699

  3,645

  8,538

  12,212

  6,860

  70,206

  N/a—Not available.

  1 Some people will be referred to more than one option.

  254
  collect at a Regional level the number of people who are referred to the course who are also unemployed for 2 years or more. We have not, however, felt it necessary to keep similar figures for all those referred. The Benefits Agency (BA) make the decision on whether an individual's benefit should be reduced for failure to attend or complete the course. Their figures are compiled by BA Districts which have different boundaries to our own Regions. To avoid confusion, I have given the national figure only.

  I hope that 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.
  255

  Table 3

  Restart course attenders unemployed for two years or more April 1991 to March 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. People referred to Restart courses

  17,768

  21,950

  10,218

  24,367

  6,487

  7,589

  17,240

  41,141

  34,078

  180,838

  2. Starters

  11,526

  12,989

  6,587

  13,540

  4,011

  4,760

  10,011

  23,243

  18,395

  105,062

  3. Total completers

  10,915

  12,030

  5,765

  12,100

  3,508

  4,287

  8,616

  21,354

  16,688

  95,263

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  2,248

  2,837

  1,762

  2,324

  553

  1,088

  2,079

  4,443

  8,919

  26,253

  Employment training

  910

  1,236

  622

  2,139

  416

  624

  1,794

  2,940

  1,659

  12,340

  Jobclub

  859

  799

  545

  1,997

  249

  607

  772

  2,402

  949

  9,179

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  6,811

  7,011

  3,524

  6,675

  1,483

  2,140

  3,911

  9,821

  6,754

  48,130

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up1

  9,561

  9,725

  5,035

  10,578

  2,787

  3,449

  7,584

  18,317

  14,815

  81,851

  5. People for whom a reduction in Income Support was made by Benefits Agency

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3,804

  1 Some people will be referred to more than one option.

  2 Not available by Employment Service region.

  Table 4

  Restart course attenders unemployed for two years or more April 1992 to December 1992

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. People referred to Restart courses

  9,285

  12,463

  8,606

  26,748

  5,603

  6,084

  10,848

  24,326

  15,649

  119,612

  2. Starters

  5,804

  7,213

  4,708

  14,567

  3,396

  3,164

  6,774

  12,770

  7,297

  65,693

  3. Total completers

  5,427

  6,560

  4,253

  13,098

  2,994

  2,781

  5,962

  11,481

  6,481

  59,037

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  1,723

  1,781

  1,305

  2,583

  585

  454

  1,472

  2,290

  4,082

  16,275

  Employment training

  579

  894

  606

  2,328

  334

  499

  1,316

  1,736

  624

  8,916

  Jobclub

  511

  548

  452

  1,702

  265

  345

  438

  1,211

  323

  5,795

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  3,188

  4,867

  3,181

  9,622

  1,815

  1,974

  2,854

  6,813

  3,329

  37,643

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up1

  4,947

  5,919

  3,880

  11,846

  2,318

  2,416

  5,249

  10,279

  5,929

  52,783

  5. People for whom a reduction in Income Support was made by the Benefits Agency

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3,098

  1 Some people will be referred to more than one option.

  2 Not available by Employment Service region.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the successful prosecutions undertaken at the Crown court for breaches of the Health

  Successful prosecution action taken by Health and Safely Executive (HSE) inspectorates in the Crown court 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  Company

  Crown court

  Date of hearing

  Sentence £

  Ashby Demolition1

  Knightsbridge

  2 January 1992

  7,500

  St. Regis Paper Co.

  Newport

  2 January 1992

  2,000

  Lye Spencer Steel Services

  Newport

  31 January 1992

  20,000

  Senior Bigwood Ltd.

  Newport

  31 January 1992

  10,000

  256
  and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 during 1992 and in 1993 to the most recent practicable date together with the sentences imposed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 February 1993]: I regret that in my original reply the table of prosecutions was incomplete. The revised table is as follows:
  257

  Company

  Crown court

  Date of hearing

  Sentence £

  Pro Footwear

  Burnley

  5 February 1992

  2700

  Sansoms (Newport) Ltd.1

  Newport

  6 February 1992

  2,500

  Michael Poulter

  Portsmouth

  24 February 1992

  3C/d

  D. Short Ltd.

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  26 February 1992

  9,000

  Leeds City Council

  Leeds

  28 February 1992

  15,000

  British Gas

  Liverpool

  3 March 1992

  100,000

  Caird Environment Ltd.1

  Birmingham

  23 March 1992

  50,000

  Fletchers Bakeries Ltd.1

  Sheffield

  25 March 1992

  10,000

  1 Case given in origin reply.

  2 Case heard in Magistrate's court, company appealed against sentence to the Crown court.

  3 Conditional discharge.

  In my original reply I also undertook to make available information covering the period 1 April 1992 to 31 January 1993 once it had been checked for accuracy. This

  Successful prosecution action taken by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectorates in the Crown court 1 April 1992 to 31 January 1993

  Company

  Crown court

  Date of hearing

  Sentence £

  Paul Anthony Rooney

  Wolverhampton

  3 April 1992

  4,000

  Lyons Bakery

  Sheffield

  27 April 1992

  10,000

  Midlands Petfood Canners Ltd.

  Northampton

  27 April 1992

  10,000

  Balmoral Group

  Sheffield

  27 April 1992

  10,000

  Tarmac Construction

  Maidstone

  27 April 1992

  18,000

  Taylor Woodrow

  Maidstone

  27 April 1992

  18,000

  Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd.

  Maidstone

  27 April 1992

  18,000

  Balfour Beattie

  Maidstone

  27 April 1992

  18,000

  Costain

  Maidstone

  27 April 1992

  18,000

  Shell UK Oils Ltd.

  Chelmsford

  14 May 1992

  100,000

  A. S. Dunn

  Doncaster

  19 May 1992

  1750

  Adrian William Bull

  Bristol

  16 June 1992

  300

  Lionel Whitnell t/a Whitnell Plan

  St. Albans

  6 July 1992

  30,000

  Eugena Ltd.

  Knightsbridge

  13 July 1992

  21,000

  MWH Leisure Ltd.

  Lewes

  24 July 1992

  40,000

  Barris Fire Protection Ltd.

  Kensington

  12 August 1992

  8,000

  Chapmans Chalk Supplies Ltd.

  Lewes

  18 August 1992

  310,000

  Mr. G. F. Thompson

  Winchester

  18 August 1992

  5,000

  D. J. and S. J. Hutchinson

  Teeside

  21 August 1992

  500

  Mr. Stanley Davis

  Knightsbridge

  28 August 1992

  200

  Courtaulds Ltd.

  Bolton

  11 September 1992

  5,000

  Mr. G. I. Gardner

  Haverford West

  28 September 1992

  150 hours community service

  Michael Kendray

  Carlisle

  28 September 1992

  7,000

  Bank of England

  Chelmsford

  9 October 1992

  5,000

  Courtaulds Fibres Ltd.

  Grimsby

  23 October 1992

  100,000

  Deborah Grayson Scaffolding

  Wolverhampton

  26 October 1992

  12,000

  Hertz Equipment Rental (UK)

  Wolverhampton

  26 October 1992

  12,000

  A. M. Marks and Co. Ltd.

  Leeds

  6 November 1992

  7,600

  P. Colohan and Co. Ltd.

  Kingston

  6 November 1992

  2,500

  F. J. Sloan and Co. Ltd.

  Kingston

  6 November 1992

  1,100

  Profelt

  Northampton

  13 November 1992

  3,000

  Gerry Jones Transport

  Hereford

  20 November 1992

  21,000

  McEdward Franklin

  Inner London

  11 December 1992

  2,500

  Lodge Sturtevant Ltd.

  Chelmsford

  5 January 1993

  21,000

  Michael Stephen Grove

  Bradford

  13 January 1993

  2,000

  Mowlem Civil Engineering Ltd.

  Manchester

  19 January 1993

  10,000

  Sedgely Construction Co. Ltd.

  Manchester

  19 January 1993

  2,000

  W. Reidy and Son. Ltd.

  Manchester

  25 January 1993

  40,000

  Allied Colloids plc

  Bradford

  29 January 1993

  100,000

  T. and S. Rix Ltd.

  Hull

  29 January 1993

  4,000

  1 £750, plus a six month prison sentence suspended for two years.

  2 Cases heard in the Magistrate's court but where the company appealed against sentence to the Crown court.

  3 Mr. Chapman was also disqualified for two years under the Companies Act from working as a director. He has appealed against the sentence.

  258
  information is set out in the following table. The data should still be regarded as provisional as they include cases referred to the Crown court on appeal.

WALES

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

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimated cost to date of screening these patients is of the order of £27,000.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh Development Agency factory floorspace is currently not in productive use.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At the end of February 1993, 15·7 per cent. of the agency's property portfolio was vacant and available for letting.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the percentage of unused lettable floorspace in Welsh Development Agency factories for every year since 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is published in the Welsh Office departmental reports Cmnd 1916 and 2215, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the changes in real terms of the Welsh Development Agency financial allocations for the next year; and what projects will be undertaken to provide work due to the closures of coal mines.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 11 March 1993,Official Report,column 653.

  Last week I announced that a further £660,000 would be made available in addition to the £43 million which I announced last October to support an integrated programme of regeneration in the areas affected by the coal review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of the land reclamation schemes undertaken by the Welsh Development Agency during 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Details of land reclamation schemes to be undertaken in 1991–92 were published by the Welsh Development Agency in the document "Landscape Wales". The agency's report and accounts for 1991–92 described the progress made.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table of capital expenditure allocated for the Welsh Development Agency for each year since 1985.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is set out in he following table:

  Capital expenditure cash (£ million)

  1985–86

  49·9

  1986–87

  45·5

  1987–88

  63·1

  260

  Capital expenditure cash (£ million)

  1988–89

  74·1

  1989–90

  94·6

  1990–91

  115·0

  1991–92

  120·5

  11992–93

  126·3

  21993–94

  124·3

  1 Forecast Outturn

  2 Plans

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the change in real terms of financial allocation for the Welsh Development Agency for each financial year since 1986–87.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is set out in the following table:

  Gross Allocation cash (£ million)

  Gross Allocation 1993–94 prices1 (£ million)

  1986–87

  72·0

  107·4

  1987–88

  98·6

  139·4

  1988–89

  115·1

  151·7

  1989–90

  133·4

  165·0

  1990–91

  149·2

  170·9

  1991–92

  158·3

  169·6

  21992–93

  166·8

  171·3

  31993–94

  171·4

  171·4

  1 1993–94 prices derived using latest GDP deflator

  2 Forecast Outturn

  3 Plans

  Child Care
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to provide extra funds for the new unitary authorities taking on extra professionals to deal with child care when responsibility is transferred from the police and health;

  (2) what plans he has to lessen the management costs of independent providers of child care who will cover several of the new unitary authority areas;

  (3) whether the new unitary authorities will buy in the full range of child protection services;

  (4) how the liaison work between police, health and the new unitary authorities in Gwent will operate in relation to area child protection committees.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The full legislative requirements concerning child protection currently met by the social services departments of county councils will become the responsibility of the new unitary authorities. How they will carry out these functions, including the extent to which they secure services from other providers, will be for the new authorities to determine in the light of their own needs and resources.

  It will be for the new unitary authorities to decide on what liaison arrangements they should have with other agencies including the police, health authorities and the voluntary sector.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disabled people in Wales are currently living in(a)the community, (b)mental illness hospitals and units and (c)mental handicap hospitals and units.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information held centrally does not cover all categories of disability. The latest available data held centrally, on the means of accommodation of people on local authority registers of mentally handicapped individuals, are shown in the table:

  Number of persons on register at 31 March 1991

  Place of residence

  Number

  In the community

  7,349

  In health service accommodation (including hospitals and hostels)

  1,397

  In other accommodation (including local authority, private and voluntary residential accommodation)

  1,640

  Total

  10,386

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have been born in(a)Clwyd and (b)Wales, with Down's syndrome in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of notifications of children born with Down's syndrome to residents of Clwyd and Wales in each year since 1983 are shown in the table:

  Clwyd

  Wales

  1983

  4

  20

  1984

  8

  30

  1985

  10

  26

  1986

  7

  27

  1987

  7

  23

  1988

  4

  30

  1989

  6

  22

  1990

  5

  25

  1991

  5

  22

  Source:Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of Down's syndrome sufferers in permanent state care in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what screening measures are available to detect Down's syndrome in the early stages of foetal development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The screening measures available to pregnant women are determined by the local health authority. Authorities are guided by the targets of the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Maternal and Early Child Health", which was issued in August 1991 by the Welsh Health Planning Forum, in particular that by 1995 all pregnant women at high risk should be identified and offered an opportunity for pre-natal testing.

  A national Down's syndrome screening group is currently looking at ways of setting guidelines for a screening programme.
  262
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what funds the Welsh Office has made available in each year since 1983 to help with the care of Down's syndrome sufferers in Wales;

  (2) what provision is made for Down's syndrome sufferers and their families in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the mental handicap strategy earmarked special funds have been allocated, annually to counties to support the development of a comprehensive range of new services.

  While Down's syndrome has been indentified as the cause of mental handicap in approximately 26·5 per cent. of those affected, funds are not indentified specifically for individuals with this condition.

  The following table gives details of strategy allocations to date.

  Welsh Office funds, for mental handicap strategy

  £ million

  1983–84

  1·6

  1984–85

  3·6

  1985–86

  5·0

  1986–87

  7·0

  1987–88

  9·6

  1988–89

  13·4

  1989–90

  18·5

  1990–91

  26·1

  1991–92

  34·2

  1992–93

  41·5

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department last conducted surveys of(a) ethnic origins and (b) the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There has never been a need to undertake a survey of female staff in my Department as the sex of employees is evident from staff records.

  A survey of the ethnic origin of staff in my Department was carried out in May 1988. There is no need for another survey since the ethnic origin of all the entrants and leavers has been monitored since that time.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from one to seven and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The details, based on staff in post figures at 1 July 1992, are given in the following tables.

  Women

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  10

  4

  1

  14

  5

  11

  18

  6

  17

  19

  7

  39

  22

  Departmental Total

  1,222

  49

  263

  Numbers of ethnic minorities

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Grades 1–6

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  2

  1·1

  Departmental Total

  30

  1·2

  Registered disabled people

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Grades 1–5

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  2

  2

  Grade 7

  1

  0·6

  Departmental Total

  38

  1·6

  My Department also employs several unregistered disabled people.

  Note:

  1 Part-time staff count as one unit

  2 Includes equivalent and professional grades

  3 Includes Agency and industrial staff

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Most recruitment into senior grades in my Department is undertaken by the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency acting on behalf of the civil service commissioners. Recruits to senior grades are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the civil service Order in Council 1991 applies. The commissioners have taken various steps to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including extending links with higher education establishments to attract a wider range of applicants and using validated selection procedures. They also encourage equal opportunities training for those involved in selection.

  Heads of the Valleys (Unitary Authority)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 16 March to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr.

  General Dental Practitioners1

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  87

  97

  99

  108

  111

  105

  102

  Dyfed

  83

  89

  91

  96

  98

  101

  105

  Gwent

  107

  114

  116

  123

  125

  139

  135

  Gwynedd

  65

  66

  63

  66

  69

  65

  66

  Mid Glamorgan

  121

  130

  131

  135

  134

  123

  133

  Powys

  32

  34

  35

  34

  34

  36

  35

  South Glamorgan

  125

  127

  130

  132

  131

  129

  127

  West Glamorgan

  120

  123

  133

  133

  135

  134

  128

  1 At 30 September.

  General Dental Practitioners per 1,000 population1

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Clwyd

  0·22

  0·24

  0·24

  0·26

  0·27

  0·25

  Dyfed

  0·24

  0·26

  0·26

  0·27

  0·28

  0·29

  Gwent

  0·24

  0·26

  0·26

  0·28

  0·28

  0·31

  Gwynedd

  0·28

  0·28

  0·26

  0·27

  0·29

  0·27

  Mid Glamorgan

  0·23

  0·24

  0·24

  0·25

  0·25

  0·23

  Powys

  0·28

  0·30

  0·30

  0·29

  0·29

  0·30

  264
  Rowlands), Official Report,columns 186–87,how many and what proportion of the responses to which he refers were in favour of a unitary authority for the Heads of the Valleys; and if he will make copies of all responses received available in public libraries in Cardiff, Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil, Rymney, Darran Valley and New Tredegar.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following my statement on 3 March 1992 I received 252 written representations about possible unitary authority boundaries in the valleys. Of these, one referred to the possibility of a heads of the valley authority. This proposal emerged primarily from my consideration of the other conflicting views I had received and my discussion of these with interested parties. Copies of the responses received to the earlier consultations are available for inspection in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and, upon request, at the Welsh Office in Cardiff.

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional funding has been made available to local authorities in Wales in real terms each year since the coming into force of the Disabled Person Act 1986 to enable them to carry out its provisions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The annual local authority revenue and capital settlements cover all local authority expenditure. It is for individual authorities to decide how to apportion those resources between and within services in accordance with their statutory obligations, including those arising under this Act, and their own priorities.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a)the number of general dental practitioners and (b)the number of general dental practitioners per 1,000 of the population in each Welsh health authority area since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following tables:
  265

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  South Glamorgan

  0·32

  0·32

  0·32

  0·33

  0·32

  0·32

  West Glamorgan

  0·33

  0·34

  0·37

  0·37

  0·37

  0·36

  1 General Dental Practitioners at 30 September and mid year estimates of population.

  Estimates of population are provisional for 1991 and not yet available for 1992.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many courses of dental treatment under the national health service were undertaken in each Welsh health authority area per 1,000 of the population in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Employment Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people have taken part in the voluntary projects programme in Wales each year since 1986–87.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The voluntary projects programme (VPP) ceased in 1988 when it was subsumed by employment training.

  Details of the number of participants are available only for 1987–88 when 11,000 participated in the scheme on 24 projects.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of school children in each local authority area in Wales does not receive Welsh language lessons.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The percentages of pupils who are not taught Welsh in maintained primary and secondary schools are given in the following tables.

  Table 1. Primary schools1

  Percentage1

  Clwyd

  3·5

  Dyfed

  12·0

  Gwent

  85·1

  Gwynedd

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·8

  Powys

  3·3

  South Glamorgan

  26·4

  West Glamorgan

  2·2

  Table 2.Secondary schools1 2

  Percentage1

  Clwyd

  28·5

  Dyfed

  19·4

  Gwent

  82·8

  Gwynedd

  1·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  30·4

  Powys

  30·6

  South Glamorgan

  39·2

  West Glamorgan

  30·0

  1 At September 1991.

  2 Includes Grant maintained schools.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to develop a national policy for the provision of refuges and support services to women and children who are the victims of domestic violence.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the number of women's refuges in Wales is sufficient for the demand; and if he will consider further funding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are already supporting such provision and services. In 1992–93 the Welsh Office provided over £235,000 to Welsh Women's Aid and over £438,000 for projects in individual refuges and advice centres.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many refuges for women fleeing from domestic violence are available in Wales; and what is their total capacity.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary schools offer a language, other than English and Wales to their pupils and to what extent the numbers have varied over the last 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the number of primary schools offering a language other than English and Welsh to their pupils is not collected centrally.

  Sealand Estate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will include the Sealand estate, Deeside, in the estate partnership initiative.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall give careful consideration to all applications I receive by 1 June for support under this programme during the coming financial year. Estate Partnership is designed to address problems in the local authority stock.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Sealand estate, Deeside.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  University Colleges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has made to the proposals set out in the report, "The case for University Colleges," prepared by the Standing Conference of Principals, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have received a copy of the report from the Standing Conference of Principals. I will be considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education how to respond to the report.

  Stoneleigh Food Fair
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what support has been provided by his Department to Welsh food producers to exhibit their produce at the Stoneleigh food fair on 31 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Welsh Food Promotions Ltd., a company established on my initiative and partly funded by the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Wales tourist board, will be at Stoneleigh in support of individual Welsh food producers.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue advice to schools on best practice in relation to class size in primary and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for determination by school governors and head teachers in the light of local circumstances.

  Welsh Centre for International Affairs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last paid a visit to the Welsh centre for international affairs in Cardiff; and what future plans he has to make a visit.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Although I have met the director of the Welsh Centre for International Affairs twice, I have not visited the centre and have no present plans to do so.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the appointed bodies within Wales performing delegated Government functions.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Executive, advisory and NHS bodies and tribunals in Wales all have roles in the process of government and therefore to a greater or lesser extent have some functions of government delegated to them. These bodies are set out in "Public Bodies 1992" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 March 1993 at column 549–50 listing the current and complete list of public bodies to which I make appointments.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes to visit Brussels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Friday.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by Department the numbers of civil servants employed in Swansea.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of civil servants currently employed by my Department in Swansea is 10. Information on the number of staff in other Government Departments and agencies in particular locations in Wales is not held by my Department, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  268
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by Department and location the numbers of civil service jobs which have been relocated to or created in South Wales since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Key Stage 3 Tests
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the difficulties of informing parents of the assessment of their children at key stage 3 of the national curriculum before the end of the summer term.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Formal representations about this year's key stage 3 reporting arrangements have not been received. My officials have, however, established a small working group comprising representatives of the Welsh Joint Education Committee, local education authorities and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to develop the most efficient method of providing schools in Wales with the national curriculum assessment results to be used for reporting purposes.

  Hill Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to bring forward measures to secure that hill livestock producers do not suffer any penalty for failing to meet the threshold of yearling ewes per flock within the current calendar year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme rules have always required a reasonable element of shearlings in flocks qualifying for the highest rate of allowance. Where this rule is breached without good reason we shall continue to impose penalties.

  European Commission
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report,column 549,how many of those who have completed their secondment to the European Commission are still employed by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All of them.

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of badger setts, by county, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials in each month from October 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Month

  Number of setts

  County

  November 1991

  2

  Gwynedd

  March 1992

  1

  Dyfed

  May 1992

  1

  Powys

  June 1992

  1

  Gwynedd

  July 1992

  3

  Gwent. Clwyd and Powys

  September 1992

  2

  Powys and Clwyd

  October 1992

  2

  Dyfed and Powys

  269

  Month

  Number of setts

  County

  November 1992

  2

  Dyfed and Powys

  December 1992

  1

  Powys

  January 1993

  2

  Gwynedd and Powys

  March 1993

  2

  Clwyd and Gwent

  Farming Friends Scheme
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make funds available for a farming friends scheme in Wales to help farmers with psychological and social problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to do so, but a reduction in these problems will be an important health gain target for health authorities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Associations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dwellings have been completed by the housing associations in Northern Ireland in each year since 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of dwellings completed by registered housing associations is as follows:

  Year

  Newbuild

  Rehabilitation

  Total

  1982–83

  557

  243

  800

  1983–84

  576

  244

  820

  1984–85

  646

  368

  1,014

  1985–86

  777

  271

  1,048

  1986–87

  314

  390

  704

  1987–88

  694

  330

  1,024

  1988–89

  764

  110

  874

  1989–91

  563

  74

  637

  1990–91

  533

  249

  782

  1991–92

  838

  94

  932

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tenants allocated houses with the housing associations come from the Housing Executive waiting list; and, of these, how many were on the priority waiting list and non-priority waiting list.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the registered housing associations in Northern Ireland; what was the date of registration of each association; and what are the numbers of staff currently employed by each association in respect of (i) management, (ii) administration/clerical, (iii) development, (iv) housing and (v) management/maintenance.

  Mr. Atkins
  The names and registration dates of each registered housing association, are set out in the table. Information on staffing in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.270

  Association

  Date registered with DOE (NI)

  Abbeyfield NI Development Society Limited

  22 June 1981

  Ballymacarrett Housing Association Limited

  21 February 1979

  Ballynafeigh Housing Association Limited

  3 February 1977

  Baptist Union of Ireland Housing Association Limited

  29 October 1982

  Belfast Community Housing Association Limited

  12 October 1977

  Belfast Improved Houses Limited

  20 January 1977

  Ben Madigan Housing Association Limited

  27 July 1978

  Botanic Housing Association Limited

  31 January 1977

  Broadway Housing Association Limited

  16 November 1979

  Church of Ireland Housing Association (NI) Limited

  16 September 1977

  Clonard Housing Association Limited

  21 April 1978

  Connswater Housing Association Limited

  4 March 1977

  Coral Crescent Housing Association Limited

  26 October 1978

  Covenanter Residential Association Limited

  23 February 1977

  Craigavon and District Housing Association Limited

  19 September 1979

  Craigowen Housing Association Limited

  14 October 1977

  Derry Housing Association Limited

  24 August 1977

  Donacloney Housing Association Limited

  16 August 1977

  Down and Connor Housing Association Limited

  2 July 1987

  Dungannon and District Housing Association Limited

  24 March 1977

  Flax Housing Association Limited

  12 February 1987

  Fold Housing Association Limited

  14 December 1976

  Gosford Housing Association (Armagh) Limited

  5 December 1977

  Grove Housing Association Limited

  5 May 1977

  Habinteg Housing Association (Ulster) Limited

  24 May 1977

  Hearth

  10 February 1978

  Larne and District Housing Association Limited

  4 July 1978

  Lisnagarvey Housing Association Limited

  5 August 1977

  Malone Housing Association Limited

  28 February 1980

  Masonic Housing Association (NI) Limited

  13 May 1977

  Newington Housing Association (1975) Limited

  27 April 1977

  Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association Limited

  11 April 1978

  North Belfast Mission Housing Society Limited

  22 February 1979

  Oaklee Housing Association Limited

  4 November 1991

  Open Door Housing Association (NI) Limited

  31 July 1978

  Presbyterian Housing Association (NI) Limited

  23 February 1977

  Royal British Legion Housing Association (NI) Limited

  4 March 1977

  Rural Housing Association Limited

  19 March 1992

  St Matthews Housing Association Limited

  8 June 1977

  Students Housing Association Co-op Limited

  27 September 1977

  Tennent Street District Housing Association Limited

  8 May 1979

  Triangle Women's Housing Association Limited

  20 March 1978

  Ulidia Housing Association Limited

  10 March 1978

  Ulster Homemaker Limited

  30 August 1984

  Willowfield Parish Church Housing Association Limited

  27 April 1977

  Woodvale and Shankill Housing Association Limited

  3 May 1977

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the selection schemes of each registered housing association; and if he will list the
  271
  reports produced by registered housing associations describing and measuring the need which they are seeking to address.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the selection scheme approved by the Department of the Environment (NI) for each association have been placed in the Library.

  The tenants guarantee, introduced in December 1992, requires associations to make available from 1 April 1993 information on the allocation of accommodation, application procedures for tenancies and policies and procedures for deciding on priority between applicants. Associations will also be required to prepare annual summaries of their letting activities which will include a report on the number and types of lettings to different types of applicant. These summaries will be made available to inquirers.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the budgetary allocation to housing associations in each year since 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1992; and how much of the allocation in each year has been devoted to new build.

  Mr. Atkins
  Total allocation to housing associations, including the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association, were:

  HAs (exclud-ing NICHA) £000

  NICHA £000

  Total £000

  1982–83

  21,000

  8,500

  29,500

  1983–84

  23,000

  15,600

  38,600

  1984–85

  25,800

  14,400

  40,200

  1985–86

  27,600

  12,000

  39,600

  1986–87

  29,800

  11,500

  41,300

  1987–88

  30,400

  13,000

  43,400

  1988–89

  32,000

  13,400

  45,400

  1989–90

  29,200

  8,700

  37,900

  1990–91

  28,200

  8,600

  36,800

  1991–92

  33,800

  6,400

  40,200

  The new-build element of housing association expenditure, excluding NICHA, in 1990–91 and 1991–92 was £21·9 million and £28·3 million respectively. Information on capital funding to housing associations for previous years is not available on a basis which distinguishes new build from other types of expenditure.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines have been issued to housing associations for the selection of tenants.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the circular issued to all registered housing associations on 24 July 1979 the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland advised associations of the guidelines to be followed in tenant selection. A copy of the circular has been placed in the Library. The guidelines are currently under review.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers and types of dwellings each housing association has constructed under the terms of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 during each financial year since 1976–77.

  Mr. Atkins
  A copy of the information requested has been placed in the Library.
  272
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of applications on the waiting list of each registered housing association; and how many are on priority lists A and B, respectively.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is collected annually by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the position at 31 March 1992 was as follows:

  Association

  A applicants

  B applicants

  Abbeyfield Northern Ireland Development Society Limited

  —

  —

  Ballymacarrett Housing Association Ltd

  —

  —

  Ballynafeigh Housing Association Ltd

  4

  6

  Baptist Union of Ireland Housing Association Ltd

  —

  112

  Belfast Community Housing Association Ltd

  1

  46

  Belfast Improved Houses Ltd

  135

  1369

  Ben Madigan Housing Association Ltd

  2

  16

  Botanic Housing Association Ltd

  5

  37

  Church of Ireland Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  —

  1324

  Clonard Housing Association Ltd

  16

  43

  Connswater Housing Association Ltd

  —

  20

  Coral Crescent Housing Association Ltd

  —

  —

  Covenanter Residential Association Ltd

  —

  2

  Craigavon and District Housing Association Ltd

  84

  416

  Craigowen Housing Association Ltd

  —

  2—

  Derry Housing Association Ltd

  85

  1370

  Donacloney Housing Association Ltd

  —

  11

  Dungannon and District Housing Association Ltd

  —

  1439

  Fold Housing Association Ltd

  —

  2,985

  Gosford Housing Association (Armagh) Ltd

  1

  27

  Grove Housing Association Ltd

  4

  54

  Habinteg Housing Association (Ulster) Ltd

  222

  1—

  Hearth

  1

  3

  Larne and District Housing Association Ltd

  46

  66

  Lisnagarvey Housing Association Ltd

  5

  83

  Malone Housing Association Ltd

  8

  26

  Masonic Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  27

  198

  Newington Housing Association (1975) Ltd

  34

  156

  North Belfast Mission Housing Society Ltd

  1

  3

  Oaklee Housing Association Ltd

  34

  1146

  Open Door Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  70

  129

  Presbyterian Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  116

  278

  Royal British Legion Housing Association (NI) Ltd

  5

  606

  St. Matthews Housing Association Ltd

  6

  31

  Students Housing Association Co-op Ltd

  145

  489

  Tennent St. District Housing Association Ltd

  16

  27

  Triangle Women's Housing Association Ltd

  —

  1—

  Ulidia Housing Association Ltd

  14

  126

  273

  Association

  A applicants

  B applicants

  Willowfield Parish Church Housing Association Ltd

  4

  37

  Woodvale and Shankill Housing Association Ltd

  8

  46

  Note: A substantial number of special needs schemes are managed by voluntary agencies on behalf of the associations marked1 and information on the waiting lists held by those agencies is not available.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of(a)the Housing Executive, in relation to individual housing associations and the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and (b)the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Housing Executive's main role in relation to housing associations is the assessment of overall housing need and confirmation of need for each proposed housing association scheme. In its enabling role the executive ma. y assist in the development plans of housing associations by the transfer of land and property.

  The executive works closely with the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations to produce the housing association element of the housing development strategy, which is submitted annually to the Department of the Environment (NI) to support the bid for housing investment in Northern Ireland. I understand that the executive also meets regularly at board level with the federation to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  The role of the Northern Ireland Federation is to promote, establish, encourage and assist the formation and the conduct and activities of housing associations in Northern Ireland; to make representations and negotiate on behalf of the federation, housing associations, and other bodies with regard to housing policy and administration; to ensure that maximum co-operation and efficiency is attained among housing associations in Northern Ireland and to ensure a close and harmonious liaison and relationship with the National Federation of Housing Associations and other bodies involved in housing activity.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that the housing associations assist the Housing Executive in meetings its duties to the homeless under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

  Mr. Atkins
  Registered associations are required to give priority on their waiting lists to applicants who qualify for group A status under the executive's selection scheme. This includes applicants who are accepted as homeless by the Housing Executive.

  The Department regularly monitors the management of each assocation's day-to-day affairs, including the operation of their selection schemes to ensure that tenancies are allocated in accordance with approved schemes.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many units of temporary accommodation and move on accommodation have been 274
  provided by housing associations for homeless people since 1990; and how many are in the Housing Association Development Programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  In addition to temporary housing provided for special needs groups such as ex-offenders, women and children at risk, registered housing associations in Northern Ireland have provided 110 units of temporary accommodation for homeless people since 1 January 1990.

  The 1993–94 to 1995–96 development programme includes proposals to provide 135 bed spaces for people who may require temporary accommodation.

  Housing associations do not provide accommodation designated specifically for allocation to people "moving on" from temporary accommodation.

  Nephrops
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision was made to exempt the one net rule for nephrops trawlers; in which fishing areas this exemption will apply; whether the Northern Ireland fleet fish for nephrops in these areas; what consultation was undertaken with the Northern Ireland fishing industry prior to the decision; and if he will make a statement about the implications of this decision for the Northern Ireland fishing industry.

  Mr. Hanley
  The decision to exempt the one rule for nephrops trawlers was made on 5 March; it applies in areas IV, North sea, and VI, west Scotland, north of latitude 56°N. Any fishing by Northern Ireland vessels for nephrops in these areas is minimal and there was no consultation with the Northern Ireland industry prior to the decision, which has little or no direct impact on the Northern Ireland fishing industry.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will require the regulator and Northern Ireland Electricity to obtain an independent cost/benefit study for Northern Ireland of all alternative power sources prior to awarding future power purchase agreements; and if he will require the most economic supply identified taking account of economic, social and environmental issues as well as security of supply to be purchased by Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Atkins
  The term under which NIE will award future power purchase agreements are governed by its licence which contains an economic purchasing obligation. In entering into any such agreement NIE will have to satisfy the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies his Department has made of the impact on domestic electricity prices of the Scottish-Northern Ireland interconnector becoming operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  An economic evaluation of generating options was commissioned by the Department and this showed interconnection with Scotland to be the most attractive option available for meeting the need for new capacity in the late 1990s.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies his Department has made of the price differences between domestic electricity prices in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom; what assessment has been made of the effect the increases in value-added tax on fuel will have on the average home fuel bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Domestic electricity tariffs in 1992–93 are broadly comparable to those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  It is estimated that the extension of VAT to domestic fuel and power will add about £1·20 in 1994–95 and £2·70 in 1995–96 to households' average weekly fuel bills in Northern Ireland, at 1991 prices. This estimate takes no account of the effects of any energy-saving measures by householders.

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of financial assistance provided by the International Fund for Ireland in each of the last four years to date for(a)construction of new hotels and (b)refurbishment of existing hotels, together with details of the purpose for which each qualifying hotel project was assisted.

  Mr. Mates
  The International Fund for Ireland is administered by an independent board appointed by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. All questions pertaining to the disbursement of funds are a matter for the board and accordingly I have arranged to pass the hon. Gentleman's question to the chairman for reply.

  Employees (Religious Affiliation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the annual cost of monitoring the religious affiliation of the employees of each department of the Northern Ireland civil service;

  (2) what is the annual cost of monitoring the religious affiliation of the employees of the Industrial Development Board.

  Mr. Atkins
  Monitoring of religious affiliation of the employees of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Industrial Development Board is undertaken centrally by the Northern Ireland civil service equal opportunities unit located in the Department of Finance and Personnel. I would therefore refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 19 March 1993,Official Report,Volume 221, column 150.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost of monitoring the religious affiliation of the employees of each district council in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally. It is a matter for each district council in Northern Ireland to monitor the religious composition of its work force in accordance with section 27 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  The Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland also monitors the fair employment practices of
  276
  district councils under section 35 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, but does not identify separately expenditure on specific activities on this type, which would be negligible.

  Health Boards (Staff Bonuses)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the nature and purpose of performance bonuses paid to staff of each health board within the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Incentive bonus payments are made to certain ancillary and general staff employed by health and social services boards in return for increased productivity. In each instance the bonus is the result of the application of a measured day work scheme. Such a scheme is where a given number of staff agree, on a group basis, to work to a predetermined incentive performance level in carrying out their duties at specific standards. In return they are paid a fixed percentage bonus which is calculated on the staff group basis. All schemes must be self-financing.

  A performance-related pay scheme is in operation for general managers, unit general managers, senior managers and senior nurse managers. This is a scheme for relating rewards to quantifiable achievement rather than to subjective judgments of personal qualities. This scheme enables management to reward staff who have attained a high level of achievement against individual performance review targets set on an annual basis.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he expects expenditure on waste management and contaminated land to vary in real terms over the next three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department does not hold general information on past trends or future plans for expenditure of this sort.

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much less will be spent in real terms in the present estimates compared with the 1992 estimates on the problem of landfill gas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not held in the form requested. However, local authorities are currently expected to spend some £12· 8 million in the financial year 1992–93 on schemes wholly or partly to deal with gas from former landfills and which the Government are supporting with supplementary credit approvals. A total of £12 million has been set aside for 1993–94 for supplementary credit approvals covering landfill gas and other types of contaminated land.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department will spend on waste recycling in the current year and each of the next two years in real terms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The resources allocated for waste recycling in 1992–93 and the amounts currently proposed
  277
  for 1993–94 and 1994–95 within the expenditure plans described in the Department's 1993 annual report (Cm 2207), including supplementary credit approvals to support local authorities' capital expenditure on waste recycling projects, are as follows:

  1992–93 £000

  1993–945 £000

  1994–955 £000

  UK 20001

  168

  —

  —

  Environmental Grant Fund/Environmental Action Fund

  289

  2376

  2216

  Consultancies/Research

  470

  3320

  384

  Publicity

  4312

  318

  6—

  Special Grants Programme

  80

  —

  —

  Staff resources

  106

  111

  6—

  TOTAL

  1,425

  825

  300

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  15,000

  14,598

  15,358

  Notes:

  1 A substantial part of this grant to Friends of the Earth was used for work to encourage waste minimisation and the recycling and composting of waste.

  2 Grants offered.

  3 Current plans, not yet confirmed.

  4 Forecast expenditure.

  5 Deflated to 1992–93 prices.

  6 Not yet known.

  The Department of Trade and Industry also has expenditure on this subject.

  Toxic Waste (Broadcast)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of a transcript of his interview on the import of toxic waste broadcast on Radio Four's "World At One" on 23 March.

  Mr. Howard
  I have arranged for a copy of the transcript of this interview to be placed in the Library.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what report he has received from the chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee following the recent meeting to discuss its 20-year review of nuclear waste policy.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The meeting referred to was a first step in the review by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee which is to look at radioactive waste disposal issues likely to arise over the next 20 years.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department last conducted surveys of(a)ethnic origins and (b)the number of women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department first undertook a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff in 1987. This has been supplemented by further surveys and a continuous survey of job applicants. The most recent re-survey of the remaining staff for whom there is no ethnic record was completed earlier this month.
  278
  The Department analyses data on the number of women in the Department on a quarterly basis.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a)women, (b)from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people.

  Mr. Howard
  The numbers and percentages of women at grades 1 to 7 and overall in the Department are:

  Grade

  Female

  Percentage

  1

  —

  —

  2

  3

  43

  3

  5

  15

  4

  —

  —

  5

  18

  13

  6

  24

  18

  7

  130

  16

  Overall

  2,741

  41

  There are no staff from ethnic minorities in grades 1 to 4. The number and percentage of ethnic minority staff at grade 5 is 2 (1·4 per cent. of grade), at grade 6 there is 1 (0·3 per cent.) and at grade 7 there are 9 (1·1 per cent.) Overall, 504 (7·5 per cent.) of the Department's staff are from ethnic minorities.

  There are no disabled staff in grades 1 to 6. The Department employs three grade 7s who are known to be disabled but who are not registered, representing 0·4 per cent. of the grade. Overall, the Department employs 98 (1·5 per cent.) disabled staff (registered and non-registered).

  Housing Grants
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations which have received grants under section 429A of the Housing Act 1985; as amended, in 1992–93 showing in such cases the value of the grant and the purpose for which it was made.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the financial year 1992–93, my Department approved 117 grants totalling £7,411,393 under section 429A of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986). These grants were issued for a variety of purposes.

  Promotion and feasibility grants
  Grants were made to consultancies, housing associations and secondary co-operatives to enable them to promote to local authority tenants the full range of housing management and tenure options available to them. Further grant is made available, on an estate-specific basis, to enable these organisations to undertake a feasibility study leading to a report outlining future options for the management of the estate.

  Agency name

  Grant offered £

  Birmingham CHS

  67,627

  Banks of the Wear

  161,197

  Catch

  269,260

  CDS (Liverpool)

  198,613

  Chapman Hendy

  19,176

  Chisel

  90,671

  CHS (NW)

  98,160

  English Churches HA

  112,203

  Community Projects Trust

  53,931

  279

  Agency name

  Grant offered £

  Devon CDA

  4,980

  Federation of Hackney Tenants' and Residents 'Associations

  51,678

  Hexagon HA

  85,901

  Leicester Housing Association

  166,071

  Liverpool Housing Trust

  138,125

  Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation

  48,869

  Paddington Churches HA

  50,209

  Priority Estates Project

  614,135

  Pic Services

  75,559

  Pieda

  78,164

  Public Participation, Consultation and Research Ltd.

  126,055

  Raynsford Dallison Associates

  29,254

  Safe Neighbourhoods Unit

  89,228

  Solon CHS

  134,734

  South London Families' HA

  78,613

  Tenant Action

  50,805

  Tide

  112,431

  Tenant Paricipation Advisory Service

  1,051,288

  Tricare

  11,745

  Yorkshire CHS

  44,874

  Total

  4,113,596

  Development Grants
  Development grants were made to tenant steering groups or tenants' and residents' associations which were able to evidence sufficient interest in forming a tenant management organisation, either an estate management board [EMB], or a tenant management co-operative [TMC], following an estate-wide ballot or poll on completion of a feasibility study.

  Tenant group

  EMB

  TMC

  Offered £

  Angell Town

  1

  —

  31,739

  Arica Co-op

  —

  1

  8,713

  Atholl & Braemar

  —

  1

  10,585

  Blackbrook

  1

  —

  12,838

  Botcherby

  1

  —

  21,976

  Browning

  1

  —

  16,508

  Burrows St/Green Lane

  —

  1

  18,290

  Clapton Park

  1

  —

  32,140

  Claybrow

  —

  1

  8,326

  Chalkhill

  1

  —

  29,536

  Chelsea Manor Ct

  —

  1

  9,776

  Chuckery

  —

  1

  10,726

  Church Court

  —

  1

  17,006

  Colwell

  —

  1

  16,296

  Cottington Close

  —

  1

  9,598

  Crusader

  —

  1

  9,791

  De Beauvoir

  1

  —

  26,317

  Five Ways

  —

  1

  5,809

  Gascoyne

  1

  —

  19,594

  Haslingden

  1

  —

  3,567

  Higgingshaw Village

  1

  —

  20,295

  Holland Rise/Whitebeam Close

  1

  —

  18,788

  Holland Town

  —

  1

  5,645

  Kilburn Square

  —

  1

  7,898

  Lancaster West

  1

  —

  23,771

  Magdalen

  —

  1

  1,000

  Old/New Loughborough

  1

  —

  35,500

  Mowmacre Hill

  1

  —

  22,821

  New Park Village

  —

  1

  10,762

  North Peckham

  1

  —

  37,485

  Parkwood

  —

  1

  20,693

  Pembroke

  1

  —

  14,046

  Pleck

  1

  —

  11,246

  Ridings Way

  —

  1

  24,711

  Scotland Gate

  —

  1

  9,011

  Springfield Horseshoe

  —

  1

  16,931

  Suffolk Estate

  —

  1

  3,094

  Sutton Park 'A'

  —

  1

  13,238

  280

  Tenant group

  EMB

  TMC

  Offered £

  St. Mark's

  —

  1

  23,372

  St. Pancras Court

  —

  1

  1,666

  St. Paul's

  —

  1

  11,195

  Tabard Gardens

  —

  1

  45,697

  Trowbridge

  —

  1

  17,658

  Tustin

  —

  1

  25,119

  Warwick Crescent

  —

  1

  8,019

  West Houghton

  1

  —

  23,044

  West View

  1

  —

  23,850

  Whitworth Valley

  1

  —

  1,752

  Wyke Estate

  —

  1

  3,333

  Wyncote

  —

  1

  7,795

  Total

  —

  1

  808,569

  "Recommendation 9" Grants
  The Government's report "Tenants in the Lead" (DoE, 1989) recommended, inter alia, a series pilot demonstra-tion projects which linked decentralisation of housing management services to increased tenant involvement. 1992–93 was the second and final year of this two-year programme.

  Local authority

  Grant offered £

  Basildon

  35,200

  Birmingham City

  50,000

  Bolton Metro

  36,740

  Cambridge City

  50,000

  Camden

  49,985

  Derby City

  50,000

  Gateshead

  22,687

  Globe Town (Tower Hamlets)

  50,000

  Greenwich

  50,000

  Harlow

  43,086

  Lambeth

  49,900

  Rochdale

  33,146

  Rossendale

  31,430

  Salford

  32,638

  Sandwell

  50,000

  Southampton

  21,250

  West Lancashire

  26,470

  Westminster

  50,000

  Wolverhampton

  50,237

  Total

  782,769

  National Tenants' Resource Centre
  Grant of £70,363 was offered to this project, which seeks to establish a dedicated residential training facility for tenants at Trafford hall, near Chester, to support its fund-raising and planning programme.

  Grant offered £

  National Tenants' Resource Centre

  70,363

  Housing Management Grants
  Grants were made to various organisations on an individual basis for projects which contribute towards innovation in housing management.

  281

  Organisation

  Grant Offered £

  Association of Community Technical Aid Centres (13 Training events and I conference for tenants and professionals)

  24,398

  Toby Graves (Salary for housing post graduate trainee)

  2,600

  Aldbourne Associates (Review to establish a general picture of current practice in education and training in social housing)

  37,876

  Specialist Information Training Resource Agency (Specialist needs housing training for NVQs)

  39,857

  Federation of Black Housing Organisations (Raise awareness of and provide information on NVQs via written materials, presentations, advice and guidance)

  26,442

  Safe Neighbourhoods Unit (Development of crime prevention modules and production of video)

  27,000

  Tower Blocks Directory (Helps management of tower blocks through best practice information)

  11,142

  West Midlands Special Needs Consortium (Set up and run management development programme arid development NVQs)

  20,483

  Northern Consortium of Housing Authorities (Development of low cost training and conference programme, leading to the production of a training package)

  24,536

  Total

  214,334

  Research Grants
  Small research grants are occasionally made available to provide feedback and data on aspects of grant policy which would be difficult or impossible to determine by other methods. In 1992–93, two grants were made available, to investigate the role of training in the development of TMOs (Glasgow university) and to ascertain the impact of the two-year recommendation 9 programme (LSE).

  Organisation

  Offered £

  Glasgow University

  28,030

  LSE Housing

  23,797

  Total

  51,827

  Studentships and Bursaries
  Grants are made annually, via the Economic and Social Research Council, to provide resources to support students following university courses leading to the Institute of Housing's professional qualifications. From 1 January 1993 bursaries have been available to assist tenants following the Institute of Housing's new national certificate in tenant participation (NCTP). These discretionary bursaries are paid via the tenant participation advisory service (TPAS).

  £

  Economic and Social Research Council

  1,053,000

  TPAS

  30,000

  Total

  1,083,000

  Contract Payments
  Priority Estates Project Ltd. received contract payments to undertake training and action research into tenant participation. 1992–93 is the last year of the contract.

  £

  Priority Estates Project

  286,935

  Total

  286,935

  Tenants' Choice Legislation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answers of 15 March,Official Report,columns 76 to 78, if the answer covers transfers to tenants' management boards with the estates remaining in the ownership of the local council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Grants offered in 1992–93 under section 429A of the Housing Act 1985, as amended, include grants paid to tenants' organisations for the purpose of developing tenant management organisations (TMOs): either estate management boards (EMBs) or tenant management co-operatives (TMCs).

  Both kinds of TMO are able to take on the management of their housing through a management agreement negotiated with the local authority under the provisions of section 27 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended, though ownership of the houses remains with the local authority. Since April 1990, when grants were first made available directly to tenants' organisations, 66 TMOs have been established, with a further 50 in their development phase.

  The Government now propose, through powers which will be taken in the Housing and Urban Development Bill, to introduce a new right to manage for local authority tenants. Providing they are able to meet certain criteria, tenants' organisations will be able to serve on the local authority a notice of their intention to exercise the right to manage. Regulations will provide a framework for the procedures which must be followed by tenants' organisations and local authorities in circumstances where the right to manage is exercised. If these are successfully carried through, the local authority will be required to enter into a management agreement—the form of which will be specified by the Secretary of State—with the TMO. The Government's recent consultation paper "Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage" (DOE/Welsh Office 1992) sets out in more detail the policy background and procedural arrangements for this important new right.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Howard
  Within the last 12 months market testing within the Department, apart from the Property Services Agency, has been commenced in the following specialist services which are currently provided in-house for the Department's own benefit:

  Training Services

  Accommodation Facilities Management

  283

  Design, Drawing and Print Services

  Registry Services

  Statistical Services

  Research and Research Services (Phase 1)

  Office Cleaning for Government Car Service and Inter-departmental Despatch Service

  Accounts Support for Government Car Service and Inter-departmental Despatch Service

  Engineering Workshops at Building Research Establishment (BRE).

  Stores at BRE.

  The forward programme, from October 1993 onwards, has yet to be determined.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many local authorities pay the client contribution element of the home energy efficiency scheme; and what proportion of the total this represents;

  (2) how many network installers operate hardship funds; and what proportion of the total this represents.

  Mr. Maclean
  These figures are not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the relationship between financial allocations to network installers and the estimated number of households eligible for grants under the home energy efficiency scheme within that network installer's area;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that financial allocations under the home energy efficiency scheme from 1993–94 relate to local need rather than the previous performance of a network installer.

  Mr. Maclean
  Eligibility for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme depends upon receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit—council tax benefit from 1 April 1993—or disability working allowance. In addition the property must meet certain criteria concerning both existing insulation and whether or not grant has been paid for similar work under previous schemes. It is not possible to estimate the numbers that might be eligible in a particular area at a particular time.

  The present allocation system takes into account the proven ability of an installer to carry out work, thus avoiding sterilisation of funds. For listed contractors, allocations are intended to ensure that similar levels of funding are available in each area.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1992,Official Report,column 836,how he accounts for the lower take-up of home energy efficiency grants in the London area; and what measures he proposes to resolve the situation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 4 March 1993 at column 263.

  Market Charters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints his Department has received regarding market charters.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department has received 15 such complaints since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department gives to local 284
  authority charter holders as to the terms they can require for the granting of their consent for a new market within their charter area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. Any such terms are a matter for negotiation between the franchise holder and the operator of such a new market. We are, however, concerned that the existence of market franchise rights may impose undue restriction on the development of local enterprise and are reviewing these rights as part of the Department's deregulation programme.

  London Forum
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of public funding is being made available to the London Forum.

  Sir George Young
  The forum will seek funds mainly from the private sector. The Department has met the costs of launching the forum. But we have no plans to fund the forum's activities in promoting London.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of the cost of the London Forum's breakfast launch on 29 March.

  Sir George Young
  The total cost of organising and staging the launch of the London Forum on 29 March was approximately £15,000.This includes some £4,900 for hire of the venue and catering, £4,600 for the design and production of printed material and £4,900 for administration.

  Elderly People's Homes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken by his Department within the last two years to improve the advice and information available on the thermal efficiency of elderly people's homes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The introduction of the home energy efficiency scheme on 1 January 1991 made grants available for the first time for the provision of basic energy efficiency advice for those on low incomes. Compulsory qualifica-tions for those giving advice under the scheme were introduced in April 1992 to ensure a high standard of advice provision. Information and advice on energy efficiency in the home is also available through my Department's "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign.

  Elderly People's Homes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to instigate a survey to ascertain the number of elderly people suffering as a result of cold homes and low body temperatures during the winter months.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply. We are awaiting the results of research by the Medical Research Council on the relationship between cold weather and excess winter sickness.

  Market Charters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many proposed new market developments have failed to take place because of(a)

  285
  injunctions taken out by charter holders or (b)financial demands by charter holders for the granting of their consent;

  (2) how many, and which, market charter holders have over the last five years sought a court injunction to restrain a proposed market within their charter area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We do not have this information.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many business people he has appointed to public bodies since 1987.

  Mr. Howard
  Such information is not available centrally, but appointments to my Department's public bodies are made from people from all backgrounds and all walks of life.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the specific length of time for which Her Majesty's Government have been opposed to the import of the toxic waste from developed countries to which he made general reference in his interview on "The World at One" on 23 March.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy that developed countries should become self-sufficient in disposing of their own waste was set out in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" in September 1990.

  Recycling
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities will receive sup-plementary credit approvals for recycling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is today announcing the allocation of £15 million in supplementary credit approvals for recycling investment by English local authorities. Local authorities are now more involved in recycling than ever before. Today's announcement continues our programme of support for recycling which is very important in helping authorities to implement their recycling strategies.

  Now that the vast majority of waste collection authorities have prepared their recycling plans, many are keen to start implementing them. Many waste disposal authorities are also eager to do more. So it is no surprise that the demand for supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) for recycling has been higher than ever this year.

  Under our environmental partnership scheme, the aim is to maximise investment in recycling by combining SCAs with authorities' own capital receipts and private sector contributions. Schemes which do this have done best in this year's allocations.

  But many other schemes have also received support. We have given particular priority to schemes to collect waste oil and CFCs for recycling. Altogether supplemen-tary credit approvals have been distributed to 161 authorities for 307 schemes, ranging from home composing projects to mini recycling centres.

  We received bids totalling £35 million so we have had to take some tough decisions in making allocations. Each
  286
  authority is today being notified of the outcome of its bid. Authorities whose bids were not successful, due to the heavy demand on the funds available, will naturally be disappointed.

  Some authorities are keen to develop large capital-intensive projects such as central compositing plants and materials reclamation facilities. Others want to introduce extensive kerbside collection schemes. If we had given approvals to many such schemes, we would have had very few resources left for other authorities. We have generally not been able to give approvals to schemes of this sort except where they are being partly funded from authorities' own capital contributions or by the private sector or where they continue a programme which we have funded in previous years.

  The following authorities have been issued supplemen-tary credit approvals for recycling for 1993–94:

  Authority

  Allocation £000

  London Boroughs

  Barnet

  200

  Bromley

  13·5

  Croydon

  155

  Ealing

  1·175

  Enfield

  50

  Hackney

  170

  Haringey

  20

  Hillingdon

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  48

  Lambeth

  112·25

  Merton

  97

  Newham

  100

  Redbridge

  168

  Richmond

  70

  Southwark

  30

  Sutton

  365

  Tower Hamlets

  53

  Waltham Forest

  150

  Wandsworth

  20

  Metropolitan Authorities

  Barnsley

  135

  Bolton

  75

  Bury

  30

  Calderdale

  30

  Doncaster

  16

  Dudley

  100

  Gateshead

  35·5

  Kirklees

  35

  Knowsley

  110

  Leeds

  1,410

  Liverpool

  270

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  600

  Oldham

  98

  Rochdale

  36

  Rotherham

  19

  St. Helens

  7·7

  Sandwell

  20

  South Tyneside

  7

  Stockport

  55·575

  Wakefield

  340

  West Yorkshire Waste Management

  1,137

  Wirral

  24

  Wolverhampton

  53

  County Councils

  Cambridgeshire

  240

  Cheshire

  20

  Cornwall

  40

  Cumbria

  105

  Devon

  240

  Durham

  50

  Hampshire

  517

  Hereford and Worcester

  11

  Hertfordshire

  20

  287

  Authority

  Allocation £000

  Leicestershire

  106

  Lincolnshire

  175

  Northumberland

  7

  North Yorkshire

  76·5

  Nottinghamshire

  175

  Oxfordshire

  150

  Somerset

  78·5

  Suffolk

  48

  Wiltshire

  20

  District Councils

  Adur

  40

  Allerdale

  75

  Alnwick

  33

  Amber Valley

  20

  Bassetlaw

  8

  Bath

  20·4

  Beverley

  20

  Blaby

  40

  Bournemouth

  29

  Brighton

  60

  Bristol

  248·75

  Broxbourne

  105

  Browtowe

  77

  Burnley

  45

  Carlisle

  20

  Chelmsford

  20

  Cheltenham

  60

  Cherwell

  15

  Chester

  200

  Chesterfield

  28

  Chiltern

  50

  Copeland

  48

  Craven

  50

  Darlington

  6

  Derby

  70

  Derbyshire Dales

  20·75

  Easington

  7·8

  East Dorset

  15

  East Hertfordshire

  42

  Eden

  13

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  10

  Gedling

  13

  Great Grimsby

  70

  Guildford

  60

  Harborough

  30

  Harlow

  17

  Hartlepool

  150

  Hastings

  50

  Havant

  17·5

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  20

  Hull

  175

  Hyndburn

  30

  Kerrier

  125

  Lancaster

  20

  Lanbaugh on Tees

  64

  Leicester

  90

  Melton

  40

  Mid Bedfordshire

  35

  Mid Suffolk

  60·5

  Middlesborough

  23

  Milton Keynes

  1,400

  Newark and Sherwood

  50

  North Dorset

  25

  North Hertfordshire

  12

  Norwich

  20

  Nottingham

  71·8

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  37

  Oswestry

  65

  Oxford

  205

  Pendle

  15

  Peterborough

  12·35

  Plymouth

  160

  Poole

  37·5

  Portsmouth

  10

  Preston

  10

  Reading

  15

  288

  Authority

  Allocation £000

  Ribble Valley

  7

  Rochester upon Medway

  145

  Rother

  40

  Rushmoor

  70

  Scarborough

  25

  Selby

  30

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  50

  South Derbyshire

  50

  South Herefordshire

  20

  South Lakeland

  28·75

  South Norfolk

  50

  South Northamptonshire

  75

  South Somerset

  100

  St. Albans

  70

  St. Edmundsbury

  26·5

  Stockton on Tees

  96·5

  Surrey Heath

  42

  Tendring

  4

  Test Valley

  91·5

  Tewkesbury

  30

  Vale of White Horse

  20

  Watford

  30

  Waverley

  30

  Wealdon

  100

  Welwyn Hatfield

  40

  West Devon

  75

  West Dorset

  20

  West Wiltshire

  116

  Winchester

  26

  Woking

  33·7

  Wokingham

  40

  Woodspring

  10

  Wrekin

  90

  Wychavon

  15

  Wycombe

  20

  Council Tax
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the total cost to charities, which were formerly exempt from local taxes on residential care homes, of the imposition of council tax;

  (2) what effect the imposition of council tax on charities with residential care homes will have on modifying residential care accommodation in line with the Government's community care principles; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has had from the Charities Tax Reform Group about the effect of imposing council tax on charitable residential care accommodation; what reply is being sent; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have received a letter from the charities tax reform group which follows up a meeting and correspondence I have had with one of their members. My replies have explained that the council tax is a tax paid by residents, whether directly or through their landlords. There is no reason why one group of residents should be advantaged simply because their landlord is a charity. Instead we are targeting help by reference to the circumstances of residents, through the discount, disabled reduction, council tax benefit and transitional relief systems.

  We have been particularly concerned to ensure that residents of residential care homes—whether or not run by charities—should not face unreasonable council tax

  289
  burdens. Many homes will receive a one-band reduction in respect of features required for their disabled residents. Care homes without resident staff will not pay the personal element of the tax, which will mean a 50 per cent. discount. And many care homes will qualify for substantial amounts of transitional relief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security took account of the costs of the council tax in his uprating of benefits for care home residents, which will take effect on 1 April. Such benefits were generally increased by more than the rate of inflation.

  Because we do not know the circumstances of each individual care home, including the council tax band into which it falls, we cannot estimate the total amount of council tax which they will pay. But a care home in the highest band receiving a reduction for disability and a 50 per cent. discount might pay about £9 per week, even without the transitional reduction scheme. With that scheme the cost might he as little as £3·25 a week. Care homes in lower bands would pay even less. These amounts equate to a few tens of pence per resident.

  Care home residents, like those in the community, will be asked to make a contribution to the costs of local authority services from which they benefit. I believe that these contributions are eminently reasonable; because of the structure of the tax, they are likely to be rather smaller than those made by people living in the community.

  Commission for the New Towns
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he intends to make to codify and publicise the financial management relation-ship between his Department and the Commission for the New Towns.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am pleased to announce that I have today issued a management statement which has been agreed with the Commission for the New Towns. This comes into force on 1 April 1993, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. This document sets out the main objectives of the Commission and the structure of financial accountability between my Department and the Commission.

  Travellers
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures the Government propose to tackle the problem of illegal camping by gipsies.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department and the Welsh Office issued a consultation paper "Reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968", on 18 August 1992. The paper set out our proposals for reducing illegal camping. It was widely circulated, and we have received 939 formal responses, copies of which are in the Department's library. A list of the responses is in the Library of the House.

  Responses were received from local authorities, police authorities, the churches, farmers, landowners, members of the public and, not least, gipsies and other travellers. Most respondents acknowledged the deficiencies of the present arrangements for providing caravan sites for gipsies, although few made any constructive suggestions for change.

  The existing system of local authorities' providing caravan sites has not yielded sufficient accommodation for gipsies. Nor has it reduced the incidence of illegal camping, which can be an intolerable nuisance for residents of the
  290
  settled community. The Government consider that local authorities should have stronger powers to deal quickly and effectively with illegal camping, and that the Exchequer should no longer have an open-ended commitment to meet gipsies' accommodation needs; more gipsies should be encouraged to find their own sites.

  Accordingly, as soon as parliamentary time allows, my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales propose to give local authorities in England and Wales a new power to direct trespassers to remove their caravans from land; failure to comply with such a direction would be a criminal offence. They also propose that it would be a criminal offence if, having left, the traveller returns to the same land as a trespasser within three months. Local authorities would then have the power to evict on receipt of a magistrate's order. They propose that the duty which the 1968 Act places on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies will be repealed although local authorities would be given a discretionary power to do so. They also propose the repeal of the Secretary of State's powers to direct and designate local authorities, and to provide grant for sites.

  After consideration of the responses to the consultation paper they have decided that it is not necessary to give authorities a power to seize caravans. Nor do they now propose to offer financial assistance to gipsies to move into conventional housing, although they continue to believe that gipsy families who wish to make that move should be encouraged to do so.

  Finally, they will issue for public consultation shortly new draft guidance to local planning authorities. Their intention is that the draft guidance and their legislative proposals should put gipsies in the same position as other developers under the planning system; but also should ensure that the system recognises gipsies' special accommodation needs. It should enhance gipsies' confidence in the planning system, and lead to the provision of more sites to gipsies requirements.

  The Government believe that these changes will serve better the original objectives of the 1968 Act, to provide legal sites for gipsies and to eliminate illegal camping.

  Dioxin Contamination
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further investigations have been made of dioxin contamination of soils and herbage in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Maclean
  Investigations have continued following the publication of reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on dioxin contamination in the Bolsover area of Derbyshire. These have identified slightly elevated levels of dioxins in a number of samples of soils and herbage at Staveley. The pattern of dioxins differs from that found in previous samples near Bolsover, suggesting a different source. Further inquiries by the inspectorate at industrial processes in the area suggest that emissions from a foundry at Staveley may be responsible. The management of the foundry have given the inspectorate their full co-operation.

  The foundry comes within the scope of local authority air pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and these findings have been conveyed to Chesterfield borough council. A copy of the findings has been placed in the Library of the House.
  291
  Human exposure to dioxin contamination in the area would be most likely to arise through consumption of locally produced fatty foods, such as milk. Samples of milk from two farms close to the plant, taken in 1991, were well within the normal range for urban/industrial areas, and not a cause for concern. There is no reason at present to suppose that the manner of operation of the plant has changed significantly since 1991, but as a precautionary measure my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is now arranging for further milk samples to be taken.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits for 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Howard
  I propose to make the following changes:(i) The DOE/OES non-voted cash limit for 1992–93 will be increased by £48,083,000 from £109,016,000 to £157,099,000. The provision of additional supplementary credit approvals will enable local authorities to raise finance to fulfil their obligations to contribute part of the cost of certain roads built by the Commission for the New Towns in England. The increase, which is exceptionally high as it includes provision for the capitalisation of contributions from Buckinghamshire County Council in respect of earlier years, will be wholly offset by a counterbalancing Commission for the New Towns receipt (see (iii) (c) below).
  (ii) The DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit for 1992–93 will be increased by £7,881,000 from £2,943,088,000 to £2,950,969,000. The provision of £6,231,000 additional supplementary credit approvals will enable Warrington BC, Milton Keynes BC and The Wrekin BC to purchase residual rented housing stock from the Commission for the New Towns in England; this increase is wholly offset by a counterbalancing receipt for the Commission. It also includes a transfer of £150,00 in respect of essential repairs to a number of properties included in the bulk transfer of housing to Warrington BC. It also includes £1,500,000 of supplementary credit approvals transferred from 1993–94 to take account of a revised forecast of the profile of supplementary credit approvals to offset some categories of commutation losses.
  (iii) The DOE/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit for 1992–93 will be increased by £137,186,000 from minus £293,636,000 to minus £156,450,000. This net increase is the result of the following individual changes:

  (a) an increase of £191,650,000, reflecting the effect on receipts of the present state of the property market;

  (b) a reduction of £150,000 resulting from the need to finance essential repairs to properties transferred to Warrington BC as described in (ii) above; and

  (c) reductions of £48,083,000 and £6,231,000 resulting from additional receipts from local authorities financed by the cash limit increases described in (i) and (ii) above respectively

  (iv) The External Finance Limit for Letchworth Garden City Corporation in 1992–93 will be increased by £650,000 from minus £650,000 to zero. This reflects changes in the Corporation's financing profile as a result of the continuing depression in the property market.
  (v) The DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit for 1993–94 will be reduced by £1,500,000 from £2,462,975,000 to £2,461,475,000, reflecting the revised forecast of the profile of supplementary credit approvals to offset some categories of commutation losses.
  These changes will either be offset or charged to the Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planning total of public expenditure.

  Commercial Property Leases
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals the Government have to reform the basis for commercial property leases.
  292
  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has today announced that the Government propose to implement the Law Commission Report (No. 174) "Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate" for future, but not for existing leases.

  The Government have been conscious of other concerns about the operation of commercial property leases. They have no intention of legislating in any way that would alter the terms in existing contracts. However, the Government will shortly produce a consultation paper inviting views on three aspects of commercial leasing which have been causing concern:
  Upward Only Rent Reviews;
  Confidentiality clauses;
  and dispute resolution procedures.

  We will consult widely with interested bodies and will carefully consider the outcome before deciding whether it would be appropriate to introduce legislation on these issues in relation to new leases.

  Hazardous Waste Incineration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held with other member states of the European Community concerning the draft directive on the incineration of hazardous waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 March 1993]: Since the draft directive was adopted by the European Commission in March last year, there have been several discussions between the Commission and experts from member states, including the United Kingdom, on the draft. I attended a meeting of the Environment Council on 23 March at which the Council took note of a progress report on the draft.

  Quality Assurance
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider requiring consultants used directly or indirectly by his Department to achieve BS 5750 quality assurance, and to provide appropriate warranties, where structural safety, ground stabilisation, treatment of ground pollution contamination, methane and radon are concerned.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 26 March 1993]: It is for each consultant who chooses to tender for contracts let by, on behalf of, or in connection with grant-aid from my Department to establish in his or her own way his or her ability to carry out the work specified and to arrange whatever indemnities or warranties are appropriate. BS 5750 is not necessarily the appropriate way to demonstrate "quality assurance" in every case.

  Rechem Plant, Pontypool
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Wales of 17 March,Official Report,column 259,what was the outcome of Her Majesty's Government's representations to the German Government concerning the import of toxic waste to the Rechem plant at Pontypool.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]:I have nothing to add to the answer which I give the hon. Member on 30 March 1993.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are known to his Department(a)to be debt free and (b)to have become debt free in 1992–93.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]:I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 30 March 1993.

  Information on those authorities which have eliminated their longer-term, external debt during 1992–93 and will become debt free for capital control purposes in 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Wildlife Trade (Italy)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance the United Kingdom Government have received from the EC secretariat of CITES regarding wildlife trade with Italy.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The CITES secretariat, which is not linked to the EC, informed us in February of the suspension of the Standing Committee's earlier recommendations that sanctions should be taken against Italy. The United Kingdom was an observer when the Committee met earlier this month and accepted the secretariat's advice that sanctions could be lifted permanently.

  CITES
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following the relaxation of border controls within the EC on 1 January, what action he will take to ensure that the United Kingdom does not contravene guidance issued by the EC secretariat of CITES.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: My Department will continue to act upon relevant guidance from the CITES secretariat in Lausanne. I am not aware of any specific guidance directed towards the United Kingdom about the introduction of the single market.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing in each authority and by region(a)the number of people and (b)the number of households gaining and losing from the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that, before taking account of council tax benefit, some 9 million households in England will be paying less under the council tax than under the community charge.

  More households will gain when allowance is made for council tax benefit. At present I expect that, after allowing for council tax benefit, about six out of 10 households will gain. I am placing in the Library tables showing council tax levels and budgets for local authorities in England with community charge and rates comparisons. I will write to the hon. Member shortly giving detailed information on gainers and losers net of council tax benefit by area.

TRANSPORT

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department last conducted surveys of(a)the ethnic origins and (b)women among its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  A survey was conducted into the ethnic origins of all employees of the Department of Transport and its agencies for whom this information was not already known in October 1992. Surveys into the ethnic origin of new entrants to the Department are conducted every month.

  The gender of employees is recorded for all staff on the Department's computerised personnel information system.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of officers in each grade from 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a)women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c)disabled people.

  Mr. Norris
  At 24 March 1993 the following numbers and percentages of(a)women, (b)ethnic minorities and (c) disabled people were employed in the Department of Transport and its agencies.

  (a) Women

  (b) Ethnic Minorities

  (c) Registered Disabled People

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.1

  Number

  Per cent.

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  3

  9·4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  8

  7·3

  1

  1·0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  7

  4·7

  6

  4·2

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  74

  9·5

  23

  3·2

  0

  0

  Overall in the Department

  7,144

  45·9

  731

  5·2

  202

  1·3

  1 Figures show ethnic minority staff as a percentage of those whose ethnic origin is known.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to recruit women, members of ethnic minorities and disabled people, respectively, in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  Recruitment to top grades in the Department of Transport is undertaken on its behalf by the civil service commissioners. Recruits to the senior grades, as to any grade in the civil service, are selected on merit on the basis of fair and open competition, unless one of the exceptions permitted under the Civil Service Order in Council 1991 applies. Various steps have been taken by the civil service commissioners to aid recruitment from all sectors of the community including:extending links with institutions of higher education;
  equal opportunities training for those involved in selection;
  using validated selection procedures.

  Dock Labour
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he takes to monitor the extent of the use of casual employment in former scheme ports after the end of the dock labour scheme and its compliance with the provisions of the Dock Work Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  295
  Mr. Norris
  It is a matter for the port employers to decide what work force they need for their operations. There is no requirement under the Dock Work Act 1989 for information on casual employment to be made available to the Government.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number of(a)full-time, (b)trained and (c)casual dock workers working in each of the former scheme ports in each of the last five years and as of 1 March.

  Mr. Norris
  Numbers of permanent employed dock workers and cargo handlers, and the number of temporary

  Dockers and Cargo Handlers at Scheme and Ex-Scheme Ports 1989–92

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Port

  Permanent dock workers

  Temporary dock workers

  Total

  Permanent dock workers

  Temporary dock workers

  Total

  Permanent dock workers

  Temporary dock workers

  Total

  Permanent dock workers

  Temporary dock workers

  Total

  London

  2,179

  0

  2,179

  1,596

  0

  1,596

  1,245

  0

  1,245

  1,128

  0

  1,128

  Medway

  697

  2

  699

  580

  64

  644

  524

  47

  571

  487

  8

  495

  Whistable

  5

  0

  5

  4

  1

  5

  7

  0

  7

  5

  12

  17

  Southampton

  1,090

  9

  1,099

  882

  9

  891

  852

  22

  874

  623

  7

  630

  Poole

  109

  0

  109

  104

  0

  104

  100

  0

  100

  98

  0

  98

  Plymouth

  48

  0

  48

  46

  0

  46

  39

  0

  39

  46

  0

  46

  Fowey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  0

  4

  2

  0

  2

  Par

  98

  0

  98

  37

  0

  37

  30

  0

  30

  35

  0

  35

  Falmouth

  7

  0

  7

  7

  0

  7

  6

  0

  6

  37

  0

  37

  Portland

  19

  2

  21

  5

  5

  10

  4

  0

  4

  10

  6

  16

  Charlestown

  3

  0

  3

  3

  0

  3

  3

  0

  3

  2

  0

  2

  Truro

  5

  0

  5

  5

  0

  5

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  4

  Penzance

  17

  4

  21

  5

  0

  5

  13

  0

  13

  11

  0

  11

  Newlyn

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  4

  5

  0

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  557

  0

  557

  476

  0

  476

  187

  0

  187

  205

  0

  205

  Sharpness and Gloucester

  69

  14

  83

  58

  0

  58

  51

  0

  51

  41

  0

  41

  Newport

  244

  0

  244

  154

  10

  164

  66

  0

  66

  48

  0

  48

  Cardiff

  224

  0

  224

  59

  0

  59

  52

  0

  52

  55

  0

  55

  Barry

  116

  0

  116

  95

  0

  95

  91

  0

  91

  90

  0

  90

  Port Talbot

  40

  0

  40

  40

  0

  40

  36

  0

  36

  34

  0

  34

  Swansea

  129

  0

  129

  40

  11

  51

  40

  11

  51

  103

  41

  144

  Liverpool

  1,266

  4

  1,270

  753

  5

  758

  475

  6

  481

  573

  17

  590

  Manchester

  338

  6

  344

  237

  8

  245

  179

  0

  179

  150

  0

  150

  Fleetwood

  49

  0

  49

  1

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Whitehaven

  24

  0

  24

  14

  0

  14

  15

  0

  15

  15

  0

  15

  Workington

  28

  0

  28

  21

  0

  21

  25

  0

  25

  22

  0

  22

  Silloth

  3

  3

  6

  1

  0

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Garston

  112

  0

  112

  82

  3

  85

  58

  4

  62

  56

  0

  56

  Barrow

  14

  4

  18

  14

  4

  18

  13

  10

  23

  16

  0

  16

  Ayr

  26

  0

  26

  12

  0

  12

  12

  0

  12

  10

  0

  10

  Clyde

  262

  0

  262

  185

  9

  194

  146

  0

  146

  113

  0

  113

  Irvine

  3

  0

  3

  6

  0

  6

  6

  0

  6

  3

  0

  3

  Greenock

  37

  0

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen

  286

  0

  286

  149

  34

  183

  170

  37

  207

  167

  19

  186

  Dundee

  113

  7

  120

  58

  8

  66

  53

  7

  60

  25

  8

  33

  Forth

  380

  0

  380

  348

  0

  348

  301

  0

  301

  374

  0

  374

  Blyth

  88

  0

  88

  48

  0

  48

  57

  1

  58

  42

  0

  42

  Tyne

  246

  3

  249

  165

  3

  168

  136

  0

  136

  230

  0

  230

  Sunderland

  71

  7

  78

  48

  7

  55

  53

  7

  60

  50

  7

  57

  Seaham

  26

  0

  26

  15

  0

  15

  18

  0

  18

  12

  0

  12

  Tees and Hartlepool

  702

  6

  708

  617

  12

  629

  497

  24

  521

  457

  16

  473

  Hull

  842

  60

  902

  532

  121

  653

  381

  121

  502

  381

  110

  491

  Goole

  201

  0

  201

  129

  2

  131

  75

  17

  92

  52

  3

  55

  Grimsby and Immingham

  867

  50

  917

  467

  60

  527

  394

  66

  460

  429

  65

  494

  Boston

  111

  0

  111

  74

  0

  74

  75

  0

  75

  59

  0

  59

  Wisbech

  13

  0

  13

  7

  0

  7

  7

  0

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Kings Lynn

  88

  0

  88

  20

  0

  20

  27

  1

  28

  30

  0

  30

  Great Yarmouth

  193

  5

  198

  122

  9

  131

  206

  9

  215

  163

  9

  172

  Lowestoft

  55

  0

  55

  24

  0

  24

  22

  3

  25

  25

  2

  27

  Ipswich

  366

  0

  366

  249

  10

  259

  222

  6

  228

  204

  14

  218

  Total

  12,470

  186

  12,656

  8,598

  395

  8,993

  6,982

  399

  7,381

  6,722

  344

  7,066

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many dock workers were employed at the time of the 296
  dock workers, recorded in the annual survey of port manpower carried out by the British Ports Federation, are shown in the table. The figures for permanent employees include others in addition to registered dock workers, and all figures refer to the number of employees in employment on a specified day in March or April each year. The annual survey is no longer carried out, and thus figures are not available for 1 March 1993.

  Statistics on numbers of trained employees are not centrally available. It is the responsibility of port employers to ensure that both permanent and temporary staff are adequately trained.

  abolition of the dock labour scheme; what percentage of dock workers have since been made redundant; and what is the total cost of redundancy payments to date.
  297
  Mr. Norris
  At the time of the abolition of the dock labour scheme there were 9,220 registered dock workers. Of these, 7,074, or 76·7 per cent., subsequently received redundancy payments under the terms of the Dock Work (Compensation Payments Scheme) Regulations 1989. The total cost of these payments has amounted to £231·3 million, of which my Department's contribution was £132 million.

  Civil Aviation Authority (Licences)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in relation to any application by a new airline for a licence to fly from a United Kingdom airport or airstrip, (1) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider whether any of the promoters of a new airline have been criticised by any public body on a previous occasion for their stewardship of private or public assets or concerns and to publish their findings in full;

  (2) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the appropriateness of the safety precautions available and in use at the particular airport or airstrip, taking specifically into account the population density around the proposed touchdown and takeoff points and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (3) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the extent of studies made by the applicant into the environmental effects of the particular services it proposes to operate and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (4) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the financial backgrounds and reputations of both the operator and its promoters and to publish both their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (5) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the extent to which the proposed licensed service is duplicated from the same or nearby airport or airstrip and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (6) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the extent of the studies made by the applicant into the suitability of the particular airport or airstrip for taking off or landing in full or partial darkness, and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (7) he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the maximum load factor for any of the range of aircraft that might be usable under the proposed licence and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (8) he will direct the Civil Aviation Authority to publish full details as supplied to it of any application by a new airline, or by an existing airline to fly from or to a new location in the United Kingdom for a licence for a scheduled service, with effect from 24 March;

  (9) if, in relation to any application by a new airline for a licence to fly from a United Kingdom airport or airstrip, he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the appropriateness of the noise levels of the aircraft proposed to be used for the service to be licensed to the airport or airstrip concerned and to publish their findings and the reasons therefor;

  (10) if, in relation to any application by a new airline for a licence to fly from a United Kingdom airport or airstrip, he will request the Civil Aviation Authority to consider whether any of the promoters of a new airline have a criminal record and to publish their findings in full.

  Mr. Norris
  No. The process of licensing airlines in the United Kingdom is covered by EC Regulation 2407/92 on 298
  the licensing of air carriers. This has been implemented in the United Kingdom by the Licensing of Air Carriers Regulations 1992. Any carrier satisfying the requirements laid down is entitled to an operating licence and becomes a Community air carrier. Duly licensed Community air carriers are entitled to virtually unrestricted access to all intra-EC air routes where the airports concerned are open for civil aviation, irrespective of whether a similar service is already available. Where environmental problems exist member states may impose transparent and non-discriminatory restrictions on the operation of particular routes.

  There are no routes in the United Kingdom for which the use of this provision has been requested. Such matters as aircraft load limitations, aerodrome safety and aerodrome opening hours are considered by the CAA, but not as part of the licensing process. All aircraft landing or taking off in the United Kingdom have to meet the requirements of the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1990.

  Ferries (Licensing)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the role of his Department in the licensing of scheduled ferries to any destination in balancing demand and provision.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has no such role. However, surveyors from the Department's Surveyor General's Organisation carry out surveys on United Kingdom-flagged ferries to ensure compliance with statutory safety standards. Foreign-flagged ferries are also inspected under the port state control arrangements for compliance with international standards.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the difference in journey time for passenger trains between the north of the country and the continent if they are routed to St. Pancras rather than King's Cross.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no appreciable difference. Journey times are similar on the rail link routes into St. Pancras and King's Cross, and between the stations and the east coast main line and the west coast main line. All trains have to stop so that officials undertaking on-train border controls can join or depart and for train crews to be changed. No additional time would be taken at St. Pancras as a result of the trains leaving the station in the same direction as they arrive.

  Rose Grove to Colne Rail Line
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make finance available to British Rail to allow the track between Rose Grove and Colne in Lancashire to be maintained to a standard which will enable speed restrictions to be lifted.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions on railway maintenance are entirely matters for the management of British Rail. Subsidy is made available to British Rail as a lump sum. It is for British Rail to allocate this money to particular lines and services.

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of British Rail track are subject to speed restrictions caused by reduced maintenance resulting from reductions in the public service obligation grant.

  Mr. Freeman
  PSO grant has not been reduced. £1,150 million is being paid for 1992–93, compared with £900 million for 1991–92 and £600 million for 1990–91.

  A66-A1 Intersection
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the feasibility study into a four-way intersection between the A66(M) and the A1(M) will be completed and published.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There is no feasibility study being undertaken specifically into a four-way intersection between the A66(M) and the A1(M).

  A study to inform the Secretary of State of the longer-term requirements of the Al (M) between Barton and Birtley will be completed in the near future. An assessment of all the interchanges on this section of motorway is being carried out as part of the study.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department uses in its recommendations for coverage for search and rescue helicopter deployments for(a)day time and (b)night time.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport uses criteria agreed by the United Kingdom Search and Rescue committee which states that search and rescue helicopters should be deployed so that points 40 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within one hour by day in good weather and those at 100 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within two hours by night or in bad weather.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Missing Giros
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the value is of stolen or missing giro payments from the Department of Social Security for the most recent 12-month period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of the payment of benefit by girochdque is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will reply to my hon. Friend with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from David Riggs to Sir John Wheeler, dated 30 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Bichard is away at the moment, I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what the value is of stolen or missing girocheque payments from the Department of Social Security for the most recent 12 month period.
  300
  The most recent period for which figures are available is from April 1991 to March 1992. During this period just over 36 million girocheques were issued by the Department of Social Security of which 86,000 or 0·237% were stolen or missing. Those stolen or missing had a value of £8,156,619.
  Additionally, the Employment Service acts as our agent in the issue of girocheques to those who are unemployed and claiming income support. However the Employment Service is not able to separately identify these; the figures cannot therefore be included.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report.A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects that Mrs. Ralia J.L. Cox, 1 Ronald place, Ely, Cardiff, NI number ZP 553255D, will receive a copy of her medical records requested on 25 September 1992 in relation to her claim for disability living allowance.

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

  Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 30 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Richard is away at the moment I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking when he expects that Mrs. Ralia J.L. Cox, 1 Ronald Place, Ely, Cardiff, NI Number ZP553255D, will receive a copy of her medical records requested on 25th September 1992 in relation to her claim for disability living allowance.
  I understand that the Disability Living Allowance Unit has already written to you separately and in greater detail about this matter on 5 March 1993. I can now confirm that copies of the medical records that are currently available to us were sent to Mrs. Cox on 25 March 1993.
  I am sorry for the delay in sending the records to Mrs. Cox. Staff are aware of the need to respond quickly to requests from our customers for such information. You will be aware from Mr. Bichard's letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems the Benefits Agency has faced since the launch of DLA and the positive steps taken to improve the service to our customers so that we will be able to give the standard of service to which every customer is entitled and which we want to deliver.
  I hope that you will find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Charter Standard Statement
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it cost to produce the charter standard statement recently distributed by the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Benefits Agency charter Standard statement 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 David Riggs to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 30 March 1993.
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is the responsibility of Mr. Michael Bichard to answer questions about relevant operational matters. However, as Mr. Richard is away at the moment, I am replying on his behalf to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for

  301
  Social Security asking how much it cost to produce the Charter Standard Statement recently distributed by the Benefits Agency.
  There have been three hundred and twelve thousand (312,000) copies of the Charter Standard Statement produced and distributed at a cost of £136,273.
  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.

  Marginal net income deduction rales including social security.Numbers with marginal deduction rates at or above each level.1993–94 Estimates1

  (000s)

  100 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  80 per cent

  70 per cent

  60 per cent

  50 per cent

  40 per cent.

  nil

  100

  215

  545

  565

  565

  610

  Note: Calculated for benefit units in receipt of income related benefits where at least one partner works 16 hours a week or more. Estimates are cumulative and rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Estimated number of taxpayers liable to income lax above basic rates.

  Tax payers liable at higher rate (000s)

  Percentage

  1990–91

  1991–922

  1992–932

  1993–942

  40 per cent

  1,700

  1,600

  1,600

  1,600

  Notes;

  1 1992–93 figures based 1988, 1989 and 1990 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2 Provisional estimates projected from the 1990–91 Survey of Personal Income.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the full-year cost of increasing all income-related benefits by(a)2·4 per cent. and (b)1·1 per cent. in 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost is in the table:

  Table 1

  Average weekly1 earnings (adults) £

  Weekly upper3 profits limit £ (UPL)

  UPL as a percentage of average earnings Per cent.

  Number of people4 Thousands

  Estimated effect on NI revenues5 £ Million

  April 1978

  78·60

  120·00

  152·7

  —

  —

  April 1992

  304·60

  405·00

  133·0

  150

  -100

  April 1993

  2320·00

  420·00

  131·3

  150

  -100

  Table 2

  Average weekly1 earnings (adults) £

  Weekly lower3 profits limit (LPL) £

  LPL as a percentage of average earnings Per cent.

  Estimated number6 of additional contributors Thousands

  Estimated effect on NI revenues5 £ Million

  April 1978

  78·60

  38·50

  49·0

  —

  —

  April 1992

  304·60

  117·70

  38·6

  300

  +150

  April 1993

  2320·00

  121·90

  38·1

  300

  +150

  1 Average weekly full time earnings of all adults.Source: New Earnings Survey

  2 Assumes a rise in average earnings of 5 per cent. rounded to the nearest £.

  3 The LPL and UPL are annual limits, but for the purpose of comparison with the earlier replies they have been converted into weekly limits.

  4 The estimated number of people with earnings above the UPL but below the level which would have applied had the UPL been increased in line with average earnings since 1978–79.

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer of 25 February,Official Report,column 682,on the numbers of people facing different marginal tax rates, giving an estimate for 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Percentage increase in income-related benefits

  Cost for all income-related benefits £ million

  2·4

  820

  1·1

  380

  Notes:

  Modelled using 1988–89–90 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1993–94 levels of income, prices and benefit rates.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report,column 210,if he will give similar figures on the effect of levels of the lower and upper profits limits for national insurance contributions on the numbers of contributors and the revenues raised.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the tables.
  303
  5 The estimated effect on NI revenue as a result of increases in the LPL and UPL since 1978–79 by the level of prices rather than earnings.

  6 The estimated additional number of people who pay Class 4 National Insurance contributions as a result of increases in the lower profits limit since 1978–79 by the level of prices rather than earnings.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency will start operations; what its performance targets will be; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency, the latest next steps executive agency of the Department of Social Security, will start operations on 5 April 1993, providing a comprehensive child maintenance service. I have set the agency the following performance targets for 1993–94:60 per cent. of people with care of children making eligible applications to the Agency to have maintenance arranged.
  Annual benefit savings—£530 million.
  65 per cent. of clients to regard the service as satisfactory.
  To manage the Agency's resources so as to deliver its business plan within a total budget of £115 million.

  I have today placed in the Library the agency's framework document, business plan for 1993–94 Child Support Agency charter. I have also placed in the Library the child support manual and field operations guide which will provide the operational guidance used by child support officers and staff.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans there are for the child support adjudication guide to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The child support adjudication guide is being published by HMSO today and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The guide contains detailed guidance from the chief child support officer on how child support officers should interpret the new laws on maintenance assessments from 5 April. This will be invaluable to child support officers in interpreting the law, but it should also prove useful to outside agencies in providing help and advice to their clients.

  The publication of the guidance reflects our commitment to being open about the working of the new child support legislation. In line with the citizen's charter, it represents another move towards greater openness generally in the Department.

  Low Incomes
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to provide a response to the Social Security Select Committee second report, "Low Income Statistics: Low Income Families 1979 to 1989".

  Mr. Burt
  I have today laid before Parliament Command Paper Cm. 2172 which forms the Government response to the Select Committee report.

  National insurance contributions as a percentage of total household income by region

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  United Kingdom

  4·2

  4·1

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  3·6

  3·1

  North

  4·2

  4·2

  4·1

  4·2

  4·2

  3·8

  3·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·2

  4·2

  4·0

  4·1

  4·1

  3·7

  3·2

  East Midlands

  4·4

  4·3

  4·2

  4·2

  4·2

  3·7

  3·2

  East Anglia

  4·0

  4·0

  3·8

  3·8

  3·9

  3·4

  3·0

  Departmental Travel Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total sum spent from his Department's budget on Ministers' travel costs and expenses for travel between Britain and France since April 1992;

  (2) what is the total sum spent from his Department's budget on travel costs and expenses (a)for foreign travel overall and (b)for travel between Britain and France since April 1992.

  Mr. Lilley
  The sum spent by the Department of Social Security since April 1992 on foreign travel costs is as follows:

  (a) Foreign travel costs and expenses overall = £403,600

  (b) The travel costs between Britain and France since April 1992 = £26,735

  Spending on fares for Ministers' travel between Britain and France amounts to £4,688. Information about related expenses is not readily available.

  Smoke Detectors
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority is given to battery and mains-operated smoke detectors in relation to applications for community care grants from the social fund for the purchase of essential furnishings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The priority given to any application will depend on the circumstances of each case. A social fund officer has to take account of the general guidance on priorities issued by the Secretary of State and the local guidance issued by the area social fund officer. The guidance helps social fund officers but is not binding; social fund officers must use their discretion and decide each case on its merits. A copy of the Secretary of State's guidance is available in the Library.

  In practice, since smoke alarms are usually inexpensive, most applications would fall outside the £30 minimum award for grants.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of average household income in each region being paid through national insurance contributions in each year from 1978–79 to 1996–97.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 March 1993]:The table shows the available information, relating to employees' national insurance contributions as a percentage of household income by region, for the calendar years 1984 to 1990. Regional estimates of household income have not been compiled for years prior to 1984, and estimates for 1991 will be published in the May 1993 issue of "Economic Trends".
  305

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  South East of which:

  4·2

  4·1

  4·0

  4·0

  3·9

  3·5

  3·1

  Greater London

  4·3

  4·3

  4·1

  4·1

  4·1

  3·6

  3·2

  Rest of South East

  4·1

  4·0

  3·9

  3·9

  3·8

  3·4

  3·0

  South West

  3·8

  3·7

  3·5

  3·6

  3·7

  3·4

  2·9

  West Midlands

  4·4

  4·4

  4·2

  4·2

  4·3

  3·8

  3·3

  North West

  4·3

  4·2

  4·1

  4·2

  4·2

  3·7

  3·2

  England

  4·2

  4·1

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  3·6

  3·1

  Wales

  3·9

  4·0

  3·9

  3·9

  4·0

  3·5

  3·1

  Scotland

  4·2

  4·1

  4·0

  4·0

  4·2

  3·7

  3·2

  Northern Ireland

  4·4

  4·0

  3·8

  3·8

  3·8

  3·2

  2·9

  Notes:

  1. Total household income based on the National Accounts definition of household income.

  2. Regional estimates consistent with the data published in the Regiona national estimates published in the 1991 Blue Book.

  3. Regional breakdown of employees' national insurance contributions based on one per cent. sample of records held by Department of Social Security.

  Source:Central Statistical Office.

SCOTLAND

  North Ayrshire Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the ancillary staffing levels of North Ayrshire hospitals trust.

  Mr. Stewart
  There were 508 ancillary staff in post at 30 September 1992 in the hospitals that will, from 1 April 1993, gain the status of a trust under the North Ayrshire hospitals trust.

  Excluded from this total are staff working for contracted-out services.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet Ayrshire and Arran health board to discusss transfer of North Ayrshire hospital to trust status.

  Mr. Stewart
  Responsibility for the transfer of the North Ayrshire hospitals to the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust is primarily a matter for the trust and Ayrshire and Arran health board. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the appropriate orders in due course.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce grant-maintained schools in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The legislative frame-work is in place and schools have been encouraged to consider the advantages of self-governing status. At St. Mary's Episcopal primary school, Dunblane the parents voted in favour of self-government status. The school board now has one month to submit proposals to the Secretary of State.

  Community Care
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of provision for community care for patients with chronic diseases.

  Mr. Stewart
  The level of provision for community care for patients with chronic diseases will vary for every 306
  patient and in all cases will reflect and respond to the needs of the individual. The aim is to secure the most effective package of services that meets the patients' and carers' needs.

  Borders Structure Plan
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following the publication of his proposed amendments to the Borders regional structure plan.

  Mr. Stewart
  By the closing date for representations, my right hon. Friend had received 195 letters commenting on the draft modifications to the Borders regional structure plan.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he plans to make for Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government are still considering arrangements for Scottish representation on the Committee of the Regions.

  Water Rates (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to reduce the level of water rates in rural areas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The level of water charges is a matter for water authorities. However grants are available under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts 1944 to 1970 to assist capital expenditure by water authorities in rural areas. The effect can be to keep charge levels down.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average level of public expenditure per head in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The level of identifiable general Government expenditure per head in Scotland in 1991–92 was £3,506. Identifiable public expenditure comprises expenditure identified as being of direct benefit to Scottish inhabitants. Other expenditure, principally on defence, is of equal
  307
  benefit to all the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. That amounted to £716 per head across the United Kingdom in 1991–92.

  European Year of Older People
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's involvement and participation in the 1993 European Year of Older People; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office is participating fully with other Government Departments and voluntary organisations to plan and promote a wide-ranging programme of events for the European Year of Older People and Solidarity Between Generations. A diary of events taking place in Scotland has been produced and is being added to all the time. Funding to assist with the promotion of the year in Scotland is being made available by the Scottish Office.

  Public Bodies (Safeguards)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to give citizens legally enforceable safeguards against the abuse of power by public bodies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have published Scottish charters setting out citizens' rights and entitlements. Some rights, such as the appeals procedures outlined in the parents charter, are statutory. The Housing and Urban Development Bill contains provisions which will strengthen tenants' statutory rights. We have no plans at present to add to these rights.

  There are also ordinary remedies available to citizens before the courts and through the various ombudsmen arrangements.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the Touche Ross report on the costs of local government reform.

  Mr. Stewart
  The sum paid to Touche Ross for its report, the IPF survey of local authorities and subsequent work on the costs of local government reform was £55,000.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on trading standards and consumer protection depart-ments of his proposals for reorganising local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  A number of respondents to our recent consultation paper on local government reform have commented on the future of the trading standards service in a single-tier structure. We are giving careful consideration to all these comments.

  School Building (Gordon)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Gordon constituency to examine future school building needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Gordon area in connection. with school building issues.

  Beef Special Premium
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he expects to pay to farmers in Scotland under the beef special premium scheme in 1993–94.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We expect to pay approximately £12·5 million to Scottish farmers under the beef special premium scheme in the financial year 1993–94.

  Scottish Government
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on his White Paper on "Scotland in the Union".

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has received on the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" (Cm 2225).

  Mr. Ian Lang
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in implementing the proposals in his recent White Paper, "Scotland in the Union—a Partnership for Good" (Cm 2225); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Implementation of a number of the proposals contained in the White Paper is already in hand. For example local information points and a public inquiry unit should be operational by the summer; the new oil and gas office will be opened in Aberdeen later this year; preparatory work for the various transfers of responsibility from Whitehall to the Scottish Office is proceeding. As regards parliamentary aspects of the White Paper, proposals for the amendment of Standing Orders will be brought forward in due course.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zones
  Graham
  31.Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Inverclyde enterprise zones.

  Mr. Stewart
  The need for site clearance, servicing and infrastructure works on most of the sites, and the general economic situation, has meant that progress on the zone has been a little slower than we might have hoped. There have also been local difficulties which have contributed to delays in bringing forward sites for development.

  Nevertheless, there are extremely encouraging develop-ments on the zone. The proposed development by MIMTEC at Faulds park in particular is expected to create 400 new jobs and bring £20 million of investment to Inverclyde. The zone partners are working, with the Scottish Office, to build on this and earlier successful developments; and to ensure that the zone meets its target of creating 3,200 new jobs in the area.

  Water Investment
  Chisholm
  33. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the continued funding of water investment by public borrowing.
  309
  Sir Hector Monro
  Under the present administrative arrangements, capital expenditure by water authorities will continue to be subject to public expenditure controls. In addition to the capital consent allocations issued by the Secretary of State, which in effect limit the extent to which authorities may borrow to fund capital expenditure, authorities can augment capital spending by the use of capital receipts and by revenue and private sector contributions. Beyond this, funding arrangements will depend on the future structure of the water and sewerage services, which my right hon. Friend is presently considering.

  Health Boards and NHS Trusts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what scrutiny he gives to the curricula vitae of people nominated for health boards and NHS trusts.

  Mr. Stewart
  The curricula vitae of people nominated for appointment to health boards and NHS trusts receive close scrutiny as they help to identify those likely to be able to contribute to the effective running of the NHS in Scotland.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ancillary workers are employed by(a)health boards and (b)hospital trusts in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  At 30 September 1992 there were 20,106 ancillary staff representing 13,033 whole-time equivalents employed by health boards in Scotland. National health service trusts in Scotland employed 1,384 ancillary staff representing 938 whole-time equivalents at that date.

  Local Government (Employment)
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current levels of employment in local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 March 1993 at column 173.

  Car Theft (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were convicted for car theft in Strathclyde region during 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1991—the latest year for which data are available—there were 1,220 persons convicted in Strathclyde police force area on a main charge of theft of a motor vehicle.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library the assessments made of the likely effectiveness of the paramedic ambulance service before its introduction;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the paramedic ambulance service on mortality and morbidity of the patients previously managed by the ambulance service;

  (3) what assessments are currently being made of the effectiveness of the paramedic ambulance service; and if they will be made public.
  310
  Mr. Stewart
  Pre-hospital care is provided by GPs, ambulance staff or hospital outreach teams and research has shown that rapid response by skilled staff to a seriously ill patient enhances recovery and survival. Ambulance staff are generally the first NHS response to patients in an emergency and it was for this reason that training in more advanced lifesaving techniques was introduced to provide a better standard of pre-hospital care for patients.

  The Scottish ambulance service has appointed a consultant medical director who is an experienced consultant in accident and emergency medicine. He is responsible for supervising the training arrangements for all extended trained ambulance staff throughout Scotland and for the audit of the outcomes of their interventions in individual cases. Arrangements are in place for measuring the outcome of patients defibrillated by SAS staff. Measuring the outcome of ambulance staff intervention in other types of cases requires link-up with hospital records and and the consultant medical director is involved in identifying the means of linking the ambulance patient report form with the Scottish NHS clinical information systems.

  In line with the rest of United Kingdom, records are kept of procedures which paramedics carry out in attending to patients, but these are not as yet linked to outcome. The intention is to measure clinical outcomes as part of quality assurance of ambulance service work. When the systems allow the results will be published.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of ambulance provision in Angus district, for each hospital, in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Ambulance provision to any part of Scotland is not based on the number of hospitals in any particular district. In 1992–93 the annual direct cost of ambulance provision in the Angus area will be £840,000. Information relating to earlier years is not readily available.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra ambulance provision is planned as a consequence of Tayside health board's acute services review.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Until the board has made a decision on the future of acute services in the area it is not possible to determine what changes might be required to the ambulance service.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single and double-manned ambulances are currently available in Angus district.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: There are eight double-manned and two single-manned accident and emergency ambulances and seven single-manned non-emergency patient transport vehicles.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place with Tayside health board on the subject of ambulance services in connection with Tayside health board's acute services review.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Officials from the Scottish Office Home and Health Department, Tayside health board and the Scottish ambulance service met on 10 February to discuss the impact on ambulance services in Angus of the options set out in the board's consultation document on its review of acute services.
  311
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances and ambulance crews are currently available in Angus district; and what were the comparable figures for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: There are currently 17 ambulances and 35 ambulance staff serving the Angus area. Staffing levels have increased by 30 per cent. since 1991. Other information over the past five years is not readily available.

  Angus Hospitals
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the value of bequests attached to each Angus hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information available from the 1991–92 endowment fund report from Tayside health board shows the value of endowments at 31 March 1992 for Angus hospitals, which includes donations, bequests, endowments and revenue from endowments is as follows:

  Hospital

  Amount (£)

  Arbroath Infirmary

  19,522

  Rosemount Day Hospital

  593

  Brechin Infirmary

  1,283

  Forfar Infirmary

  10,823

  Fyfe Jamieson

  764

  Little Cairne

  9,775

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  15,389

  Stracathro

  41,124

  Sunnyside Royal

  8,903

  Whitehills Hospital

  3,019

  Total

  111,195

  In addition to these endowments, £5,044 is held for community care units provided by the health board in the Angus area and a further £1,269,252 is held in a general fund not associated with particular hospitals.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the percentage of admissions to acute beds that are(a)elective and (b)emergency.

  Mr. Stewart
  The table shows discharges in 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, from Scottish NHS hospitals by type of admmission and health board area within which treatment was received.

  Health Board of Treatment

  Admission Type Elective per cent.

  Emergency per cent.

  Argyll and Clyde

  46·0

  48·3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  51·1

  42·9

  Borders

  40·1

  51·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  43·6

  45·1

  Fife

  52·5

  38·7

  Forth Valley

  53·9

  40·8

  Grampian

  46·1

  43·2

  Greater Glasgow

  52·8

  35·8

  Highland

  49·8

  42·8

  Lanarkshire

  43·7

  46·5

  Lothian

  47·9

  40·7

  Orkney

  42·5

  53·5

  Shetland

  54·0

  44·1

  Tayside

  45·2

  43·7

  312

  Health Board of Treatment

  Admission Type Elective per cent.

  Emergency per cent.

  Western Isles

  44·4

  51·8

  Scotland

  48·7

  51·6

  Inter-hospital transfers are not included.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many psychiatric beds are projected to close in each Scottish health board in each of the next nine years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards are constantly reviewing their assessment of need and as a consequence no figures for future years are available. It remains the case that every admission to and discharge from hospital is based on individual clinical assessment.

  Electoral Rolls
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total electorate in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland as at 16 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total electorate for each parliamentary constituency in Scotland, as at 16 February 1993, is as follows:

  Parliamentary Electors: 1993 Register: by constituency (alphabetical order)

  Constituency

  Total

  SCOTLAND

  3,931,429

  Aberdeen North

  60,242

  Aberdeen South

  59,389

  Angus East

  64,223

  Argyll and Bute

  48,995

  Ayr

  66,495

  Banff and Buchan

  66,721

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,113

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  55,821

  Central Fife

  56,491

  Clackmannan

  49,538

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  47,900

  Clydesdale

  62,978

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  47,422

  Cunninghame North

  55,564

  Cunninghame South

  49,644

  Dumbarton

  57,525

  Dumfries

  61,876

  Dundee East

  58,570

  Dundee West

  59,624

  Dunfermline East

  50,700

  Dunfermline West

  51,713

  East Kilbride

  65,051

  East Lothian

  67,541

  Eastwood

  64,506

  Edinburgh Central

  57,127

  Edinburgh East

  45,779

  Edinburgh Leith

  56,662

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  56,171

  Edinburgh South

  62,330

  Edinburgh West

  59,331

  Falkirk East

  52,550

  Falkirk West

  50,220

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  55,074

  Glasgow Cathcart

  44,623

  Glasgow Central

  47,963

  Glasgow Garscadden

  40,975

  Glasgow Govan

  45,629

  Glasgow Hillhead

  57,524

  Glasgow Maryhill

  48,109

  313

  Constituency

  Total

  Glasgow Pollok

  45,786

  Glasgow Provan

  36,625

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  52,903

  Glasgow Shettleston

  52,263

  Glasgow Springburn

  46,016

  Gordon

  82,654

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  52,185

  Hamilton

  62,364

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  70,955

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,638

  Kincardine and Deeside

  68,218

  Kirkcaldy

  52,322

  Linlithgow

  61,884

  Livingston

  61,905

  Midlothian

  60,831

  Monklands East

  49,041

  Monklands West

  49,903

  Moray

  64,592

  Motherwell North

  57,955

  Motherwell South

  50,327

  North East Fife

  55,657

  North Tayside

  57,135

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,052

  Paisley North

  46,491

  Paisley South

  47,937

  Perth and Kinross

  66,672

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  59,430

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  56,967

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  44,201

  Stirling

  58,786

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  61,678

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  40,220

  Western Isles

  23,127

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the eligibility, financial and operating rules which apply to coal enterprise companies in Scotland differ from those outlined in the 1993–94 training and enterprise council operating agreement for(a)youth training and training credits, (b)training for work and (c)business start-up allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The rules which govern the delivery by local enterprise companies in Scotland of the principal Government-funded training and enterprise programmes for 1993–94 are set out in an operating agreement between Scottish Enterprise/Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies which follows closely that for training and enterprise councils.

  Badger Setts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of badger setts, by county, closed or otherwise, seriously interfered with by or under licence from his Department's officials in each month from October 1991.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information requested is as follows:

  Month

  Number of setts

  District council area

  November 1992

  2

  Clydesdale Moray

  January 1993

  1

  Nairn

  Fisheries Protection Agency
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about performance targets for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  For the financial year 1993–94 I have set the following targets:

  Target

  Aerial surveillance—per cent, of hours flown on task

  85

  Aerial surveillance—cost per aircraft sighting (£)

  95

  Marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea

  2,500

  Marine surveillance—cost per boarding (£)

  2,625

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate—cost per log sheet check (£)

  57

  50 per cent, of cases for prosecution to be reported within six weeks of offence being detected and 90 per cent, within eight weeks

  Number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences reported to prosecuting authorities (per cent.)

  75

  In order to ensure that the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency uses its resources efficiently, I have set it a target to achieve cash releasing efficiency gains of 1½ per cent. over 1992–93.

  The chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the achievement of these targets, which will be reported in the agency's annual report.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he will set the Scottish prison service on achieving executive agency status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that, under the next steps initiative, the Scottish prison service will become an executive agency on 1 April 1993. I am arranging for copies of the framework document to be placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of the House. I shall remain accountable to Parliament for the activities of the Scottish prison service. I am delegating to the chief executive full managerial authority for the agency and its day-to-day operation. For the future I envisage greater flexibilities to help the Scottish prison service meet increasingly demanding targets and further improve its standards of service.

  I have set the following key performance targets for the Scottish prison service for 1993–94:

  Target

  1. The number of prisoners unlawfully at large.

  1. No 'A' category prisoners should escape.

  2. The number of escapes by 'B' category prisoners should not be higher than 2·5 per 1,000 prisoners

  2. The number of significant incidents.

  A database will be devloped and a target set from 1994–95.

  315

  Target

  3. The number of serious assaults on staff and prisoners.

  1. The number of serious assaults on staff should not be higher than 6 per 1,000 staff.

  2. The number of serious assaults on prisoners should not be higher than 11 per 1,000 prisoners.

  4. Basic quality of life for prisoners.

  By April 1994 52 per cent, of prisoners will have access to forms of night sanitation.

  5. The amount of available opportunities for prisoners' self development.

  That 80 per cent, of convicted prisoners should have the opportunity of at least 6·5 hours per working day of programmed activities.

  6. Time out of cell for unconvicted prisoners.

  On average 25 per cent, of unconvicted prisoner hours should be available for out of cell activities.

  7. Average annual cost per prisoner place.

  To keep costs within £26,170 per place available for use.

  8. The level of absence through staff sickness.

  To reduce the average number of days lost per person per year through staff sickness to 16.

  School Management
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about devolved school management.

  Mr. Lang
  When I launched the draft guidelines for consultation in November, I said that I believed that devolving the management of schools as far as possible to the schools themselves would provide new opportunities to improve the quality of the education our children receive. I also said then that no single scheme could cover the diversity of our schools and regional differences and that that was why I was asking education authorities to devise their own schemes to suit the particular schools and the particular circumstances in their areas.

  We received well over 1,000 responses during and just after the consultation period. I am grateful to all those who responded and also to those who gave of their time to attend the working group which was set up following a suggestion in the consultation paper and which met on three occasions to consider in detail the workings of the new arrangements.

  Having carefully considered the responses made and the very helpful and constructive suggestions put, we have clarified and revised the guidelines in a number of important respects. In particular, we have recognised the concerns of many about the very tight timescale under which implementation is to proceed. That is why we have extended to end September 1993 the period within which education authorities are to submit draft schemes and why we have extended to 1 April 1997 the period in which devolved school management is to be introduced in special schools. Devolved management is still to be introduced in all primary and secondary schools by 1 April 1996.
  316
  We have also extended the number of categories which need not require to be devolved to school level to include, for example, home-to-school transport, school meals and milk and, importantly, provision for special educational needs. These measures will safeguard resources in these special areas which are pupil-led rather than school led. And we have also recognised the concerns of many school boards by building greater flexibility into the arrange-ments for consultation with head teachers on spending decisions and participation in arrangements for school staff appointments.

  I have said all along that the arrangements for devolved school management must build on the strengths of our education system. To do so most effectively they will require to forge an even stronger partnership between education authorities, head teachers, school boards, school staff, parents and pupils. That can only be to the benefit of all.

  Experience here and abroad shows conclusively that there are real benefits to be gained by devolving responsibility for day-to-day decisions down to school level. Not only is each school better able to judge its own priorities, but each education authority is also free to concentrate on the important tasks of strategic planning, quality assurance and in providing an enabling and support role for its schools. That is why I look to all sides to make the new arrangements work for the benefit of our children's education and the education of our children's children.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Registers of Scotland to achieve in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the registers of Scotland the following key targets for 1993–94:to reduce turnround times for recording writs on the Sasines Register from 10 to 8 weeks.
  to reduce turnround times for dealings on the Land Register not attached to a First Registration or Transfer of Part from 15·5 to 12 weeks.
  to implement the agreed Land Register extension programme.
  to reduce unit costs in real terms for each of its main categories of work by 2 per cent.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in applying the next steps management approach to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has now agreed a management statement with the council. This is an important part of the application of the next steps approach to executive non-departmental public bodies. The management statement describes the council's aims and objectives and their relationship with the Secretary of State and provides the broad policy and managerial framework within which the council will operate. A copy of the management statement has been placed in the Library.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits for 1992–93 to class XV, vote 12.

  Mr. Lang
  I intend to decrease the cash limit for class XV, vote 12: law, order, miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland by £312,000 from £249,628,000 to £249,316,000. This is required due to increased expenditure on class XV, vote 10: police grant, legal aid, criminal injuries compensation and welfare food, Scotland which will be contained within the planning total.

  Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the performance of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against its targets for 1992–93 and the setting of targets for 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency has very largely achieved the key performance targets for 1992–93, the first year of its operation, which I set out in my answer of 9 March 1992 at column 397.

  For 1993–94 I have set the agency the following key performance targets.
  completion of 95 per cent. of all scientific tests and analyses within the timescale set by the customers;
  evaluation of quality assurance schemes for all major services leading to candidature for accreditation during 1994–95;
  improvement of the quantitative indices of performance of the Agency (ie its unit costs) by at least 1·5 per cent.;
  recovery of full economic costs for charged services;
  formal consultation of the views of all customers on the quality of the work done by the Agency in 1993–94;
  completion of the first annual cycle of the accruals accounting system developed in 1992–93.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his plans to establish the Scottish Record Office as a next steps agency.

  Mr. Lang
  I informed the House on 5 February that the Scottish Record Office was to be established as a next steps agency. It is to be launched as an agency on 1 April.

  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for its first year of operation:

  Efficiency
  to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the records of Scotland by 8 per cent.;

  Quality of Service
  to increase the number of catalogue pages available for public scrutiny on the electronic system from 24,600 in 1992–93 to 30,740 in 1993–94;
  to maintain the recently achieved standards of reader services: material produced for readers in 30 minutes or less in 90 per cent. of cases.
  90 per cent. of photocopying for legal customers produced in 24 hours,
  95 per cent. of correspondence dealt with in 10 days, while absorbing an expected 2 per cent. increase in demand.

  Effectiveness
  to survey the electronic and paper based information systems as a first step towards agreeing standards for the transfer of electronic records to the SRO.
  The Keeper of the Records of Scotland as the agency's chief executive will be directly accountable to me for the agency's achievements.
  I have placed a copy of the agency's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Superannuation Division
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about establishing the Scottish Office superannuation division as an executive agency.

  Mr. Lang
  As I announced on 20 November 1992 the Scottish Office superannuation division will become an executive agency on 1 April. Its main role is to administer the occupational pension schemes covering the national health service and the teaching service in Scotland, on my behalf, and to advise me on the regulation of these schemes and other superannuation schemes for which I am responsible. The agency will be known as the Scottish Office Pensions Agency (SOPA) and will continue to be part of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  For 1993–94, the first year of its operation, I have set the following key targets for the agency:

  1. To complete by August 1993 an exercise to verify the accuracy and completeness of the computer based members' records.

  2. To develop an improved system for measuring customer satisfaction.

  3. To ensure that awards and transfer payments are accurate to within 2 per cent. of their value in 97 per cent. of cases.

  4. To pay on time 99 per cent. of all pensions and lump sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met.

  5. To respond to all enquiries within 3 weeks.

  6. To progress specification, procurement and implementation of new integrated IT systems to completion of tender evaluation stage.

  7. To optimise use of budgetary provision while keeping within direct running costs limits.

  8. To provide policy advice which is consistent with public service pension policy and takes account of operational objectives of Scottish Office departments, within the required timescales.

  Community Midwives
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the qualifications and training required for a local community midwife.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]:A local community midwife must have the appropriate profession-al qualifications required by section II of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, as amended, for admission to part 10 of the register maintained by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC). In addition under the council's rules regulating the practice of midwives, registered midwives are required to attend courses of instruction from time to time in accordance with these rules.

  Local Government Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress in the current review of the boundaries of local government electoral areas, stating whether public inquiries can still be held and whether there will be future opportunities for making representations to the appropriate authorities before final decisions are taken.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]:To date my right hon. Friend has received reports from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland for the three islands councils

  319
  and all regional councils other than Strathclyde. The Commission has recently commenced its programme of reviews of the 53 district councils.

  No further public inquiries can be held for the islands and regions. However, in the case of the districts, where the reviews are in progress, the commission will publish in the local press the time limits for lodging of representations and details of any public inquiries to be held. When the commission submits its reports to the Secretary of State there is a further opportunity for representations to be made about the commission's final recommendations.

  M80
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Cumbernauld development corporation on the line of route for the M80 extension between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Discussions have taken place with Cumbernauld development corporation over a number of years on the line of route for the M80 extension. A formal presention of the road proposals was made to members and officials in August 1992 and shortly afterwards the corporation expressed its strong support for the route through the Kelvin valley.

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland concerning the proposed changes to the contributary schemes for legal aid and legal advice and assistance; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland concerning the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for legal aid and legal advice and assistance; and if he will make a statement;

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The social work commissioner of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland wrote to the Scottish Office Home and Health Department on 15 March about the effect on the mentally disordered of the Government's proposed changes in eligibility for civil legal aid and advice and assistance.
  320
  The Government's intention is to ensure, in the face of considerable rises in expenditure on legal aid, that legal aid will continue to be available to the most needy. The financial circumstances of mentally disordered people will vary considerably, but it is likely that the great majority will remain eligible for civil legal aid or advice and assistance, either free of charge or with an income-related contribution.

  NHS Pay Review
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards the pay review for national health service workers due to take effect on 1 April; and if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the review.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: The Government's policy on pay in the public sector including the national health service was set out in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in the House on 12 November 1992.

  Doctors and dentists have accepted an offer of a 1·5 per cent. increase in pay and allowances with effect from 1 April 1993. Representatives of all other staff groups except clinical scientists, clinical psychologists and pharmacists are consulting their members about similar offers. Staff representatives are aware that these are final offers.

  Smoke Alarms
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Paisley, south, (Mr. McMaster) on 19 January,Official Report,column 238,if he will bring forward regulations to require smoke alarms to be fitted to existing dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 March 1993]: Under the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, building control operates on the principle that a warrant must be obtained before work is carried out. The Building Standards Regulations and the technical standards which support them cannot therefore be applied retrospectively. Under amendments to the regulations and standards which my right hon. Friend intends shortly to lay before Parliament the fitting of mains-operated smoke alarms will become compulsory in all new dwellings.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

London Underground Ltd.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have given to the representations made to them by London Underground Ltd. about the inadequacy of investment permitted for the Underground system in 1993–94.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have discussed at length with London Underground its investment plans for 1993–94. There are no plans to review the settlement.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that the managers of London Underground estimate that their plans to update and modernise the underground system have been set back some 20 years by the cut backs in their investment programme? Is he aware that that is of particular concern to passengers like myself who have to continue to suffer the so-called miseries of the Northern Line and other lines, and that there is concern that the cut in investment may lead to a cut in safety standards, ranging from terrorism protection to safety for women passengers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is understandable that London Underground should be disappointed by the settlement. This was a particularly difficult year. London Underground is not alone in having to scale down its aspirations. Violent crime on the Underground has fallen in each of the past five years. I know that London Underground is fully committed to building on that record.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that London Underground has a breakdown at least once a day and that those of us who travel habitually on the Underground suffer continually from delays caused by the defective state of the system?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we acknowledge that much of London Underground's asset base is in need of renewal. That is an enormous task and the settlement should allow further progress to be made in carrying it out.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that despite the need for renewal, which no doubt is genuine, there is also a great need to run the machinery better and to make the best use of the existing capital of London Underground, which at present is very badly managed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in times of constrained resources it is more important than ever that those resources are used effectively. We need an underground system which is not only adequately funded but which is also well managed and responsive to customers. Our aim is a modern metro, but that will take time and considerable expense. That is why we have asked London Underground to prepare a strategic plan.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Central Line and the Circle Line were bad before the war, were bad during the war and have been bad since the war?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that London Underground has a £750 million Central Line modernisation scheme well under way and on course for completion by 1995.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is the noble Viscount aware that the escalator at Pimlico station is once more out of order? I have raised the matter time and time again in this House. Is it not a disgrace that one has to walk down 89 steps every day to get to the train? If that is a matter of investment, ought it not to be put right immediately?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the number of escalators and lifts in peak time passenger service has constantly remained above the target set by the Government in May 1992. Even with many being overhauled or replaced, London Underground is committed in its customer charter to keeping passengers informed as to why particular escalators and lifts are out of service and what work is taking place.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the fact that the new line from Paddington to Heathrow will be very little quicker than the present Piccadilly Line route to Heathrow, would it not be better if some of the funds being invested in that white elephant line from Paddington were diverted to the Underground?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, further expansion plans are being made for the Underground system. There has been a great deal of investment in the London Underground. Substantial sums have been committed to that core business. It is important to note that they compare favourably with levels of investment in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members of your Lordships' House have greatness thrust upon them at short notice? In that capacity, perhaps I may therefore ask him whether he is aware that London Underground is making no progress in its modernisation plans and is fighting hard to stand still. Is the noble Viscount aware that the settlement to which my noble friend Lady Jay referred is inadequate to ensure that in the next 10, 15 and 20 years London Underground will be capable of moving the millions of people who travel around London on the Underground each day of the year? Will the Minister and his government colleagues

887
take a second look at the settlement and ensure that the modernisation of London Underground is properly and adequately funded?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the modernisation scheme is well under way. In the past three years investment in London Underground has averaged £450 million in the core business. This year it is at an all-time record. Next year we expect to invest about £500 million and a further £600 million in 1995–96.

Independent Living Fund: Successors
2.36 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in establishing the two successor bodies to the Independent Living Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Independent Living (Extension) Fund and the Independent Living (1993) Fund have now been set up and will begin operating tomorrow. Arrangements have been made to ensure that the extension fund can continue making payments to the clients of the former ILF without interruption.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister recall that last April there was absolute chaos with the introduction of the disability living allowance despite assurances from Ministers that there would be a transition without interruptions? Is he aware of the fear and anxiety felt by many disabled people about the further chaos that will follow the introduction of the new Independent Living Fund? Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that emergency payments will be made where any problems arise, especially as those new independent funds are to be introduced tomorrow, 1st April?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that there were some problems with the introduction of the disability living allowance. Both I and my right honourable friend the Minister of State have apologised for the fact that the service was not adequate. As regards the introduction of the new extension funds, as I said, we hope that there will be no delays in payments for those who are at present receiving payments from the ILF and who will move on to the extension fund. As regards the new 1993 fund, that is really a matter for the trustees, but I am sure that they will bear in mind the noble Lord's words. I am sure that they will be able to give as good a service as was given by the ILF in the past.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Ashley I have never known such chaos as in the arrangements for introducing the successor funds to the ILF. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a couple of questions about the trustees. Is it not the case that seven new trustees are due to take over responsibility for 22,000 severely disabled people tomorrow? Is it not the case that as of last week only
888
two of those seven trustees had been appointed to look after the successor funds? Is it also not the case that none of the existing ILF trustees is to be appointed to the successor funds and therefore their experience and expertise will be lost? Will the Minister please explain why?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as of today I can assure the noble Baroness that six trustees have been appointed. We approached more than one of the old trustees to see whether they were prepared to serve on the new trust, but they were not willing. I believe that the new 1993 ILF is a different animal from the old ILF. The opportunity was taken to appoint new trustees. That is in no way a criticism of the existing trustees of the ILF; it is in no way an attempt to say that they have not performed their duties adequately. I have no end of praise for the commitment that they have given to the ILF.
As regards the lack of continuity, most of the existing staff of the ILF will be working for the new successor bodies. There will therefore be continuity. In addition, various visiting social workers who act on a freelance basis for the ILF will still be available to give their expertise to the new bodies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister tell us in what way the successor bodies to the ILF are not doing much the same work as the original ILF, namely, to enable severely disabled people to remain in their homes on the basis of cash payments? That expertise is surely even more precious with the transitional arrangements in their current chaos.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I tried to assure the noble Baroness that the new 1993 ILF is a different animal. It is restricted in certain ways. For example, it is available only to those between 16 and 65. In addition, it only provides topping up money over and above services provided by local authorities to a value of £200. The new ILF will provide services up to a further £300 above that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that in the appointment of trustees and other similar appointments for which he has responsibility, competence will be the most important factor rather than political affiliation? I ask that in the light of the statement recently made by one of his Front Bench colleagues on public appointments and the importance of being "one of us."
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no idea whatever of the political affiliations of the six trustees so far appointed. They have been appointed purely on merit.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that disabled people are concerned that the money allocated and earmarked for local authorities for providing services to severely disabled people since the reorganisation of the Independent Living Fund may be insufficient? Will he state what the Government have done to ensure that local authorities can meet their commitments?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that however much we provide people will always argue that there

889
will not be enough. Frankly, we have provided considerable amounts of money for independent living. When we originally set up the Independent Living Fund, we made provision of about £5 million. That was in 1988–89. I do not remember anyone at the time saying that that was not enough. Somewhat like Topsy, that has grown to a provision in the year 1992–93 of £97 million. As from next year there will be a total of £150 mi' lion available for independent living of which £120 million will be for the extension fund, £4 million for the new 1993 fund and over £26 million for the local authorities for their part in independent living.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord state what publicity has been given to the Independent Living (1993) Fund?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any publicity at present. We sent a circular to all local authorities at the beginning of March explaining details of the new scheme. I am sure that the news will get around very quickly to those with interests in the disabled and to the disabled themselves.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again but I seek clarification. The payments are of 'vital importance to disabled people. Is the Minister washing his hands of the fund and leaving it entirely to the trustees? Alternatively, if problems arise and some people are not paid—that seems very probable—will the Government intervene?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have explained previously, the primary role is for the local authorities. The Independent Living Fund and its successor, the Independent Living (1993) Fund, provides topping up money. The Independent Living Fund is an independent charitable trust funded by the Government. It is for the trust to decide how to spend that money.

Legal Aid: England and Scotland
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the rules governing legal aid are identical in England and Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, legal aid is the means whereby citizens on low and modest income can be given access to the legal system. In seeking to achieve that objective, the detailed provisions for legal aid in Scotland and England vary in order to reflect the differences between the Scottish and English legal systems.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I ask the Question because I know that the Law Society of Scotland has been worried about changes. It is a matter entirely for the noble and learned Lord. However, perhaps he will arrange to have communication with the Law Society of Scotland on the subject at the appropriate time.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall be happy to communicate further with the Law Society of Scotland. I have met with the president on a number of occasions. Recently I gave evidence before a Select Committee in another place at which the representatives of the law society were present. I believe that they appreciate the basis on which there is a separate but real concern in Scotland about the growth of the amount of legal aid that has to be paid out. The number of grants of civil legal aid has continued to rise and has risen particularly fast during the course of the past year. I consider it only appropriate that against that background some restriction in the total growth of legal aid is right.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, will he state how the cuts in the legal aid provision throughout the United Kingdom, which deprive at least some people of access to the courts, can be reconciled with the Government's Citizen's Charter as it applies to the courts system and the Government's vision, or perhaps delusion, of a classless society? Secondly, will the Government give a breakdown of the daily cost of prosecutions in Scotland in the sheriff courts and the High Court and the daily cost of civil litigation in both those courts? Will he indicate what proportion of those costs are borne out of the legal aid fund?
If the Minister cannot provide those details—I appreciate that he probably cannot at this stage—will he undertake to make those figures public in due course so that the people in Scotland can see whether his assertions about the cost of legal aid in Scotland are true? Indications were given to me that within the legal aid scheme in Scotland £16 million of awards were recovered and £16 million of expenses were recovered. That indicates that the system is working effectively in Scotland and that there is no reason for the cuts.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the noble Lord appreciates, the detailed figures of the costs per day of prosecutions in the sheriff courts and the High Court in Scotland are not immediately at my fingertips. However, I shall do what I can to provide him with those details.
Responsible government have to balance what they spend. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated that in England and Wales he anticipates yet further substantial increases in the legal aid budget in the next year amounting to about £1,284 million. It is a considerable sum. Comparably in Scotland we envisage that there will be some very considerable increases in expenditure. I believe that in both countries the anticipation is that over the next three years the rise in the cost of legal aid may be about 40 per cent. Therefore while both my noble and learned friend and I have on our respective sides of the Border sought to introduce some changes to reduce what we spend, it will be a reduction in the growth of legal aid, not of the total sum.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend say whether the demand for legal aid is more fully met in Scotland or in England?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that I can answer that question. All I can tell my noble friend is that on both sides of the Border the demand for civil legal aid and for criminal legal aid is regularly increasing.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that as a mental health patient in receipt of invalidity benefit is now no longer eligible for the green form scheme because the invalidity benefit is slightly higher than the income support limit that has been set, mental health patients detained in mental institutions who wish to appeal to a mental health tribunal will have to pay between £500 and £800 costs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that I can answer the question specifically in relation to England. I can indicate that in such circumstances an individual might have to make a contribution, but it would be a very small one. It would not deprive him of access to legal advice and assistance or legal aid.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in view of the answer given by the Minister, are both he and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor riding a Treasury tandem, paying no attention to the interests of justice in the community?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, my Lords. I think that on previous occasions I have made clear to the noble Lord that there has been a real increase in expenditure on legal aid in Scotland. Quite independently, once that was brought to my attention, it seemed to me right that we should introduce some measure to restrict the growth in the amount of legal aid paid, but not to reduce the total amount. That will continue to rise by some 40 per cent. for the next three years.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, quite apart from the difference between the application of legal aid in Scotland and in England, there is a great difference in the cost? It appears that in civil legal aid, the cost per case is about £800 in Scotland and £1,600 in England. The money spent per head of population is much less in Scotland. Is that because of the competence of the Scottish legal system and Scottish lawyers, or is it because they are not as greedy as their English counterparts?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would be surprised if he thought that I would follow him down that route.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that much of the cost is on account of the many adjournments and the waste of the courts' time? Will he consider disallowing legal aid costs when they result from adjournments?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that considerable sums of money are wasted as a result of adjournments and because witnesses do not turn up. But whether there is any
892
realistic way in which a penalty can be imposed as regards the payment of legal aid in such circumstances is more problematic.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the legal profession and many of the people who have to use its services are concerned about the different levels of legal aid in non-criminal instances? To them, there seems to be no good reason why the levels should vary, yet in some cases the legal aid provided seems to be generous while in others it is not quite so generous. Will the Government contact the legal profession to discuss that aspect of legal aid?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, all I can indicate to the noble Lord is that while there are some differences in eligibility levels, depending on the types of cases, where there are differences I should have thought that they were welcome. However, it is certainly a matter that I am prepared to consider.

Business
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. As the debate has been limited to five hours, all speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes, apart from the mover and the Minister in reply. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate. When the 11th minute is indicated, the 12th has already commenced.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Coal Industry
Lord Richard Lord Richard rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores the proposals contained in the White Paper Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review (Cm 2235), providing as it does for the cessation of production of 18 pits, and condemns Her Majesty's Government for their failure to develop a long-term strategy for meeting Britain's future energy requirements.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The origin of the debate today is of course the announcement by the Government and British Coal last October of the closure of no fewer than 31 pits and the consequent direct redundancy of some 32,000 miners. The indirect unemployment thereby to be caused was estimated to be approximately 100,000.
The House will remember the quite extraordinary public reaction to this proposal. Miners marching through London were greeted by the ladies of Kensington and Chelsea in a display of solidarity which I, at least, found particularly heart-warming. Even in rural Cheltenham the proposals caused

893
uproar. The main result of that spontaneous eruption was that the Government undertook to initiate a major review of their policy to see whether their proposals for the closure of 31 pits would stand up to re-examination. The period of gestation was no less than five months and the baby having been born and examined, albeit only over a period of five days, the fact of the matter is that for all practical purposes we are now in precisely the same position as we were last October.
The Government have now decided that with the aid of a subsidy—the precise amount of which is at present unknown and, indeed, is probably unknowable—12 of the 31 pits may (I emphasise the word "may") have a temporary reprieve. Precisely how long the stay of execution is to be is not known, although over the weekend British Coal seems successfully to have dispelled any lingering hopes that it might have proved to be a permanent reprieve.
There is no proposal in the White Paper for an increased market for coal of even one extra tonne. Nor is there any suggestion that is other than temporary. We are therefore bound to ask whether the White Paper has been produced, not in order to alleviate the brutal measures proposed last October but in order to give the impression that the Government are actively doing something. Perhaps the truth is, as was claimed in the debate last Monday in another place, that the Government are anxious to clear the decks for privatisation.
It is illuminating that paragraph 2.37 of the White Paper uses the following terms:
"Over the medium term, the industry is likely to be able to reduce its cost to an extent which will enable electricity produced from United Kingdom coal to compete on price with electricity produced from imported coal. This will require effective management and substantial changes in working practices which will need the commitment of the workforce. The Government believes that the coal industry will be best placed to make these changes when it has been fully returned to the private sector".
I ask the question: why? Why do the Government believe that the industry will be best placed to make these changes only when it has been fully returned to the private sector? What is the evidence for this extraordinary assertion in the White Paper itself? Certainly there is not a scrap of evidence produced in the White Paper or elsewhere, or in the debate in another place this week, to justify an assertion as sweeping as that.
However, the second motive behind the White Paper may be rather more unworthy and rather more political. Clearly, the Government have to do sufficient to subdue any prospective revolt from its own Back-Benchers. Rushing the White Paper debate through in another place, before the implications were perhaps fully appreciated and understood, clearly helps them in this regard. I believe that it is for this House to look at the problem and the Government's proposals in the White Paper in perhaps a more objective and measured way. We have, after all, had another 48 hours in which to read the documents.
The starting point has to be to look at the figures. In October, the Government announced the decision to close 31 pits. Now, five months later, we are being told that precisely the same tonnage of coal being
894
supplied to the electricity industry would or could save 12 of those pits. The argument the Government make is that by providing British Coal with a subsidy which brings down the price of coal at the pits concerned to that of imported coal, the Government would be able or the industry would be able to replace imports with the output of those pits.
Let us examine those proposals and ask ourselves the question, which we clearly must do in terms of the White Paper: do these 12 pits that the Government have talked about in the White Paper have a future? A closer examination of the Government's proposals suggests, I am afraid, that they do not. Mr. Heseltine's arithmetic simply does not add up. I see noble Lords on the other side of the House shaking their heads at that proposition. I hope that they will bear with me on the argument and figures. I hope to be able to convince them that whatever motives may be ascribed to the President of the Board of Trade, his skill as a mathematician in this respect is clearly flawed and greatly erroneous. Under the Government's proposal, if one analyses it, in fact there would he a short-term future but only a short-term future for merely seven of the 12 pits at the most.
The press statement issued by British Coal on 25th March gives a clearer picture of the proposals for the 12 pits. It said:
"The Corporation felt the circumstances merited maintaining 12 of those collieries in full production while it carried out the market testing which would determine the volume of extra sales which could be secured".
That is how British Coal at least sees this great rescue operation so far as the 12 pits are concerned—a period of market testing to determine the volume of extra sales which could be secured. The 12 pits are not being saved in any permanent way. They are to be reprieved temporarily to see whether a market can be found for their coal. To facilitate finding that market the Government propose to offer the subsidy to which I have already referred. Again, it is important to remember that that subsidy will reduce progressively over the period to privatisation, which the Government intend to achieve at the earliest practical opportunity.
The value of the subsidy will be based on the difference between the cost of British Coal's production and the world price. Armed with that subsidy, the extent of which is, as I said, as yet unknown and perhaps unknowable, the 12 pits are then expected to seek out markets additional to the base contracts already agreed with the electricity industry; namely 40 million tonnes in 1993–94, and 30 million tonnes a year thereafter. Those base contracts we know—the Government have told us so, and British Coal said so as long ago as last October—will be supplied by the 19 pits originally scheduled to stay open in the October announcement.
As a result of the subsidy, the Government assume and anticipate that the generators of electricity will choose to import less coal than they would otherwise have chosen to, allowing more pits to stay open. Whether the 12 pits have a future therefore depends on whether the potential additional market, particularly from import displacement, is sufficiently large to absorb all their production.
It is also important to remember that the Government's proposals, as embodied in the White Paper—contrary to the proposals of the Select Committee, whereby no fewer than 37 propositions were put forward—provide no scope for reducing the contribution of several rivals to coal from British Coal's deep mines. Specifically, there are no proposals to reduce the contribution of nuclear power. The Government do not intend to slow down the "dash for gas". Indeed, the President of the Board of Trade announced approvals for three more gas-fired stations on, I believe, the very day that the White Paper was published. There will be no attempt to curtail imports of electricity via the French link. I have a word or two to say about that later. The continued use of orimulsion is anticipated and will be allowed. The Government have not reached an agreement with the generators to reduce the extent of de-stocking. Finally, there is to be no new constraint on the volume of opencast coal production. Within that framework—the one in which the Government set the proposals—British Coal is now expected, with the aid of the subsidy, to produce extra markets by reducing coal imports.
Let us look at the extent of coal imports and at the production of the 12 pits to see whether the mathematics makes any sense at all. The figure of coal imports is anticipated by British Coal to be 9 million tonnes in England and Wales. That figure, plus another 1 million tonnes imported to Scotland and Northern Ireland, sets a ceiling on the additional market, even if everything the Government advocate goes well. We are talking about a total figure of 9 million tonnes.
In practice, however, I believe there will continue to be some imports. Existing contracts mean that National Power and PowerGen are likely to take some 2 million tonnes of imported coal. They may wish to take a little more to keep some of their options open. So in reality we are talking about an import substitution possibility of some 7 million tonnes at the absolute maximum.
What about the production at those 12 pits? Annual production in 1992–93, according to British Coal, is 12.8 million tonnes. Annual production in 1995–96, according to the American mining engineers and consultants J. T. Boyd will be 14.2 million tonnes. That is on the basis that all the recommendations regarding working practices, and so on, are introduced and carried out. According to those figures, an additional market for coal of 7 million tonnes, won as a result of the Heseltine subsidy—even if conceivably it could be, which I doubt—would be sufficient to keep just the top seven pits in operation in 1993–94, and perhaps even fewer by 1995–96. On that basis, the following pits can be expected to close in the very near future, despite the reprieve announced last week: Bilsthorpe; Calverton; Kiveton; Rufford; and Markham. In that respect, it is a tribute to the Government's policy towards the coal industry that they have succeeded in getting the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to hold a ballot on whether
896
it should take industrial action—a remarkable achievement given the history of that union and its relation to the National Union of Mineworkers.
The only conclusion that one can reach on the figures is that the apparent reprieve of the 12 pits announced by the President of the Board of Trade is illusory and a sham. The changes in the market as outlined in the White Paper, and the proposed subsidy, do not provide even a short-term future for more than seven of the reprieved pits. Even that figure assumes that the generators take full opportunity of subsidised coal to displace the maximum volume of imports. That, as we all know, is very far from certain.
Finally, the survival of such a small number of pits takes no account of medium to longer term considerations, such as the withdrawal of the subsidy when privatisation occurs. That points to a further reduction in the number of survivors.
The truth of the matter is that the market for British coal is now, as a result of government policy in the past 10 years, inextricably linked to the generation of electricity, in respect of which the Government have conspicuously and publicly washed their hands. After the three years of the 30 million-tonne contract nothing is certain. To provide that tonnage it is certainly not necessary to keep open any of the 31 pits.
Why has that position been allowed to arise and what, if anything, can the Government and the country do about it? I start with a basic proposition; namely, that British coal is a major national asset. It deserves to be used and treated as such. Of course it is only fuel, but it is our fuel. Not only is it our fuel, indigenous to these islands, but we have a very large quantity of it. Our European partners cannot understand a situation in which, with a national asset of that magnitude and that importance, the Government close pits and cut production to such an extent. It seems to me to be utter folly to pursue an energy policy totally based on market forces, particularly when the market is rigged in such a way that coal cannot properly compete. Why was it necessary for the Government to encourage the dash for gas? Why could the electricity generators not be steered more in the direction of coal? What indeed was wrong with the previous position when coal provided far and away the major element needed to produce our electricity?
As for nuclear power, how can the figures be directly comparable when nuclear energy already receives a massive subsidy from the state? Again, how can electricity supply via the interconnector agreement with France be said to be fair when the very electricity the French produce and sell to us is heavily subsidised? I find it very difficult to believe that, if the situation were reversed, a French government would cheerfully close French pits and throw French miners out of work while at the same time they accepted British subsidised electricity. I do not believe that that would happen. I have to say to the Government frankly that the present position does not make sense.
I do not believe that a Labour government in this situation would have submitted in the humiliating way that the President of the Board of Trade did, prostrating himself before market forces on the basis

897
that he had no power whatever to influence them. We would have tried to curb the dash for gas. We would have looked at the subsidy for a nuclear industry in this country, or taken it into consideration in determining whether market forces were being used fairly or not. I am perfectly certain that we would by now have been in active negotiations with the French Government over the interconnector agreement.
I was frankly appalled to hear the answer given by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to a question I put on Tuesday 25th March. I asked whether the Government had even approached the Commission to see whether the interconnector agreement was something that they would consider investigating. She replied:
"My Lords, no, but I shall repeat what I said previously. The Government would take action to ensure that the French Government met their Community obligations if we had to, and we should expect the French Government to do the sarne".—[Official Report, 25/3/93; col. 466.]
My goodness, what a slap on the wrist for Paris.
I believe in fact that the Minister of State responsible for energy was sent to Paris recently to talk to the French and explore the problem. He gave a press conference. The first and apparently the main point that he made to the French was to say:
"I made it clear that the Government recognised that it was not legally possible to prevent the importation of French generated electricity via the linkage".
To ladle away at the very outset of the negotiations the precise point that he was sent to try to achieve seems an extraordinary way to negotiate, particularly with the French.
Finally, I come to the Select Committee's report. It proposed a stable market and a permanent future for at least a number of the pits. In another place the President of the Board of Trade said that he accepted the general thrust of the Select Committee's report. To ignore almost all its major recommendations, as the White Paper does, is a strange way to accept the report. The Select Committee believed that the future would depend upon action being taken to guarantee additional sales to the electricity generation market. The Government have singularly failed to do that.
We are not discussing today the social effects of redundancy. One cannot help but deplore the fact that those 18 pits ceasing production immediately will mean no fewer than 18,300 miners losing their jobs. I am not here today to give the coal industry a decent burial. We are here to attempt to guarantee its future. I must tell the Government that on their present policy the future is not guaranteed. There is no sign in the White Paper that they are about to change that approach.
Perhaps I may conclude with a quotation on the duties of government which I came across recently. It said:
"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".
I agree very much with that. I echo those words. Would that they had been applied to the mining industry. They were written by no less a person than
898
the President of the Board of Trade himself in his book Challenging Europe: Heseltine 1989. Would that: he had lived up to them.
In our view this Government deserve to be condemned: first, for the misleading sham of a White Paper that they have produced; and, secondly, because, read it as one may, the one thing that is hugely absent is any coherent, long-term energy strategy for this country. On both those grounds the Government deserve our national censure. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, to resolve, That this House deplores the proposals contained in the White Paper Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review (Cm 2235), providing as it does for the cessation of production of 18 pits, and condemns Her Majesty's Government for their failure to develop a long-term strategy for meeting Britain's future energy requirements.—(Lord Richard.)
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for giving the House the opportunity for an early debate on the coal White Paper today. The White Paper was debated and approved in another place on Monday.
I am conscious of the number of speeches and time limits. Therefore I propose briefly to outline the main conclusions of the review and to set the Government's policy in context. My noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield will, I know, wish to elaborate on that and respond in detail to the points raised by your Lordships.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of the circumstances which led to the coal review. The House debated those issues fully on 20th October and the Government took careful note of the views then expressed by your Lordships. In the intervening period the Government have carried out a full review; they have considered a wide range of evidence; they have drawn on the work of a number of independent consultants; and they have benefited from the inquiry undertaken by the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place. This has been a major undertaking.
Perhaps at this stage it might assist the House if I summarise the key conclusions of the review. First, we propose that British pits should have the opportunity to sell as much coal as the market will take, with financial support from the Government to enable extra output to be sold at world market related prices. This proposal offers the chance for more pits to secure a market. It gives the industry a further breathing space in which to reduce its costs and to achieve commercial viability. On the basis of that, British Coal has announced that 12 of the 21 pits included in the review will continue to produce coal. It plans to put another—Maltby—into development. That should enable it to become a world class pit for the next century.
Secondly, we shall press ahead with our plans to privatise the industry. British Coal's chairman has confirmed that no pit will close without first being

899
offered to the private sector. There is, of course, no question of lowering safety standards in this process. The Government are determined to ensure, with the Health and Safety Commission, that the existing high standards in the industry are maintained or improved.
Thirdly, the Government will not intervene to cut back generation from nuclear sources or from gas. As the Select Committee made clear, it would make no sense to deprive consumers of the benefits of the electricity they produce.
I wonder whether at this stage I could respond to points made by the noble Lord about the French interconnector. It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding about it. As the noble Lord well knows, its history goes back a long way. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade set out the position on imports of French electricity at some length in his Statement last Thursday. He made it clear, and has published a summary of the legal evidence that he received, that any governmental measure to restrict imports across the interconnector with France would run counter to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome.
Further, the Government would be at financial risk under the indemnity given at the time of electricity privatisation to the National Grid Company. Electricité de France's non-leviable status could not be removed without giving Electricité de France the benefit of the levy payments. Far from reducing imports from France, that would reinforce their position and our consumers would end up paying more for their electricity.
The noble Lord also made reference to French electricity being subsidised. He has extensive and distinguished experience of Community matters. The Government have no knowledge of any subsidies given to Electricité de France. Indeed, following the remarks made by noble Lords last Thursday, Electricité de France's UK agents have repeated assurances made to the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place that Electricité de France's capital and operating programmes are financed entirely through funds generated from its day-to-day operations and from commercial borrowings. If the noble Lord or anybody else has any evidence we should very much like to see it because it would be something that we could deal with. But we cannot act without any evidence and we certainly have none.
Fourthly, the Government have responded to concern about the social and economic effects of pit closures on local communities. We have put in place a wide-ranging package of regeneration measures to help those areas and intend to locate the headquarters of the new coal authority in Nottingham. The value of the package has now been increased to £200 million, with a separate package for Wales.
But the central question which the review had to address was the competitiveness of coal in the energy market. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, reminded the House when we debated these matters in October that the market for coal has been contracting continuously over the past 70 years. No government have been able
900
to avoid the pit closures which have inevitably followed. Nor is this something which has been confined to Britain. Throughout Western Europe national coal industries have been in decline for many years, with governments of all political complexions having no alternative but to close mines.
In 1955 the coal industries of the 12 member states of the European Community employed 1.86 million people. By 1991 that had fallen to 260,000. Production fell from nearly 500 million tonnes annually at the end of the 1950s to 184 million tonnes in 1992. The last Belgian mine closed in 1992. France has closed its northern coal fields and plans to close all its remaining mines by 2005. Even in Germany, where there are very large subsidies paid to the coal industry, manpower in the industry has fallen from over 600,000 in the late 1950s to about 125,000 today, with a further 40,000 coal job losses planned.
But the real competition for British Coal is not from within Europe. Much more important is competition from further afield. At the end of 1992 the electricity generators in England and Wales were able to import coal into the Thames-side power stations at a delivered cost of £1.15 to £1.30 a gigajoule. The average delivered cost of coal sold by British Coal was £2 per gigajoule or more. Some of that price difference arises from the large deposits of cheap opencast coal in Australia, the USA and other exporting countries. But it also reflects big differences in the productivity of their deep mines.
British Coal has more than doubled its productivity over the past seven years. This is a major achievement. Over the past few months it has done even better. But further improvement is essential. British Coal's productivity is still only 20 to 35 per cent. of productivity in American and Australian mines. Its deep mine costs are two to three times higher.
The new five-year contracts now agreed between British Coal and the generators reflect a significant reduction in the price of coal. That has been possible because of British Coal's productivity improvements. The Government's proposals are intended to enable British Coal to maintain and enhance its productivity gains and to give it the opportunity to become fully competitive.
Many of your Lordships were concerned in October that the Government should put forward a clear energy policy. I believe that the White Paper spells out very clearly the Government's approach. Let me remind the House that in October I said,
"It is the nature of a market that diversified decision-making replaces central economic planning. A competitive market ensures the greatest possible downward pressures on price. It is the Government's conviction that it is the competitive market which provides the best prospects for providing the cheapest possible sustainable electricity prices for customers." —[Official Report, 20/10/92; col. 670.]
That was the policy in October and it remains the policy now. Security, diversity and sustainability of energy supplies were and remain the keynotes of our policy. We believe that the market provides the best mechanism for achieving those goals. The benefits of this policy to customers are there for all to see.
In gas, industrial prices have fallen by 28 per cent. in real terms in the past five years and prices to the

901
domestic consumer by 11 per cent. Since privatisation industrial prices have gone down by about 36 per cent. and for domestic consumers by 16 per cent. And in electricity, prices to industry were on average 8.6 per cent. lower in real terms in 1992 than in 1989, before privatisation. For domestic consumers many regional electricity companies have now announced reductions in prices for 1993–94. Others have announced price freezes, which of course mean reductions in real terms.
It would be idle of me to pretend to your Lordships that it has been either quick or easy, for we had to move away from bureaucratic centralised planning in the energy sector towards an increasingly competitive structure in which markets, not politicians, make decisions about fuel use and the allocation of resources. We always recognised that the transition would take time. It is not complete and it has not been painless. But it is necessary and it has brought considerable benefits to the consumer and taxpayer.
Coal remains the largest element in the United Kingdom's diverse range of fuels in electricity generation. In the White Paper the Government have put forward proposals to enable the coal industry to complete its own transition to the competitive market place. These offer the industry the chance to achieve a viable long-term future. The base contracts now agreed with the generators are an important first step. It is now up to the industry to take advantage of the. Government's subsidy to go out into the market to win additional tonnages.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. He is talking about the implications for generators. But is there a word in the White Paper regarding the implications for British Rail freight as a result of the Government's proposals? Does not the Minister think it is worth saying something about the effect on employment in British Rail as well?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, there is considerable restraint in the amount of time we are allowed. I know that I have already overrun the time I was allocated. I have only one more sentence of my speech. However, the one thing that seems to me to be self-evidently obvious from what I have indicated so far is that if British Coal is able to reduce its prices so that it is competitive in world terms, that means a greater use of British Coal and, I would have thought, a greater amount of British Coal being carried on British Rail. That would be to the advantage of British Coal, British Rail and hopefully also of the consumers. I do not believe that there is any dichotomy between an efficient coal industry and the best prospects for an efficient British Rail.
I commend the White Paper to the House and urge the House to reject the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to remind the House that I am chairman of a group of companies covering a wide range of energy activities. I am glad to be able to participate in this debate in view of my long past association with the coal industry. I recognize
902
that the Government, for whatever reason—we do not want to go into the origins of the problem—have had a difficult time. I found the White Paper, which I read with great care, full of information relevant to anyone operating within the energy industry. However, my one regret is that the White Paper does not deal with future strategy. It is that gap with which I should like to deal.
The Government place a great deal of emphasis, as did the noble Lord the Leader of the House, on market forces. They believe that competition is in the interests of the consumer. It is therefore perhaps desirable first to see to what extent market forces freely operate in the energy sector. In my opinion it is of a qualified nature. We can go through the different elements of the energy sector starting with nuclear. We know that that has remained state owned. In England and Wales it is financially supported through the levy system and in Scotland with long-term contracts. The Government have said that they will review that situation earlier than proposed. Nonetheless, it would have been a good idea for the White Paper to indicate the kind of broad energy strategy against which that review was to take place.
When we turn to the gas and electricity sectors we see that they are not free market sectors; they are regulated. They are both dominated by large enterprises. Indeed, in the case of gas there is now an inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as to whether or not it should continue in that form, and we know that in the case of electricity, particularly in England and Wales, it is dominated by the two big generating companies. During the course of the debate on the Electricity Bill, many of us strongly recommended that there should be more electricity generating companies than just the two, but the Government decided against that.
Oil, certainly in its downstream operations, is the nearest approach to a free market situation, but when one looks upstream, and particularly to the North Sea operations, it is subject to stringent licensing and to a variable fiscal policy which was changed in the recent budget. That will certainly have some impact on the amount of exploration carried out. So we are faced, when looking at those four elements of the energy market, with something that is a very qualified free market situation. It is in this market that coal has to operate. It is against that test that I examine the proposals in the White Paper.
There are effectively two proposals in the White Paper. One is of a short-term nature, with the offer of substantial but unquantified additional, resources to enable coal to try to make further contracts with the electricity companies. The other is a speeding up of the process of privatisation. Privatisation, apparently, is to take the form of the sale of individual pits, or possibly groups of pits. That is what is proposed. I am not absolutely sure that this arrangement will safeguard the future of coal and therefore safeguard the future of the very substantial energy reserves represented by it. Indeed, I have the feeling that under those arrangements coal could be squeezed out. I shall explain why.

903
In the first place I feel that the White Paper would have gained considerably if the additional contract, not just the base contract, could have been negotiated. Without the active support of government the two major generating companies will be reluctant, having regard to their stock position and their contracts elsewhere, to commit themselves to more than the base tonnage. Indeed, the negotiations over the base tonnage have taken a very long time and have only just been completed. I would have been much happier if the Government had been able to see that the extra tonnages were negotiated and had put that in the White Paper. That not having been done, I hope, nonetheless, that we shall be told that they will be doing their very best to see that there is an effective outcome to these further negotiations.
But it is the issue of the form that privatisation will take that concerns me most. If, as indicated in the White Paper, privatisation is likely to take the form of individual pits being sold off, or perhaps in small groups, I very much fear that we could be getting back to the situation that existed in the 1930s. Some of your Lordships may recall that situation. There was internecine competition between the coal companies, and the governments of the day had to intervene to set up district selling schemes. When I joined the coal industry in 1947 that was very much in the memory of those who came into it. One of the justifications for nationalisation, quite apart from the political arguments advanced by the then government, was the fact that we got away from that fragmented situation in which the coal sector was doing a great deal of harm to itself.
In a way the situation which could arise under the proposed apparent fragmentation of the industry and the selling of individual pits could be worse this time because the last time round in the 1930s there was a large variety of purchasers. On this occasion the market will be dominated by two purchasers. How will it work in practice? As the pits are sold off, the marketing manager of a pit will presumably rush off to the generating companies and try to sign a contract. I suppose that it could be very much first come first served. The first three, four, or five might be successful, but what will happen to the remainder? I therefore strongly recommend to the Government that they have a look at that situation.
After all, we have had a lot of experience in the coal mining industry in this country. It goes back centuries. Indeed, I was a little worried about the reason for the present inquiry because, if we had had no other experience in coal since the war, we had at least experience in closing pits. I was rather worried about the way in which it was proposed to carry out the closures then. I do not want to labour that point but I do want to say that we need to think again about how coal will be marketed under the new arrangements. We have had the example of the 1930s. We have an energy market which, at any rate for the moment, is certainly far removed from a free market—a market in which there are some very big players indeed. If coal is to be organised on the basis of a multiplicity of small companies representing one, or
904
possibly two or three pits, I do not think that their chances of survival in that kind of situation could be rated as very high. I should like to put that view strongly to government.
The third aspect that I should like to raise in the short time left to me is the question of technological development. I was pleased to note in the White Paper that the Government are paying some regard to this matter. They are providing support for the Coal Research Establishment and they attach importance to clean coal technologies. However, they disappointed me somewhat in, for the moment at any rate, not being prepared to support development projects. We ought to be doing what some other countries are doing and be financing one or two development projects on technologies which have already reached that stage. Some of these technologies have been tested fully—I give as an example the British Gas coal gasification process—and could now be developed.
Furthermore, let us remind ourselves—we cannot deal with coal without going back in history—that coal was the original feedstock for chemicals. The day could well come again when we need to use coal as a feedstock. We already know that we can convert coal to gas and that we can convert coal into many other forms of other chemical feedstocks. That could be something for the future. That could be something to which we continue to pay attention. But none of these things can be done if we allow the industry to wither away. Therefore, I feel that the priority is to consider how coal will fare under the proposed privatisation measures and whether it will be enabled to compete effectively with the other large groups in the remainder of the energy sector.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise in advance if some of my remarks tend to be somewhat repetitive since I take what I recognise is regarded in some places as an extreme view on this issue. I expected that nothing very much would change in the five months which have elapsed—and in my view nothing has changed at all in the five months which have elapsed. I believe that the basic problem will govern this issue, and the White Paper is just one of a series which cannot be read other than against the background of previous history.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, is an experienced advocate with very great skill in making the best of any case. Had he lived much earlier I would have backed Dr. Crippen to escape. He has great experience in dealing with any kind of case and he has taken the White Paper and dissected it with the skill one would expect. Not surprisingly, he reaches the conclusion that British Coal is a national asset, which it clearly is, though a declining one, and that it should therefore be able in some way or other to ignore market forces. In a way that is what the White Paper sets out to prove—that if one pumps enough money into the coal industry one can reverse the trend.
The problem of course is that all Oppositions have reached exactly the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on every one of the very many occasions over the past 30 years when this subject has

905
been debated. On every occasion they have been wrong. There is absolutely nothing to lead anyone to believe that there has been any change in the basic facts presented at this time which have determined the negative outcome of every previous attempt to halt the decline of the British Coal industry. I do not think it makes sense in every debate of this type to look at a carefully written 'White Paper, designed to prove a particular case, and ignore the realities which have faced a generation and more.
This is a very unusual debate on the coal industry because it is not really a debate about fuel policy. The debate arises out of last October's public relations disaster, and all of us who have been in politics had some sympathy—which we managed to hide from the Government—for the predicament in which they found themselves. It was that PR problem which led to the discussion of how somehow or other we could produce yet another initiative. As we would all expect, Mr. Heseltine has pulled out all the stops in an effort to defuse a dangerous political situation. All the emotions have been aroused, which I understand, particularly in the case of the Labour Party. I say that quite seriously because there is a deep emotional, historical and, even today, political involvement with the coal-mining industry. It is a part of the Labour movement and that explains a degree of romanticism which owes more to "Love on the Dole" than it does to the realities or modern coal-mining and energy policy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, give way for a moment?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, with great respect, as this is a limited debate, I do not believe that it would be right to take up other people's time. I apologise for that.
With the help of no fewer than four internationally-known consulting firms and with the considerable resources of several government departments, including the Treasury, the Minister has produced a 150-page document which will enable him to ride out this political storm. I have no doubt that the Government will survive; the storm is over now. But that will have no effect whatsoever on the long-term future of the coal industry. I make no complaint about that because I do not believe that there is anything that this or any other government can do which will stop, much less reverse, the decline of the coal industry in this country down to a handful of pits.
One of the most significant factors in this debate is the date, because today, as your Lordships know, is 31st March. The date of the previous debate was 20th October. Those two dates are significant because this story began at the start of a typical British winter, cold and wet with long dark nights. Today, five months later, we are at the beginning of spring and from now on the days will get longer and the weather milder. The winter is over and the summer stretches before us for the next six months or so. What is the significance of that? My Lords, we leave the winter months and move into the summer season with stocks of 45 million tonnes of unsold coal on the ground.
906
That must lead one to the conclusion that if one starts the summer with stocks of millions of tonnes of coal on the ground which are going to rise through the summer, it is not a problem which can be dealt with by tinkering away with exports or imports. It is a fundamental problem. The whole thrust of the current debate suggests a very understandable concern for the miners and their families. I regret deeply the occasions in debates of this kind when people suggest that they have a monopoly of compassion and concern in issues such as this. They produce it like a blinding new contribution to the debate. All of us have concern for those who are involved, but a combination of that concern and further financial support will not solve this problem. In all fairness, neither the White Paper nor the Minister in his speech actually suggests that it will. It is simply a palliative to get by for a couple of years.
The figures have to be repeated over and over again. Output and manpower in the coal industry have been reduced in every single decade over the past 60 years. In the previous debate I referred to the disappointments of the 1967 White Paper. I was particularly disappointed because it was the last White Paper on this subject which I believed in. It went wrong. So in 1974 the Government tried again. They committed £1.4 billion of new investment over 10 years, designed to increase sales from 133 million tonnes to 150 million tonnes by 1985. In the event the market did not go up from 133 million tonnes to 150 million tonnes; it continued to fall to 118 million tonnes. The final bill, however, was not £1.4 billion but £5.7 billion. How many times do we have to go round this ride before it begins to sink in that, try as we may, care as we do, divert scarce financial resources on the scale which we have done, it does not work.
Today coal production is down to around 80 million tonnes and still falling. That is despite the fact that vast financial resources have been diverted—I keep saying "diverted" because these are funds which could be used elsewhere. If those funds were diverted with a scintilla of belief that that may be just wasting money, that would be outrageous. Tens of billions of pounds have been spent trying to halt the decline. Between 1979 and 1992 we poured nearly £18 billion into the industry by way of direct grants and another £3 billion over the past three years by way of subsidy from the generators.
This White Paper suggests that, with still more financial support, an increased market can be created of 10 million to 12 million tonnes. It is estimated that a typical pit produces about 1.5 million tonnes a year and employs about 700 men. At the most optimistic, it might produce work for eight pits and 8,500 men, together with massive stocks of still unsold coal. Suggestions have been made that coal imports could be drastically reduced, but 8.5 million tonnes of imported coal go primarily to the steel industry. The White Paper points out that the potential for displacing imports of metallurgical coal is severely limited. Very little coking coal is produced by British mines and what there is is unsuitable for metallurgical purposes.

907
As regards exports, the White Paper states at page 91:
"Exports of British coal represent only a small proportion"—
these are the opinions of independent consultants—
"of total production in the United Kingdom, running at some 2 million tonnes a year, in recent years, declining to 1.4 million tones".
The White Paper goes on to say:
"This analysis supports that in British Coal's evidence, which makes clear that there is no prospect of exports increasing without massive subsidies".
That is the situation as regards exports. It is inconceivable that foreign governments would allow us blatantly to dump coal on their shores when they suffer exactly the same problems as we are suffering at the present time. The solution proposed involves very large sums of public money being diverted from other needs in order to keep several thousand men digging coal which we do not need for a couple of years longer than would otherwise be the case.
It makes no sort of economic sense. Given the fact that this debate takes place against increasing concern about the very real problems of seeking to maintain, let alone improve, levels of social expenditure in areas such as health, education and housing, and given that since the last debate tens of thousands of other workers have been declared redundant on terms which bear no comparison with those available to the mining industry, the suggestion that we should divert still more money into this bottomless pit is in my view morally indefensible and I suspect that it will not prove politically attractive either.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, when we debated this matter last October I had the opportunity of following the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on that occasion also and I was able to take up some of the points that he made which I believed were fallacious. That, however, was an open debate which was unlimited in time whereas today we have a time-limited debate, so I am afraid that I cannot take up all of his points. I once heard the noble Lord say that one of his great worries about Milton Friedman was that he was a "closet Left-winger". The noble Lord has today proved why he has that anxiety. I am sure that, on reflection, he will realise that the situation today is in no way comparable to the situation that existed in 1967 or, for that matter, in 1974.
We are now dealing with collieries which, by definition, are the most efficient in the history of British Coal, but I do not want to go over that ground again and nor do I want to rehearse the points that were covered so adequately by my noble friend Lord Richard. There is little point in repeating all the arguments about why or how a substantial market for UK coal ought to be created, retained and secured. We did that last October. Since then we have had the report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the advice and recommendations of which have been largely ignored.
What is on offer now from the Government, if the White Paper is anything to go by, is transitory and limited assistance. The vote in another place on
908
Monday and the collapse of the Tory Back-Bench rebellion makes it quite clear that the scale of the pit closures is going to be drastic, carried through as rapidly as possible, and have a devastating impact on the mining communities in Britain—that is, those that are left. I believe that the Government are making a profound mistake in their attitude to the UK coal industry and I sincerely believe that future generations will come to regret and condemn those responsible.
I do not believe that any one of our European Community partners would take the action that our Government are taking bearing in mind how successful and efficient our industry is in European terms. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal spoke about the other coal industries in Europe, and about Germany in particular. German coal is very expensive. It is three times more expensive than British coal. Germany's transitory arrangements apply over a much longer period. The Germans would never contemplate doing the kind of thing that we are doing here.
I believe that the Government think that they are safe for the time being at least. They are still at the beginning of their parliamentary term and Ministers believe that there is no longer any fear from the so-called "coal lobby" or from their Back-Benchers. And as a student of party politics, I think that they are right. I do not think that there will be any more trouble from their Back-Benchers so they are safe. However, I hope that Ministers were not rejoicing too much on Tuesday morning after the vote, which I think that they will come to regret at some stage.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer before I turn to how the Government should face up to the awesome social consequences of their mistaken policy—and that is the attitude of British Coal's top management. I have worked for British Coal, I have been a Minister with some responsibility for the coal industry or I have had a business relationship with the chairmen and some of the senior board members since 1951 when I first went into the mining industry as a raw recruit. It has been my privilege to know all of them and to work with them over the years.
However, I have had the impression for more than a year now that those currently in charge of British Coal at the highest level have no enthusiasm for a larger coal industry than the one which was originally proposed last October and which they supported at the time. There was only one British Coal director fighting for a larger coal market, and that was the commercial director, Mr. Malcolm Edward;, and he was sacked by the chairman and the Secretary of State for his trouble. He has gone away. He was the only one standing up for the industry at that time. I cannot imagine any previous chairmen of British Coal being so pusillanimous or supine in the face of such an attack on the future of the industry. It would not have happened in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has made a coherent case for coal today. It would not have happened under Sir Norman Siddall who would have fought for the industry and nor, I believe, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord

909
Haslam who, unfortunately, (I do not know for what reason) is not specking in today's debate. But that, as they say, is water under the bridge.
So the Government and their supporters have taken a decision to close a huge chunk of the industry down and they now have to face the consequences of their action. I do not say that they are heartless people —of course, they are not. I would never ascribe that to them. However, tens of thousands of fine young men who, over the past few years, have broken productivity records are due to be thrown out of work in a very short space of time and on to a labour market which is the most difficult and distressing since the 1930s. In 1969 unemployment hardly existed and inflation was pretty low, as was the case in 1974 also. And all the redundancies that are coming to the fore will occur in areas where the male unemployment rate is well over the national average and, in some cases, nearly twice the national average. The current mining workforce is the youngest in the industry's history. They have young families and large financial commitments. Those immediately affected are desperate and in despair. The only thing that they want to do now is to see how far they can win back their self-respect and eventually get a worthwhile job.
So, the question on the lips of those young unwanted mineworkers is: what are Ministers going to do to help? The White Paper presented to Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade runs into 152 pages, and just about one page is devoted to the "Assistance Package" to create new jobs. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that an additional £200 million will he made available. I do not want to be churlish and that amount is welcome. It is all very good and a fine start, but I fear that it will be inadequate. It will be the assistance that the Government now give to help to create the climate for new jobs and to give new hope to these thousands of redundant mineworkers on which they will be judged. If Ministers were rejoicing on Tuesday morning after the vote in the House of Commons, I am not so sure that they will be so sanguine or that they will be rejoicing in two or three years' time when we find that whole communities are still without work. The Government will also be judged on the way in which they go about this task of creating jobs and on the vigour with which they do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Walker, has been mentioned as the co-ordinator of the regeneration measures. I wish him well. He was described in one of yesterday's newspapers as a "one-man development agency". The noble Lord undertook much good work as the Secretary of State for Wales and I believe that he genuinely cares about the awful problems of unemployment and industrial decline. To my mind, he has the added advantage of being a one-nation Conservative which contrasts so much with the hard-faced men who currently grace the Cabinet Room. At least he has that in his favour.
There are incipient signs of a modest upturn in economic activity throughout the country. I have been greatly impressed by the training and enterprise councils which got off to a chequered start but which I believe are now operating very effectively in the
910
regions of Britain. The partnership schemes which embrace the training and enterprise councils, the chambers of commerce, the local authorities and other local business organisations are anxious to help to ameliorate the impact of the proposed pit closures. There is a great deal of good will from all sections of the community, but only a well thought-out and co-ordinated approach to the regeneration of those communities, backed up with adequate financial resources, will have any real impact.
The Government have decided to cut the coal industry back and they say that they have won the backing of another place, which is the only thing that matters. I hope that they are not being complacent about that. It will therefore be very difficult and, I suspect, practically impossible to get the Government to change their mind about securing a larger share of the coal industry. I should like to see them have a change of mind, but I do not think that they will. Judging by the tone of the speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade and today by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I think that they are stuck on this course at least for another four years. The real test for Ministers now is how quickly they can get those whose lives have been so devastated and who are now in despair, back to work. That will be the real test; that is how we shall judge them.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the last two speeches have been very much in contrast. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I thought, brought your Lordships' House back to reality; to the practical realities of the position of the British coal industry; of its uneconomic position; of the fact that for years it has been in slow decline. But the noble Lord, Lord Varley, appeared to ignore all that. He was full, understandably—I sympathise with him—of sympathy for those who were going to lose their jobs and with communities that were going to lose the economic base of their operation, a sympathy which, obviously, all of your Lordships feel. But it is no use just expending sympathy on such an issue. One has to face, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, did, the realities of the situation.
The reality, I am afraid, is plainly this: the British coal industry is and has for quite a time been unable to produce coal at anything like a competitive price. It has failed to compete. The extraordinary position is that for years it has been cheaper to import deep mined coal 12,000 miles from Australia than to buy it from pits in Nottingham or the North of England. That is a fact. I can endorse it by a very real personal experience.
Some years ago a company of which I was chairman, and which was a big coal user, bought a good deal of British coal. But it bought it in a deal with the National Coal Board under which the price that we paid was to be the price that would have been paid for the same quantity of Australian coal. Apart from such devices, which suited us and suited the National Coal Board, the industry is not competitive.
It is no use moaning and groaning; it is no use expressing sympathy, sorrow or regret if one is not

911
prepared to face that fact. All the facts have been pointing that way for years. The reasons of course are varied. To some extent it is a question of efficiency; to some extent, a question of productivity. And if I may be allowed to tread on admittedly dangerous ground, one reason has been that wage levels, resulting from the British coal industry having one of the most powerful trade unions in our history, have been forced up to uneconomic levels—well above those of the ordinary industrial worker. Those are the facts. The facts have now caught up with the industry, and the industry is now uneconomic.
What should the Government do? I have a good deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said in pointing out that large payments—I understand that we are talking in the order of £200 million a year—of taxpayers' money, which could well have been used in present circumstances for other, perhaps more rewarding, purposes, is to be used merely to keep the rump of the British coal industry going. I find it astonishing that the Labour Party seeks to attack the Government for what they are doing in respect of the coal industry. If I were to venture to criticise my noble friends, I would criticise the Government for being over-generous. I would suggest to them, in all seriousness, that in the present state of our economy, £200 million could do more good in other directions than sustaining the basically uneconomic activities of the pits.
Of course, humanity and good sense must be shown in the way, and the speed with which, the pits are closed. I regret very much the dramatic announcement last year of large numbers of closures. It is a fact, as your Lordships will be aware, that pits have been closed every two or three weeks for years, going right back to the days of the Labour Government. The decision to make that over-dramatic announcement last autumn stirred up all the kindly, good-natured feeling of most people in this country, along with, because of its political connections, the emotions and antagonism of the Labour Party.
If I were to criticise the Government it would not be because they are being hard on the industry. On the contrary, it would be because they are being too soft with the industry. It is necessary to face the fact that further pits will have to close. They will have to close before long, anyhow. No industry can go on subsidising an uneconomic industry like this indefinitely. No doubt the subsidy will help to cushion the shock; no doubt it will help to ensure that changes take place as painlessly as possible and that other employment is found. I very much sympathise. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, referred to all the young miners starting their careers in the mines and for whom the present situation is a terribly sad and serious one. No doubt the subsidy will enable them, as soon as they possible can, to get in touch with other jobs and to move out of a declining industry which will be unable to sustain them over the coming years.
It is no kindness to the miners or the mining communities to create or support the delusion that by government manipulation it will be possible to
912
maintain a large coal industry in this country. That is not the case. It is no kindness, and it is not a wise thing, to try to create that impression.
It is always sad to witness the decline of an industry, especially one which has been the centre of the life of a good many of our fellow countrymen. I should hate any of your Lordships to feel that I, or anyone else on this side of the House, or anywhere, was insensitive to that situation. However, when one is dealing with industries upon which this country lives, one has to confine one's activity and expansion to the areas in which they can compete. Mercifully, those are many. Mercifully, there are many of the newer industries which, as we get through the present depression, will yield increasing employment and prosperity and help to earn this country's living. But it is a delusion to believe that the coal industry will help in that respect.
I hope therefore that when my noble friend replies at the end of the debate she will be able to say that, while the Government's action, generously intended, is designed to soften the blow, to soothe feelings and to ease the position temporarily, they will not connive in the deception that a major coal industry will continue in this country. It will not, and it is no kindness to those who work in it to pretend that that is so.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I speak from these Cross-Benches in support of the Opposition's Motion. I wish to emphasise the latter part of the Motion; that is, the failure to develop a long-term strategy for meeting future energy requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke a great deal about a sense of reality and competitiveness. I wish to argue that relying on a short-term mechanism of market forces to determine the long-term issues of energy policy is most unreal in the extreme.
In the White Paper and in other statements on energy policy we have from the Government a narrow focusing on a short-term concept of consumer interest, a reliance on a market as a delivery mechanism for energy policy and a failure both to address the essential issues of environmental protection and long-term sustainability. Indeed, what we heard from the Minister today is what we have heard so many times from governments; that is, a use of the rhetoric of environmental policy totally empty of context and content.
The Minister used the word "sustainability", but clearly he was using it in a sense different from that in which those of us who are conversant with environmental policy would use it. Sustainability is all about the planning of natural resources in such a way that they are not wrongly depleted for future generations. That hardly seems to me to be the basis of the present Government's policy. There is, therefore, no natural resource management within the government strategy and certainly no allocation of economic resources in relation to the long-term needs of consumers for guaranteed energy supply.
For all those reasons, therefore, we must underline that the so-called "market" in energy services which the Government talk about emphasises entirely a

913
short-term view of competitive market forces. It does not look at the supply of energy services as a whole and concentrates only on the short-term alleged economic viability of fossil fuels in electricity supply. It does not address itself to the longer-term issues. I join the call that has already been made in the debate for a serious energy strategy which is related to the long-term needs of consumers within a sound environmental framework. We do not have such a strategy at present. It is one which the European Community is struggling to establish but, I submit, it is receiving little support in that direction from the Government.
The Government have failed to address other issues relating to energy policy; for example, efficient technology, user habits and, perhaps the most clear and blatant contradiction of their policy, the non-fossil fuel obligation and the real market costs of nuclear power. That failure shows quite clearly that the Government's market approach is confined solely to the coal industry.
What would be the elements of a long-term comprehensive energy strategy? Clearly, it would address the tough challenge of the ever-increasing demand for energy and the limitation in the supply of fossil fuels. It would address the reality that world reserves of oil are estimated to last for another 40 years and natural gas for perhaps 60 years. However, the proven world reserves of coal are likely to last for at least 200 years at the present rate of consumption.
But a long-term energy strategy needs also to address the major issues of pollution, whether by acid rain, greenhouse gases or nuclear waste. It must also address the challenges faced by environmental policy and the challenge of social disruption as a result of changes in energy policy. They apply not only to the coalfield communities and the coal industry; they apply equally to the nuclear power industry.
The area of North-West Wales where I have lived and which I represented in another place for the past 20 years is heavily dependent on the generation of electricity by both nuclear and hydro-power. At Trawsfynydd we are faced with the difficult issue of the potential extension of the life of that Magnox station. If for safety reasons the advice from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to the Government is that the station should not be extended, clearly the area will be faced with the major economic issue of the loss in direct employment of some 500 jobs and in indirect employment of a further 500 jobs. That area of economic activity in mid-Wales clearly requires urgent new investment if those jobs are to be replaced. The issue applies riot only to the coalfield communities but to all communities dependent on electricity supply and energy generation as a means of employment.
If we are to look at the longer-term issues of energy policy we need to look in particular at the most efficient use of our different forms of fuel. It may well be that in the short term gas, oil and coal may be competitive on a different timescale. However, in the longer term it is important to use the most efficient fuel for the most efficient purpose; for example, burning gas to provide direct space heating is twice as efficient as burning gas for the generation of electricity. Yet the
914
whole emphasis of the Government's policy in their dash for gas is to use gas for the generation of electricity.
The only argument which I can find in favour of gas-fired power stations is their low capital cost in the short term. We need to look at the long-term utility of our different fuels if we are to have a clear and rational energy policy. In particular, we need to look at the essential role of renewables. In our debates on energy policy we emphasised the role of renewables. Yet it appears that in the Government's strategy renewables have a low priority. It has been estimated by the group which has researched the area of renewable energy sources that some 20 per cent. of the UK's energy needs could be supplied by renewables by the year 2005. That should be a realistic target for energy policy.
In the context of the Welsh economy and the environment in particular we have recently seen the expansion in capacity of wind generation. Although there has been a great deal of discussion among landscape environmentalists about the environmental impact of wind farms and wind power generation, I believe that the wind farms that now grace the hills of mid-Wales are greatly preferable to the gaunt concrete outlines of our nuclear power stations. They are "green" and they are environmentally friendly. I am told that there is some anxiety among the sheep farmers that they may cause a little too much noise for the sheep. But the energy generated from those power stations is green and user-friendly and provides a much-needed additional boost to the income of the hill farmers. That is an area in which the Government need to pursue a balanced policy which uses the potential from renewables as part of the strategy.
But the Government also need to take a view of the development of energy policy which balances between the short-term interest of the price mechanism as it currently operates and the longer-term position of energy supply, security of supply and balanced use of resources. What is economic in the short term may be uneconomic, and undoubtedly is uneconomic, in the longer-term timescale. Renewable sources of energy do not become depleted in the way that fossil fuels and other forms of fuel have become depleted. Therefore, there is no tendency for their prices to rise as a result of increasing scarcity or increasing difficulty in extracting reserves. Yet that very economic approach, which may benefit renewables in the longer term, is used as a short-term argument against the development and maintenance of the coal industry as a fossil fuel source.
I am arguing that our whole approach to the Government's present coal closure programme must be put in the context of a long-term energy policy. I argue that within that context it is essential to maintain the possibility of deep-mining coal as a fossil fuel not only for its use in the electricity industry but, as we have heard in the debate, for its use as a base for the development of chemicals. Research in that area in the UK is far behind that in other countries; for example, the United States has emphasised the use of

915
coal as a source of chemicals. Although we have had a long-term scientific interest in coal convertibility, that has not taken off as it should have.
So for all those reasons I believe that the Government are taking a short-term view of our energy industry and of our coalfield communities. For those reasons I wish to support the Motion.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, when the Statement was repeated last week I took it upon myself to obtain a copy of the White Paper. I went to the other place to listen to the debate because I thought that any misconception that I had about the White Paper might be removed by the person responsible for it; namely, the President of the Board of Trade. I thought that on such an occasion compliments would be paid to the efforts which the miners had put in to this country's welfare, particularly during the last war after they had suffered the privations and terrible conditions in the 1930s to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. I expected that but I certainly did not get it. What did I get? I heard one of the most deplorable speeches upon a serious subject that I have ever heard in my 50-odd years of political life. I thought that the President of the Board of Trade would give a reasoned speech in favour of the White Paper's proposals. I thought he would give us a remedy for the present problems of the coal industry and would give us an energy policy. There was nothing of that.
I should like to concentrate on the latter part of the Motion before us today; that is, the need to have a comprehensive energy policy. After the speech, we turn to the White Paper. In the speech, energy policy was mentioned. What do we find in the White Paper? Anybody who reads it can see that the energy policy is to consist of privatisation and competition. After that comes a little footnote that we are to have an annual energy report. Therefore, we shall be told what is to happen in the field of energy.
On 25th March I asked the noble Baroness whether she would tell us how the data and the information are to be produced in the field of energy so that they can be compiled into a report and presented to this House and the other place. The implication of her answer was that it would be rather a cheek to expect private enterprise to produce figures about its own business so that an annual energy report could be produced on behalf of the Government. It may be a cheek but I know of no other way of producing a sensible, rational energy policy without first finding out from the people responsible what is to be the future investment.
Coal is only a small part of our energy problems. Several questions come to mind when one thinks about energy in this country. During the last war it was realised very quickly, when the private coal-mine owners closed mines because we lost markets in France, that the Government should step in. Even Winston Churchill was on my side in that regard. We stepped in because during the war energy was the main effort in conducting the war.
916
We are about to enter, if we are not already in it, a war that will be considerably tougher in some ways than the military warfare of 1939 to 1945 because we are ranged against the whole world. The use of energy will perhaps be the dominant factor in deciding who will win that war. The first thing that we must do is to make sure that we know what is to happen.
The President of the Board of Trade went on to talk about our present problems. One got the impression that all that the president would have to do would be to go to the generators, give them a nudge and a wink and perhaps they would agree to buy more coal for a few years in order to resolve the present difficult problems. What happened? We heard statement after statement from Conservative politicians saying that the position would be resolved in a few months. It is now five months later. Nobody must tell me that the President of the Board of Trade has not been in touch with the generators. Nobody must tell me that he has not explored the possibilities of the generators increasing their purchase of coal. What happened? The generators politely told him to get lost and they went on in their own sweet way. As my noble friend Lord Richard pointed out, the figures remain the same. There has been no change.
In this House four months ago in the debate on large energy users of electricity I said that the Government had lost control of anything that they could do with regard to benefits for the large users in industry in order to preserve ICI and other large energy users of this country. That was disputed from the Benches opposite. They said that of course they had control, and if necessary they would introduce legislation in order to give them control. That legislation may have to be introduced in order to give us control over the electricity industry. It does not seem to me that there is much control at the moment.
We cannot divorce coal from energy and we cannot divorce the control of coal and energy from any other major part of our economy. What will happen if one of the generators decides to take an interest in a foreign coal-mine? Generators may decide that if they invest in a coal-mine in, for example, Colombia, they could make a nice quick buck. Will the Government ensure that no generator will be able to do that? I ask a question and I should like a reply to it but I know that the Government will not reply. They will not say that they will take those steps because they are firmly committed to free enterprise. Free enterprise knows no national boundaries. Somebody in the Bank of England said—I cannot remember who—"I know that it is unpatriotic to sell sterling but it is damn good business". The leopard does not change its spots. If the boardroom decides that it would be better to invest the money elsewhere, then that is what will be done. The Government will not do anything about that.
The first thing that we need is a comprehensive energy policy because that is the main part of our economic structure. However, we are not going to have such a policy. We shall not have an energy policy which relates to the railways and all the energy that is

917
needed to power a modern state. We shall not have that policy because the Government are committed firmly to private enterprise and competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, described the effect of competition on the coal-mining industry. That can be reproduced. Much the same happened in the building industry, and in the 1930s it happened all over the country in all aspects of our industry. I say to the noble Lord who was once the chairman of British Rail that perhaps all the fault cannot be laid at the door of the coal-mining industry. Perhaps the fault is not just because the coal-mining industry is running short of unexhausted coal. Had the noble Lord at that time seen the wisdom of relating coal to an energy policy for the whole nation the situation might have been better.
We must look at the fundamental problems. The coal issue merely unearths those problems. What will happen if the generators decide to buy French electricity? I do not know. Will the Government put an embargo on such action? Will they say that that cannot and must not be done, or will they merely go along, as Mr. Heseltine did, and ask the generators to help? Mr. Heseltine asked the generators to buy more coal. They replied that they would think about it, but they came up with the same answer. Will the Government do anything about this? Are they in control of our nation or are they slowly but surely and perceptibly passing it over to the boardrooms of this country and, worse still, to the boardrooms of international companies which see only pounds, shillings and pence and dollars and marks? They do not see Great Britain as something to worry about. All they worry about is the return to the shareholder.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, coal can be used in other ways than for the immediate generation of electricity and power. It may be that with modern, advanced technology, within three, four or five years we shall discover a way to turn coal into petrol which is cheaper than the present supplies of petrol. By then this Government will have destroyed any possibility of doing that because they will have ensured by their policies that we shall not be able to get to that coal. Coal is an indigenous asset that we should not waste or throw away, but we shall not be able to achieve that until we have a government who place the interests of this nation, and not private property, first.
A nation which surrenders the control of its own power ceases to be a nation. It merely becomes a place where other people play snakes and ladders with bonds, stocks and securities.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, made clear, coal is and always has been a highly emotive subject. For decades, or probably for generations, it has mesmerised politicians. The spell was broken only by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1984–85 in that sad industrial strike. Since that time the rundown of the mines —sadly, necessary—has been dramatic, but peaceful. The reduction has been from 169 collieries at
918
the end of the strike down to some 50 collieries in October when the President of the Board of Trade made his statement.
I regret seeing the coal industry or any other industry reduced. It has been necessary in the steel industry, textiles and indeed a whole range of activities, thus creating unemployment. I suppose in fact that more unemployment is being created this year in banking, an industry I had something to do with, than through all the closures of pits we are debating. I have not done the sums, but we must put these matters into a proper sense of proportion.
If the Government or employers try to retain jobs in order to win employment for people to produce things for which there is no market, that is a recipe for disaster. One has only to look at the communist USSR and many other countries, which practised that approach. The consequences were ghastly.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, implied that we have a capacity and should therefore go on producing coal. If there is no market for that coal at an economic price, can it make any sense to go on producing it, sad as it may be? That must be the lesson for textiles, for steel, for men's hats and clogs and anything you like. There must be change.
I find that miners are particularly understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was chairman of the National Coal Board at a time when I had some ministerial responsibility for coal. He and I produced a 24 point plan to deal with the consultation that would take place if it was necessary to have pit closures. As far as I am aware from my limited experience, that operated peacefully and well. Miners are very understanding. They realise when exhaustion is approaching and when the market is not there. For some reason that consultation did not seem to be fully complied with in October: it is unfortunate that the procedure was perhaps bypassed. But due amends have been made since. A range of Select Committees, commentators, and both Houses of Parliament have given their attention to the whole policy of coal, so there has been no lack of consideration.
I suggest that the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Varley, were doing quite a lot of second guessing in their speeches as to what might be happening. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, historically the projections, the so called strategy plans, have always been shown to be a complete failure and have come to nothing at the end of the day. So while I am fascinated by the plans and projections that people make, I believe that we should direct our minds to two particular aspects of the loss of market which I believe are the most relevant.
First, we must deal with the rundown and the problems created in areas where a large number of miners become unemployed. Secondly, we must see that the closures and the method of trying to soften the blow for them do not have damaging effects upon other industries.
There is need for compassionate treatment of the mining areas. The industry has extremely generous redundancy, pension and retirement plans. The White Paper refers to the creation of enterprise zones. It also refers to the setting up of regeneration measures

919
costing £200 million. Those are helpful methods of dealing with the problem. But perhaps the greatest asset in finding fresh employment is the miners themselves. In my experience, they are tremendously good employees. They can adapt. History shows that hundreds of thousands of miners have been forced to change from mining into other industries. They have managed to adapt in a way which is a credit to them. I believe that the miners who become unemployed will have the will and the skills to do that.
The steel workers were of a similar mould. The White Paper refers to examples of how they found fresh and valuable employment in places like Corby, not far from where I live. There are 11,000 of them now employed there.
Mine managers are some of the best trained managers in industry. All credit goes to the coal board and to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, his predecessor and successors. A mine manager switched to another occupation has a management ability which I have always found—and I have had experience of many of them—absolutely first class. We should not look upon the miners as being thrown on the scrap heap. Many are young people of talent, ability and adaptability, and they have good management skills. With the generous treatment provided by the Government, there should be the ability to attract industry and for those people to make a valuable contribution to the national economy.
As to the impact on other industries, there have been suggestions, some from the other side of the House today, that more should be charged for the product and that more coal should be produced to enable the mines to remain viable. The cost of energy is vital to so many industries, and any action that is taken to save the jobs of miners by putting up the cost of energy can put out of work people in other industries.
I have been concerned with refractories. The cost of energy for those was some 40 per cent. At one stage it was quite impossible to compete with France because in France energy is much cheaper. My noble friend the Leader of the House is not here, but he referred to having satisfied himself recently that there is no subsidy. It is correct that the French have the advantage of the on-going cost of the nuclear programme and hydro-electric schemes. They were able to show that they were producing the electricity more cheaply. The inevitable consequence of that was that the refractory industry in this country largely had to close. The alternative of subsidising would merely have deferred the day of reckoning.
So in looking at how we treat these problems of not being able to produce coal at a price that is competitive, we must consider the effect it will have on other industries if we try to give price support to soften the blow. The cost of energy is a vital consideration. It is no good robbing Peter—and by "Peter" I mean the consuming energy industry —to pay Paul, (in other words, the miners). That cannot be. We must avoid that whatever happens.
The White Paper refers to the French interconnector. I personally congratulate the Labour Government
920
of the day which was much criticised for negotiating the French interconnector. They provided a competitive form of energy and one for which we should be grateful. Sad as it is, we cannot always match that price. It is always sad when the result is a drop in the demand for coal in a declining industry.
In the case of mining, men have worked underground in dangerous and, in many cases, very unpalatable conditions. We should derive some pleasure from the fact that many of them will be relieved from those tasks. We should concentrate on the two roles that I believe we have: first, we should ensure that we deal compassionately and helpfully with the problems created; and, secondly, in so doing, we should ensure that we do not cause any damage to the other industries which depend so much upon energy.
I believe that the White Paper provides a compassionate and sound economic policy. I share the reservations that have been expressed elsewhere about how far forecasts can wisely be made and how much reliance should be placed upon them. But, subject to that reservation, I support the White Paper.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the White Paper that we are debating this afternoon is a useful document. It provides much information which has not been available before and sets out some of the problems in power generation. I think that it will solve the public relations disaster described by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh; it will get the Government over that hurdle. But in my view it does not really solve anything. Until we develop a long-term energy strategy for the nation I do not believe that any of the proposals will make sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has already pointed out how market forces are in themselves a most inadequate method of picking and choosing sources for energy. I shall not go any further into that aspect. At present we are using up our national capital in energy at a very rapid rate. The White Paper suggests that the reserves of gas are perhaps 40 years or 50 years. It suggests that the coal-mines have about 30 or 40 years. What use is that for our children, grandchildren and their great grandchildren? Until we look at the matter in the longer term and work out how we should use the available resources in the most economic way—and that is not always the cheapest way for the day—I do not think that we shall get any sense into the issue at all.
What good is there in making this rush for gas and using it all up if we do not have any in 40 years? What will we do then? Will we reopen the coal-mines, or what? Will we increase nuclear? It is a very complicated issue and one which needs a lot of work. I do not understand why as a nation we have not already started to develop a long-term energy strategy. Last year the energy use in the UK was approximately £50 billion. It was just about the same amount as the nation spent on food. But without energy we could not even provide the food. Without the energy 60 million people could not live in the United Kingdom. Yet we do not give a thought to the long-term energy

921
considerations for the nation. If we start to look at that seriously, I think that the position of coal will become much clearer; namely, that it has a place in the longer term. The place for it will also become clearer and we will not be talking in this—I think—quite ridiculous way about how quickly we can close down this pit or the other.
As regards a long-term strategy, it does not take much thought to realise that coal has a place. We need the energy. Of course nuclear also has a place. However, all that needs to be well thought out. The Government must lead the debate, but there certainly should be contributions from the able people in this country who are experts in technology and business. It is very much in the interests of every person in the country that we have a sensible, long-term energy strategy on how we use our resources and use them economically.
I believe that that energy strategy should have two parts. The first, and obviously the most important, is how we generate the energy that we require and where we get it from, together with all the other aspects involved—for example, how much can be renewables, what is the discharge of undesirable effluents and so on. All those considerations must be put into the equation. But after we have considered the generation of the energy we should then think about how it should or can be used.
Here I must declare an interest because my company manufactures insulation. The insulation used in the United Kingdom is less per head than in any other country in Northern Europe. Indeed, I received a piece of useless information some time ago which stated that a higher proportion of people's disposable income in the UK is spent on heating their homes than in other countries in Northern Europe. That seems to me to be crazy. The answer is well known: we are doing nothing about it. We have building regulations, but the standards are way below those of other countries. A consultative paper for fresh regulations has just been issued. The alterations in it are minor. An improvement of 25 per cent. is forecast. But, having personally looked at them, I do not believe that they will show effective improvements of 25 per cent.
In my business I am, of course, interested in the use of insulation. We have built many homes which have now been in use for some time. The energy used in one of these houses is 25 per cent. of that which is used in a house built according to current regulations. That is quite a staggering figure if applied nationwide. As regards the nation as a whole, when you take out the energy used for transport, something like 40 per cent. is used for heating of homes, of offices or of something else. If a positive policy for improvement in insulation and structures was carried out, there is no doubt that in a matter of 20 years there would be something like a 20 per cent. reduction in energy use for heating. That is the issue. We would need to build fewer power stations and then the energy from fossil fuels would last longer.
Why do we not look at what is going on in other countries? The Danes have reduced their domestic energy consumption by about 20 per cent. over the
922
past 15 years. Japan has had a very successful programme for the reduction of energy consumption. Moreover, in America, which is supposedly the country which is unregulated, they have a statutory specification for refrigerators. It is calculated that if the 125 million refrigerators and freezers in the US were to the new standard, 30 fewer power stations would be required than now. In addition, in America a reduction in demand for new power stations following campaigns now being undertaken would release 10 per cent. of the capital available for industrial investment from power stations for use in other businesses and capital projects.
Those are all measures which are available around the world but to which this country pays no regard. We do nothing about it. I hope that the Government will commence work on a long-term energy strategy for the good of the nation.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, against the background of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, it is worth inserting for the record that it was not the present Government but their predecessor who ended home insulation grants in this country. That had a devastating effect on the industry in which the noble Lord is involved on the one hand and the heating of homes and fuel consumption on the other.
I should like to open my comments by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that I fully accept that no noble Lord has a monopoly of concern for the miners in their present situation. I say as gently as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his presence, and to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his absence, that having heard them express their sympathy for the miners I hope that I never hear them speak against the background of their having turned against the miners.
I was interested in the certainty with which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, addressed your Lordships' House. I had hoped that he would remain so that he could defend himself. But I can remember that in 1968, when he had responsibility for these matters, the noble Lord told the nation that if we did not close the pits included in the closure programme which was projected at that time we would be stockpiling coal in Trafalgar Square. That was the certainty with which the noble Lord addressed the nation at that time. A year later we were begging the miners to give up the five-day week and work seven days a week in order to supply the coal needs of this country. If anything is certain about the White Paper it is that nothing is certain. That is why the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, is so important.
The import of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Marsh and Lord Boardman, is to close the industry down completely. The import of those three speeches is that we can operate an energy policy in this country without the coal industry being part of it. History proves that not to be the case. All the forecasts that have been made on behalf of the coal industry in this country have

923
been shown to be wildly wrong. It worries me deeply that the Government can talk with such certainty in 1993 about what will take place in 1996 and beyond.
The significant point for me is that before the White Paper was even published the coal-burn agreements with the generating boards had already been signed, sealed and delivered, determining the exact amount of coal that the generating boards would purchase until the year 1996. Therefore, anything that was said in the White Paper was already pre-empted by the fact that the coal-burn agreements had already been signed, sealed and delivered.
I have been astonished at the reaction to the White Paper. Anybody in this country who thought for a single minute that the President of the Board of Trade would be the author of a White Paper which set out to show that he was wrong in October last year does not even begin to understand that Mr. Heseltine lacks humility. There was never any possibility of a White Paper being published by the President of the Board of Trade which showed that he was wrong in his assumptions of October 1992. Anyone who expected a White Paper which the president produced to show that he was wrong does not understand the nature of the President of the Board of Trade.
There are one or two aspects of the White Paper which I should like to raise in a Scottish context. The first is the question of the two remaining pits in Scotland. One is the Longannet complex which is owned by British Coal. The other is the privately owned Monktonhall colliery in Midlothian. Because I am a simple chap and I believe what people tell me I believe the Secretary of State for Scotland when he says publicly that the future of Longannet is secure. If the Secretary of State for Scotland goes back on his word he will have to answer for that. However, I believe what people tell me and therefore I believe that Longannet is secure.
I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate will take my important point relating to the Monktonhall colliery to the Scottish Office. The colliery was opened up, after being closed down by British Coal, by 160 miners who each invested £10,000 of their redundancy money in order to open the pit as a private going concern. I take the view that they were misguided and I do not back away from that view. I believe that they were misled in the advice which they were given. However, that is not the point. The point is that they are now in the position of having a cash shortfall, which is minuscule compared with the amount of money we have been talking about in relation to the White Paper.
Monktonhall has an order for £40 million worth of coal. In order to get that coal out of the pit, deliver it, sell it and receive payment for it the pit needs money. It has a short-term cash problem which £½ million would bridge. I plead with the Minister to impress upon her colleagues in the Scottish Office the importance of acting in one of two ways on behalf of Monktonhall colliery: either to make a grant of the £0.5 million or, if that is unacceptable, at least to
924
underwrite a borrowing of £0.5 million on behalf of the Monktonhall pit. I honestly believe that that would be a good investment.
I notice that the Minister for industry in the Scottish Office, Mr. Allan Stewart, said on television that the Scottish Office would consider the situation sympathetically. We need the situation considered both sympathetically and speedily because time is fast running out for the men at Monktonhall. The difficulties that the Monktonhall miners have had in reopening a pit that has already been closed should serve as a salutary lesson to anyone who believes that once one has closed down a coal-mine it is easy to reopen it. It is not. If the President of the Board of Trade has that idea in his head, someone should get it out of his head as quickly as possible.
With regard to the White Paper, the Government have a psychological barrier. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, stumbled on it by accident, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, deliberately. The Government believe that they are intervening on behalf of the miners. But they are not. They are intervening on behalf of the nation and they do not seem to understand that. The issue is much wider than miners and their jobs, important though they are.
There are promises of advance factories. When people tell me that they are building advance factories I always ask the question: in advance of what? I can take Ministers to advance factories which were built 15 years ago. They are still standing empty, never having had a tenant. The Government hold out a false hope when they say that they will build advance factories.
The country is littered with enterprise zones. The history of enterprise zones is that they do not attract new industry but steal industry from other parts of the country; and that is not the answer to the problem.
I conclude on another note regarding the President of the Board of Trade. Every time I watch him in full flow, with those golden locks wafting in the breeze, I am always reminded of the old music hall magician illusionist. He would come on stage and perform two or three tricks. He would then come forward to the edge of the stage and ask some man for a loan of his gold watch. There was always someone in the audience willing to give a gold watch. I suspect that he was planted there for that purpose. The magician would take the gold watch, put it on the table, cover it with his handkerchief, lift a hammer and smash the watch to smithereens. He would then come forward to the edge of the stage, hold his hands up in despair and apologise to the audience saying, "I'm sorry but I have forgotten the rest of the trick". I have visions that in two years' time the President of the Board of Trade, with locks not nearly so golden, will come forward to the edge of the stage holding his hands up in despair to the people of this country and say in relation to an integrated energy policy, "I'm sorry but I have forgotten the rest of the trick".
5.2 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in discussing The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review, it could be said that if we were to choose,

925
we would not necessarily start at this point. However, since it is not our role to do the choosing we have to assess the situation as it exists.
I have one criticism of the Government. Perhaps I may be accused of allowing sentiment to sway my thinking but I voiced my opinion at the time and therefore have no feeling of guilt. I believe that it was a great mistake to incorporate the Department of Energy as a division of the Department of Trade and Industry prior to the privatisation of coal. I am convinced that had that not occurred, and Ministers had been able to give their undivided attention to energy matters, and in particular to the activities of the National Coal Board, we might have been able to avoid the embarrassment which that body brought upon the Government. The policy was correct, and is still correct. It was not the policy as such which antagonised the public. It was the inept way in which it came about. It was the suspicion, indeed the belief, that the miners were being treated unfairly that annoyed so many people. Recognised procedures had not been followed. Some of the usual conventions had been ignored and the issue, it appeared to the public, was being bulldozed forward with indecent haste. Much of the resulting trauma might so easily have been avoided.
However, that is now behind us and I must congratulate my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade for devising what in the circumstances seems to me to be a very reasonable compromise to the original proposal. Some of the pits, after all, were coming towards the end of their natural life. Some could not be operated either on a profitable or a competitive basis by the National Coal Board. But all suffered due to a lack of demand for their product.
The Government in my view have provided a realistic, if diminishing subsidy—too generous, some would argue; indeed, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made a strong case to that effect today—designed to give British Coal the chance to benefit from the creation of a wider market while pressing ahead with the privatisation of the industry.
If there is any future ahead for coal, it must be in the private sector. It would be folly to embark upon a prolonged period of subsidisation of an industry which has already displayed an appetite of horrendous proportions for taxpayers' money. Privatised mines may succeed, operated either by large concerns, as would be the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, or in some cases by individual management buy-outs or similar groupings, which obviously would not be the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. In any event, if any of those small groupings participate, it is a benefit, whatever the noble Lord may feel, if a high proportion of the workforce has a financial interest in the enterprise.
Life is not easy in business, and I feel strong sympathy for those miners to whom the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, has referred today. But when major investment is made in such a project, there is a risk element. Those miners must have known that when they made the investment. If they can be helped, I would be delighted. But I believe that it is only fair
926
that the position regarding investment should be pointed out to any others who might feel similarly inclined, as the noble Lord rightly did.
Production has improved enormously in recent months but too late to save the National Coal Board. For too long the industry has been crippled by pathetically low production which in turn has led to uncompetitiveness. Coal privatisation must move to the top of the priority list.
What is certain is that that is the only way forward and if the record of previous privatisations can be called in aid of the argument, we can only judge by results. Profits go up, efficiency improves, management skills improve. Workforces prosper. I know of no demand for a return to nationalised status from any source which has been privatised. One never hears of disquiet among workforces. One never reads of rallies involving industries wishing once more to be nationalised. But probably the greatest advantage which all those companies which have been privatised have experienced is freedom from Treasury control and Government interference. They now make their own decisions and stand or fall by them.
I suggest that the Government need pay scant attention to the criticisms from Members on the Benches opposite. The record of the Labour Party in allegedly defending the coal industry is truly abysmal. If anyone is in any doubt, all he needs to do is to ask the honourable Member for Bolsover, Mr. Skinner. Like me, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, recalls some of the honourable Member's speeches when he was never slow to criticise the performance of his own party in government, in particular regarding the closure of pits. He used to reel those pits off by name. I do not know how many he could name but he certainly knew what he was talking about and he was extremely critical.
In addition, the Labour Government were not impressive in other ways in which they dealt with the coal industry. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, gave us figures today which indicate just how poorly the investment rate compared with that of succeeding Conservative governments. Indeed, in the House on Monday, the President of the Board of Trade gave further figures. I shall not weary the House with them. The figures are in the record of Hansard if anyone cares to look them up.
I deplore the redundancies which may take place as a result of closures but I applaud the measures already announced by the Government to draw together the various aid packages from within different government departments and to be co-ordinated by my noble friend Lord Walker. I welcome also the fact that the redundancy terms on offer to the unfortunate miners are probably the best available in any industry in the country. It makes infinitely more sense to spend money in the communities which suffer closures than to pour further moneys into the National Coal Board.
However, we must look to the future and that, in my view, does not mean looking towards an energy policy. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, made an interesting speech, but the implication of it was that we should have an integrated energy policy. He—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—said that

927
that had to be led by the Government. I believe that that is the last place where we want to see government. It would be a return to government intervention with decisions being made for all the wrong reasons.
The energy industries have largely escaped from the inhibitions of government control and this is not the time to reverse such measures. We are fortunate that we are an energy rich country. We can make choices and those choices will be governed by availability, price and environmental acceptability. Power generation, dominated at present by coal, will move in stages towards gas and further nuclear power and, in due course, an increasing contribution from alternative sources, such as wind and wave power, where the most valuable contribution the Government can make is in research and development.
All those energy sources are job providers. The gas industry, along with oil—with which it is closely related —provides 30,000 jobs offshore and a further 300,000 onshore. Present estimates indicate that we have gas reserves which will last for 40 years, but sooner or later we shall deplete all our resources of fossil fuels, by which time alternative energy sources will have been perfected in technique and fully developed.
However, there will still be a large gap which, in my view, can only be accommodated by nuclear power. In that area, we have a splendid safety record in this country—a highly skilled workforce. Governments of the future must show a positive and supportive attitude to an industry which holds the key to so much of our future prosperity. The White Paper highlights at paragraph 7.114 that on an avoidable cost basis, generation from existing nuclear plant is cheaper than either coal or gas.
Nuclear Electric, a company with which I am associated as a consultant, enjoys rapidly improving performance figures in output, costs and productivity. The day may not be far distant when it, too, may be able to share in the benefits of privatisation.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Richard, particularly as regards its reference to the need for a long-term strategy for our energy industries.
The Government's policy is bound to be wrong because it is one of a series of short-term fixes. There is no reason to believe that this policy will be any better than previous policies that have been pursued. Indeed, it is likely to be far worse, since it comes close to destroying the only secure and long-term source of indigenous fuels that we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to the thousands of millions of pounds in subsidies which had been invested in the coal industry. If he were here, I could tell him that much of the millions of pounds went not to improving the coal industry but to closing it down. In so far as the subsidies were used to improve the industry, we now have the paradox that just when productivity is coming good, the Government introduce their pit closure policy.
928
Therefore, the Government themselves are wasting the money that has been invested in the coal industry over a long time.
I worked in the electricity supply industry. I remember in 1966, when the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was the Minister of Power, being told about and discussing in our local advisory committee a policy to switch from coal to oil on the basis that one could get oil at a few pence per barrel. So presumably, under the noble Lord's guidance, we stopped building coal-fired stations and started building oil-fired stations. We continued apace with the oil-fired stations. I remember the chaps—the boiler operators, the turbine drivers—saying to our management, "But what if we have trouble in the Middle East and we can't get the oil?" Management said, "You needn't worry about that, boys, everything will be all right. We have had uninterrupted supplies so far and there is no reason to believe that we shall not do so in the future". That, of course, was until 1973 when there was an interruption in oil supplies and prices rocketed until they reached their peak of 38 dollars per barrel—not a few cents.
What happened then? The building programme for the oil-fired stations had to stop. Not only that, but we had to mothball the oil-fired stations that we had built at the cost of thousands of millions of pounds. The policy became disastrous at that time.
Then, of course, in the 1980s we had a great new idea: nuclear power. That was the power that would put the miners in their place. The Government, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher —Margaret Thatcher as she was then—decided that they would increase the take of nuclear power. Indeed, we had a double-whammy at that time. Not only did we increase nuclear power, but we also changed from AGR generation, just when it was becoming successful, to PWR, at enormous cost. So the country was faced with that double-whammy.
If we are talking about subsidies, we had better refer to them here. That was achieved by the use of enormous subsidies paid to the nuclear industry over a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, knows that. Not only did we pay the nuclear industry thousands of millions of pounds in subsidies in the past but we are continuing to do so through the nuclear levy. Thus, we have been subsidising the industry for a long time. We were doing it on false information, false figures which were provided by the nuclear industry, not only to the Government but also to the Select Committee. As a member of that Select Committee, I remember trying to get to the truth about the cost of nuclear power. Many times I have asked, "Are we taking all the costs into account? Are we taking the decommissioning costs into account?" "Oh, yes", was the reply, "Of course we are". That was until the Government decided to privatise it. Then the real costs became available and, far from being competitive with coal, as we are now told that gas is competitive with coal, we found that the real nuclear generation costs were twice as high as the coal generation costs. That is the kind of history of energy policy with which we have had to deal so far.
Now gas is the new fashion. We are told that it will be cheaper, although we know that it will not be. The

929
Government have decided to commission and allow to be built 14,200 megawatts of gas-fired station. That is an enormous amount. It is one-quarter of our total generating capacity. It means that that amount of coal capacity is bound to be closed down, and no doubt more will go. But there is every reason to believe that gas generation is already dearer than coal generation and will become dearer as demand for gas rises and supplies diminish. We are told that gas is more environmentally friendly. That may well be the case —although sometimes I begin to wonder when I see conflicting reports about acid rain and the effects of CO2, emissions.
I conclude on the question of security of supply which is far more important than people give credit for at the present time. The Government and many other people seem to believe that gas and oil supplies are completely secure. I do not believe that to be the truth. It is believed that we shall not have any wars in Europe —although we have a war going on at the present time which may very well escalate—and nobody foresees any problems over landing oil and gas or getting future gas supplies through a variety of countries with different political situations. They do not see the difficulties that might arise in getting gas and oil from the Middle East. Yet such things could happen. In the past it has not mattered so much because we have had coal to fall back on. But by the time the Government have finished, there will be no coal to fall back on.
Let me put another point. We have heard about the high level of coal stocks at power stations. Margaret Thatcher was glad to have those coal stocks there in 1985, was she not? Where are the gas stocks at power stations? Can anybody show me the gas holders at those gas-powered stations? Of course not. They are remote supplies which can be cut off by the suppliers, perhaps through union action—I hope not, but it could happen. In reality, gas supplies could be in great danger from a variety of forces. That seems to be a point which the Government have not fully taken into account in formulating their so-called policy. I urge them to think again. Coal is our best and most secure supply of indigenous fuel. There are some hundreds of years of supply left and we ought not to destroy the ability to reach that reserve of coal because of a new fashion in generation which may prove to be not quite so good as the Government think it is.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I welcome the Coal Review. I very much welcome its realisation that the best energy policy is a free market for energy so far as that is possible. I welcome its appreciation that the independence of the coal industry and its movement towards privatisation will take big steps forward in making energy available at the right prices in this country. I welcome above all the fact that it appreciates that one cannot have an energy policy dependent upon one source of energy, and that future energy will relate to a range of energy options within the country—not just to coal, which is given a level of support within the White Paper, but also to other sources of energy.
I should particularly like to refer to combined heat
930
and power—I declare an interest as I happen to be president of the Combined Heat and Power Association—waste-to-energy activities, and nuclear energy, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gray. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said; namely, that we can never have a completely free market in energy because of the constraints of environment, social and fiscal policy and other matters. But within those limits it is right that the market should be as free as possible.
The White Paper on the review makes clear that the Government will now have a fresh look at the non-fossil fuel obligation with a view to creating a third tranche which would take that obligation further than 1998, as has now been agreed. That would have a big impact, certainly on nuclear electric power, and on CHP, of which I am a particularly keen supporter, believing that combined heat and power can make an enormous contribution to energy saving, and needs the full support of government to ensure that that happens.
There are a number of minor difficulties, such as defining what is a site so that inter-trading can be allowed between related businesses on a site. That aspect needs to be looked at much more closely by government. But the fact that the review indicates that the Government now tend to bring their best efforts to bear on agreeing with the European Community on extension is certainly a very positive way forward. I hope that the DTI will now push that through and help the development of CHP. I believe that such a move would help the Government to achieve their target of doubling UK CHP by the year 2000 and would enable the private sector further to develop its role in the field of waste disposal. The waste disposal side seems to me to offer an enormous opportunity. I am grateful that the review refers to it.
The Coal Review has held up a number of very important initiatives in the waste-to-energy sector. Now that it is over, and the non-fossil fuel obligation will move into its third tranche, I think that we can expect to see some 20,000 jobs generated over the next three years within that particular industry, with an investment potential of over £1 billion. That will do a great deal to give opportunities to those who are now involved in one energy to transfer and have the opportunities in another.
The White Paper mentions a target figure of some 1,500 megawatts for renewables, and waste-to-energy is expected to generate about one-third of that. It also has the enormous advantage that it creates great opportunities in new technology which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also mentioned, will be of enormous benefit to the nation in its energy supplies.
The other area to which I want to refer is nuclear electricity, on which my noble friend Lord Gray made an important contribution. I, like him, believe that nuclear energy will provide a great source of electricity in the years ahead. Those who have witnessed the enormous technological breakthrough that has taken place in recent years in that particular technology—I had the privilege of going round the THORP reprocessing plant only two weeks ago and saw many of the activities that take place at Sellafield—are

931
enormously impressed by the great control and efficiency of that energy and the enormous breakthroughs which are now taking place. It will be a tragedy if this nation does not take up fully the opportunities presented by that very advanced technology and ability. It will be of benefit to everybody, including those employed in the coal industry.
I also welcome the £200 million that the Government are now prepared to invest in alternative opportunities for those involved in the coal mining industry. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not one of those people who believe that the Government should spend our money on unnecessary activities. But I am very much interested in the rural economy. In the knowledge that most of the mines, particularly those which will become uneconomic, are in the rural areas, I welcome the extra contribution. It will go a long way toward providing alternative employment. I urge the Government to think very carefully when they invest that money and to invest it in such a way that the communities within those rural areas can use it; they ought not to spend the money a long way away in the hope that the miners will travel to the employment it generates. The key to using the money will be in the introduction of new investment and new job opportunities in the new technologies. It should be used to make sure that it keeps the communities in the rural areas alive and effective.
I welcome the review. As many noble Lords have stated, the coal industry has moved on, just as many other industries have done. Since the 1930s the world has been using less coal. Coal mining has been a declining industry in all countries since that time. Coal is not wanted by the consumers to the extent that it once was.
The oil industry has also peaked on a world basis. The use of oil is not increasing. The use of gas is rising because consumers want to use it. As in all markets, if one does not consider what the consumer wants, trade and business will die. We have now to look ahead and discover what our consumers want. We must consider not what the present generation of consumers want but what the next generation has in mind. We must consider where that energy must come from, in what form it is wanted and how much the consumer is prepared to pay for it.
The review is a step forward in obtaining and managing our energy for the future. I hope that noble Lords will support it.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, having studied the White Paper and a number of ministerial speeches in the past couple of weeks, I find it hard to believe that the White Paper is much more than a somewhat cynical smoke-screen. Of the pits that we were told would be saved, according to the Minister's latest Statement:
"Twelve of the remaining 13 pits will continue to produce while British Coal, with Government financial backing, looks for additional sales at world related prices".
That is not so much a reprieve as a stay of execution. So far as I can see, when privatisation gets going, it will be perfectly possible for a private company to buy
932
a pit cheaply, run down the machinery, take the subsidy and the profit and close it down in 18 months' or two years' time.
The Government's attempt to justify the policy is contained in one sentence from the Minister in the other place:
"It is central to the Government's energy policy to help create competitive energy markets within which consumers can obtain electricity from a diversity of sources at competitive prices".
But the situation created is a caricature of a fair, competitive market. It is far from perfect competition or even fair competition. The domestic consumer has no choice at all of whom to buy from and the distribution companies are merely faced with two duopoly generators whose interest lies in keeping prices high and ensuring, as they have done, higher profits and dividends. Meanwhile, in order to compete, our own nuclear industry, of which we are all in favour (there is no controversy about that), is given a subsidy of about £1 billion a year to cover decommissioning costs before it can be competitive.
On top of that, British Coal, as we have heard today, has to face competition from French nuclear electricity, which must be subsidised. It is inconceivable that French nuclear fuel bears the decommissioning costs when it costs the British Government around £1 billion a year to subsidise our own industry. Instead of weakly saying that they have no evidence, the Government should have investigated and asked for evidence that there was no subsidy since prima facie it must be so. The other most important cost of nuclear electricity is the rate of interest applied. Does anyone believe that the French authority charged a purely market rate of interest many years ago when it set up and organised its industry?
Moreover, I understand that the French electricity supplies qualify for nuclear subsidy. I do not believe that the Minister told us the whole truth this afternoon. It is perfectly true that subsidy is not paid to Electricité de France. But is it not a fact that a subsidy is paid to the purchaser of electricity who can then pay a higher price to Electricité de France? Anyway, we ought to know the facts about that.
It is not a fair competitive field for British Coal. It is a market rigged against British Coal by the privatisation of electricity which handed market power and effective control over national energy policy not to the Government but to a privately owned generating duopoly, which naturally seeks short-term profits. It is a market not merely rigged against British Coal but rigged by the British Government against British Coal.
In addition, a comparison of future costs for British coal and for imported fuel depends to some extent on the future of the sterling exchange rate. No one has pointed out that fact this afternoon. The White Paper mentions the exchange rate but gives estimates—the Minister quoted them today from page 21 of the White Paper—of comparative costs in sterling of British coal and imported coal, without stating the exchange rate for sterling that was assumed. But since the sterling exchange rate will almost certainly decline another 15 per cent or more over the next five or 10

933
years —if it does not do so we shall never correct our balance of trade—the cost comparison between British and imported coal will be greatly altered. As everyone agrees, British Coal is the most efficient and low cost producer of coal in Europe at the present time.
The same applies to French electricity. Moreover, since the world price of oil is calculated in dollars, it must also apply to a great extent to our oil and gas supplies. How foolish we shall all look if, 10 years hence (rather, as my noble friend explained, as happened with the 1974 oil crisis), when we have largely destroyed our coal industry, and indeed our mining equipment industry, we find that an exchange rate swing had made British production costs much lower than its imported competitors. Incidentally, we are now making judgments in the depths of a depression. Unless one believes that there will not ever he a recovery, it is likely that the total demand for fuel will increase over the next few years. That also is a relevant consideration.
Another fatal flaw in the Government's policy is its appalling short-termism. Both the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Marsh, appeared somewhat simple minded in totally ignoring the future. Even in deep depression, the United Kingdom suffers from a large, persistent and structural balance of payments deficit which cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. That will only be resolved when we have a government with a balance of payments policy which influences every major sector of the economy to fit in with it. Yet under this Government, after a long period in which the UK has been self-sufficient in energy, or nearly so, we are now to become largely dependent on imported fuels.
In defence terms—nobody has mentioned that area —the Government's policy seems to be equally reckless. This country only just survived two world wars. It did so because our home produced coal industry supplied the greater part of our fuel supplies, including virtually all our electricity output. In future we are to be dependent on oil and gas, when oil rigs and 200,000 oil and gas tankers must be about the easiest target to be found anywhere in a modern war. After all, we live in a world when we do not know what kind of government Russia will have next month, let alone next year.
I cannot help reflecting how infinitely more far-sighted was Winston Churchill when in 1913 he bought the shares of the Anglo-Persian oil company in order to ensure the future oil supplies of the British navy. A wise government today would ensure against all those hazards by spreading risk, which is a valuable principle not merely for investment but also for many other things.
What would the French have done if they had possessed the largest and most efficient coal industry in Europe? They would have decided to make it one of the key elements in long-term national policy, equipped it with all the capital it needed and supported it diplomatically and politically. Indeed, it is largely because of that that France today has no balance of trade deficit and we have an extremely dangerous one.
934
The Government's review over the past six months is little more than an attempt to conceal their failure to devise either a long-term energy strategy or a fair market for coal, or anything like it. I am afraid that that failure may cost us dear in the future.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, the problems of arriving at an effective energy policy, which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is manfully attempting, including the prospects for coal, have been complicated not so much by the privatisation of the electrical industry, but by the method of privatisation. If vertical integration, as some of us advocated at the time, had been adopted it is likely that the consumption of coal would have been greater. The regional companies would then have had a direct interest in coal generation.
But that is not the case today. In England and Wales we have 14 independent companies, 12 regional distributors and two very large generators. The regional companies—apart from nuclear power—have no other source of energy but the duopoly; large, powerful, no doubt totally independent of each other but nevertheless dominating. It seems to me totally natural therefore that they looked for some independent source of power. That led to the move into gas. It is common ground that gas generation is the only practical way for regional companies to enter into contracts for electric power.
The problem has been compounded by the fact that, in order for the regional companies or the new independent companies to come into existence, to obtain the necessary finance they were required to work almost continually at an enormous rate of output. As a result, combined with the problems of recession and an improvement in the output of the nuclear companies, coal has had to bear the brunt. The ups and downs of the day of power requirements —the downs in particular—have gone against coal.
Those are the facts of life. The Government and the President of the Board of Trade dealt with them admirably in the White Paper. On reading the White Paper I do not see how it is possible to say that there is no government policy; there is a policy. Their main requirement is cheap power. It is essential to industry in particular that power should be cheap. They have wisely continued to take power from France where the power is cheap. It may be subsidised; they may not be providing in full for the eventual close-down of their nuclear stations; but for us it is cheap power. Likewise, gas is cheap power and, above all, nuclear power is cheap.
The cost of nuclear power, as your Lordships are well aware, is two-thirds of the capital required to produce the power. The plants are built, and that is equally true of Sizewell B. The plant is either paid for or committed. The marginal or avoidable costs of nuclear power are extremely cheap. The Government have therefore put cheap power as their first priority. They continue to rely on alternative sources of power, which again is a wise policy as was certainly proved in the coal strike. They have developed a policy which

935
will do as well as any policy to maintain such production of coal as can be sold. Sales are of the essence.
To my mind therefore the Government have a policy, and one which I entirely support. However, I have two further points. Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 the President of the Board of Trade has power to authorise the construction of a power station. The need of a generating station, its capacity, its choice of fuel and type of plant are commercial matters for the applicant. So far so good. But that does not take account of the possibility of too many plants being built. I feel that if all the projects for gas stations are completed, there will be a surplus of generating capacity in this country. That is an unwise use of capital. For those reasons I hope that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will use due wisdom and discrimination in future approvals for the building of gas stations.
My second point is that the problems have been increased by the size of the generating company. Is it entirely excluded that some method should be used so that private generating companies in this country should number four rather than two? There are a number of cases in industrial history both here and in America, where, despite whatever objections were made at the time, great success was achieved by dividing companies which were too large. One could start with the Standard Oil Company a long time ago, the American Telephone Company much more recently, and ICI, which is in the process of dividing itself at the moment.
With those thoughts and my acceptance of the policy in the White Paper, I fully support the Government.
5.48 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned vertical integration and chose not to pursue it in the debate. I am grateful because I intend to do just that. I do not know whether he is right when he says that it would increase the demand for coal. It would surely improve mining productivity.
We are well aware that the main use for UK mined coal is in electricity generation. Among other sources of energy for electricity are gas, oil, nuclear, electricity imports and also imported coal. There is a debate in regard to the economics of those competing energy sources. Many noble Lords spoke in favour of UK deep mined coal. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the market. But the Government say that there is no market for all the UK coal that is being mined, and perhaps there is not. There is certainly not a perfect market.
There are only three customers for UK coal—National Power, PowerGen and the other minor users. The other users are relatively insignificant. There is only one major supplier—British Coal. In the supply side of the market there is only one management philosophy and, indeed, only one shareholder.
The coal varies in quality in terms of calorific value. The sulphur content can also vary greatly and this has
936
environmental considerations. A low sulphur fuel can be burnt without flue gas desulphurisation. The transport costs are a major factor, and whereas imported fuel can be economically used near a port, that is not necessarily the case for inland power stations. I recently read a report that some generators were even considering using more road haulage rather than rail. That is very alarming, but it does not say a lot about the economics of the railways for freight. That is a subject for another debate.
Electricity, on the other hand, is a very homogeneous commodity. It is transient so you cannot load 100 megawatt hours of electricity into a railway wagon. But you can transmit it very long distances on the grid system and the marginal cost of transmission is very low in environmental terms. You can contract with a generator—a power station —to have a certain amount of power capacity on line and define the rate per megawatt hour. There are not many quality considerations. Even if the power station "broke down", it would not matter as the national grid has always acted as an insurance system. That was indeed one of the reasons for having the system in the first place. Power station pollution is a quality consideration which can be and is addressed by regulating the amount of pollutant per megawatt hour for the amount of electricity produced.
The current energy market is populated by a few very big players. The Minister will point out that there is a pool system, with individual power stations bidding to supply against each other even within the same company. The two main generators' answer is simply to decommission, but not sell off, older marginal power stations. And who can blame them?
I apologise for using that perfectly developed art, or even science, called hindsight. Supposing that instead of the current arrangement we had a vertically integrated electricity industry, a system where there were many concerns consisting of one or possibly more power stations and their associated collieries working as one business. The Drax power stations and associated collieries of this world would be owned by very large corporations. The capital cost and efficiency would be high and that kind of combine would specialise in base load.
A power station nearing the end of its life combined with a colliery with a modest output would lend itself to an MBO or a workers' co-operative supplying peak demands. The capital costs would have been written off years ago and there would not have to be a large financial risk for the participants. It would also be possible to have a hybrid package with some facilities nearing the end of their useful lives combined with some with more modern plant. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred to pithead stocks. These small electricity generating packets would not overstock pithead stocks. They would stock only to suit their individual business needs. Perhaps I may say that I agree with nearly everything the noble Lord said. There would be no need for RECs to have their own power stations as there would be so many suppliers that it would be unlikely that they could generate as efficiently. I have not addressed the question of the

937
grid or the RECs as that is a matter for a debate on the electricity supply industry and we are debating the coal and energy industry.
With vertical integration the market would operate as a real market with some short-term contracts and other very long-term contracts. For instance, the ICI business would want to contract for five to 10 years ahead. The competing energy sources would find their correct position in the market. The real market would decide whether a colliery was economic and not British Coal's accountants or even government policy. It would be interesting for the House if the Minister would say whether vertical integration was considered. If there were contra-indications, what were they?
Some noble Lords have complained about opencast mining. The question that I have is this: is the purpose of the coal industry to provide energy for our homes and factories or is it to provide employment for underground miners? If it is the latter then we should consider underground mining for gravel and other minerals. The reason is that underground mining of coal is very hazardous because of the flammable gases that naturally escape into the mine. The geological conditions are not conducive to modern mining techniques. With opencast mining all these problems are overcome. Fortunately for the miners, opencast coal deposits are not necessarily in the right places; and even if they are the opencast process may not be appropriate in that location for environmental reasons.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, Chapter 3 of the White Paper is entitled The Government's Energy Policy. In this chapter the Government present the overall principles which they claim have guided their decisions on the future of the coal mining industry. These principles will, presumably, inform the nuclear review next year as well and it is this policy framework which will determine the future pattern of energy production and use in this country stretching into the next century. I shall argue that this framework is not only seriously flawed to an extent that seriously endangers the long-term energy future of British industry and of the British people, but also that the way in which the Government have applied this framework has resulted in short-term decisions with respect to the mining industry which are wrong in principle and wrong in practice.
The Government assert:
"The market is the most effective and efficient means for meeting energy needs, both nationally and internationally".
That is their energy policy. The market will decide. It is also, apparently, the energy policy of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. His argument, as far as I understood it, was that the coal industry has declined for 50 years and so it should be left to decline further. Well, the British economy has declined for 100 years. Perhaps the British economy should be left to decline further. That, after all, is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
938
The application of this market principle to the choice between energy from different sources will, we are told, be efficient if,
"consumers pay the full cost of the energy resources they consume".
I agree completely. It must be the core of any rational economic policy that prices paid for goods should represent their true economic cost. What is extraordinary is that the Government have not applied that principle in the case of the mining industry. To assess the real economic cost of the pit closures we must compare the loss in national product from closing the pits with the gain in national product from relocating men and machines from the mining industry to the production of other goods and services. In other words, the real cost of keeping the pits open are the things that we could have if the men and machines did not produce coal but produced something else. But when there are 3 million people looking for work, when we know that most of the miners who will lose their jobs will simply be added to the ranks of the unemployed, then the real economic cost of keeping the pits working is in fact negligible.
We would not be giving up anything by keeping all the pits open because the resources released from the mining industry will simply be wasted in the dole queues. Indeed, in these circumstances, to ensure that the consumer pays the full economic cost, the Government should be using the same subsidy techniques which have been used in the nuclear industry and expanding the market for coal with considerable benefit perhaps for the balance of payments as well. But instead, they have totally refused to apply their own declared policy, based on an estimate of the true economic cost of the pit closure programme. Indeed, the Government even refuse to calculate the Exchequer costs of the unemployment that will be created by the measures they are taking. The Department of Employment has stated:
"the Government does not itself make Exchequer cost calculations and would not regard any calculations made by others as a useful aid to decision making".
So there we have it. The Government raise taxes in their recent Budget to pay for the Exchequer costs of past mistakes; they are preparing to cut public services to reduce Exchequer costs yet when it comes to their own economic idiocies, they suddenly do not believe in Exchequer costs any more; they are not relevant any more.
It is clear that all the Government's boasts about economic rationality are a sham and all the talk of opportunity offered to British Coal, is akin to the opportunity to swim offered to those who walk the plank. The failure to make economically sound decisions in the short run is compounded by the damage which the Government's approach to energy policy will inflict in the longer term.
The White Paper claims that the great virtue of the Government's free market energy policy is that,
"It is within competitive markets that prices are best determined. … Competition gives businesses the strongest incentives to meet the needs of their customers".
There is one word left out of that paean of praise to market efficiency. It is the word "today". Markets determine prices today. They give businessmen strong incentives to meet the needs of customers today.

939
Markets are essentially short term. They are highly inefficient at determining the long-term structure of industry when time lags are very long and when future prices are highly uncertain. Yet long-term time lags and a very uncertain future, are exactly the characteristics of the energy market. The exploitation of energy resources is by its nature a long-term project fraught with uncertainty.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart has reminded your Lordships that the oil price increases of 1973 and 1979 and, perhaps I may add, the collapse of the oil price in 1986, were all totally unpredicted both by governments and by the markets. The time lags associated with huge, lumpy investment projects and the great uncertainty about future market conditions, necessitate the creation of a framework for the energy industry which has maximum flexibility in order to absorb such shocks. That there will be such shocks is the only thing which we can predict with confidence.
But the Government's simplistic free market policy increases the instability which uncertainty creates. With the future being so uncertain, it is rational for producers to act on a very short-term horizon, pushing to maximise returns wherever they appear, with little concern for the long-term implications. It is that short-termism of the market as much as the fact that the market was rigged, which explains the dash for gas.
In particular, given the enormous uncertainty over gas prices which must exist when 20 per cent. of Western Europe's gas is supplied through the Yurengoi pipeline from the former Soviet Union, it is rational for the individual producer to rush into gas now and junk all the other capacity. Make the profits now when the opportunity exists. So the dash for gas, which will waste a substantial proportion of this country's energy resources, was the rational response to the irrational policy of this Government.
The main point is that a free market in the presence of considerable uncertainty will lead to large swings in investment patterns as individual producers try to reap the profits of short-term opportunities. It makes for a highly unstable and highly inefficient energy industry. It certainly does not achieve the Government's stated objectives of secure and diverse sources of supply.
The way to tackle both short-term and long-term energy problems in this country is to harness the power of the market within a framework which ensures that the long-term diversity of the sources of supply is maintained. That could be done, for example, by setting broad limits to the proportions of energy which are to be produced from any one source. In the pursuit of all their objectives in energy policy, industrial policy and environmental policy, the Government should use the tools at their disposal to maintain long-term flexibility by ensuring that a balanced mix of energy sources, including coal, is maintained. The market simply will not do that.
That might seem to result in short-term inefficiencies but the down-side risks associated with long-term uncertainty are so great that maintaining balance, and therefore maintaining a substantial market for coal, is
940
the only rational long-term policy. The energy policy outlined in this White Paper is damaging in the short run and will do substantial damage to this country's future prosperity. It is an irrational policy. It should be rejected.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for raising the subject of the Government's coal review. However, I am not convinced that its resolve to address some pit closures is deplorable; nor am I convinced that a long-term strategy is lacking. A dispassionate study of what the strategic requirements are for a long-term energy policy underpins the broad thrust of the White Paper's proposals. The difficulties, such as pit closures, which this White Paper tackles, and the solutions it proposes, are candid recognition of fundamental and far-reaching changes which we now face.
We are not alone in this. I draw the noble Lord's attention, as my noble friend the Leader of the House did, to the Netherlands and Belgium which have closed all their mines; to Germany where coal production has been halved to 38 million tonnes, with job losses of between 20,000 and 40,000; and to coal production trends in countries such as France and Spain.
The short-term repercussions of a changing energy market can attract controversy, as we have seen, but the wider issues should be self-evident, whatever one's politics. It is from that standpoint a year ago, when this House debated energy matters, that I questioned whether government policy properly acknowledged what lay ahead. It is from that same standpoint that I now welcome the Coal Review.
The White Paper faces fair and square the strategic, long-term issues involved in an efficient, secure and environmentally sensitive energy policy. It recognises that the extent to which we have traditionally relied on our own deep mined, high sulphur coal for power generation must evolve to meet the needs of the customer, the taxpayer and the environment. Simultaneously, however, the White Paper is sensitive to the problems being faced by British Coal and it is constructive in the opportunities that it intends creating for British Coal. Hence the encouragement which is being given in terms of tapering subsidies, private sector licences, incentives to seek increased sales, increased support for clean coal technology research and the coal task force. Hence also the prospect of full privatisation with its attendant benefits which that could bring.
In insisting that our coal industry can and will evolve towards an economically and environmentally viable product, the White Paper anticipates that it will continue to play a significant role in power generation and in the security and diversity of our energy supplies. The reduction in the level of coal-fired power from domestic sources has well publicised and emotive repercussions for some mining-based communities and this has earned them both sympathy and a substantial package of counter-measures.

941
What Chapter 5 of the White Paper proposes is far in excess of that which is offered to equally hard-working people in other walks of life. I have personal experience of the generosity of Chapter 5 because of the five or six people whom I have had to make redundant since 1989.
The most welcome feature, without doubt, of this review is the honest appraisal of the economic and environmental issues. I would add that not only are those two issues inextricably linked because of the added capital and running costs that increasingly attach to environmental impact, but that it is unrealistic, wherever one sits in the House, to dispute their huge relevance.
I am sure that I will be corrected, but from my recollection the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention the environment once in his opening remarks. There are a number of unavoidable realities that the British coal industry is having to face. The first is that much of our coal is deep-mined and is therefore comparatively expensive to bring to the surface. The second is that coal-fired power stations, which comprise the only major market for our coal, emit more than twice as much carbon dioxide as gas-fired power stations. The third reality is acid rain and its two principal ingredients, nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide. Coal-fired power, using domestic coal supplies, emits six times more nitrous oxide and 28 times more sulphur dioxide than gas-fired power.
Despite the very visible damage inflicted by acid rain, and the increasingly well-documented damage to the atmosphere caused by carbon dioxide emissions, we have in the past been somewhat cavalier about their ill effects. This is now changing. Not only are we currently bound by treaty obligations on all such emissions, but target reductions are likely to tighten during periodic reviews, and the perception of acceptable national and international practices is increasingly based on "the polluter-pays" principle.
Fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment and low NOx burners to coal-fired power stations is clearly a vital step forwards but it is an expensive exercise in more ways than one. Retrofitted FGDs cost around £200,000 per megawatt of installed power. They require huge quantities of limestone which have first to be quarried (sometimes from areas of scenic beauty) and then hauled to the power stations, and they give rise to gypsum which then has to be hauled away.
But most salient is that, having invested in all these costs, (and Environmental Data Services estimates that it could take £2.5 billion to sort out our 12 largest coal-fired power stations), the output of the two acid rain ingredients remains three times greater than gas-fired power, and the net output of carbon dioxide actually rises while electricity output decreases. If one also nets in the impact of quarrying and two-way haulage, with all the noxious emissions that the transport industry produces, it reminds us that while FGDs remain an important technical advance, they offer only a partial solution to coal-burning.
The White Paper recognises the unavoidable fact that environmental pressures are already operating against coal, that any expansion in the market for coal
942
has to be reconcile with its environmental impact, and that such pressures, and the costs and obligations they prompt, are bound to increase. Both Brussels and Washington, for instance, are exploring the possibility of carbon taxes. This could have a serious impact on coal-burning with its very high release of carbon as compared with gas-burning which has the lowest carbon emission of all fossil fuels.
As with sulphur and nitrogen emissions, we are already committed to UN and EC obligations for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, and I welcome the fact that the White Paper has been able both to reaffirm these commitments and to create the means by which an expansion in the coal market could be possible.
Such a balancing act is to be commended. Underlying its importance is the fact that, because of our current CO2 obligations, the more coal that we burn the more stringent will be the measures to curb CO2 emissions in other sectors such as transport.
I also commend the White Paper's emphasis on energy efficiency; its announcement of an increase in government funding of research and development into coal utilisation from £3 million per annum to £7 million per annum; its recognition of the £1 billion of public sector and EC funds committed over the past 10 years to clean coal technologies; and the current DTI commitment of £24 million to 56 related projects.
We all look forward to seeing clean coal technology which is not only going to be technically viable in terms of the scale of its application but which is also going to be economically viable in terms of the add-on costs to generators and users. Perhaps the most critical initiative, however, is energy efficiency and I hope that the Government's current commitment is merely a prelude to yet greater efforts.
A further aspect of the overall power generating balance (and one which is often forgotten by critics of the White Paper) is that subsidising jobs in the coal industry is simply robbing jobs and investment from other industries such as gas, with both its onshore and offshore commitment, nuclear and renewables. The latter—renewables—is of crucial long-term importance and it is encouraging that the Government have increased their target generating capacity by 50 per cent. by the year 2000. Ignoring or discounting the environmental costs of other forms of power generation simply slows the pace at which renewable and other cleaner technologies are likely to develop.
In this context, I regret that orimulsion imports even enter the equation given their extraordinarily high sulphur emissions. However, I take some heart from the last Budget that extended hydrocarbon duties to include orimulsion and from the assurances given by the Venezuelans that imports will remain low. I would encourage Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to study with great care the likely need for FGDs on orimulsion plants.
I have one query relating to the seeming contradiction between policy and practice as regards to Section 36 consents. On the one hand, government

943
policy is that the future structure of the energy market is to be driven by market forces. I quote from page 17 which states:
"The Government firmly rejects either a return to central planning or handing over policy responsibilities to a body independent of Government".
On the other hand, private sector applications for Section 36 consents can be subject to all sorts of delays. If a private sector enterprise identifies what it feels to be a commercial opportunity for power generation and it complies with the appropriate planning and environmental regulations, I would ask my noble friend the Minister on what grounds such an application, driven by market forces, might be delayed or refused. If there is a danger of oversupply, surely this is a commercial risk and it is not for the Government to interfere.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that the Government have adopted the right strategy in the White Paper. One might argue over some of the details, such as orimulsion or the extent of the commitment to energy efficiency, but to argue against the overall direction is short-sighted and makes nonsense of both medium and longer-term realities. It makes clear that for the consumer and the taxpayer to subsidise artificially high levels of coal-fired power at great expense is economic and environmental madness. But, as the White Paper acknowledges, there is a realistic and sustainable way forward for the coal industry. There are opportunities that it can exploit and there is an important national role for it to perform. All of these are dependent on its ability to evolve, and this the White Paper seeks to encourage in a manner that is economically and environmentally viable.
6.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, your Lordships are very patient with contributions from these Benches. I believe our attempts to offer a Christian and religious dimension to great human issues is valued by many of your Lordships. So what particular concern should the churches bring to a debate about coal and wider energy policies? The first is a belief in stewardship of God-given resources of the earth and of human skills; secondly, a reminder of long-term insights about the effect decisions made for short-term gains may have on future generations, and, thirdly, a concern for the whole—for the whole community and for the whole person, body, mind and spirit, affected by the erratic demands of the market.
I recognise the undoubted strength of the market, but it does not have a benign hand when it is unbridled. Come to that, the Government do not leave the market altogether free in their commitment to environmental protection, for example, which sets targets, and they shelter nuclear fuel from the free forces of the market. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about a very qualified market, far removed from the free market.
We naturally begin there, with the cost in human terms to the well-being of individuals, families and communities. In our own diocese, the closure of Parkside will mean the end of the Lancashire coalfield. I was talking this week to the vicar of Golborne where
944
the pit was closed a few years ago. The long-term effect on the shops and the community is as great as that on the miners themselves—with no redundancy payments, for example, to shopkeepers whose businesses have gone.
That concern for the whole raises questions about democracy —about accountability. The government White Paper makes far-reaching proposals about a complex issue in which the whole nation has taken anxious interest. To leave three days from the publishing of the White Paper to decision-making in another place shows a most disturbing indifference to democracy and public accountability.
"Energy policy highlights in an acute form what is now one of the most difficult problems facing modern industrial democracies: how to reach decisions on matters which are technically sophisticated and complex, and which yet deeply affect entire populations over whole generations. In this respect our political processes have failed to keep pace with the rapid advances of technology itself".
So wrote the Council for Science and Society in 1979. Co-ordination between energy supply policy and energy saving calls for a body which can keep an eye on the whole scene.
I very much regret that the White Paper ignores the proposal of the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry to establish an energy commission. When he spoke of long-term strategy, the noble Lord the Leader of the House showed us his faith in the market. One might from these Benches almost say fide sola (faith alone). I know that the Government are sceptical about anyone's ability to plan ahead, or even to predict, so they say that it is better to leave it to market forces to determine the mix of energy sources and the supply and pricing of energy. But market forces do not take care of the whole. They do not even calculate the obvious cost to the country in turning earners and taxpayers into receivers of benefit and patients in hospital. They say that that is none of their business.
Market forces will not protect the environment. The Government—thank God—have committed themselves to sustainable growth and environmental protection. It is hard to see how that can be achieved without overall planning.
Decisions about methods of generation cannot be made on economic grounds alone. There are complex political issues involved; for example, over the future of British Coal and coal imports, national and European standards for control of pollution; and for the development of alternative "clean" ways of producing energy. Since others are talking about their favourite alternative methods, I must of course mention the Mersey barrage which, once the capital exists, will provide clean and cheap fuel.
If the Government took democracy seriously, they would have encouraged the widest period for response to the White Paper. I believe that that is not a detail but a matter of serious principle.
Looking at the long term and the effects of energy policy on other generations must call in question the blind faith of relying on market forces. Different sectors pursue policies on calculations of their own

945
narrow and relatively short-term commercial objectives. They seem to have little or no consideration of the overall and long-term national interest. Indeed, they would often say that that is not their concern.
I hope that the Government will think again about the Select Committee's sane and measured proposal to set up an energy commission. The National Grid Company's seven-year statements, as it acknowledges itself, are based upon information from the industry and not upon independent research. Much of the information essential to objective planning is regarded as privileged, or only released too late to be any use in forecasting.
When we come to look at coal itself, the crux of the matter, as noble Lords have been rightly saying, is the size of the market for coal. The Select Committee offered a balanced and well-reasoned case for increasing that market. The White Paper ignores that. It offers short-term subsidies to the reprieved collieries so that they can improve productivity to produce coal at world market prices. But that will do nothing to increase the market for coal. Efficiency gains could lead merely to overproduction, as we have seen in agriculture.
For the sake of selling off the coal industry, the Government may create an artificial market for coal which benefits the miners and the electricity consumers in the short term; however, if there is not new investment, there will be a longer-term shortage of plant capacity. It is difficult to see how long-term investment policies for the coal industry can be developed on the basis of three or five-year contracts. Gas has been granted 15-year contracts.
As I finish, I return to the concern for stewardship of resources. I recognise the Government's scepticism about forecasts and plans and their proper openness to the possibilities of new technologies. But those are only pipe dreams at present. We need to be realistic now about recoverable resources. Within future planning, space can be built in for new discoveries; but given the long lead time required to develop new energy sources, it is irresponsible to write off reserves.
"Letting the market decide" would seem to be wasting God-given deposits of coal and, no less important, miners' skills and mining engineers' expertise. With the rapid depletion of North Sea gas, Britain's energy self-sufficiency will probably end early in the next century. We shall be subject increasingly to worldwide energy pressures. How can we then take a lead towards sustainable growth and environmental protection?
6.24 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps we can all agree that a large part of politics in a democracy is about managing change. That is the skill of politics. The changes needed in this country have been dramatic, and traumatic for those affected by them. Nowhere is that more true than in coal. Looking over the long term, I believe that the changes have been well managed, but I must admit that I was a little startled when the noble Lord, Lord Jay, suddenly gave as an example the introduction of oil into the Royal Navy by Winston Churchill through the buying of the
946
Anglo-Turkish, as I think it was, oil company. Had I thought of it, I should have used that as an example (and an admirable precedent) for the switch from coal to gas, because what Winston Churchill was doing was switching the Royal Navy from coal to oil. That is the type of change that has to be faced.
Several illustrations of recent changes in the coal industry have been given. But if we look at the figures since the war they are very dramatic. In 1947, 980 pits, with 700,000 employees produced 200 million tonnes of coal. There are now perhaps 50 pits with about 54,000 employees producing some 80 million tonnes of coal. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out, half of that production is currently stock piled.
I talked about management of this large-scale change being, on the whole, rather well done over the period, but I must admit that perhaps last autumn the management of the change —to paraphrase the former Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking on a different subject—fell short of the ideal. One reason for that is that the NUM and British Coal have always been in cahoots. Hobart House, as I think it was called, has always been deeply impregnated by the NUM, and quite rightly too. If I were Mr. Scargill I should have seen that I knew exactly what was happening inside British Coal. Of course there is understandable apprehension in both coal unions and coal management over the prospect of the privatisation of coal. Few publicly owned industries have managements which are self-confident enough to face up to that traumatic change.
So the way those dramatic closure proposals were put forward was bound to cause a great row. The politicians should have prevented the row. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is unlikely to regard October 1992 as his happiest month.
If we are talking about change, it seems to me that the Labour Party still seeks to resist it, even when the political pressures are off its members, as they are in the mild climate of your Lordships' House. When the Motion was put before us by the Opposition, I put my yellow highlighter over the words "a long term strategy". I hoped that we should be offered a long-term strategy by the Opposition. Indeed, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition did put forward some points which presumably were his long-term strategy. I wrote them down. There were five of them. If I missed one, I apologise: halt de-stocking; less gas production; less imported power through the interconnector; less opencast coal; less nuclear power. In case that was not enough, his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis jumped up to say that the Government did not appear to have taken into account the valuable role coal production could fulfil by producing freight for British Rail to carry. I was a little disappointed but I am sure that I can rely on his noble friend Lord Donoughue to reveal the real long-term strategy which is referred to in the Motion.
I believe that the overriding need is for Britain to have cheap energy. I believe that a most striking figure in the White Paper is that which demonstrates the changing place of electricity in the energy equation. In 1960 only 26 per cent. of coal consumption went to

947
electricity generation. By last year the figure was 79 per cent. Therefore, I make no apology for spending a few moments in talking about electricity. I must of course declare an interest as a non-executive director of Eastern Electricity, which is the largest of England's 12 regional electricity companies.
Perhaps we may first clarify our minds as regards the pricing policy of the electricity industry. There is a widespread myth that since privatisation there have been large increases in electricity prices, especially to small businesses and domestic customers who all depend on the RECs. Having heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I believe that he shares that belief. Between April 1989—that is the year before vesting so it cannot be said that the companies hoicked the prices immediately before vesting—and April 1993 prices to small businesses and domestic consumers increased by about 24 per cent. During that period the retail prices index increased by about 22 per cent. That is about a 2 per cent. increase in real prices.
In all cases the tariff for 1993–94 has been frozen or reduced. Therefore, depending on the rate of inflation during the next year electricity prices since privatisation will either have been constant in real terms or will have been slightly reduced. Now, of course, that respectable performance on prices is not due to the altruism of the regional electricity companies—they are in the business of maximising their profits, as are all private companies—but is due partly to greater efficiency, and I believe that there is more of that to come. (In a moment I wish to deal with the role of gas.) But I wish to say, first, that the tough regulation by the regulator has been crucial to achieving this success.
One of the real benefits of privatisation is, I believe, to separate the ownership of a business from its regulation. As a Burkean Conservative I believe that one of the main functions of government is to hold the ring between interest groups. And so if government own an industry I do not believe that the regulation is as effective as it is if the industry is privately-owned and the regulator is independent.
Many noble Lords will be familiar with the way in which electricity prices are regulated. However, as it is so central to the debate, I hope the House will excuse me if I spend a moment or two on it. The responsibility for regulation is that of the Director-General of Electricity Supply, Professor Stephen Littlechild, who has held the post since 1989 and has had immense experience of regulating monopolies during the past decade. The prime purpose of the system is to allow any undercharging or overcharging of customers to be recovered in the following year.
The recovery mechanism, which is known in the trade as the "K" factor, involves a price formula by which maximum tariffs can be set. It is not an exact science. Assumptions have to be made about the rate of inflation in the year ahead (the October RPI figure in the relevant year is used), about trends in the pool price, transmission and uplift of charges and about the effects of the weather and the level of economic activity, which both have a large influence on the consumption of electricity.
948
That "K" factor enables adjustments to be made in subsequent years to take account of under or over-recovery. In the case of over-recovery, which is where a company has effectively set its tariffs too high because inflation has fallen or significant savings in upstream costs have resulted, a deduction of the amount to be recovered is made, added to which is bank rate plus a premium, and that is allowed for in the revenue of the succeeding year. I believe that that works rather well.
Perhaps I may turn now to generation and the so-called dash for gas which was referred to by several noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Stoddart. First, gas generation is not a brand new, bright idea. The fact is that in the days of the publicly-owned CEGB Britain went on building coal-fired stations to support the coal industry—and I can understand the pressure to do so on a government who own the industry. Privatisation, which was achieved by splitting the CEGB into three companies, with nuclear remaining in the public sector, provided a limited break-up of the monopoly. More significant was the provision in the Act that the regional electricity companies could generate up to 15 per cent. of their peak supply of electricity.
The fact is that at present gas, in conjunction with combined cycle gas turbines technology, known as CCGT, is the most energy-efficient, and therefore cheapest, source of fuel for power generation. The advantages which it offers over coal-fired plant include lower construction costs, shorter construction times, lower operating costs, substantially higher thermal efficiencies and lower emission levels of sulphur dioxides and CO2. The desirability of this was referred to by other noble Lords.
The White Paper shows that 15 gas-fired stations are likely to come on stream by 1995 replacing 25 million to 30 million tonnes of British coal. Perhaps I may—I understand that there is a certain amount of spare time left in the debate—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, that was indicated to me, but it appears to be incorrect. In that case, I shall rapidly conclude my speech. There remains one crucial role for the Government; it is to ensure that the scars which are caused by the closure of coal mines are healed as rapidly as possible. Last year I spent some days in Durham. In 1951 there were in that county 134 pits employing more than 100,000 miners, but now there are only two pits employing probably fewer than 2,000 miners. However, in the inland area of the county much of the loss of coal jobs has been made up by other employment and there is a relatively prosperous economy in that rural area. I believe that the Government's top priority must be to continue that healing process and I believe that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is the right person to do that.
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this evening I must first express regret that I did not listen to seven speeches owing to a

949
long-standing commitment in Committee upstairs. In speaking last I shall be brief and touch upon only a few points. I am sure that they have already been made. I agree entirely with everything said by my noble friend Lord Marsh. He knows what he is talking about and he put forward his argument most forcefully and effectively.
The Motion asks me to deplore one thing and to condemn another. I cannot do either. I cannot deplore what the Government propose because I cannot see that they have any alternative. If anyone imagines otherwise they have only to look at the pictures on television showing coal stocks piled high. It should not be forgotten that in the first year of storage coal loses 10 per cent. of its calorific value and therefore storage is wasteful. However, we have got ourselves into this position. Secondly, I cannot agree with the use of the word "condemn" unless the word "government" is put into the plural. All governments have been equally at fault in failing to keep pace with trends and events.
Businessmen's horizons stretch for 10 years ahead. Political horizons stretch as far ahead as the next general election. We need some kind of non-political executive which can think 20, 25 or 30 years ahead in terms of trends and the need to support our infrastructure. That applies particularly to new technologies. You cannot test out a nuclear power station other than by building one. It would be extremely uneconomic to look at it from a trade point of view. However, it must be kept going in order to dominate the technology involved in it. It seems that the usage of the terms "the market place" and "democracy" are over simplified from the standpoint of their application to the world of real affairs.
The key mistake was to have liberated natural gas into the field of base low-powered generation. I have said that before and I shall say it again. I have not the slightest objection in principle to the use of natural gas in peak load power stations when there is a sudden shortage of electricity which needs to be supported. Figures that I have not seen, although I must try to study them, are the percentage of power costs in those of our industries which are failing to make a positive balance of trade. I do not believe that they are significant.
The chemical industry is a case apart. In that regard I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is marvellous what you can do with coal. You can turn it into coke and Towns gas with a calorific value of 500. You can take coke, heat it up, blow air through it and you get producer gas which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and nitrogen. You can do the same using steam as well as air and you get water gas, but if you use oxygen instead of air you get synthesis gas which is the base load gas for the whole of the chemical industry. Synthesis gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. By what is known as the water gas shift reaction, you can turn that into pure hydrogen and carbon dioxide which you can get rid of. With hydrogen, you can hydrogenate nitrogen and get ammonia which is the basis of our ammoniacal fertilisers. Oxidise the ammonia and you get nitrates which are the basis for our nitrate based fertilisers. You can take hydrogen, feed it into powdered coal
950
and get back to methane again. You can crack methane and make acetylene. There are few limits to what you can do starting with coal, air and water.
I cannot say very much more than that. I see that I have only taken four minutes but I have said all that I have to say and I shall sit down.
6.43 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if you ask the wrong question, there is not much hope of coming up with the right answer. The problem with the report is that it provides an answer of a kind to the wrong question. The wrong question was asked because of the unprecedented débâcle last October. I cannot remember any industrial relations issue being handled in so ham-fisted a way as the closure of the mines was handled in October. Can anyone recall a time at which even the most hard-faced private employer said to his labour force on the Tuesday, "Boys, you are out on Friday?" It may have happened in the 19th century, but I cannot recall such a thing happening.
As a result, it is increasingly difficult to look in a detached and rational way at what should be done as regards coal. The most unlikely people came out—Tory ladies with blue rinses—ordering their fellow parishioners in churches to write to their Conservative MPs to complain about what was happening in the mines. The result is that it has become almost impossible to have a rational argument about what should be done.
As noble Lords have said, the real question to which we need an answer is what should be the overall energy policy of this country. That is the question. It is not the question dealt with in the White Paper because it is not the question that was asked.
I hope that as a result of this debate we shall be able to return to real issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who said—nobody else has done so with anything like the same force—that the supply of energy is a vital ingredient in the whole economy of this country. The economy of this country will be facing the toughest possible competition. For reasons of sentiment or for any other reason, political or otherwise, we cannot take our eyes off the all important goal: how are we to have the most economic supply of energy to meet the appalling competition that we shall meet throughout the globe? That should be our starting point.
I greatly appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. It is extremely valuable and one of the great justifications of your Lordships' House that on the Cross-Benches we have people who know what they are talking about. Extraordinary though that may seem to politicians, it is an advantage. The professional expertise and long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, enabled him to make points which are far more valuable than most of the observations made in the report.
How are we to achieve the most efficient energy supply for this country? We need a national approach towards a national energy policy. If this debate has done anything to shift the discussion in that direction, it will have been time well spent.

951
The Government tell us that the question of energy must be left to the market. On these Benches we are quite fond of the market. We believe that it is a good servant but a rotten master. We like to use the market in ways which will produce the best possible result. However, nobody can possibly pretend that we have a market in energy or anything remotely like it in this country. The electricity industry, which dominates the purchase of coal, has nothing to do with the market. The Government deliberately created a near monopoly when they set up the electricity industry in the way that they did. Therefore, there is no market dealing with energy issues and with the price of coal. It is very much a controlled situation. When dealing with energy, you have to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made so plain, long-term issues which have nothing to do with immediate market forces. One of the great weaknesses of the market is that it does not think long term. Perhaps the Conservative Government are so fond of the market because they share with it that characteristic.
When it comes to energy and producing the cheapest possible energy compatible with other considerations which must be taken into account, the market by itself will not do. I plead with the Government to think again, in terms which the Select Committee put forward, about the need for an overall energy approach and authority.
What sort of issues would it look at? As noble Lords have said, it would look at alternative sources. We do not know how good those alternative sources may be; for example, wind power, methane and so on. A defective scientific education prevents my making any sensible contribution in that regard, but I am told that alternative sources exist and I am sure that scientists can explore and develop them to see whether there is a source from which we can draw energy.
We need to consider the environmental element. I am surprised that so few green remarks have been made. It was interesting, and a point for your Lordships' House to bear in mind, that the only outstanding green speech came from someone who must, I think, without prejudice, be the youngest speaker in today's debate. The younger generation are far greener, in more ways than one, than we are. But that must be taken into account in any overall energy policy.
In this overall account we have to look into the ways in which coal can be most effectively used. There are a whole variety of different ways in which it can be used. As the debate has proceeded, many people have passed me notes telling me all the things which can be done with coal. It can be used as feedstock for chemicals. I do not know how much coal can be used as feedstock for chemicals. I do not suppose anyone knows. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, gave a very good lead as to the exciting things you can do with coal. I did not understand any of it. I am sure it meant that there was a great future for coal to produce all sorts of things which we have not so far thought about.
The need to have a good look at the variety of ways in which coal can be used and the methods by which
952
we can ensure that we do not waste coal or other sorts of energy are surely matters that should emerge from today's debate.
The question of combined heat and power, which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, raised, should be very much to the forefront of any energy policy, as should insulation, which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, mentioned. But while there is obviously a need to keep coal, and there are uses for coal which we have not fully explored—we do not know the extent to which we are going to be able to use the alternative supplies of gas and oil—we must not go over the top about coal. Because of the row last autumn, people have become, if I may say so, a little sentimental about coal. If I had a son, the last place I would want to put him is in the pit. I doubt very much whether any of your Lordships is really longing to send sons or grandsons in the pit.
As I said in a previous debate, as least one eminent trade unionist, connected with the mining industry, said, "I shan't be happy till I see all my chaps down there on top in a white coat with a Bunsen burner in their hand." We must find ways of heating and supplying energy in this country which do not require people to be crawling about under the ground. I know that they do not crawl quite in the way that they used to and that it is all beautifully technological and modernised, but I would not wish to be there myself and I very much doubt whether a great many other people enjoy it all that much.
We must be extremely careful in shutting pits—when we decide we are going to shut them—about what happens to the communities and how we get new industry and new activities into those places. Money spent on the retraining and development of people coming out of the pit is surely money that should not be grudged. I am not referring just to short-term courses. I mean two-year residential training courses such as the Swedes had to help the able people who come out of the pits with many skills and qualities to do the professional and highly technical jobs which, with training, a great many of them are capable of doing.
Those are the issues which ought to be discussed, and those are the issues which, one way or the other, have come out of this debate. The message surely is: a policy for energy, an overall policy.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I note that we are running early so we still have a little time to discuss this complex question.
This has been an excellent debate which I think bears happy comparison with what we read of Monday's debate in another place. It has just been pointed out to me that this House is more representative than some people realise. It is not highly represented with ex-coal miners. In fact, we believe that there is not a single one in the House any more, though as was also pointed out we have 200 lawyers. But we will do our best to speak for the miners.
My noble friend Lord Richard set out excellently the broad lines of argument and most of the relevant

953
facts and figures which other noble Lords have weaved among with great knowledge and experience. I do not feel that at this late stage I have to repeat the detailed arguments.
I listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House with especial interest, particularly when he said, attempting to correct my noble friend, that there was no evidence that French electricity was subsidised. I have to say that in a way I agree with that. We have virtually no evidence of the financial basis of almost any aspect of the French electricity industry, which is primarily in nuclear, because it does not publish any meaningful facts. Privatisation might flush that one out.
Of course we have always listened to the Leader of the House with great respect. He brings all the weight and the particular slant of a former Secretary of State in the energy policy area. We are aware of his wide-based ability, but this coal industry problem underlines his remarkable shrewdness. I have in mind the particular shrewdness with which he got out from under the Department of Energy just in time, before the pigeons of previous policy errors came home to roost and before it was seen that the wrong structuring of the privatised electricity industry seriously distorted the UK energy market, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so cogently explained. He left just before the consequential mad short-term dash for gas by the regional electricity companies, so ably represented here by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which incidentally in my view will create a ruinous overcapacity in generating before the end of the decade. He left before the full completion of the new facilities at ports to handle massive coal imports, before it emerged that the two-way conductor with France operated as one-way-only traffic importing the equivalent to the output of six British mines. And he left just before the premature announcement of coal privatisation which precipitated last October's hurried and crude package of closures, and before the complete and final collapse of the Government's economic policies into the terrible slump we now have, resulting in depressed demand for energy and too little Treasury funding available to assist the coal industry. We will watch the noble Lord's future career moves with even greater fascination.
One consequence of his last move was that Michael Heseltine was offered this extra jewel for his departmental crown with the absorption of the Department of Energy into the Department of Trade and Industry—and what a wickedly laced poisoned chalice it has proved. A conspiracy theorist, of whom this side of the House has had some in the past, might suspect it was a last act of Thatcherite revenge on her old enemy, so horrendous, such a cocktail of horrors, that often the political and public focus has turned away from the basic energy issues involved and has turned to the nail-biting question of "Would it kill the President?" It seems not to have done so, and I am not surprised. Having observed him closely for 40 years, I do not underestimate his durability or his political athleticism.
One unfortunate consequence is that the White Paper is in danger of being judged from just those
954
personal and political criteria, leading to the conclusion in some quarters that if Michael survives the policy must be right. I wish strongly to reject that view. I should point out that the Secretary of State has survived many wrong policies in the past and probably will do so again in the future. This is one of those wrong policies.
I should like to try to explain the root of my and, I believe, our—and, it is to be hoped, that of other sides of the House—dissatisfaction with the White Paper. It is not because the Government have not made great efforts. I think that the report reflects prodigious energy and great political skill. But when one has read it and studied the proposals and the arguments against other proposals, one realises that something is missing; indeed, I believe that whole dimensions are missing. I mean, for example, that the human and social dimensions are missing. I might even, with hesitation, suggest that perhaps the ethical dimension is missing. I mean that whole Christian dimension which once coloured, informed and humanised a whole strain of Conservatism in Britain —through Salisbury, Chamberlain to Butler and to many of more recent generations until the Great Reaper of Finchley dispatched many of them to live out their days in this House, which I believe is the last bastion of that humane Conservative tradition.
That tradition was actually concerned with the condition of our fellow citizens and believed in preserving a cohesive and supportive society within one nation—a word frequently used by the party Opposite. That tradition is no-where to be found here in this policy. In that context, I note the powerful contribution made by the reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Right reverend Prelate!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I mean the right reverend Prelate. It is not a Church with which I have had close contact.
The policy talks only of inevitable market forces. In that respect, I thought that the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Jay and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, were very convincing in making it clear that there is in fact no free market in energy. What are the miners to do according to the policy? They are to go out and find new coal markets; in other words, to get on their bikes. Otherwise they and their families in their often isolated communities are to be written off—just another balance sheet item with all the consequences for them to which my noble friend Lord Varley referred.
It feels to me like the language of the commodity markets. It is the political and economic philosophy of the estate agent. Members of the humane tradition of Conservatism should not give it intellectual house room. We are not discussing commodities on the Chicago futures market - pork bellies, whose price is wrong, nor are the miners idle layabouts or spongers looking for handouts; they are hard working men whose product increases are higher in the British economy than any other European coal mines. They produce an indigenous fuel, the value of which was

955
well described by my noble friend Lord Sefton, which guarantees long-term security of supply not exposed to currency fluctuations. The importance of that was well argued by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It generates electricity in existing power plant as cheap or cheaper than their competitors which are often subsidised. They seek to work and produce competitively within a coherent fuel policy which provides properly for Britain's long-term energy future, bearing in mind the problem analysed by my noble friend Lord Eatwell that markets react in the short term but that energy plant takes a long time to develop.
That is not an unreasonable proposal, nor is it impossible to achieve. One way to achieve it was well set out in the January report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. That was an all-party committee with a Conservative majority. It presented a package of 39 proposals to create a larger market for coal. That is what the White Paper says is required and I believe that the Select Committee set out ways of achieving that aim. It was estimated that it would secure 62 million tonnes of coal which would keep all the pits open over a sensible timescale of five years, but not beyond that time. That is a sensible timetable, taking us beyond the recession. Those pits that are not competitive after five years might reasonably be closed. Noble Lords who have read the report will be aware that it involves reviewing the duopoly in electricity generation, though that is not properly touched upon. It also involves the nuclear levy; electricity imports from France; the consents for open-cast mining; the franchising of regional distributors; and, the use of gas for peak-load rather than for base-load generation.
That broad and constructive approach, which offers a larger market for coal and a future for the coal industry, is rejected in the White Paper. The Chairman of the Select Committee made that absolutely clear on Monday in another place. The White Paper fails to find an extra single tonne of coal: 18 pits cease production and 12 have a stay of execution, but only briefly. British Coal, independent commentators and some speakers in this afternoon's debate, make it clear that all 12 of those pits will almost certainly be shut within two years. No one this afternoon has denied that fact. The White Paper's policy is in fact short termist and will be damaging to Britain's energy requirements, to its economy and to its balance of payments for all the reasons so cogently explained by my noble friend Lord Eatwell.
The subsidy referred to in the White Paper of unspecified amount and unspecified time is not part of a strategy to secure a competitive future for coal; it is part of a public relations job as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, honestly stated. It is skilfully presented and bundled in a mass of cellophane and ribbons. The earlier presentation disaster has been redesigned. But the reality and message inside is the same as that of last October when we had our great debate and our Vote. As my noble friend Lord Ewing so graphically argued, the message is mass unemployment for the miners with little future hope. I ask noble Lords
956
opposite and those on the Cross Benches: is what they and the House voted for last October—better packaging but the same old butchery for the miners and those in related industries? I certainly hope that that is not the case.
I believe that it is right in energy terms and in human and social terms to support the Motion. Anyone who believes that Britain should have a balanced energy strategy should vote for it. Anyone who believes that it is wrong to throw 70,000 workers on the scrap heap when it costs as much to keep them out of work as to keep them in work, should vote for the Motion. In reality, the alternative offered is a rapid, remorseless and bleak path to unemployment with all the poverty and humiliation that that involves. It is not necessary. I hope that tonight noble Lords from all Benches will show that it is a future that they do not support or wish on others.
7.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in today's debate. It has been a fascinating debate. We have learnt much today from the contributions of the Members of your Lordships' House, among whom there is much knowledge which has been freely shared.
I had not expected to hear in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, a précis of the book he plans to write on the Tory Party, but I thank him for it. Nor had I expected to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in the image of King Canute, but I fear that I did.
I should like to correct one fact in relation to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I am pleased to tell him that there is an ex-Bevin boy in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, even as a former coal miner, queried with me why more has not been made of the fact that coal is not the greenest of fuels.
I begin my winding-up speech by saying very strongly that the aim of the Government's energy policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy in the forms which people and businesses want at competitive prices. That is an energy strategy. Plans for that strategy are to have full regard to the impact of the energy sector on the environment, including taking measures to meet the Government's international commitments; to safeguarding health and safety (and that is an ethical standard if ever there was one); to promoting energy efficiency, which noble Lords have mentioned; and to monitoring and improving the performance of the remaining state-owned industries while minimising distortion.
During the coal review the Government have looked very closely at the economic factors underlying the October closure announcement. The consultants' reports and the other analyses confirm that the October closure decisions were soundly based given market conditions. As several noble Lords have said, those underlying conditions have not changed. Therefore, I cannot understand why the noble Lord,

957
Lord Ewing, expected my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to suggest that he was wrong. The underlying conditions have not changed, but the Government have been able to put forward substantial new proposals to assist the coal industry.
The Government's White Paper offers a fresh opportunity for British pits to compete. They have the possibility of selling as much coal as the market will take, with a subsidy down to the world market-related prices. We have placed the answer in the hands of the miners and British Coal. However, there can be no guarantees. The Government proposals offer the British coal industry the chance to improve performance to levels where it can compete successfully. However, the Government cannot, in the end, secure the industry's future. The reality is that the industry itself must take advantage of the support it has been offered to improve its performance. That is why we have emphasised early privatisation. Private sector management is the only way to ensure the industry's competitiveness.
As my noble friend Lord Lindsay pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, did not mention environmental issues. Nor did he mention the regeneration package which is so important to the future of the miners. I shall return to that point later.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also queried the fact that the other place chose to hold a debate on Monday and felt that that was not helpful. That was also a point which the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I suggest that for the sake of miners and their families there was much to be gained from removing the sense of insecurity resulting from lack of information about the matter. If the noble Lord felt so strongly why did he not leave this debate until after the Easter Recess?
I noticed that the noble Lord's mathematics did not include sums of compensation for broken contracts. I also noted that people always refer to "our" coal resource but one never hears mention of our nuclear resource or our natural gas resource. I point out to noble Lords that we have more resources than coal alone.
I was also surprised to hear from such a European as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, easy anti-French remarks. If there is evidence of subsidy to the French industry that can be placed on the table and examined. It may be significant, but it has not come to the table.
This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested a Government pit closure policy. It is a Government policy to give the coal industry an opportunity and a future and to make it competitive as a world player.
I shall try to answer most of the points which have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, showed the depth of his knowledge. While others said that future contracts for additional coal had not been signed, the noble Lord recognised the difficulty of negotiating the base contracts, which have now been signed and on which we can build for the future.
Of course we are moving towards competition in the electricity industry as fast as possible. The market has changed since the 1930s. There can be no doubt about that. Experience has shown that in coal mining
958
the reduction in demand has never stopped, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said. His realism is refreshing.
As regards expenditure on research, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, welcomed the expenditure on clean coal technology. Perhaps I may point out that the Government are currently funding a portfolio of approximately 56 projects with a contract value of over £114 million. Many are collaborative projects in partnership with industry. The DTI's contribution to those is £24 million. In addition the Science and Engineering Research Council is supporting 18 coal research projects at 10 different universities at a total cost of £1.8 million. I am pleased to say that the European Commission is supporting a further 14 projects at eight universities at a cost of over £3 million. I know the noble Lord's concern for the future. I share it, and I am delighted to be able to report that that is an area which is not being ignored. I hope that many of those projects will lead to future demand which at present none of us can foresee.
I should also like to reply to several noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the Government are committed to assisting the entry of renewables into the commercial electricity generating market. I can give him an assurance that that commitment will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was also concerned with the environmental issues and urged that renewables should be taken into account. I am sure that he was delighted to read in my right honourable friend's Statement on Thursday of the sour gas project at Connah's Quay in Wales. Certainly, the Welsh TUC welcomed it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said that he had heard the speech in the House of Commons on Monday by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am surprised that he achieved that because it was very difficult for my right honourable friend to make his speech in the House on Monday. I have always been told that where there is much noise there is usually a weak case.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. Jobs are as much a concern to this side of the House as to noble Lords in opposition. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, there is no monopoly in care and concern. It is important to everyone that we should find employment for people. Perhaps I may also reassure him when he worries, as did the right reverend Prelate, about the position of natural reserves. Only 1 per cent. of our coal reserves are at the existing pits. Therefore the majority of the United Kingdom's reserves are unaffected at present and, hopefully, new technology and new research, will enable us to access those competitively and successfully in the future.
I thank my noble friend Lord Boardman for pointing out that a substantial number of other jobs are adapting to a different situation through change. It is not a matter absolutely exclusive to the coal industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, raised the question of the Monktonhall colliery. We have great admiration for the determination and initiative

959
of the Monktonhall mine workers and were saddened indeed to hear of the tragic accident there last week. However, I would be wrong to give the noble Lord false hope. The Government do not consider it appropriate to use taxpayers' money to provide bridging finance for, or to rescue, companies in financial difficulties. However, it is important that future miners considering future employee buy-ins should have support. As my right honourable friend announced on Thursday, he is investing £1 million, available for consultancy to employees who are considering examining buy-ins.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government do not approve of using government money to subsidise companies in difficulties. Does she therefore disapprove of the policy which the Bank of England admitted that it pursued in the early 1980s of maintaining companies in business by providing them with subsidised loans?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, did not hear me refer to taxpayers' money.
The noble Lord, Lord Attlee, raised the question of vertical integration. The Government do not share his enthusiasm for vertical integration. Where electricity suppliers have a monopoly of supplies, vertical integration can create regional power monopolies. The Government do not believe that that would be in the interests of electricity consumers. Consumers are best served by extending competition so far as possible in both generation and supply. We believe that that involves preventing the creation of monopolies and creating the conditions whereby new entrants can be encouraged to enter the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, raised the question again of electricity from France. He asked for clarification of the status of French electricity in relation to the fossil fuel levy. I confirm that EdF does not receive the benefit of levy revenue because its electricity, unlike that of nuclear electrical renewables, is not purchased under a non-fossil fuel obligation. However, because EdF's electricity is non-fossil and not included within the non-fossil fuel obligation, it is exempted from the levy when its electricity is sold to customers. That confers a financial advantage on EdF. That advantage is about 0.6 pence per kilowatt hour compared with the 3.3 pence per kilowatt hour that Nuclear Electric obtains from the levy. I hope that that clarifies matters for the noble Lord.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may ask this. Does she deny that French nuclear electricity qualifies for the subsidy although it does not receive it directly? What it receives in effect is the same as a subsidy. As she said, it is exempted from the levy.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, no, it does not, because the electricity is not purchased under the non-fossil fuel obligation. I am sorry if that was not made clear.
960
The noble Viscount, Lord Hood, raised the important point of energy efficiency and energy conservation. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government see them as part of their energy policy.
As usual the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, again brought his considerable input and knowledge to the debate.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether we were expressing due concern. Perhaps I may suggest that the effort and resource that we have put into ensuring that there is money available—£200 million in England, and a further £43 million in Wales emphasises how important it is that we should plan for the future of those people. We should work with the community and those people who are affected as well as miners to build a future. But we do not believe that subsidising one industry rather than another is giving people the future that they deserve.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about power station consents. Perhaps I may stress that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear in his Statement that he did not intend to alter his policy towards the granting of new consents. Matters such as the need for a generating station, its capacity, choice of fuel, and type of plant will remain, as in the past, commercial matters for applicants.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked whether the Government pretend that they can successfully predict the future. The noble Lord's argument depends on the belief in the superior wisdom of Ministers and bureaucrats. It is not a policy that we endorse.
Perhaps I may stress an issue that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal made quite clear in opening today's debate, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, drew attention. Although British Coal has made very substantial moves in increasing its productivity over the past seven years—it has doubled it—it is still only 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. of productivity in American and Australian mines. That is why we have to continue to look to the future and to give opportunities.
My noble friend raised the point that the Government should consider dividing PowerGen and National Power. We are committed to competition in the electricity industry. The Director General of Offer will consider not later than 1995 whether a reference of the major generators to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is necessary. I believe that that gives us future examination of competition. It would be within the power of the MMC to recommend that the companies be divided. However, of course, the Government have no general power to interfere with the structure of private sector companies.
We were asked why there was to be no energy commission. The Government accept that there should be an improved level of information in the energy field. That is why the proposals in the White Paper include both a new energy advisory panel and an annual energy report. But they reject wholeheartedly a return to central planning which has failed, and we have seen it fail in the past. Handing over policy responsibilities to a body independent of government would not be this Government's policy.

961
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the question of privatisation and nuclear energy. He said that privatisation gave him a more accurate figure of nuclear costs. Perhaps I may quote to him. He took us back in history to the time of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Perhaps I may take him a little further back in history and quote his right honourable friend the Member for Chesterfield who said:
"If we look ahead at the mix of fuels which we think we shall need in this country in the year 2000, it is not possible to abstract the nuclear component without running a serious risk which no energy Minister could recommend to the House".
We took note of the report of the Select Committee and plan to bring the nuclear review forward.
I also wish to cover one point which several noble Lords raised about the future for the people who will be affected by pit closures. We have to take a longer-term view and look at the skills of those people and the availability of retraining. I am delighted to re-emphasise that British Coal Enterprise has helped to create some 83,000 employment opportunities since October 1984. Eighty five per cent. of former British Coal employees actively seeking jobs have been resettled or retrained for identified jobs. I believe that that indicates the opportunities and that we care about the future of those people involved in the mining industries.
We have heard comments about the level playing field. I sometimes wonder why we do not hear that comment from other energy sources. Since 1979, £18 billion has been given to the coal industry and £1 billion in the year 1992–93. If there were any tilting, I suggest that that is a fairly heavy balance.
I also draw attention to the fact that there are jobs in other energy-producing areas. Nuclear Electric estimates that 17,000 jobs would go if Magnox stations were closed and in the oil industry 55,000 jobs would go if gas projects were stopped. Those jobs are as important to each individual as any other job.
I wish to draw attention to something which has perhaps not been discussed today as much as possible —the success of regeneration in the past. My noble friend Lord Wade drew attention to it in the rural economies. We propose to give £200 million for that. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, talked about jobs but we are talking about new jobs for people, working with training and enterprise councils and local authorities to create futures.
There is no surplus of enterprise zones, but there is ample evidence of how well they have worked. Corby was an enterprise zone; Shotton was an enterprise zone. In 1979–80, the Corby steel plants were closed with a loss of 3,500 jobs. By 1981, unemployment stood at 22.7 per cent. I am delighted to tell noble Lords that today it stands at 9.7 per cent. That is really successful regeneration—taking change, managing it and building on it for the future.
It was also suggested that we did not attract new jobs. Perhaps I may point out that the Toyota engine plant at Shotton is a whole new opportunity for the future; 10,000 new job opportunities have been created in that area.
Noble Lords opposite have at one moment been telling me that we should secure our own supplies of energy and then they look to take out gas and nuclear
962
energy. They have given me the background but they have not given me the future. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said on Thursday that the question should not be about political fixes, but today I have heard about little other than political fixes from the Benches opposite.
The President of the Board of Trade has faced difficult problems. He has arranged a most thorough review of energy in the country by world class experts. With that knowledge, he has produced a solution which allows British Coal the time to become a competitive player. Today, listening to noble Lords opposite, we would think that they were talking about burial. I have to assure the House that a lifeline is being offered to British Coal. If one wants a future which consists of preserving the past and not recognising and managing change, one may feel sympathetic towards the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in opening the debate. But if one wants to see British industry having the resource of a competitive, diverse supply of energy which allows us to grow and our children to have jobs and their children to have work and which allows this country to be a major player on the world stage, then I ask noble Lords to reject the Motion.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with interest and fascination to the noble Baroness winding up the debate for the Government. I also noted what she did not say. Noble Lords who were present at the beginning of the debate will remember that I put to the Government the proposition that even if the White Paper were accepted and even if the subsidies were granted, that can, on the arithmetic, save only seven pits out of the 12. Therefore, five are to go. There was not a word from the Government about that in reply.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is not here. I was going to say something nice about him. He painted a gloomy, apocalyptic view of the future of the energy industry: it was bound to decline; coal was bound to go down; there was no way out; it was all inevitable. He also said—and I fully agree with him —that the White Paper was a sham, a PR exercise. He said that the position had not changed since last October and that if one went into the details in the White Paper, it was yet another limited attempt to try to preserve at least the show that the Government are interested in the preservation of the coal industry.
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has just entered the Chamber—it was a case of Hamlet without the Prince or the feast without Banquo. Perhaps Banquo's Ghost is the best analogy. I assure the noble Lord that if ever he needs defending I should be delighted to defend him.
Lord Marsh: Free?
Lord Richard: At considerable cost to him, provided I do not have to rely for his defence upon his consistency and commitment. Apart from that, I should be delighted to defend him. I was about to say that so gloomy was his picture of the inevitable decline of the coal industry and so scathing was his view of the

963
White Paper that there is only one honourable thing that he can do this evening when it comes to the vote. If we look at the terms of the Motion, it states:
"That this House deplores the proposals contained in the White Paper".
No one deplored the proposals contained in the White Paper with such gusto and venom as did the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Secondly, the Motion condemns Her Majesty's Government,
"for their failure to develop a long term strategy for meeting Britain's future energy requirements".
I detected in what the noble Lord had to say at least a glimmer of support for us in the fact that there is no long-term energy strategy. His long-term energy strategy and mine may be somewhat different, at least in their detail. There is only one honourable thing that he can do; namely, to accompany us into the Lobby tonight and join in deploring the White Paper.
The noble Baroness who wound up the debate accused us of political fixes. She said that all she had heard from this side amounted to political fixes. I found that comment a bit thick, coming from a government who defend the activities of the biggest political fixer in the House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade. Compared to "Superglue Heseltine", those of us on this side of the House are infants and tiros. With respect, the noble Baroness must do better than that.
I refer to one matter so far as the French position is concerned. The noble Baroness will know that although the original agreement was negotiated in 1978, there was a protocol which was entered into in 1981. That protocol has never been made available. It is impossible for noble Lords to form an accurate and sensible view of the details of the transaction between the French and ourselves in relation to the interconnecting link unless and until the protocol and the subsequent agreements are published. The matter was raised before the debate on Monday in another place and Madam Speaker expressed the view that it could not be seen because it was a commercial transaction and therefore the papers could not be made available. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an undertaking that at some stage we shall know what is in that protocol. Without knowing the details, I believe it is almost impossible for anyone to arrive at a sensible and objective decision as to whether or not the arrangement with the French operated by the Government makes sense or whether it does not.
In many ways the debate has been a fascinating exposure. The division lines, if I can put it that way, between various points of view and various opinions have been clearly drawn. There is no doubt, in our view, that on the other side there is an excessive obsession with the operation of market forces: it is not up to the Government to try to deal with the delicate problems in the coal industry or with the problems of electricity regeneration—save and only in so far as they can preserve the operation of the market. Damn the consequences. If miners are thrown out of work, they will do something when that happens. They will produce a package of redundancy payments, and
964
some money for regeneration in the area. This should not be a debate about the funeral of the coal industry. We are not here to bury it. We ought to try in this day and age to see whether it is possible to regenerate the coal industry, by providing it with more guaranteed markets than can be provided under the Government's market policy.
The second division line to emerge very clearly in the debate is the argument between the short-termers and the long-termers. The Government are very good at looking at the short-term advantage which may accrue in any given situation. In relation to the future of our coal industry, the people involved in it, the 30,000-odd miners who will be thrown out of work as a result of government policy and the consequent increased unemployment in those areas that are directly affected, a long-term solution is required, not the short-termism that we have seen from the Government today. I beg to move.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 163.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Healey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hollick, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attlee, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Barnett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howell, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hylton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Cobbold, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkender, B.

Monkswell, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nathan, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

Palmer, L.

Geraint, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gregson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

965

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Varley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stedman, B.

Warnock, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Aldington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Annaly, L.

Halsbury, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hanson, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Astor, V.

Harvington, L.

Barber, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hemphill, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Holderness, L.

Biddulph, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blake, L.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Boardman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ironside, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Byron, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cadman, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Caldecote, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Leigh, L.

Carnock, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Liverpool, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Long, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lyell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Clinton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Marlesford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marsh, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mersey, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Croham, L.

Morris, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Donegall, M.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Parkinson, L.

Elibank, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Prentice, L.

Faithfull, B.

Prior, L.

Flather, B.

Pym, L.

Forester, L.

Quinton, L.

Forte, L.

Rennell, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Romney, E.

Goschen, V.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Greenway, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

966

Seccombe, B.

Terrington, L.

Selsdon, L.

Teviot, L.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sherfield, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Ullswater, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stewartby, L.

Vivian, L.

Stockton, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wakeham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Weinstock, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Swinton, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Television Companies: Ownership
7.55 p.m.
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they will introduce to avert any take-over of British independent television companies by non-UK European interests after 1st January 1994.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a minor shareholder in Anglia Television since 1958. I should like to say that I find it most encouraging to have in this debate such a distinguished gathering of experts with great experience. Also perhaps, in case he disagrees with what I am about to say, I should say how helpful and comforting I find it to have my noble friend Lord Astor replying to the debate. He has taken a very special interest in these difficult matters and is very open and flexible about them. I shall be as brief as I possibly can be, in view of the lateness of the hour, but also because I know that most of your Lordships are familiar with many of the arguments that I shall present.
The current position on ITV is that from 1st January 1994 the existing moratorium on take-overs comes to an end. I read that the former IBA asked for one year, which was conceded. However, I believe that that is not strictly accurate. My recollection is that the IBA wanted three or four years but was advised during the forced passage of the Bill to ask for only one year because it would never obtain three years. That was a pity. There was strong pressure in the other place and in this House for a longer moratorium.
But now that one year will soon be over. It has obviously proved inadequate. This debate is about the consequences that will follow unless something is done about it in one way or another and very soon.
What has to be recognised are the tremendous technological changes that have taken place, with new channels and the effect of satellite broadcasting and so on. In fairness to the former government and the Broadcasting Act, nothing like the present multiplicity of channels seems to have been foreseen or forecast. Understandably, what was then thought to be right is now obviously wrong.
Fortunately it falls to new Ministers to avert a possibly lasting injury to the nation and the national television services, who are not responsible for the Act

967
and were not authors of the Bill. However, if nothing is done, after next January all ITV companies will be vulnerable to take-over by foreign interests in the EC. The predators will most likely come from Germany, Italy, France or Luxembourg, where one can find the headquarters of one of the biggest conglomerates, or indeed from any other country in Europe.
There are many unacceptable aspects to the situation. ITV companies can be taken over 100 per cent. by EC nationals; but, as most of your Lordships will know, British companies cannot take over European television companies. The position is inequitable and the United Kingdom is penalised. There is no harmonisation on TV ownership in the EC. Whatever the merits of the case, this hardly seems a good moment for the Government to have to concede that other EC countries have blatant and legal advantages over the United Kingdom.
The rules in different countries certainly vary, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out when I and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked questions about that matter. Every country does not necessarily resist foreign predation in the same way. But that is hardly relevant, because the majority are still protected in one way or another. The United Kingdom is not protected at all and is probably the only country that is not protected at all. That will be, the situation on January 1st next year.
It is sometimes said, and it may be true, that there is no apparent evidence that any Europeans are ready to bid for our companies and to jump in in the new year. But that is pure speculation. In my view it would be reckless to depend on it. No predator would dream of announcing what his intentions are. It is easy to be taken by surprise. I remember my noble friend Lord Ferrers speaking from the Front Bench in the debate on the Broadcasting Act and saying that it was impossible to treat Sky and BSB in the same context because technologically, in practical terms and in many other ways, they were clearly entirely separate; four days later they merged. The Government must therefore be careful in depending on anything that is not fact.
Furthermore, we must be realists. It is widely recognised that even though national rules abroad may seem to offer an open door, other countries are far more sensitive than the United Kingdom about having their news and current affairs programmes controlled by foreigners. In those EC countries, even if take-overs from abroad are permitted in theory and bids are made, in some mysterious manner they would almost certainly fail at the last hidden hurdle.
One knows from experience that it is easy enough to set up a secret panel to screen the franchise applications which does not have to make its findings public. I have been informed in Europe by one or two people who know that that is what they do and how they deal with the situation, whatever the EC legislation says.
In recent memory it would have been regarded as sheer folly to put our primary means of communications in foreign hands. Those who remember the 1930s and 1940s would have found it incomprehensible.
968
However zealous one might be for a common market, it really looks like a bridge much too far to surrender our primary means of communication with the nation to non-UK proprietors. Furthermore, the UK television industry is more vulnerable than the industry in other countries. It has its hands tied behind its back and is unable to consolidate and defend itself against foreign predators.
A supplementary rule to the Broadcasting Act is that it designates nine ITV companies as "large" and the remainder as "small". The point is that "large" cannot amalgamate with "large"; therefore two-thirds of the ITV industry are like battery chickens. They can exist but they cannot mate or get into the same coop. The notion behind that is to prevent the concentration of too much TV power in too few hands. It was thought that in that way TV ownership would remain more widely spread. But in trying to achieve it in that way the Government are letting foreigners in through the middle and defeating their own intentions. The very thing the previous government sought to avoid may actually come about.
Other factors have radically changed the position from before the Act came into force. First, there was the bizarre franchise tendering process, which failed to include a reserve price on the one hand and on the other encouraged certain companies to bid high in order to protect their own employment. All that coincided with an endless recession. The outcome is considerable disarray throughout the industry and its balance and structure have been severely shaken. In fact, in theory the smallest of "small" companies could become pro rata the most profitable, and a large company, naturally bidding high to protect its long-serving staff and employees, could become marginal if not insolvent. That is the result of the bidding process, and that is where we are.
"Large" no longer means large in financial terms. Financial terms, rather than quality and creativity, for better or worse, are the main terms that count as a result of the Act. In fact some so-called "large" companies could be among the most vulnerable.
As a result of that confused state of affairs the companies have tended to be thrown apart, acting somewhat narrowly in the best interests of their shareholders. To retain the classification "large" suits some, while understandably other large companies with successful low bids would like to be rid of any restrictions and get on with amalgamations. All that is quite understandable.
It has been said critically that there is little unanimity of view among the companies on those matters, as though it was their fault. But can we be surprised? It is the responsibility of the government who introduced the system and the Broadcasting Act and who subjected the industry to the franchise process. It has distorted what was formerly a balanced and successful industry, with incidentally the unchallenged reputation of being the best commercial television in the world. However, I feel confident that the new Ministers will bring an open and objective mind to this new and urgent situation because there is no time to lose.
There is still another significant factor which militates against United Kingdom companies; that is, the substantial difference in scale between the television structure in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Europe is dominated by huge conglomerates and cross-frontier consortia—some almost as big and perhaps bigger than the whole British ITV industry put together. British regional ITV companies are tiddlers by comparison and could be mopped up almost without noticing, although the combined might of French, Italian and German interests may be more likely to target the larger ITV companies if they were isolated. Our companies may be no match over here for the European "collosi"—if that is the right word—unless they have partners, are interdependent to some extent and can present a robust and solid British front.
With regard to the ITV industry, I feel that no company on either flank of the industry position would want ultimately to stand solid against any movement on the moratorium, which is at the heart of the matter. I believe that in the end all the ITV companies will support the Government if they extend the moratorium until 1996. At the same time, the question of classification of "large" and "small" could be given attention and be synchronised.
Regional ITV is one of the great innovations and is now part of British life. The BBC cannot match it and nobody abroad has done anything to compare with it. Everyone accepts that regional television is now an integral part of British life. If ITV is strengthened by consolidation in the long run, certainly regional ITV in the UK will be sustained. In ITV everyone knows how to do it. There is a deep-rooted tradition and style for serving the regions. Regionalism must be kept intact. But it is fanciful, and even painful, to picture foreigners responsible for regional television services. The mind boggles at the thought of people from Stuttgart, Milan or any other European city knowing how to provide regional services in any part of Wales, Scotland, East Anglia, the South of England or wherever. However much the ITC protested at the service they provided, I doubt whether it could even explain to some foreigners in EC countries what was expected of them or what they should do.
It may be said that proprietors have nothing to do with management or the editorial. But that is no longer valid. In a statement issued last week in connection with a release made about Granada television, the ITC said,
"Specifically, the Broadcasting Act's provisions relating to control [it gives the paragraphs] relate not to directors but to the shareholders of the company, those who have the power to appoint and remove directors".
That implies that the proprietors are able to call the shots, which we all know. If they are abroad and do not even live here or in the region they will be interested only in making money, which is why they would invest in it, and in the results. If they were not satisfied with the results, they would simply give instructions about the reduction or diminution of whatever regional service was in place.
Whatever one's position on Europe, it may make little difference in theory if a factory making boots or shoes or producing beer or cars is owned by
970
foreigners. But when it comes to ITV, one would be offering them a camera, a microphone and the airwaves, with instant and direct access to the people of Britain, to say and show what they want. The huge responsibilities that this brings have to be taken extremely seriously. It is no good allowing those responsibilities to be handed to people who are untried and do not live here.
The official position on this point is that there is nothing to worry about because any new owner, having taken over a British ITV station, would be obliged to observe the terms of the contract. But I have to say that, apart from the broad rules and requirements of the contract, this can in the end be a hollow argument. I have no criticism of the ITC, which would obviously do its best—in fact I have a great regard for its initiatives and its position—but there have been several incidents in the past (before the ITC came into being) where the contractor has failed to observe the contract terms.
In practice it has been very difficult for the authority to do anything about it if the result is to be a blank screen. It is simply not feasible to have a blank screen. It is not in the public interest and therefore it is almost impossible to sack a contractor. If the contractor were sacked and the signal was fed from another area, it would be impractical to feed news or local programmes from another part of Britain. One cannot have news about Steeple Bumpstead being fed into Yorkshire. The same applies to other companies. That does not make any sense. There could also be the prospect of litigation and a time lag, perhaps for years. More often than not difficulties are escalated because of the howls of outrage from the intelligensia and from Parliament about interference and censorship. The likelihood is that the station stays on the air, whatever it fails to do, and probably continues broadcasting, even in a new form.
If that can happen when all the parties involved are British subjects, not much imagination is required to perceive difficulties in sacking a contractor which has become French, German or whatever. If there is trouble, other government departments are sure to feel forced to intervene. Just at the point when a licence is to be taken away from a German contractor another department will say, "You can't possibly do that because we have a state visit coming. You will just have to wait". In another situation it may be said, "A vital contract for £6 billion is at stake. We don't want to upset that so please leave it alone". I do not believe that it is practical or feasible to say that the foreign contractors would be subject to the rules of the licence and that it would therefore make no difference. It would make one hell of a difference in my view.
It is important—and it is no laughing matter—that we all speculate on the hypothetical consequences if, for example, Ulster were taken over by Ireland or if a network company were taken over by clients of the Bundesbank. I read this morning about the fishing problems in the Channel Islands. The Guernsey sea fisheries officer said that the four-and-a-half-hour meeting which persuaded the French to end their protest at St. Peter Port was conducted with an undercurrent of threat. Mr. Ozanne said that the

971
French warned that they would block the port if no pact was reached. As far as I understand it, the fisheries association in that port would be permitted to bid for and take over the Channel Islands' television service. One could go on for ever thinking of such situations. It would be a totally different situation from the current one where British companies are subject to the ITC.
One does not have to be at war to suffer the possible internal consequences, and national security is not the only issue. That was all we thought about in the 1930s, the 1940s, and even the 1950s where broadcasting was concerned. When television came on the air every effort was made in legislation to ensure that foreign take-over could not happen. I am not clear what has suddenly happened to make it acceptable. Biased presentation and reporting in peacetime can possibly be more insidious and long range (and I have to repeat that with foreign contractors the authority would prove much weaker in the end to act). Everyone should note the situation with the British press as a result of its ownership in such a huge measure overseas.
I realise that it is unfashionable to ask what would happen if there was some kind of war in Europe, but conflicts, as we have been discovering recently, do not have to be fighting wars with arms. The national characteristics of nations do not appear to me to have changed at all, and countries in Europe are still fighting their own corners, in their own interests, in their own ways, and with their traditional national characteristics and style. Why should the United Kingdom of all countries be the only one to allow its television services to be owned and controlled by anyone outside this country?
This issue of cross-frontier control of broadcasting has been referred to the EC by the Government, and also by Central Television, but there is not the slightest possibility of anything being achieved about harmonisation before 1994, or probably for many years to come, if ever. That is the point of my Question and that is what the debate is about. It cannot be done before the end of the year. At the end of the year things can rip. No doubt the bureaucrats in Europe will claim that they intend to knock everyone into shape, but I believe that other countries will laugh at them behind their hands and behind closed doors.
Furthermore, I believe that the more the issue is raised and debated in the Community over the next few years the less likely there is to be harmonisation. I do not believe in it and I do not believe it will come. It will not come if it involves any country losing any control of its own broadcasting. Positions will harden, not lead to harmonisation. I trust therefore that we will not be the only country to submit in advance. I urge my noble friend the Minister, and through him the Secretary of State, to reflect how foolish we may look in the years ahead if we alone have sold the pass while everyone else stands firm. That is a clear possibility at this stage. That is surely enough to justify extreme caution and postponement of anything
972
so critical and final. Some action soon is imperative—and of all the solutions, extending the moratorium is the most practical.
Finally, there is the BBC. We do not know yet what the ultimate outcome will be with the BBC. Whatever emerges in 1996 is certain to have a critical effect on the operations of ITV. There is no doubt about that. It always has and it always will. It could surely prove most improvident, or even reckless, to risk the structure and ownership of ITV going through substantial changes through foreign take-overs when the future of the BBC is not even known for perhaps a couple of years yet.
The Government may still live to regret having let things get out of hand while still in the dark about the broad picture at home. The Government may even have to return to the subject and tinker with ITV yet again in 1996–97 to iron out some new problems which have arisen from the BBC conclusions. There is clearly everything to be said for synchronising television policy and arrangements as a whole across the broad spectrum when the horizon on all fronts becomes clear. At this stage it is extremely confused.
It is understandable that Ministers may find it difficult to deal with primary legislation which is necessary to extend the moratorium. But if a vital part of legislation is manifestly wrong and was passed when future technological developments were not apparently recognised or appreciated, and the situation has now totally changed, then it makes no difference whether the legislation is primary or not; it is still wrong. To go on being wrong is bound to lead to further problems.
I understand those difficulties. I know that there is a problem about the Government's programme and so on. We all recognise that. Therefore, I only mention a notion in an attempt to be helpful to the Government. I shall be grateful if my noble friend Lord Astor will consider carefully with the Secretary of State the possibility of a one-clause Private Member's Bill extending the moratorium, certainly with the support of all parties in both Houses if it is available. The large and small factors could be attended to separately.
This is a situation now where the national interest allows no delay. At all costs there must be no sliding into a situation where it is too late to prevent the worst. One way or another extending the moratorium to 1996 by whatever means is preferred would seem to be sensible at this stage.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as regards his very interesting remarks about foreign rules on the ownership of television stations, will he confirm that in order to acquire five television stations in America, Mr. Murdoch had to sell his Australian citizenship?
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I understand that that is true. There are greater experts on that matter in the House than myself. My noble friend Lord Stockton will be speaking later and no doubt he will refer to it. But I am sure that that is so.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for raising this matter, although it is unfortunate that it had to come after such a long debate. He has always asked questions and kept to the point on this subject. He has done his best to try to get some changes.
I shall skate lightly and briefly over some of the sombre history of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It is clear that the trouble was that the name of the game was market forces. When I was listening to my noble friend Lord Richard this afternoon moving the Motion on the coal industry, it was interesting to hear that once again the primary purpose was to fit in with market forces. That cannot always be done if one wants to have a society which is more healthy all round.
The Act was born out of an auction, which was a disgraceful way to give out licences to those who were going to be responsible for our viewing and listening for years to come. It is impossible to deal with this matter without taking in the picture of the Act, its genesis and the way in which it was worked out because we are feeling the effects of that all the time. That was the first disaster as millions of pounds headed for the Treasury from the auction, which was money which should have been used for creating high-quality programmes for the viewer who really was dropped from the picture.
The ITC did what it could within its remit, but its hands were tied, as the noble Lord has pointed out in a different context. Then came the battle over the moratorium. Again, in aid of market forces, the Government resisted any moratorium both in another place and when the Bill first came to your Lordships' House. The pressure grew not only from the Opposition parties but from all round the House. The Government gave way very slightly.
As the noble Lord said, what we wanted was at least three years—a year from when the licences were awarded and then two years during screening in order to bring some stability into the turmoil that was bound to arise with a change of system, particularly when one changes the whole broadcasting system in that way. But no, the Government wanted exposure to the rigours of market forces as soon as possible.
So from 1st January 1994, there will be a takeover free-for-all. But as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has pointed out, that means not just domestic companies, but European companies as well. They will be able to take over our companies. It is true that while we may be able to do the same, since so many European companies are larger and wealthier than our own, it is going to be rather a one-way traffic. The potential threat to British-made programmes is very great indeed. It is something which we have to watch and to try to protect. Under the old rules, 84 per cent. of programmes had to be made in Britain and only 16 per cent. imported. But now up to 35 per cent. of programmes can be imported. Despite winning some oscars, unfortunately our film industry is still in bad financial health. But we have always managed to sustain British screen culture through television.
974
With that vulnerability the last thing we need is to have our main engine of British culture overwhelmed by foreign predators. When there is enough uncertainty in the air around the future of the BBC, that adds to the agony of what we are expecting. Quality will fall even further. I cannot be the only person who has noticed that there has been a decline in the quality of many of the programmes since we had the new regime. The companies do not have the resources that they need to make good programmes. We shall not see the like again of those magnificent drama programmes, which were particularly liked. That is the trouble.
The strength of ITV has been its regional make-up. If that again is left to market forces, the whole situation can be turned upside down. Regionalism could be lost and concentration will be mainly in London and the South. We can see it going that way. When this Bill was introduced and going through Parliament, Mrs. Thatcher was the Prime Minister. She stressed the importance of competition. But what kind of competition is it when the whole effect of what will happen with the companies, once they are allowed to take over is, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has suggested, that the large companies may in some circumstances take over other large companies? That is a consolidation and not competition. It is also going further away from regionalism, because there will not be, for example, local news. We shall have a lot of local unemployment. That is one of the things which is already happening with the merger of Tyne Tees Television and Yorkshire Television.
What then should the Government do? I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that first—and fast—they should extend the moratorium, preferably until 1996 when the BBC charter comes up for renewal. I wholly agree with the noble Lord on that point. The Minister will doubtless say once again that that needs primary legislation. Of course it does: but all that is needed is a very short Bill which could go through quickly. There would be very little opposition to such a Bill if the Government were to introduce one.
Extending the moratorium would also allow time for the European factor to be examined. The Commission has recently produced a Green Paper, Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market. Its purpose, as it says, is to initiate wide consultation throughout member states and interested media bodies on the possible need for action to restrict media concentration at a Community level, and on the form any such action should take. Whether that proves to be successful, it must be given a try. In any case, it is underway. We need to ascertain whether any form of harmonisation might help.
By extending the moratorium until the renewal of the BBC charter, it would then be possible to work out a coherent and stable policy for broadcasting rather than doing it in an ad hoc manner starting with ITV on the one hand and then the BBC, each being dealt with in isolation. I believe that what we need in this country is a broadcasting policy.
Unless the Government will accept that broadcasting (whether ITV or BBC) is not just another product

975
to be judged solely in financial terms but is a part of our lives which informs, educates and entertains, we are lost. Our television is envied all over the world. That does not mean that every programme that we make is good; it is not, and we accept that. However, when one compares our television with so many of the programmes that are broadcast in the United States and throughout Europe, one realises that we ought to want to preserve and improve what we already have, otherwise our children and grandchildren will grow up being used only to mediocre and poor television and radio. And that would be terrible.
It is not too late for the Government to take the first step and to extend the moratorium. It would not mean them going back on their words. Nobody is going to criticise them for it. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and I sit on different sides of this House and I bet that we voted in different Lobbies on the last debate; but we are absolutely at one on this matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask her this. She knows that if the usual channels agree, things can be done quickly and effectively. Does she think that her influence on that side of the House would enable the Opposition to co-operate with the passage of a one-clause Private Bill with the pure purpose of extending the moratorium? I shall ask the same question of my noble friend Lord Astor in my speech.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who is to reply to the debate from this side, will deal with that point in detail. However, perhaps I may say briefly that I should not have to persuade any of my noble friends to do that because we are all agreed on it. We tried to achieve that when the Bill was passing through the House.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Buxton in raising this Unstarred Question. No one knows more about the workings of independent television than he does. For a good number of years he ran a highly successful regional television company, Anglia, which was closely associated with a particular area of the country which is very proud of itself. For some time he was also the chairman of ITN. He can therefore speak from close personal knowledge, and he has done so tonight. He made a very good case for taking action on the difficult problem that now confronts us.
From 1964 onwards I was connected with the political side of broadcasting, first as Opposition Chief Whip, and culminating with four years as Home Secretary, so I think that I can see a broadcasting problem when one comes before me. I see one tonight which is why I am so pleased to be speaking to this Unstarred Question. During the time that I was responsible for these matters as Home Secretary (and, of course, for long before that) I was constantly reminded of the local, regional nature of our independent television companies and of their viewers' loyalty to them. Indeed, that was recognised by the IBA of the day, which on some occasions, decided to
976
take away franchises because those holding them were not giving proper consideration to regional matters. If I remember correctly, one company lost its franchise because its offices were in London, not Wales. At the same time, franchises were awarded to local people who wanted to put the local case. So the idea of local and regional loyalty runs deep within our independent sector—and so it should. Indeed, if that were not the case, broadcasting would lose something that it has had right from the very start.
I have been a great supporter of duopoly in broadcasting right from the start and I am not ashamed of it. I have been told that that is a naughty thing to be, and when I was a member of the Government I was constantly told that it was not wise. But as I am not in the Government now I can say that it is wise. In fact, it was an extremely sensible way of proceeding. The BBC had one role, with the independent companies having a regional and somewhat different role, just as they have today.
Suddenly against that background and as a result of the 1990 Broadcasting Act (of which I was not exactly a warm admirer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, knows very well), all British ITV companies will be vulnerable to take-overs by foreign interests. I do not think that our viewers have the slightest conception that that could happen. I think that they would be very upset if they suddenly found that that risk had materialised and that their local companies were about to be taken over in that way. What would the Scottish viewers say? After all, during the passage of the 1990 Broadcasting Act, they spent a lot of time trying to get two companies for Scotland, not one. And they succeeded. I shall not enter now into a discussion of whether or not that was right, but they pressed for it and they succeeded. They would not particularly like it if their companies were owned by Englishmen. But they could now discover that those companies could be owned by somebody from outside Britain altogether and they would then cause considerable trouble. We might as well accept that. The viewers in Northern Ireland have every reason to be proud of the performance of Ulster Television in the difficult situation there of which I have considerable experience. Ulster Television has done very well, but as it has not strengthened its financial position because of the situation in which it is placed in Northern Ireland, it could quickly become vulnerable. It could be very damaging if it ended up in certain hands.
There is no doubt that if such things happened there would be great indignation from the viewers and great pressure for action of some sort. If that is the case (as I believe that it is) surely it is right for the Government to take action before it is too late. It would be a very great pity if the Government were later to come along and say, "We are frightfully sorry but we have found this terrible situation", when everybody knows that it could happen at any time after the end of this year. When the 1990 Act was before Parliament, the ITC and, as the noble Baroness said, many other people in this House and elsewhere, saw the dangers and pressed for the moratorium to be

977
extended. Indeed, a moratorium was not even specified in the Bill at the start. With great reluctance, it was decided to give a one-year moratorium.
It is clear that with all that is going on in broadcasting today, one year is not sufficient. If one looks at the broadcasting scene as a whole, one must take account of the fact that 1996 is an important year. It is the year in which the BBC will have its new charter. I cannot understand why it is not possible to continue the moratorium until 1996. That is the obvious time. It will give existing companies more time to become stronger and to see what is happening in the field of broadcasting not just in this country but all over the world, and to see the position of the BBC. All that should be done. One year is not enough.
If we are to have more than one year so as to avoid what is an unacceptable risk, primary legislation is, alas, now important. I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has done a great deal and has taken a good deal of trouble over this issue, that it is no good the Government turning round to Parliament and saying, "No, we cannot do this. We do not have time for it", because they were asked to do it during the passage of the Bill and they refused to do so. So they are not in a terribly strong position. I know what it is like to be in a bad position in government, and so I understand that they are in a bad position. When I am not in government I am not as sorry as when I was in it, but there it is.
Surely it makes sense to act now before it is too late. What can be done? The Government could put forward a Bill. I should have thought that it could be a one-clause Bill. I believe that it would go through if it were supported by all parties in both Houses. However, we in this House cannot say whether that would be the case in another place. I hope that it would be so because, as has been seen, many people support the idea. We cannot say that. We can say—I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said, and I believe others will say the same—that we in this House would support a Bill.
If the Government say they cannot put forward a Bill, there is an alternative which may be the right course to take. It is possible for a Member of this House to introduce a Bill. If one of your Lordships were prepared to do that and had the support of all parties, such a Bill could be passed through the House. How it would get on in another place remains to be seen. If the Government make it clear that they cannot introduce a Bill and that they do not have time in another place, well, that is their affair, but we could do so. It may be the best answer, because I doubt whether the Government would wish to change the moratorium now. It is a pity, but I believe that that would be their position. If it is, and that is what my noble friend will have to tell us, we should consider the course I have suggested.
If we do not do so, it will be felt that many people in Parliament have not realised what viewers and independent television is all about and what the viewers have been watching. They will be amazed that we have all been such sillies as to sit here for all this
978
time and not do anything about the problem. If we cannot get the Government to act, we should consider someone in this House doing so, and go on from there.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, first, I wish to express my sincere apologies to your Lordships and to the Minister, because I have to leave shortly after my speech to fulfil an outstanding engagement. I am most apologetic about that. Secondly, I have to declare an interest in so far as I am a non-executive director of Carlton Communications which is the parent body of Carlton TV. In consequence of that interest I shall confine my comments to issues of public policy with particular reference to the Community Green Paper entitled Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market.
As my noble friend Lord Buxton in his admirable speech has pointed out, from next January the ITC's broad power of veto expires, and thereafter it can only prohibit ownership changes which are explicitly banned by the ownership rules set down in the Broadcasting Act 1990. From that date, and subject to those rules, any quoted ITV company could pass into the ownership of a European company. That unrestricted access to our media market is, in part, a consequence of the single market and development of that market must be welcomed, but the single market can operate only if there is full reciprocity of opportunity under equal conditions or restrictions, and it is that aspect of our current media policy upon which I wish to dwell.
The Commission in its recent Green Paper recognises the concern of member states to protect diversity of information, and that they have introduced at national level various restrictions on multiple ownership. The objectives of member states, including Her Majesty's Government, are wholly admirable. It has been stated correctly that if our democratic society is to function, nothing can be more important than ensuring that there is a free flow of information from as many divergent sources as possible. Pluralism is therefore a legitimate objective.
The Commission however recognised that to determine how far concentration may create problems for pluralism, it would be necessary to define what is meant by diversity in the choice of information offered to the public at a particular place. Diversity can be assessed in many ways: according to editorial content; according to the number of channels and titles; or according to the number of media controllers or owners. Those three methods vary in importance. In contrast to the policy enshrined in the Broadcasting Act 1990, and particularly in reference to the UK restrictions on ownership of more than one large C3 licence, the Commission emphasises that effects of a media merger on pluralism should be assessed by reference to the environment in which it occurs, and, consequently, to assess choice in any given area, account must be taken of the availability and consumption of all media; that is, not just of each type but of all types.
In France and Germany anti-concentration level takes into account media holdings in other member

979
states when calculating concentration thresholds. In France, the Freedom of Communication Act strictly limits the capital structure of a broadcaster to spread decision-making power over a television channel among several companies. Other Community countries impose different restrictions.
That leads the Commission to the view that harmonisation of restrictions on media ownership is necessary. It states that the principle of harmonisation would be that member states could not grant broadcasting licences or concessions if the harmonised conditions were not met. In exchange, member states could not invoke other conditions relating to pluralism in order to reject an applicant. While such national anti-concentration legislation is not in itself incompatible with EC law, the Commission believes that in the interests of the single market, and to avoid restricting necessary structural alignments that may be necessary, the most effective way of eliminating disparities between national restrictions is at EC level. That applies particularly to the TV sector where operators are being forced to expand and become active in other countries to create synergies, a problem which has given rise to this debate.
It is clear that the Commission believes that media ownership control and mergers are matters to be resolved by specialised bodies as proposed by the European Parliament or certainly at Community rather than national level; in other words, the subsidiarity principle would not apply to this sector. I should be most interested to learn of the Minister's reaction to that and, in particular, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the specific questions posed by the Commission in Chapter III of the Green Paper.
I referred previously to the lapsing of the ITC veto on 1st January next and the current restrictions on acquisition of more than one "large" C3 TV licence. In the light of the Commission study that restriction on the number of TV licences is a weak method of defining concentration of media control as distinct from local audience or consumption of all types of different media, will the Minister take the opportunity to review such restrictions before January 1994? I am sure that the Government would not wish their policy on restrictions on the number of C3 licences held by one operator to have the effect of frustrating legitimate structural alignment and rationalisation of the TV network to achieve greater financial stability and operational efficiency, which will be for the ultimate benefit of the viewer.
However, if it were deemed necessary as proposed by my noble friend Lord Buxton, to continue the ITC's broad power of veto for a further period beyond 1st January 1994, the lifting and modification of current restrictions on C3 licences might be far more acceptable to the industry than the prospect of the ending of the moratorium on 1st January 1994 and no change in current policy on licence restrictions. This latter situation would be the worst of all worlds. I urge the Minister, therefore, to reflect carefully on the dangers of that course as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Baroness, Lady
980
Birk, and I hope that he will take a more positive way forward, before 1st January 1994, as urged by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for giving the House the opportunity to debate the moratorium on take-overs of ITV companies, which expires at the end of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, eloquently argued the case for an extension of the moratorium. In adding my voice to his call for an extension I must declare an interest as chairman of Meridian Broadcasting, which is the ITV contractor for the south and south-east of England.
The case for the moratorium was clearly expounded by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, during the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill. He said that the moratorium period was designed to give a period of stability at the beginning of the new licence period but that after that time the licensees did not need to be unduly cosseted. Your Lordships will recall—indeed, we have been reminded today—that the debate at that time focused on the period of the moratorium with noble Lords on all sides of the House arguing for a period of between two and three years from the start of broadcasting. Indeed, the Independent Television Commission also argued in favour of a longer period. Despite widespread agreement on the need to allow reasonable time for the industry to settle down, the Government's view prevailed and we are now nine months away from the end of a moratorium, which could bring a free-for-all rush by non-UK European interests to acquire UK regional broadcasting companies.
Is it likely that this short period of stability will give sufficient time to enable the industry to settle down, to face up to the rigours of an open market and to cope with the inevitable destabilisation that will follow from the threat or indeed reality of corporate takeovers? I suggest that it will not. The industry remains in a state of flux and considerable instability as a result of unforeseen flaws in the workings of the Broadcasting Act, the continuing recession and the failure to date to settle important networking arrangements.
The Broadcasting Act ushered in a bidding system which has given rise to the most absurd results. Companies with essentially the same size of television business, as measured by share of advertising revenue, are paying on the one hand as little as £2,000 per year and on the other more than £40 million. The disparity of bids, with some franchises being returned unopposed and some highly contested, has led to inevitable tensions within the federal network of the ITV which need time to be resolved. The network centre has only just come into being and assumes responsibility for programming commissioning in October this year. The arrangements for a network programming commission,
having been set out in the first instance by the ITC, were overturned by the Office of Fair Trading and are now being examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which is due to deliver its verdict shortly. These network

981
arrangements lie at the heart of ITV's continuing success in an increasingly competitive environment. It may well take until the end of 1994 before the new networking arrangements have settled down and are working satisfactorily.
All the franchise applications were submitted in May 1991. At that time it was widely believed by all of us that the economy, which was already deep in recession, would recover by 1992 and certainly by now. We all took heart from the optimistic Treasury forecasts. I recall that when the ITC developed its own economic model, against which it judged the franchise applications, it used a growth rate of 4 per cent. That is nearly twice the level of the most optimistic current forecast for 1993 and 1994. We are all too well aware that the recession continues to be with us: even the most optimistic forecasts suggest only anaemic growth during the next few years. The unforeseen length and depth of the recession is bearing down heavily on independent television companies as they organise to compete with an independent Channel 4, a merged BSB and Sky with six channels—vociferously supported and promoted by 36 per cent. of the national press and quite disgracefully allowed to remain under the same ownership —and a BBC with two national networks that has not been subject to quite the same economic buffeting as ITV. In other words, the going is a lot tougher for ITV companies in 1993 than any of us, either here at Westminster or in the industry, could reasonably have anticipated in 1991.
As mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, one of the unique features of ITV is its regional strength. Companies large and small deliver a range of regional programme and in particular regular local news bulletins. Many of the new licence holders, Meridian included, are introducing far more extensive local news coverage. We have done so because we know that it is popular with local viewers and also with local advertisers who wish to access small regional markets. This tradition of regional broadcasting is one that should be fostered and nourished: it will benefit from a further period of stability free from predatorial manoeuvring.
So the hope and indeed the expectation was that at the end of the moratorium the industry would be in fine fettle, its new networking arrangements tried and tested and the unique regional character of ITV therefore strongly entrenched. The dispassionate observer would have to conclude that while we still have every expectation of achieving our goal it will inevitably take more time because of the adverse economic and other factors that I have mentioned. If the moratorium is not renewed, non-UK European companies will be free to acquire ITV companies. I have no objection to companies in Europe being able to acquire UK companies. But I object strongly to allowing foreign companies to buy UK television companies before the UK companies have fully established themselves after a period, which continues, of economic difficulty and considerable structural change. Furthermore, I object strongly to foreign
982
companies being able to acquire UK companies when we are prevented by their laws from having the same access to their markets.
In reply to a recent question on EC ownership rules the Minister drew comfort from the European Commission's intention to proceed towards harmonisation. The recent publication of a Green Paper in Brussels is evidence of this intention but I suggest that any relief under such proposals is several years away. We should actively support the principle of harmonisation and fair competition but we should not allow access to our broadcasting markets until the same opportunity is available throughout the Community.
An extension of the moratorium would command widespread support from ITV companies. Furthermore, the chairman of the ITC, Sir George Russell, in a recent speech, signalled the ITC's strong support when he said:
"Originally, I pressed Government for a two or three-year moratorium following the start of the new licence period. In the end they agreed to only one year plus a run-up period from award to the start of the licences. There has been, and still is, so much upheaval in UK broadcasting, including now the long run-up to the BBC charter renewal. I do think an extension of the moratorium to bring some stability would be highly desirable, mainly from the Government's point of view as it will enable them to assess the whole shape of the UK broadcasting at the conclusion of the BBC charter debate."
The extension of the moratorium would, I understand, require primary legislation and, of course, as we are well aware, time for such legislation is in short supply. A short one-line Bill extending the moratorium would, I am confident, command the support of the Labour Party in both Houses and would have a very high chance of achieving a rapid passage through Parliament.
When we consider the desirable period during which the moratorium should be extended, I think it is necessary to look at the number of other structural problems within the ITV system. I should like to refer to three in particular. Under the current arrangements, small regional companies with a lower advertising earning power pay a reduced contribution to the network. In 1993 and 1994 this benefit to the smaller companies is of the order of some £27 million in each year. The arrangements presently extend to the end of 1994. In the absence of the arrangements, the financial position of many small companies would be severely undermined and their very future could be imperilled. Any review of the structure of ITV must preserve the regional strength and must therefore address the arrangements on a satisfactory long-term basis.
Under the current arrangements, companies can, at their option, request a review of their cash bids in 1999, obviously with a view to getting some abatement. This means that for the next six years the network will be potentially destabilised by the wide variation in bid levels. If the bid review date can be brought forward, those small companies which will suffer from the phasing out of the beneficial networking arrangements I have described would have the opportunity to seek at least a compensating reduction in their cash bid. An earlier review would also allow more funds generally to be made available

983
for programming and in particular would enable companies like Meridian to realise their plans to extend their regional and sub-regional coverage and in practice increase their licence obligations.
At the same time as these changes are put in place it would be appropriate to look at the current ownership rules within the UK. As already mentioned, there are two categories of ITV companies—the nine so-called large companies and the six so-called small companies. The categorisation of companies and the rules governing the take-overs are unique to the independent television industry. I can see no other industry which has such quaint rules. The effect is to prevent the natural coming together of companies into larger, more efficient units and so eliminate much of the duplication of administration and selling costs among the 15 companies.
With the inevitable growth of satellite stations and other terrestrial stations, ITV's share of the market will fall. Even the largest ITV company will, by the end of this decade, probably only account for around 7 per cent. of the total UK market. These companies would be sub-scale on a national basis and minnows on an international scale. British television is a thriving and successful industry with an international reputation and growing international ambitions. It is important that while ensuring that the unique regional obligations are fully protected and extended, companies should be allowed to come together into larger groups to compete internationally. The Government may be tempted to consider not extending the moratorium but changing instead the nine and six ownership rules so as to allow UK companies to compete with European companies to acquire other UK companies. I do not believe that such proposals would command widespread support within the industry. The need for stability, which I regard as over-riding, and the need to resolve the structural imperfections in the network argue for an extension in the moratorium and the retention of the nine and six rules.
As a first step in the reform of the legislation governing independent television companies I would like to see an extension of the moratorium until 31st December 1996. That would give ITV companies a further period of stability during which the structural problems that I have outlined can be addressed. I suggest that the beneficial network pricing arrangements for smaller regional companies should be extended to the same date. Further, companies would be given the option to request a review of their licences and, in particular, the cash bid level with effect from 1st January 1997; that is, two years earlier than is the case under current legislation. On the same date, the current nine and six ownership rules would fall away. The arrangements would go a long way to dealing with serious structural anomalies which have arisen and might also coincide with arrangements in the EC to harmonise media ownership arrangements throughout the Community.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us this valuable opportunity to discuss these matters. I begin with an apology because I am neither as distinguished nor as expert as other noble Lords contributing to the debate. However, it is important that the Government should realise that it is not only the experts who hold the views which the experts are expressing. If I have an interest to declare, it is merely as a viewer both of television and the national scene. Looking at it, I see something which the public sees as well but it seems that the public is not aware of the issues which we are discussing this evening. That would account for the fact that the Government are perhaps not aware of the position which might develop when the public becomes aware of it. The public believes that people like us are looking after those issues and that things will not go wrong as a result. That is why I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity this evening.
When I look at the national scene I see an evidently powerful medium in a healthy duopoly as favoured by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw and prospered by him. I see that it is of a higher quality than that in the rest of Europe. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction as regards some aspects of it which the regulatory system is not able to bring into line with what many of us feel this country is owed in respect of violence and such matters.
If the television medium were to be owned in large part by foreign companies, the confidence which the regulatory system has given us so far is such that we should not regard that as a great threat because television is what gives us our view both of and about events in the world and in this country. My noble friend Lord Buxton has ably shown your Lordships many ways in which that could act against the public interest, not just against the interests of a political party in this country but in relation to the whole. That is a threat which we must take steps to avoid.
We also have to avoid the manifest absurdity, which would be a political as well as a commercial absurdity, of allowing a one-way traffic in ownership of television companies whereby the European companies could buy into British companies but British companies could not buy European. If that is really the situation which my noble friend described, and if it is true, it would be regarded as outrageous.
Having served as a Minister of State under my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, I know it is dangerous to speak for more than a few minutes in his presence on a subject about which he knows vastly more than I do, but my principal reason for standing up in your Lordships' House is to make the observation, with temerity, that this is a very narrow Motion. To do it justice one should see the context in which it takes place. The context is not Europe; it is the world; it is both global and orbital.
I was recently in Singapore visiting an exhibition organised by a company of which I am deputy chairman called Communicasia in conjunction with Broadcast Asia and the conference of the Communications Ministers of the Pacific rim

985
countries. I discovered there exhibitors from countries all in the same satellite footprint comprising something like 20 per cent. of the world's population.
We cannot look at Europe alone. We are part of a huge pattern, and if we look over our heads there is another satellite there, so foreign ownership of the medium is with us already.
The final context to which I ask your Lordships to pay attention when looking at this debate is the question of the aggregate ownership in multi-media terms; that is to say, where there is foreign ownership which is not merely of a television station or a number of television stations but also of a number of newspapers. The medium of television is powerful and so is the medium of print. We have recently seen the influence on the printed medium of foreign ownership in the standards of our national press. It would be exposing us to very great danger if multi-media ownership as a result of the infiltration or take-over of British independent television by foreign countries was allowed to spread. That would be a very great danger to this country.
I therefore add my inexpert and I hope sufficiently brief voice to that of your expert and distinguished Lordships in asking Her Majesty's Government to grant the moratorium for at least as long as my noble friends have asked, and for possibly longer, and in that time to look at questions wider than those of this Motion involving the charter of the BBC, aggregate multi-media ownership and the control and influence of foreign satellite broadcasts, as well as their monopoly.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there are nine months to go before ITV companies can be taken over by foreign companies. They can be taken over legally under circumstances that have been agreed by the present Government. It is quite clear now that, while the Government at the time of bringing in the Bill in 1990 hoped that they were covering all of the risks that would be involved as a consequence, inadvertently they have not.
The dangers pointed out by my noble friend Lord Buxton are very real. The British market is a very attractive one, and people from other countries are desirous of coming in on it if they can. I do not say that lightly. For 28 years I was a director of Radio Luxembourg, London, and for eight of those years I was chairman. On the board we had French, German and Luxembourg nationalities. They were very conscious of the attraction of the British market and very eager to get in on it if they could. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed they made several bids and efforts to try to come in on some of the existing companies. I merely mention that as definite evidence that my noble friend is not tilting at windmills when he talks of the possible eagerness of foreign countries to take over the control.
The first problem is the danger, as has been pointed out. I think it should be clear by now that the danger is real and that it exists. Secondly, if we now recognise
986
the danger, we have given ourselves little time to try to do something about it. That is the aspect about which I shall talk.
Our parliamentary system is quite excellent. If we have taken the trouble to know all the ingredients and how it is made up, it is quite clear that, if the Government get into trouble, there is some mechanism somewhere within our procedures which will help them get out of it. That is what I want to concentrate upon. I have no doubt about the dangers of putting ourselves in the position where foreigners could take over control of our regional companies. There are, as my noble friend said, probably dangerous and negative reasons involved; but there are also positive reasons that I believe would affect the nation.
I cannot imagine foreign-controlled companies being as eager as our home-grown local ones to do what is done at the moment. Central Television broadcasts job finder and employment information as a service to the unemployed. It uses its broadcasts to help, for example, the fire service to do the many jobs that it has to do. It also has a phone-in programme designed to help the blind. Those are positive ways in which British people can tackle British problems. I cannot imagine that foreign owners, whose main interest would be to have a share of whatever profits may be on offer—there is nothing wrong with that; I am all in favour of it—would do that. But the considerations that I have just outlined that are in the minds of our own people would not be there. So for the negative reasons of preventing dangers that could flow, as described by my noble friend, and for the positive reasons of retaining the local contributions such as those I have described, it is an important matter.
I believe that the case has already been made. I am also concerned about other EC countries not being prepared to give the same freedom for Britain to own some of their services. It is a very real problem. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had something to do with Europe and I served as a Member of the European Parliament for five years. I saw very clearly what happens when you try to take something away from Continental countries; for example, the complete control of their insurance and also the complete control of their air space and air traffic controllers. That was in the national interest, but they were not prepared to give up their personal ownership. I sat for five years on a committee trying to win the battle about widening the way in which we deal with such matters. We did not get very far.
We shall let it be known that this freedom of the air that we are giving as the Act stands at present will not be too easily available until such time as other countries become more generous in the way that they share theirs. We should let it be known by the methods at which I have already hinted, and which I shall repeat in a moment, that we are going to extend the moratorium with the main purpose of trying to persuade them that they have to give the same freedom to Britain that Britain will be giving to them. They would then know that that was our legal position as distinct from that of the minute. But if they know

987
on 1st January next year that we legally have to give them the freedom without having anything in return, we shall be putting ourselves into unnecessary difficulties.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. Anyone who has had anything to do with such business affairs knows that you do not shout about what you might be doing; you keep quiet until the opportunity is there to take advantage of it. It will not be long after 1st January before we see other countries taking what advantage they can. I never blame people who get away with anything that is legal; I always blame those who let them get away with it. Now that we are alerted to the dangers, both negative and positive, that can flow from the situation as it now stands, I believe that we have a duty to do something about it. We cannot have a stronger authority than my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. He has held almost every office that matters. During the short period that I was in government, he had a reputation for using Cabinet Committees to suit his purpose in the way that only astute people can. If he believes that the Government can, if they wish, bring in the necessary primary legislation to extend the moratorium, then they can do so.
If, for reasons which my noble friend anticipated, the Government do not want to do that, any one of us could table a Private Member's Bill in order to rectify the situation. The noble Baroness—who is one of my pin-ups—has already made it clear that the Labour Benches would support such a Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, repeated that. I do not know how noble Lords lower down on the Liberal Democrat Benches would react. I never quite know what they will do. Nevertheless, tonight the main members of what are normally called the usual channels seem to have committed themselves to supporting a Private Member's Bill if one is introduced.
If, as intimated by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, the Government do not want to bring forward a Bill themselves, but someone else who has been alerted to the dangers brings forward a Private Member's Bill, will the Government undertake not to use the Whips against such a Bill? The Government would not be retreating from much. It would be the House which made the decision. If the House can express itself freely on such a Bill, with guaranteed support from the Opposition Benches, and if the Government Benches do not oppose it, then we have a chance of doing something practical.
I remind my noble friend that as long as a man lives he can change his will. There is every good reason in the world why on this occasion the will which the Government expressed in 1990 should be altered. My noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Buxton spoke with common sense. The ideal time to act is when the BBC's charter is renewed. That would be the proper time to look at the matter as a whole so that we can see how ITV and the BBC will serve the country while at the same time protecting them from predators.
I hope that we shall receive a helpful reply to the questions which I have put. There should be no Whips on a Private Member's Bill. However, if my noble
988
friend can persuade his right honourable friend that the Government should bring forward a Bill themselves that would be better still. It is in the hope that that sensible idea will prevail that I make this appeal to my noble friend.
9.22 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, why do I get the impression that we have all been here before? I look around the Chamber and I see noble Lords who spent many happy hours in your Lordships' House debating the many clauses of the Broadcasting Bill. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Astor is happy to have picked up the baton of broadcasting from my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I had hoped that with a new runner the Government broadcasting relay team might have turned a corner and taken a new direction, but my noble friend Lady Denton's reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in the House yesterday rather dashed those hopes.
Other noble Lords have addressed a wide range of issues around the threat to British broadcasting from operators within our Community partners. Happily, since we debated these issues in the Broadcasting Bill we now have a Ministry of Culture (although not called that), and I must congratulate my right honourable friend the Member for the Two Cities in another place on the rapid and comprehensive grasp he has shown of his new responsibilities. I had hoped that my noble friend the Minister of State for the Home Department might have been in his place, because I would not have been able to resist quoting back to him his own words in reply to the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, when he rejected my call for a Minister of Culture. But then your Lordships will recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx that a week is a long time in politics.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Buxton for this opportunity to discuss the workings of the Broadcasting Act in respect of ownership trends of independent television companies. Noble Lords have rightly pointed out the threat to the pattern of British commercial broadcasting as laid down by Parliament from broadcasting organisations stemming from countries that do not share either our vision or our standards. I hope that my noble friend will excuse me if I say to him and his Government, "we told you so".
Those of your Lordships who were present will recall that I tried to formulate an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill to include non-domestic satellite broadcasting systems within the controls of the Act. That was seen by some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing as a personal attack on Mr. Rupert Murdoch and his then company Sky. I was told that Mr. Murdoch was a great entrepreneur, an embodiment of enterprise, and a friend to this country; and the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, especially supported him and his enterprise. The ink was hardly dry on the Act when the uneven playing fields on which satellite broadcasters were playing produced the very result that we had forecast and BSB was gobbled up by Sky. While I am

989
sure that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was unaware of the dealing and double-dealing that were going on behind the scenes at News International, Marco Polo House, and in the City, I remain unconvinced that all other Members of the Government were equally unaware. My noble friend Lady Thatcher is open in her admiration of Mr. Murdoch, and that is her prerogative, for she is independent of News International although enjoying the support given her by the organs of that company. The support of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is influenced, in my view, by his position as a columnist for News International.
What of the man himself? Entrepreneur Mr. Murdoch certainly is, especially in take-over battles, but friend of this country I doubt. He despises many of the institutions of this country and he and his henchmen, especially Mr. Andrew Neil, appear to have the objective of their destruction. The treatment of the Royal Family by the Murdoch press is symptomatic of the attitude of the man and the company. His operations in Australia have been in the forefront of such exposees. But how highly does Mr. Murdoch hold his native country? Not very high for he was only too happy to toss aside his nationality and become an American citizen in order to qualify as a television operator in the United States.
If Mr. Murdoch can cast patriotism for Australia aside, why should we have any faith in his avowed feelings for this country? However, my real concern is to prevent Mr. Murdoch, an American based in Luxembourg with BSkyB, extending his dangerous preeminence in our media, about which I shall remind noble Lords. It extends to The Times (once owned by the family of my noble friend the Minister), the Sunday Times, the Sun, the News of the World, Today, BSkyB, the William Collins Group which includes mass-market paperback imprints, Twentieth Century Fox, film and television production and many television stations around the world.
Do we have any guarantee that Mr. Murdoch will not use his status as a Luxembourgeois business to buy into terrestrial independent television stations? I cannot believe that the Minister can offer any such guarantee. Personally I would trade a bit of Red Hot Dutch for such a guarantee. The pornographers are far less of a threat to this country than the chip-on-the-shoulder, nihilist, negative, destructive and disparaging attitudes of News International. I am therefore happy to join with noble Lords on both sides of the House in calling for an extension of the moratorium until at least at least 1996.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, made a powerful speech in which he drew attention to one of the paradoxes of the debate. We are all properly concerned about the possibility of non-British ownership of our independent television stations. However, perhaps the Government's rather supine attitude to-date on those issues is not unconnected with the fact that they seem to be perfectly content to see 37 per cent. of the national press of this country in the hands of foreign ownership. As the noble Earl said, it is foreign
990
ownership that does not seem particularly sympathetic to the institutions of this country. He made an important point.
Like everyone else, I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for introducing this important subject tonight. He speaks with good experience on the subject as a distinguished chairman of both ITN and one of our major regional companies in what now seems to me rather like the golden age of independent television in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, accurately described our independent television as the best commercial television in the world. Britain was the only major country to create a public service broadcasting system of quality entirely commercially funded by advertising. In those days, with men like the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, around, Conservative Governments had the wisdom to enjoy the best of both worlds: programming of high quality provided by profitable private enterprise. It was a system which was widely admired.
However, what we face tonight in the consequences of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is that that system was wantonly undermined for doctrinaire reasons under the Act. The new regime came into operation only a few months ago on 1st January and already the signs of a damaging instability are everywhere to be seen, aggravated—as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said —by a recession which has proved deeper and more prolonged than anyone anticipated.
The distortions created by the auction bidding process for franchises are extreme. For example, the wealthy Central region was won with a bid of £2,000, while the neighbouring Yorkshire and Tyne-Tees, between them, paid nearly £54 million. As a result, almost before the ink on the new licences was dry, Yorkshire and Tyne-Tees have had to join forces. I notice that the ITC has had to issue a solemn warning about Tyne-Tees continuing to meet its regional programme commitments in the new situation.
On the other side of the Pennines, there is Granada, once the jewel in the crown of the ITV system. The departure of so many of the leading programme-makers, led by David Plowright himself, who helped to win the renewal of the franchise for Granada, has caused the official Opposition in another place to make a major protest to the ITC. The ITC has given a reasoned rebuttal of those protests.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, time alone will tell whether the distinguished programme traditions of Granada will survive the new pressures created by the Broadcasting Act. It will take some time before we know for sure what is likely to happen. In London, the new breakfast contractor with a big bill to pay to the Treasury has faced a boardroom revolution within weeks of going on the air. In Wales, the financial pressures on HTV are causing widespread anxiety.
What ITV and its viewers desperately need—and it has come out with extraordinary unanimity from every quarter of your Lordships' House in this short debate—is some time in which to settle down and try to minimise the damage of this disastrous Act. But what is ITV getting from the Government? It is getting a further dose of instability, if no action is taken. As

991
has been said by all speakers, at the end of the year the moratorium on takeovers wrung from a grudging Government in the debate on the Broadcasting Bill comes to an end. There is then the possibility—indeed, I think the probability—of a spate of take-over situations, both between ITV contractors within the United Kingdom and from interests in other Community countries. It could not happen at a worse time for British broadcasting generally, with the BBC itself in the throes of internal change in the run-up to the renewal of the Charter.
Television contractors, in my judgment, cannot be totally exempt from take-over situations, either internally or, these days, within the European Community. But timing is everything, not primarily in the interests of the contractors but in the interests of the public, who seek continuity and quality in programming. At the moment, most TV managements are so preoccupied with economic uncertainty that they have little time left for the long-term planning of programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, reminded us, the complicated arrangements for the new network system are not even yet in place, and will begin to operate only in the autumn of this year.
A strong case can be made—it was made by everybody who spoke in this debate—for extending the present moratorium until the decisions are taken about the future structure and finance of the BBC. Then the total shape of British broadcasting before the early years of the next century can be looked at and determined as a whole. That would also give time for the European Community aspects to be dealt with properly, in a way that resolves the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. It is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, as all noble Lords who took part in the debate agreed, that Britain should be the one country within the European Community that seems ready totally to expose its television system to takeover from outside our frontiers where there are serious difficulties about any sort of reciprocity taking place in the other countries of the Community.
Nothing that comes out of Brussels is ever simple. It is not a simple case of continental governments erecting barriers to foreign takeovers. I believe that is true of some countries—of Greece, Portugal and Belgium—but in France, for example, the restriction is a restriction on anyone, whether French, British or any other nationality, having more than a 25 per cent. shareholding in any channel. A level playing field harmonised on that basis would not suit, for example, Granada Television, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the great Granada group.
The European Commission has just produced (as was mentioned by a number of speakers) its massive Green Paper with the forbidding title Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market. I do not recommend it to noble Lords as easy bedtime reading unless they suffer greatly from insomnia. It seems to me to read as if the more opaque bits of the Broadcasting Act had been badly translated into German, and then equally badly re-translated back into English. It is nevertheless, as was pointed out by
992
a number of speakers, a very significant and important document which will generate a great deal of discussion, and it will probably take—as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said—some years for any kind of agreed view to emerge on how those problems should be dealt with. I rather agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that at the end of the day it will be decided that broadcasting is such a distinctively national and regional activity, that any attempt to harmonise the arrangements over the whole of the Community will simply not work. One hopes that a sensible way of operating will be determined. That will all take time. That is an additional powerful argument for extending the moratorium on takeovers until the British broadcasting interests can feel that they are fairly treated alongside their mainland competitors.
I should like to make one more point. The noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, who has not been able to stay with us, raised the question of changing the internal arrangements in this country in respect of television ownership. In the Broadcasting Act, the question was set aside of allowing mergers between the companies within the big nine instead of merely allowing mergers in due course between a big company and a so-called small company.
I urge the Government to resist the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, on this matter and to resist the siren voices that are to be heard from a number of quarters in the ITV industry seeking an immediate change in the present statutory instrument. It is a tempting situation because primary legislation is not required; it merely needs a new statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, was right, in what I thought was a particularly interesting and thoughtful speech, about a number of changes that are required to be considered within the Broadcasting Act. Changes in regard to internal takeovers, which may be inevitable in the long run and indeed may be in the industry's interests in the long run if they are properly safeguarded, should not be allowed to take place just now. Above all, we need a period of some stability so that the new arrangements can settle down and be carried through more effectively.
As a number of noble Lords pointed out, regional independent television companies are peculiar forms of business. They are not simply like a factory which produces baked beans or motor-cars. They have a distinctive regional identity. They have regional roots and have a regional role. Certainly in the past we always sought so far as possible to ensure a regional aspect to the ownership and management. It is very important that that aspect be preserved within the ITV system and positively protected.
So while change in our internal restrictions on ownership can be made by statutory instrument—I urge that that should be resisted—I appreciate that extending the moratorium requires primary legislation. I add my voice to those who have already spoken about the Government's approach to this matter. I have had my days in government in the long distant past and I understand the reluctance of the Government to start amending an Act of Parliament which has only fairly recently been passed, as well as

993
the argument that it is very difficult to find legislative time. But by the same argument, my experience is that where there is a will there is always a way in these matters. I am sure that the correct course, having found that the arrangements made in the Broadcasting Act will work very much against the British national interest, is for the Government to take the initiative in a very short Bill.
For my part, I very much hope that all the opposition parties—I can speak only for myself in this matter—will be ready to co-operate both in this House and in another place to ensure the speedy despatch of that one-clause Bill and resist the temptation to use it as an excuse to open up wider issues. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will respond to what has been a remarkable degree of unanimity on a very major broadcasting problem.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it has been a long day and the prospect of any supper is fading. But this is an important issue. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, for having raised it.
The subject has unexpected aspects in common with coal. Yet another great British service industry is threatened by the rampant forces of the free market when yet again a fair, free market does not in fact exist. Once again the Government have acted to structure that market—the television market—against the British industry.
We are dealing with the glaring deficiencies of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the instabilities that it introduced, as pointed out by my noble friends Lord Hollick and Lady Birk. Its generally baleful effect has been to threaten the unique quality of British television. My noble friend Lady Birk spoke with great authority on that issue. She opposed the Bill tooth and nail and forecast many of the ill consequences that are already apparent. I constantly meet foreigners who cannot understand why this Government constantly tamper with British broadcasting. They see it as the best in the world. It works. Why should one tamper with it?
The 1990 Act may have seriously damaged one of Britain's highest quality service industries. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, set out the sad story of damage and decline. The danger we are discussing has been well explored by an impressive list of distinguished and experienced speakers. In a nutshell, it is that British television companies, by world standards, are relatively small. Under the 1990 Act they can be bought by foreign companies in the European Community but cannot themselves buy, or merge with, the designated nine in the UK or effectively, in practice, with anyone in the EC. For instance, Central and Anglia cannot merge or buy in Europe, but both can be bought from Europe. That is not only because, as has been pointed out, most European countries have ceilings on foreign—in this case British—holdings, but also because there are serious threats from predators, such as Berlesconi and Bertesman, which are private companies, and from CLT which is effectively controlled by the Luxembourg Government.
994
British companies are therefore complaining about their vulnerability in a situation where there is no reciprocity. They are not trying to avoid market forces, but to establish fair market competition—the same degree of regulation and the same degree of competition. Ministers should not underestimate the danger now threatening British television. Gaston Thorn of Luxembourg CLT was quite open, speaking recently in London, when he said that CLT's priority was to take over a UK television company and have a UK Stock Exchange listing by 1996. The UK regional companies are the obvious victims, made vulnerable by the 1990 Act—the battery chickens of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, or turkeys heading for Christmas.
We should note that European companies do not in general, as the noble Lord explained, have our commitment to regional broadcasting. Such a regional dimension as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, stressed, is a crucial part of the quality of British television. We risk that at our peril.
I might add that the Europeans are not simply being characteristically protectionist and difficult in maintaining degrees of control over their national television. I have a degree of sympathy with them in that regard. A serious point arises concerning cultural heritage. Both our television channels and theirs are perhaps the most potent and vivid means of communicating our culture and our heritage. The reason we quite rightly went to such lengths to have regional channels was to protect and to nourish our regional culture.
We also want to protect our national culture, even within—I would say especially within—a wider Europe. Our European neighbours feel that they must protect their heritage and they have a valid point. In my view we should not be in a great hurry to push them to abandon that part of their national and local heritage, nor should we abdicate our own national influences in this area, certainly not until we have discussed and agreed on a European-wide basis.
What are the possible solutions to the threat? Three have been referred to in the debate. Theoretically the Government could lift the moratorium and drop the distinctions between large and small companies to allow the British industry to regroup and merge and to resist foreign invasion. That has the attraction of a statutory instrument approach. But I share the view of others, especially as argued by my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that that would not be sensible or necessary. It risks even more instability and could lose our regional identities in the scramble.
The second option is to extend the moratorium, say, until 1996, as I believe was suggested by my noble friends Lady Birk and Lord Hollick, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. That has the attraction of taking us beyond the BBC charter decision. By then the new satellite picture will be much clearer, and I suspect a new government will be in place to handle the matter better after the next election.
The third option is to operate fairly throughout Europe and to extend the moratorium until and so

995
that it matches the protection given on the Continent until the rest of Europe has agreed to equal freedom of access—in other words, harmonisation. All good Europeans will believe in that. Only fools would offer media competitors free access to control of the crucial television industry when there is no reciprocity. Much of the United Kingdom manufacturing industry disappeared down that path.
Of those three possible solutions, the most widely favoured seems to be the extension of the moratorium to, say, three years—until 1996. There certainly seemed to be virtual unanimity in the debate for something like that. Both the experts and the interested viewers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were virtually unanimous. There is also near-unanimity in the television industry itself. My noble friend Lord Hollick, from his great knowledge of the industry, reported the picture there. What the industry wants, and what it wanted before the Act was passed, would be fair and sensible. It would be fair to British companies, now faced by unfair competition, and sensible because it would give the Government the time to produce a coherent policy for all broadcasting, including the BBC charter, and time to pursue the question of ownership rules on an EC-wide basis. Above all, it would provide the stability in the industry which is so clearly needed.
Extending the moratorium would apparently require primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will not be frightened off by that and will not allow his civil servants to try to frighten him off by that. A one-line Bill would, I believe, suffice; and it would have the support not only of virtually the whole industry but certainly of this side of the House. I say that in response to the earlier question of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. To the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, I can say that I am speaking for the Official Opposition not only of this House but of another place. The Opposition are here and now offering to assist the Government in passing the Bill easily and quickly. That, I suggest to him, is an offer that the Government should not refuse. Surely the Minister cannot brush aside something so generous.
I should add that if the Minister feels constrained by a wish not to appear to admit that the 1990 Act was not absolutely perfect, I can also offer another assurance from this side of the House. I personally promise not to mention during the passing of a one-line moratorium extension Bill the appalling defects of the lousy 1990 Act. One cannot be more generous or make a greater sacrifice in the public interest than that. Perhaps noble Lords on other Benches will offer the same to save the Government's face. Politics is, after all, often Chinese.
In conclusion, this proposal to extend the moratorium would receive widespread—certainly majority—support from the industry as it has had unanimous support from all sides in the debate. We on this Bench have offered full official support and co-operation for a quick one-line Bill. Given this constructive approach from so many quarters, I press the Minister in the strongest possible terms to reply in a similar positive and constructive tone both on the
996
central issue of the moratorium and on the interesting wider questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hollick; and especially on the views of Mr. Murdoch given by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, every word of which I agree with 100 per cent.
Perhaps I may leave the Minister with a thought to go to bed with tonight. If he does nothing and the British Regional Television Company is taken over next January, then the Minister and his colleagues will be in deep, deep trouble—genuine, deep fertiliser. So in his interests as well as that of a great British industry, I trust that he feels able to respond positively.
9.56 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are indeed most grateful to my noble friend Lord Buxton for initiating this debate. Again, this debate has demonstrated that there is a wealth of experience and expertise on the subject of broadcasting in your Lordships' House. We are, quite rightly, proud of our broadcasters and the broadcasting industry. But these are times of considerable change; and, as we have heard this evening, there are those who believe that features of the industry are now under threat. We have heard eloquent and interesting arguments from a number of noble Lords on what the future may hold.
Those of your Lordships who took part in the debates on what became the Broadcasting Act 1990, will remember the aims of the Government's policies in that legislation. These included increasing diversity, choice and competition in the provision of television services. Although the provisions dealing with Channels 3 and 4 came into effect fully only at the beginning of this year, the other provisions for television services have been operating for some time. The Independent Television Commission has licensed more than 100 programme services of all kinds.
In 1990, satellite and cable television services were in their infancy and digital TV technology seemed many years away. Your Lordships will be well aware of the rapid growth in satellite channels, and current developments in the provision of cable television services. Moreover, digital TV technology, once thought to be many years away, may become a reality within a few years. This opens up the prospect of hundreds, rather than tens, of channels. Tomorrow's world has arrived rather sooner than expected.
Of course, since 1990, the economic climate has changed somewhat. Worldwide, companies are looking for ways of improving their efficiency and increasing their share of the market. Given these changes, it is understandable that the ITV companies are questioning the effects of the ownership regulations on the structure and operation of the UK television industry. However, in this time of rapidly changing technology, we must look before we leap, especially as the currents beneath us are swirling unpredictably.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, pointed out, the BBC Charter ends in 1996. But we intend to look carefully at the responses to the recent paper. We intend to publish our proposals for the BBC early next year.

997
The subject of this evening's debate is the ownership of the 16 companies which together provide Channel 3, or ITV. As your Lordships know, one, GMTV, holds a national licence for breakfast-time programmes. There are 15 regional television licences; of these, nine are designated as being large and six are designated as small.
The ownership rules in the Broadcasting Act, and its subordinate legislation, prevent any company or person from holding a controlling interest in more than one of the nine largest ITV licences. A person or company could own two ITV licences provided one was large and the other one was small, and they could additionally have a maximum of a 20 per cent. stake in one further licence, and a further 5 per cent. stake in any additional licence above that.
In these arrangements, the Government's aim was to allow economies of scale but to prevent unhealthy concentrations. Cross-ownership rules were aimed at allowing flexibility of approach but were planned to be sufficient to protect the smaller ITV regions from a loss of identity.
Until the end of 1993, all take-overs of ITV licensees are prohibited, unless they have the specific approval of the Independent Television Commission. This one-year moratorium, as it has become known, was intended to provide a short period of stability at the start of the new licence period. It was not intended to offer long-term protection against the normal discipline of take-overs.
Even now there is no obstruction to anyone taking over a Channel 3 licensee, provided it meets with the ITC's approval. It is clear that, at the moment, the ITC is unlikely to be sympathetic to any hostile take-over. Your Lordships will be aware of the merger between Yorkshire TV and Tyne Tees Television. A deciding factor in the ITC's decision to allow this merger to proceed was that the commission concluded that the merger was in the best interests of the viewers in the area.
In the past six months, my department has been asked to alter the current regulations. We have received a number of deputations from the ITV companies, concerned about the continuing viability of the industry and its ability to compete in both the European and world markets. I have to say that there was a wide range of views about the potential problems and the recommended remedies. Indeed, some ideas were in direct opposition to each other. As we have heard this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke have different views on what could be done.
One of the remedies suggested was extending the moratorium. As noble Lords are fully aware, this would need primary legislation. The purpose of extending the moratorium would be to try to prolong a period of relative stability. But I suggest that it would be a mistake to try to stand still when the rest of the world is moving on.
It is important that we should recognise—my noble friend Lord Elton reminded us of this—that broadcasting has moved from being a national activity to a global industry. This is not just a growing
998
world-wide market in programmes and video cassettes. It is a world market in transmission and programme services. Some organisations are producing programmes for international audiences in several continents; but broadcasting them through local transmission systems. A broadcasting organisation can be based in this country, producing programmes for countries in the Middle East, which are transmitted via a satellite owned by a company based elsewhere.
Several of the larger ITV licensees have been pressing for a relaxation of the rules—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. He correctly quoted my noble friend Lord Elton, but I think that he should add that having made the point that has just been reiterated, my noble friend Lord Elton said that he thought that there should also be an extension of the period before we give up that freedom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have not finished what I am going to say about the moratorium. I am trying to set the background to this.
Several of the larger ITV licensees have been pressing for a relaxation of the rules which limit their holdings in other ITV companies. They believe that if there were fewer companies this would give a stronger domestic base from which to compete in Europe and to fend off foreign take-overs. However, it could be argued that creating larger groups will make such groups more attractive to potential buyers. A large portion of the ITV cake may look more tempting than a small slice. Conversely, some of the smaller ITV licensees have argued that the ownership restrictions should be strengthened. They are looking for greater protection against predatory larger UK television companies.
The Broadcasting Act tried to preserve the regional network structure of independent television. The ownership rules were very thoroughly debated in both Houses during the passage of the legislation. Many of the provisions have only just come into force. The Broadcasting Act allows some flexibility, in that some changes in the ownership provisions can be made by order, rather than by primary legislation. The provisions on the holdings, on the ownership of other companies, are among the requirements which can be altered by an order. However, the Government believe that a very good case indeed would have to be made to change the restrictions at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, made another proposal. Present ITV licences last for 10 years, but licensees can apply for renewal after six years. The noble Lord suggested that the timescale could be shortened so that they can apply for renewal after four years. In those circumstances, he suggested that the present arrangement for paying for network programmes could be extended for two to four years. As we might expect from the noble Lord, that is an ingenious suggestion. However, I am not convinced that it is one that would recommend itself to all ITV licensees. The case for extending the period of the moratorium is that there should be a longer period of stability. Shortening

999
the period before applications to renew licences can be made hardly seems a recipe for the stability that the noble Lord desires.
The present licences are for 10 years. It seems preferable that they should run for at least half their term before applications to renew them can be made. Under the Broadcasting Act, UK nationals and nationals of other member states of the Community have equal rights in the provisions on the ownership of independent television companies within this country. Our rules do not discriminate against other EC nationals. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that member states should not treat their own nationals more favourably than those of other member states. They should not. That would be contrary to our interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
However, although the UK regulations do not prevent ownership of a broadcaster by a national of another member state, it appears that some other countries in Europe place restrictions on ownership. For example, Denmark requires a majority of the board members of private television companies to be domiciled in the area of the licence. In Belgium, at least 51 per cent. of the capital of a Flemish commercial TV licensee must be owned by the publishers of Flemish language print media. In our view those are discriminatory restrictions which operate against potential investors from other member states, including investors from here.
The European Commission has been made aware of many of those instances and the European Court of Justice has also been active. There has been some progress. For example, the European Court of Justice has recently ruled that the Flemish measures are indeed contrary to the Treaty of Rome. There are other examples. Foreign participation in Greek television companies used to be limited to 25 per cent., whereas similar restrictions did not appear to apply to Greek companies. It seems that the Commission opened proceedings against Greece, but new legislation adopted in August of last year may have removed the discriminatory provisions.
Each country can decide how its broadcasting industry should be structured. Provisions which limit levels of ownership are fair so long as countries apply their ownership restrictions equally to their own nationals and those of other member states. But if a country appears to be in breach of the Treaty of Rome, then it is the duty of the Commission to take the necessary action. As I have described, the European Commission is taking action against a number of member states. However, such action takes some considerable time, and I agree that it is frustrating that problems take so long to resolve. As I said, progress is being made.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no possibility of harmonisation before the end of this year?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that progress is being made. I cannot guess how fast that progress will be or how long it will take. My noble friend Lord
1000
Sharp of Grimsdyke and the noble Lords, Lord Hollick and Lord Thomson, said that the European Commission has recently produced a consultation document entitled Pluralism and Media Concentration in the Internal Market. That sets out a number of different options for future controls over ownership. The Government are studying very carefully what the paper has to say and we shall be responding with our views. I have no doubt that the ITV companies including Carlton and Meridian will be sending their views to the Commission.
It is encouraging that some UK companies are looking for opportunities for investment in broadcasting organisations in other European countries. But if we want to compete throughout the Community, we must expect that others will want to compete here. It is not reasonable to demand open opportunities for investment on the other side of the Channel, but protection from such take-overs here.
The present moratorium provides a degree of stability. But it does not of itself give absolute protection against take-overs. Extending the moratorium could do no more than provide an obstruction to slow down those who are most determined either to invest or take over individual independent television companies in the UK. But in any take-over it is up to the shareholders to accept or decline the offer. They will decide what they consider is best for the company. And the advice from the chairman and the board of directors is likely to be an important factor in this decision.
So far, little evidence has been produced that there are foreign companies queueing up to take over UK television companies. There was only modest interest from non-UK companies during the licensing process that took place some 18 months ago. I accept that any bidder might be biding his time unknown to us. But the present policies of some of the large European media companies seem to be to aim for minority holdings in companies in other countries.
I have to tell your Lordships that we remain unclear how far the fears of possible take-overs and the worries about practices abroad stem from business pressures or from anxieties about regional structure and identity of the independent television network in the longer term. Is the fear that changes in ownership will result in the loss of regional programmes? The Broadcasting Act requires every regional licensee to provide a sufficient amount and range of regional programmes. The applicants for licences set out their plans for regional licences and these are now conditions of their licences. The ITC will enforce these requirements on each regional licensee regardless of any changes in ownership. No one can simply come along and take over an ITV franchise. The licence conditions will remain in force and any new owners will have to ensure that the original licence promises about regional programming will continue to be met. I am tempted to suggest that, for example, any Spanish broadcaster would have as much success in trying to make "Coronation Street" as the BBC had in making "Eldorado".
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw spoke with great feeling of the importance of regional television

1001
companies in his area and the pleasure and information which regional programmes bring to the people who live there. Moreover, programmes made in the different nations of the United Kingdom and in the regions in England can bring a welcome diversity to the networked programmes on ITV. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that most people do not live in the south-east of England. Diversity of programmes from a diversity of places adds to the richness of the programme schedule.
Take-overs are an important market discipline. They can inject fresh capital, fresh personnel and fresh ideas, which can promote innovation and greater efficiency. Market forces determine that there will be both winners and losers, but my noble friend Lord Stockton referred to the potential dominance of individual people, or a group of companies, and the risk that they may dominate the market with their particular brand of idea. The aim of the present regulations is to prevent such concentrations on ITV, which is the commercial television service most widely used in the United Kingdom. For commercial broadcasting companies to survive they must be both efficient and be in a position to produce programmes which people wish to see. Otherwise smaller audiences will attract less advertising revenue, and may ultimately lead to the demise of the company.
The mixture of old and new companies, which now hold the ITV companies, are unlikely to underestimate people's wish to watch good quality British programmes. We should not seek to put up artificial barriers, either to protect them or to prevent their successful development.
We have been considering two main issues which inevitably are intertwined. First, there is the question of the UK ownership provisions and the effect that those are having on the ITV network. They include the present moratorium on take-overs due to expire at the end of this year. The other main issue is the ownership rules and regulations applying in other European countries, which may disadvantage our own broadcasters from investing and expanding into other European countries.
As I said earlier in the debate, the European Commission is gradually taking action within Europe
1002
to eliminate obvious restrictive practices but progress here is likely to be slow. The Commission is also considering the general issue of ownership in the longer term.
In this country the medium-term question is whether we need to alter the present ownership regulations under the Broadcasting Act. In the short term, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, considers that the moratorium should be extended to try to establish an oasis of stability in an otherwise rapidly changing scene. But I must ask what message we should be sending to Europe. We should be sending entirely the wrong message to Europe. It could even discourage other countries from making the changes that we have been urging them to make to their own restrictive ownership rules. The Government do not believe that a convincing case for either of those changes has yet been made. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to have further discussions with the ITC and the ITV companies.
The debate this evening has been an important contribution to the consideration of these issues. I listened carefully to the points that noble Lords made. I recognise that they speak from both knowledge and extensive experience. We value your Lordships' opinions greatly and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will want to give further thought to what has been said.
The Government will continue to keep the working of the Broadcasting Act under review. During these times of considerable change, we shall aim to ensure that the UK broadcasting industry can continue to make progress, taking advantage of the latest technological developments. Only in that way will United Kingdom broadcasters maintain their worldwide standing in producing and broadcasting high quality programmes and services.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

  AGGRAVATED TRESPASS: ILLEGAL RAVES
  AGGRAVATED TRESPASS: ILLEGAL RAVES
  IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY DEPARTMENT: COMPLAINTS
  IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY DEPARTMENT: COMPLAINTS
  MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: PAROLE BOARD REVIEWS
  MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: PAROLE BOARD REVIEWS
  REGIONAL CRIME SQUADS
  REGIONAL CRIME SQUADS
  YSTRADGYNLAIS AND TAWE UCHAF: POPULATION
  YSTRADGYNLAIS AND TAWE UCHAF: POPULATION
  YSTRADGYNLAIS AND TAWE UCHAF: AREA
  YSTRADGYNLAIS AND TAWE UCHAF: AREA
  LLANSILYN LLANRHAEADR YM MOCHNANT LLANGEDWYN: AREA
  LLANSILYN LLANRHAEADR YM MOCHNANT LLANGEDWYN: AREA
  LLANSILYN, LLANRHAEADR YM MOCHNANT AND LLANGEDWYN: POPULATION
  LLANSILYN, LLANRHAEADR YM MOCHNANT AND LLANGEDWYN: POPULATION
  CHANNEL RAIL LINK: TUNNELLING
  CHANNEL RAIL LINK: TUNNELLING
  COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES: MONITORING
  COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES: MONITORING
  FIRE ESCAPES: LISTED BUILDINGS
  FIRE ESCAPES: LISTED BUILDINGS
  KENYA: AID AND HUMAN RIGHTS
  KENYA: AID AND HUMAN RIGHTS
  AFGHANISTAN: UK AID
  AFGHANISTAN: UK AID
  CAMEROON: AID
  CAMEROON: AID
  SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT: RATIFICATION
  SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT: RATIFICATION
  NORTH KOREA AND THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  NORTH KOREA AND THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  TEAM SPIRIT EXERCISE: KOREAN PENINSULA
  TEAM SPIRIT EXERCISE: KOREAN PENINSULA
  ISRAELI BOMBING OF IRAQI NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  ISRAELI BOMBING OF IRAQI NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  ISRAELI NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
  ISRAELI NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE
  MIDDLE EAST: SECURITY
  MIDDLE EAST: SECURITY
  ISRAEL: PALESTINIAN DEPORTEES
  ISRAEL: PALESTINIAN DEPORTEES
  PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AND ESTATE: REPORT
  PRIVITY OF CONTRACT AND ESTATE: REPORT
  WIDOWERS: CHILD CARE RESPONSIBILITIES
  WIDOWERS: CHILD CARE RESPONSIBILITIES
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY MAFF
  CONSULTANCY FIRMS EMPLOYED BY MAFF
  THE DEFENCE MARRIED QUARTERS ESTATE
  THE DEFENCE MARRIED QUARTERS ESTATE
  ARMY STATIC WORKSHOPS: FUTURE
  ARMY STATIC WORKSHOPS: FUTURE
  RECYCLING: SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
  RECYCLING: SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS