Commons Sitting of 2 December 1991

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

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total funding for each individual TEC in Wales for 1990–91; and what is the total individual funding for 1991–92.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): As the answer contains a lot of figures, I will, with permission Mr. Speaker, arrange for them to be printed in the Official Report. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there was a substantial increase in funding for each training and enterprise council this year on the year before.
    Mr. Powell: We usually get the figures in the replies to questions. It is difficult to question the Minister when we have not been given the figures. Most people in Wales are sick and tired of the glossy brochures that confuse the issue of training in Wales and TECs. Is the Minister aware that since CATO closed in my constituency, 230 training places remain to be filled and 35 trainers have yet to find jobs? That is the position with TECs in Mid Glamorgan. The whole of the Principality—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One question please.
    Mr. Powell: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, but this question covers a wide subject.
    In March, an inquiry was called for into the case of manager Dereck Jones, who took away property belonging to Llynfi workshop. I demand a reply from the Minister about my request for an inquiry into the financial ramifications for Mid Glamorgan TECs.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I told the hon. Gentleman that each TEC had received an increase in funding. Mid Glamorgan received an increase from £14·9 million in 1990–91 to £21·1 million in 1991–92. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the strategy document and for giving it publicity in the Chamber. That document is important, as every hon. Member concerned with training in Wales is fully aware. I am sorry that CATO, of which the hon. Gentleman was chairman, failed to achieve approved training organisation status, but he must not keep on digging and hitting at the Mid Glamorgan TECs on that account. That is small-minded of him.
    Mr. Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the transfer next April to his Department of the responsibility for training and TECs, and I hope that that will mean a better-focused and relevant service for his and my constituents.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am absolutely certain that that is what it will mean. The transfer of responsibility for training to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, makes a great deal of sense. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will combine that responsibility with responsibility for education in schools and, we hope, in due course for further and higher education. He has set up a special unit to deal with the transfer.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman cut funding for training and cut training places for unemployed and young people? Has not he in effect created a hostile climate for companies such as Hoover and British Aerospace, which have had to slash their

    3
    apprenticeships? A modern, productive and competitive economy for Wales would be unattainable under the right hon. Gentleman's policies.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have listened to the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). The amount available to all the TECs in Wales increased from £49·1 million to £117·1 million this year. I dare say that there will be an increase next year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an extra £11 million has been devoted to employment training this year. We are taking all possible steps to ensure that we have a well-trained and well-educated work force for the future.
    The total funding for each TEC in Wales is shown in the following table:

    TEC

    Operational Start Dates

    1990–91

    1991–92

    £ million

    £ million

    Mid Glamorgan

    23 July 1990

    14·9

    21·1

    West Wales

    23 July 1990

    20·4

    31·5

    North East Wales

    17 September 1990

    6·2

    13·6

    North West Wales

    4 February 1991

    1·8

    13·6

    South Glamorgan

    4 February 1991

    3·4

    14·1

    Gwent

    4 February 1991

    2·4

    18·4

    Powys

    2 April 1991

    Nil

    4·8

    Note: It should be borne in mind that the 1990–91 budgets are for the period of TEC operation only and vary in the periods they cover because TECs became operational at differing times.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the organisation of the ambulance service in Wales; and whether he will make it his policy that the service should continue to be organised on a county or health authority basis.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): We are considering whether reform of the ambulance and patient transport services in Wales may lead to a more cost-effective service, greater efficiency and, therefore, better patient care.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister end the secrecy surrounding that consideration and tell us his view of the Powys, Gwent and South Glamorgan combination, which is like a giant, inverted reverse question mark around the deprived county of Mid Glamorgan? Is he aware that the only reason for their proposals that has been given by the managers of those three ambulance services is that that combination would protect their market share? Will the Minister give up the nonsense about a market in care and a market in accidents? Does he accept that people in every part of Wales want an efficient local service and want to be treated as patients, not as pieces of a market share?
    Mr. Bennett: We have not yet received the application to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If it is received, we shall give it careful consideration and there will, of course, be wide public consultation on it. We shall not approve any applications for changes in the ambulance and patient transport services that are not in the best interests of patients throughout Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than taking a dogmatic approach, and in the interests of improving the service, it would be better to
    4
    wait to see what proposals are produced by the professionals—those who run and really know about the ambulance service?
    Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is important that we wait to see the contents of any application and plan. I can assure the House that we shall not allow any application to go forward for consideration if it does not provide for real improvements in the way in which patients are treated in the ambulance and patient transport services. Any application that is allowed to go forward for public consideration will be subject to full consultation.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that, as presently constituted, Powys ambulance service gives a superb service in a very rural area? Is he aware that Powys health authority is opposed to the amalgamation of the Powys ambulance service with those of South Glamorgan and Gwent? Does he agree that that would be an unacceptable combination?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."]—because, as I have said, we must wait for the application to come forward.—[Interruption.] The problem with the Opposition is that they do not want proper consultation and consideration.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister is running away from the issue.
    Mr. Bennett: The application has not yet come forward —[Interruption.] I cannot be running away from something that has not yet happened. As I have said, the application has not yet come forward, but when it does, it will be carefully considered and if it seems to have—[Interruption.] I cannot have an opinion on something that I have not yet seen. The Opposition do not want to wait for careful, mature consideration. We shall await the proposals and, when they come forward, we shall consider whether they are in a form that enables them to be put forward for public consultation. Obviously, we shall carefully weigh the views of Powys health authority in any consideration.

    Women Patients
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to the national health service in Wales of treating women suffering from strokes, osteoporosis and senility; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The treatments to which my hon. Friend refers are specialist treatments and information on them is not kept at Welsh Office level.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he like me to give him the bad news first, which is that more women in Wales are killed or severely disabled by those complaints than by all other medical complaints put together? However, the good news is that those complaints are preventable by the use of hormone replacement therapy. That medical treatment is available in two hospitals in Wales, but they operate on only two days a week. Does my hon. Friend agree that the half a million or more women in Wales should be able to receive specialist menopause care in more hospitals? May I look

    5
    forward to my hon. Friend's Department investigating this matter with a view to improving the level of those facilities?
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Hormone replacement therapy is available on prescription on the clinical judgment of the general practitioner or consultant concerned. It must be for the patient and her GP or consultant to look at the advantages and disadvantages of HRT. It is not a matter on which Ministers should proclaim a view one way or the other. Nevertheless, HRT is available on prescription to women who require it.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Minister aware that two of the illnesses that are mentioned in the main question, strokes and senility, are part of the aging processes? However good the acute services and whatever the life expectancy, will not there always be a need for hospitals to deal with such illnesses among the chronically sick elderly? In those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider East Dyfed health authority's proposals to close the Mynyddmawr hospital in my constituency, which provides proper care for women and men who suffer from such illnesses?
    Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on a matter that is the subject of consultation—[Interruption.] I do not comment on matters that are out for public consultation because at the end of the day I shall have to take a decision, and there is no point in doing so before the public have been consulted. I am sorry that some Labour Members do not appreciate that. Under the community care arrangements that come into effect on 1 April 1993, we want more people to be treated in their own homes. We want to avoid, as far as possible, institutionalising people by sending them into hospital. We want them to be treated in a caring environment in their own home. However, there will always remain a need for hospitals and it is for the health authorities in each district to make sure that such accommodation is available.

    Housing
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures of housing starts in Clwyd and Wales by (a) councils, (b) housing associations and (c) private developers for 1978 and for 1990.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Daavid Hunt): In 1978 total housing starts in Wales amounted to 12,351. In 1990 there were 10,183. In Clwyd in 1978, total housing starts were 1,626. That figure rose to 2,078 in 1990. I shall arrange for the other figures to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for those figures. Is he aware that there will be only 48 housing associations starts this year in the whole of Glyndwr, which, as he knows, is a rural area? Does he agree that that is a disgrace, bearing in mind that I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends receive regular visits from people who are desperate for housing in those areas?
    Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman framed his supplementary before he heard the figures that I gave, but they showed that total housing starts in Clwyd
    6
    rose between 1978 and 1990. The basic housing programme in 1979–80 amounted to some £30 million for housing association activity, whereas this year's programme is likely to be worth about £150 million. That is an enormous increase.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Secretary of State bear it in mind that for the homeless it is rented accommodation that counts? Homelessness had risen by 4,500 before a further 2,000 repossessions took place, yet at the same time there has been a decline of 2,300 in the number of houses being built for rent. Does not the Secretary of State realise that much of the problem and the desperation of the homeless in Wales is the direct result of the policies that he is pursuing?
    Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman will he aware of the extremely good document "Housing in Wales: An Agenda for Action", for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was responsible. On the hon. Gentleman's particular point, he should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), whom I met only this morning with a delegation from north Wales. I pointed out, for example, that the flats above shops initiative has been extremely successful. There are many other initiatives.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside new housing, it is important to conserve the existing private sector housing stock? In that context, will he say something about the level of renovation grant currently available in Wales?
    Mr. Hunt: That is a particular success story. Total expenditure since 1979 on house renovation in Wales is about £2,000 million. Some 215,000 grants have been made for private sector renovation since 1979. That speaks for itself.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first six months of this year alone, 1,923 repossession orders were made for homes in Wales? That was an increase of more than 70 per cent. on last year. What advice does the right hon. Gentleman give to the hundreds of families who have had their homes repossessed because of his economic policies? Does not he realise that his glossy brochures do not help to mend the marriages under stress or put right the budgets under stress? Is not it the case that the right hon. Gentleman has no strategy and no policy, but only complacency on housing?
    Mr. Hunt: It is always a matter of great sadness when anyone's home is repossessed, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw a veil over what happened in the 1970s, when there were considerable repossessions and when interest rates, if he recalls, reached a much higher level than they are at present. If the hon. Gentleman considers the number of housing starts instead of artificially creating anger, he will realise that the Opposition's record was not very good. Under the last Labour Government there were a number of cuts, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will begin to recognise the progress that has been made under this Government.
    Following is the information:

    7

    Housing starts—Wales

    Total Wales

    Private

    Housing associations

    Local authorities

    1978

    12,351

    7,165

    1,184

    4,002

    1990

    10,183

    7,632

    2,213

    338

    Housing starts—Clwyd

    Total Clwyd

    Private

    Housing associations

    Local authorities

    1978

    1,626

    1,371

    41

    214

    1990

    2,078

    1,597

    375

    106

    In each case housing association starts have increased and housing associations should be congratulated on their achievements.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of the farmers' unions in Wales to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. David Hunt: I last met leaders of the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union on 22 October.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate the Secretary of State for taking our advice, and that of the farming unions in Wales, to go to Brussels to fight for the interests of Welsh farmers. During his talks with Commissioner Ray MacSharry, did he urge him to raise the limits on which sheep support is payable from 750 in the less-favoured areas and 350 elsewhere to 1,000 and 500 respectively? If he did, what was the Commissioner's reply?
    Mr. Hunt: I certainly made the point that those headage limits were unacceptable and virtually singled out Wales as a target for discrimination. I pointed out that the headage limits affect 15 per cent. of the flock in Wales, whereas they affect only 3 per cent. of the flock throughout the European Community. That sort of discrimination is unacceptable. I am afraid that we shall have to wait for the Commissioner's response, but I made him aware of the strong feelings that exist throughout Wales on that issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to air that important subject.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Did the Secretary of State discuss the possibility that something close to Commissioner MacSharry's original proposals are likely to be accepted in the near future by the Council of Ministers? Does he agree that if that is the case, there will be a real drop in the level of income received by Welsh farmers? While I welcome the announcement a couple of weeks ago about two new environmentally sensitive areas, is not it now the case that the only way to protect farm incomes in Wales is to adopt an environmental protection scheme covering the whole of Wales and to pay farmers to look after the countryside?
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that I speak for every hon. Member when I say that we want a reform of the common agricultural policy. However, that must be done in a way that is fair to farmers throughout the Community and does not single out farmers such as those in Wales for discrimination. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the recent announcement that we made. I am sure that some measures that will link the tremendous work that farmers are doing to conserve the countryside
    8
    with reward will come in the reform of the CAP. We must ensure that we reward farmers not only for efficiency, but for what they do in the countryside.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest totals of actual unemployment in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: Unemployment has dropped by more than 1,800 and is down to just over 117,000, if we take the unadjusted figures.
    Mr. Jones: Provided that we can convince them that we are not bent on the same course, are not there excellent prospects for persuading Scottish insurance companies to set up in Wales? Because of their real concerns about the consequences of a Scottish Assembly, they are being forced to consider establishing new bases south of the border. Perhaps he should suggest to the Welsh Development Agency that it sends a mission to Edinburgh.
    Mr. Hunt: I am a little loath to go down the same route with the same conclusion, but my hon. Friend has made an important point which has to be taken into account by all those who plead and argue that we should move towards setting up a Welsh Assembly, overturning the four to one majority against in the last referendum on the issue.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that all the economic forecasts point to an increase in unemployment in the period ahead? Has the Welsh Office made any assessment of what that will mean in terms of repossessions of homes, domestic discord, divorce and so on? Does he think that that should be given more serious consideration than the Welsh Office appears to be giving it?
    Mr. Hunt: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. He appears to have made a swift recovery from his operation and we are delighted to see him here.
    The distress that the hon. Gentleman described is distress to everybody. However, Wales has a higher level of owner-occupation—about 72 per cent.—than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to the significant level of inward investment and new job announcements that have occurred in Wales in the recent past.
    Mr. Raffan: What plans is the Welsh Office making in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency and

    9
    British Coal Enterprise, to minimise the impact on. Delyn of the 200 redundancies at Point of Ayr scheduled for the end of 1993?
    Mr. Hunt: I have been concerned about that announcement, and I want further announcements to be made about new projects in and around the area. I have been underground at the Point of Ayr colliery, as my hon. Friend is aware. I believe it to be a remarkably good colliery, and I opened the coal liquefaction plant alongside it. I am pleased to say today that a range of projects has been announced. They are new industrial projects involving investment of more than £25 million, creating more than 500 new jobs and safeguarding about 300 others. Some of those projects are in north Wales, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to hear more such announcements.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet Welsh local government leaders to discuss local government finance.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will meet the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance after he has received the submissions and consultations on the settlement proposals for 1992–93, which are due in by 24 December.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the council tax, which he is pushing through the House now, will be seen as just as unfair and unrelated to the ability of people to pay as the poll tax? Does he accept that it is so unfair that with all the discounts and bandings, the Government will have to squander another £100 million in precisely the way that they had to squander money to dump the poll tax?
    Mr. Bennett: The last thing that the people of Wales want is to return to the discredited and out-dated rating system, which the hon. Gentleman said some years ago was not supported. Labour now wishes to go back to it. The council tax proposals are eminently fair. There is a special banding for Wales, with special reductions. More than 90 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales is provided by central Government or business finance, not by the chargepayer. The Labour party's proposals would mean 14 bands, but we were not told the ratios between the different bands. In other words. Labour Members did not have the guts to tell the people of Wales just what their proposals were.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that local authorities in Wales will need much more capital finance if they are to make inroads into the massive housing shortage for people on the waiting lists in Wales? Is he aware of the representations from a number of Welsh local authorities about the need for a review of housing and planning legislation to make sure that the housing problem is cracked? Will the Government call a conference in Wales to consider those serious issues?
    Mr. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of dealing with housing in Wales. My right hon. Friend will shortly be making a statement about capital allocations for local authorities. It must be remembered that the role of local authorities has changed
    10
    from their being the providers to being the enablers. We have put considerable sums of money into Housing for Wales. This year, a record 3,500 properties are under construction. I take seriously and personally the need to tackle the housing problem in Wales, which is why we recently issued "Housing in Wales: An Agenda for Action", the first-ever agenda on housing issued by a Government Department.
    Mr. Edwards: The Minister states that Tai Cymru is building 3,500 homes in Wales next year. However, there are 3,500 people on the waiting list in my constituency alone. Is he aware that those people will never be able to buy, that they cannot afford to rent, and that for them very little is being developed in the council housing sector—indeed, nothing at all—which means that they have little chance of getting into a property developed by Tai Cymru? Does he appreciate that there is a massive housing crisis in Wales, and especially in my constituency?
    Mr. Bennett: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that not enough is being done. We are working hard on the housing problems of Wales. Housing waiting lists are not a good indication of need because they have not been validated. When local authorities have examined their waiting lists, they have found that a large number of people on them have moved or no longer need to be rehoused. That is why housing lists are not an especially good indicator. We are increasing the number of properties available for rent through the housing associations, but we must also consider the total number of properties being built in Wales. Private builders are doing a good job in building new properties for sale and that creates a knock-on effect on rented accommodation.
    Through our policies, for instance those on rented accommodation, we now provide a special allocation for the flats above shops initiative. If the hon. Gentleman takes a walk down any high street he will see how that policy is working through into the provision of new housing.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning his inward investment mission to Japan, Australia and the United States of America.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has frequent meetings with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a range of matters, including inward investment.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister of State for his somewhat opaque reply. Will he be a little more precise? Has he discussed the value for money which the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency thinks he got out of the £28,000 worth of taxpayers' money that was spent on the recent mission, which finished on 17 November? That mission involved two executives of the agency travelling around the world, including the chairman, and Mr. Shimon Cohen from Lowe Bell—the most expensive bag carrier in history, whose participation in the trip cost £7,500 and who has no specialised knowledge of industrial development. What proposals does the Minister have to

    11
    obtain greater value for money from such round-the-world missions, particularly as the second half of this one was cancelled?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I am surprised to hear such talk from an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He should realise that one cannot judge the value of an inward investment mission immediately afterwards. It often takes years before the results can be fully quantified. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman speak on this subject and he has made many mistakes in his statements and allegations of impropriety. He gives me the impression of being like Dennis the Menace's dog, Gnasher, who goes for anyone's ankles. My more refined hon. Friends may wish to compare him with Bildad the Shuhite, who was one of Job's most cruel comforters.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The purpose of the mission's visit abroad was obviously to obtain more jobs in Wales. Does the Minister realise that, although my constituency is one of the wealthier Welsh constituencies, 17 people are looking for jobs for each vacancy listed in unemployment centres there? Does the Minister expect that in the next six months there will be fewer or even more people looking for jobs?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman represents Bridgend which, with Sony, has one of the most attractive inward investments in Wales. He will know that we have had a record number of inward investment projects. There were 142 last year and 165 up to October this year. There were 69 overseas projects in 1990–91 and this year there have already been 59. Those 69 overseas projects were secured with the promise of 8,500 jobs and the 59 projects promised 9,000 jobs. As the hon. Gentleman heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, unemployment fell last month, so on unemployment, we look forward optimistically to the future.

    Rail-Bus Services
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the improvement of co-ordination with bus services in Wales.
    Mr. David Hunt: I understand that British Rail is discussing with county councils better ways of coordinating bus services.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of a dispute between British Rail and the Crosville bus company, for months there has been no shelter from the weather for bus passengers waiting at Rhyl station? Does he agree that this long-running and silly dispute reflects extremely badly on the Crosville bus company, which seems to think that it has no responsibility whatever for the well-being of its passengers, but, above all, reflects badly on Sir Bob Reid, who, as chairman of a great nationalised corporation, seems quite content to sit back, let matters take their course and let passengers go to hell?
    Mr. Hunt: Thanks to my hon. Friend, I am aware of the position at Rhyl and am very concerned about it. I shall certainly bring what he has said directly to the attention of Sir Robert Reid.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Secretary of State worried about the number of mergers and amalgamations affecting bus
    12
    services in Wales and about the reduction in service in the evenings and on Sundays? Now that we have had sufficient experience of the workings of deregulation, is not it time for the Government to have an inquiry into how some claims are not being met?
    Mr. Hunt: The statistics show that the whole privatisation move has been a remarkable success. Between 1985–86 and 1990–91, local bus mileage rose by 29 per cent. in Wales, compared with the Great Britain average increase of 18 per cent. We have done remarkably well.

    Employment, Cardiganshire
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit Aberporth, Cardiganshire during the next few months to discuss employment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend currently has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Howells: The Minister will be well aware that west Wales will have an unemployment black spot in the next four to five years due to the possible closure of Brawdy in his constituency and Trecwn in mine and the problems facing Aberporth. Does he have a glimmer of hope for people who are worried about their jobs?
    Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is right. As a Minister and as a Member of Parliament for west Wales, I am concerned about the future of defence-related industries. I can give the hon. Gentleman a glimmer of hope about the defence research agency at Aberporth. I understand from the Ministry of Defence that there is no intention to close it and my right hon. Friend and I shall continue to make every representation that we can to enourage others to move into west Wales and create more opportunities for employment.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made with regard to responding to the Welsh Language Board's proposal for a new Welsh Language Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Consultations are continuing within Government on the Welsh Language Board's proposals. The proposals are wide ranging and have implications for all branches of the public sector in Wales. My right hon. Friend is anxious that these consultations should be completed as soon as possible so that he can announce a decision. Whatever is decided in relation to legislation will not lessen the need to pursue a wide range of policies in support of the language. I am happy to announce that direct grant support for the language next year will be £7·6 million, a 12 per cent. increase on provision in the current year.
    Mr. Wigley: Does not the Minister realise that consultation on a new Welsh Language Act started five years ago last month and that for over five years we have been waiting for some sign of life from the Welsh Office? Is that an indication of the speed at which the Welsh Office usually moves? Is that the dynamic David and the

    13
    wonderful Wyn making progress on an issue, or is it another example of the Government's dithering on an important issue for Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is misleading himself as well as the House and the country. We have had these proposals in our hands only from the beginning of this year. The Welsh Language Board took a considerable time to work out its proposals and gave them to us at the beginning of the year. Consultations are continuing in government and within the past fortnight there has been an important meeting involving a member of the board, Mr. Winston Roddick, and representatives of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

    "This Common Inheritance"
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been achieved in implementing the White Paper on environmental policy "This Common Inheritance"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The Government reported on the progress of their environment initiative on 25 September with the publication of "This Common Inheritance: the First Year Report", Cm. 1655. In addition, my right hon. Friend published on that day a report, "The Environment in Wales", on progress in the Principality.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Minister believe that progress on environmental policy has been made when his Department and the Department of Energy decide to give the go-ahead to an incinerator project which will produce low-level radioactive waste, adding to the already radioactive environment of Trawsfynnydd, without ensuring adequate environmental assessment of that project? The inspector appointed by the Minister's Department to make a recommendation on the project decided that he could not do so because not enough information was available to him.
    Mr. Bennett: All nuclear installations are inspected regularly by the nuclear installations inspectorate and other responsible agencies and our emergency plans are kept under continual review to ensure that they are responsive to changing circumstances. Before the power station can reopen, Nuclear Electric will have to satisfy the safety requirements. That should be a reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

    Mortgage Repossessions
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next hopes to meet representatives of building societies and banks on the level of mortgage repossessions in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Mid Glamorgan and Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I met the building societies liaison committee for Wales recently. We maintain regular contact with mortgage lenders in Wales about repossessions and other matters of common interest.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister realise that in the first nine months of this year, there was an increase of 25 per cent. in repossession orders in Merthyr and Rhymney? Many of the householders affected are not in receipt of income support or any other benefit. Did the Minister put to the building societies any Government proposals to
    14
    safeguard those communities, householders and homes? After all, his policy is partly responsible for the repossession orders.
    Mr. Bennett: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, any repossession is a matter of great tragedy to the family and to society. We can offer those people the hope that, with the reductions in interest rates and in the rate of inflation and with the welcome reduction in unemployment in Wales last month, the economic situation is improving. The way forward is for everybody to work together, including the mortgage lenders and the rest of the people involved in housing in Wales, including Housing for Wales, on finding ways to help people who have lost their homes.

    THE ARTS

      Arts Council
      Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister for the Arts what increases in funding he proposes for the Arts Council in the current financial year.
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): As I announced on 7 November, the Arts Council's grant in aid for 1992–93 will rise by 13·9 per cent. to £221·2 million. This is a marvellous settlement, the third record increase in a row. Once again, the Government have demonstrated their firm commitment to the arts.
      Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread welcome in the north-west for the substantial increase that he has achieved and in particular the increase for the Hallé orchestra, Britain's premier regional orchestra? Can he confirm that that increase in funding to the north-west in general further establishes the reputation of the north-west as the leading centre for arts under this Government?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm support for the settlement and I am delighted to confirm what he said. I have managed to visit the new North West Arts board already and I realise how committed it is to development of the arts in the north-west. I am particularly pleased to learn that the Hallé orchestra will receive an 18 per cent. increase in funding next year. With the appointment to that orchestra of Kent Nagano, one of the most exciting new conductors, it has a great future.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I congratulate the Minister on providing a substantial increase in funding for the arts. However, will he get the Arts Council to explain more clearly the somewhat arbitrary decisions that it makes? For example, the Royal Philharmonic orchestra has been told that it will not get as much money as it needs because it is not adventurous enough. Could not it get the money first and then, if it was not adventurous enough, the Arts Council could postpone any subsequent increase? It needs to explain its policies rather more clearly to some of us who take these matters seriously.
      Mr. Renton: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that he takes these matters seriously. So do I and so does the Arts Council. He will appreciate that I do not interfere in individual decisions about the levels of funding to arts organisations, but I understand that the RPO has written to the Arts Council

      15
      about the level of its 1992–93 grant. The Arts Council will respond to all the points that have been made as quickly as it can and will take into account the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
      Sir Richard Luce: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on the substantial extra resources that he has raised for the arts which will provide a foundation for expansion for the arts in the years ahead? Does he agree, however, that if we look ahead we see several arts requirements in areas in which it is not possible to derive all funding from the taxpayer—for example, the fabric of theatres? Does he agree that the best answer to the problem is to introduce a national lottery?
      Mr. Renton: I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support because it was he, during his long and noteworthy tenure as Minister for the Arts, who introduced two years ago the first of the three major increases—that of 11 per cent. It set us on course for the substantial increase in funding for the Arts Council that we now see. I was delighted to read, in the Financial Times on Saturday, Anthony Thorncroft talking about levels of grant to arts organisations that go well beyond the munificence of the days of Jennie Lee and Lord Goodman. After allowing for inflation, grants are now nearly three times the level of Jennie Lee's. I fully understand my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for a lottery and have some of the same enthusiasm myself. I understand that it is possible that we shall see a private Member's Bill on the subject.
      Mr. Fisher: I welcome the Arts Council settlement and congratulate the Minister. Does he recognise that while he and the Treasury are helping the Arts Council and regional arts boards to give increased grants to arts bodies, the Secretary of State for the Environment has set poll tax levels that will force local authorities to cut their grants to many of precisely the same arts bodies? Does he understand that the Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other? Does he support the Secretary of State for the Environment in the policies that will force cuts to be made in local authority grants to arts companies throughout the country?
      Mr. Renton: The shadow Minister for the Arts really should stop using Cassandra as his role model. Cassandra's gloomy prophecies came true while, thankfully, the hon. Gentleman's do not. Local authorities throughout the country—the hon. Gentleman and I have both visited many of them—are determined to continue their arts spending. It is not a large part of their budgets and they realise how successful it is, especially in the context of plural funding. Many other sources help the funding. If local authorities removed their support, the other sources might disappear. I do not believe that many local authorities will follow that course.

      Welsh Arts Council
      Mr. Wigley: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many meetings he has had during the past 12 months with local government representatives from Wales regarding the activities of the Welsh Arts Council.
      Mr. Renton: I visited Wales in May and again in October, when I met a great many people from the arts,
      16
      including representatives of Welsh local authorities. I was warmly welcomed and found the visits stimulating and informative.
      Mr. Wigley: I hope that the visit was productive as well. What progress has been made, in association with local authorities and the Welsh Arts Council, on the provision of the multi-purpose concert hall and opera house in Llandudno, to enable the Welsh National Opera to give performances in that town as it used to do? There are signs that things are moving in the right direction. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this valuable project is going ahead and that there is a date by which it will be open?
      Mr. Renton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was his support. I was delighted that on 16 November the Western Mail quoted Tom Owen, the director of the Welsh Arts Council, as follows:
      "The Welsh arts world is in its best conditions for years."
      I know that north Wales lacks a theatre large enough to stage full-scale opera. Work on proposals for a new building involving both public and private sectors is well advanced and I understand that a firm decision is likely to be taken by the end of the month. I very much hope that there will be a successful outcome.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a splendid new theatre in Rhyl, in which the Hallé orchestra gave an outstanding performance last week? Is he aware also that that is the result of sensible co-operation between the local authority, the Welsh Office, the Welsh Arts Council and the European reconstruction and development fund?
      Mr. Renton: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. Successful arts funding—this is where the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was so wrong—depends now on many different sources of funding. That is being shown in the instance to which my hon. Friend referred and it is being demonstrated in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the inconsistency between the increased funding of visual arts in Wales and elsewhere which he has achieved and the deliberate reduction by the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office of places in higher education for the study of fine art? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues in those two Departments to ensure that fine art places are not cut further?
      Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office—who is sitting beside me—is dedicated to, and very knowledgeable about, the arts and I am sure that he listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments with great care.

      Scottish Arts Council
      Dr. Godman: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the provision of financial assistance to theatres and art galleries in the 1990s; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Renton: I met the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council on Thursday last week. We discussed a range of

      17
      issues and he told me how pleased he was about the allocation of £22·1 million in total for the council next year. That is an increase of 13·8 per cent. on last year.
      Dr. Godman: May I, too, express my pleasure at that increase? However, can the Minister explain the contradiction between his introduction to a manual on percentage schemes for the arts published by the Scottish Arts Council last Friday, in which he encouraged public agency support for the arts, and his Department's decision to cancel such a percentage scheme for the new British Library? Will the Minister look again at that decision, because it could have important and disturbing implications for crafts in Scotland? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to change that decision.
      Mr. Renton: I have seen, for example, public art on display in Dundee and I share the hon. Gentleman's view of how important it is in the regeneration of some parts of inner cities. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the British Library, I said that, at this stage in the library's long building programme. I was unable to commit part of the funds that are available to it for the purchase of new works of art. However, I have encouraged the library to go out and seek, for example, sponsorship for new works of art. Alternatively, it will be able to use and to display many of the splendid items in its own collection. When the building programme is further advanced, perhaps we will be able to look again at that question.

      London Arts
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the chairman of the London Arts Board to discuss funding for the arts in London.
      Mr. Renton: I met the chairman and chief executive of the new London Arts Board on 18 November to hear about the excellent progress made in setting up the new board and its plans for the immediate future. Since then, the Arts Council has announced at 13·9 per cent. increase in its grant to the London Arts Board for 1992–93.
      Mr. Hughes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that answer. When he next meets the chairman of the London Arts Board, will he discuss with him the suggestion made by some others that regional arts boards might be abolished? Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman that the Government support regional arts boards and that he will do everything to fight their abolition? Will my right hon. Friend condemn those who are trying to abolish regional arts boards?
      Mr. Renton: Yes, I will certainly do that. The boards have got off to a very successful start. They have strong chairmen and chairwomen and are now nearly complete. I believe that they will be very successful in using the average 17 per cent. increase that they have been given by the Arts Council. I was most surprised when Labour's shadow spokesman for the arts said during a radio interview, which I shared with him, that under Labour's policy, regional arts boards would disappear. I believe that there was some confusion on the hon. Gentleman's part, but obviously the suggestion has caused great concern among the boards.

    CIVIL SERVICE

      Equal Opportunities
      Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what is being done to further equal opportunities training in the civil service.
      The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We take the subject of equal opportunities training very seriously. With that in mind, my Department recently published two equal opportunities training packages and a video. Those will be used by Departments and agencies in a wide range of training programmes.
      Mr. Burt: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with recent progress in the civil service in giving effect to such measures? Does he agree that those of us who want better representation of all minorities in the civil service believe that that can best be achieved through co-ordination with the education service? Is not it important that people come through naturally and that no special favours are seen to be given, because otherwise those places would be devalued?
      Mr. Renton: To take my hon. Friend's second point first, it is very important that it should be made clear in schools, universities and polytechnics that the civil service and the public sector generally provide a good career for women as well as for men and also for ethnic minorities. It is a career which, with help, they can follow throughout their lives.
      As for my hon. Friend's first point, over the past four years the proportion of women in the top civil service grades has nearly doubled, from 4 per cent. in 1987 to 7·3 per cent. now. That is unsatisfactory; there is a long way to go. However, the civil service is trying very hard to implement equal opportunities.
      Dr. Marek: Is it true that only three of the 53 newly appointed chief executives of executive agencies are women? If it is true, are not the Minister's sentiments and what he says about trying to achieve equality of opportunity for women within the civil service just platitudinous rubbish?
      Mr. Renton: That sounded awfully tough, but the answer is that 41 of the 63 civilian chief executives will be appointed by open competition. One third of all chief executives are from outside the civil service and 11 per cent. are women. Of those 11 per cent., one, the chief executive of the Civil Service college, reports directly to me. When considering those for which I have direct responsibility, that represents one out of three, so in that area at least we are doing extremely well.

      Recruitment
      Mr. Viggers: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the recruitment procedures for the civil service as operated at universities and polytechnics.
      Mr. Renton: We believe strongly in the policy of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. It applies to all applicants, including those from universities and polytechnics.
      Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a bright idea of the head of the civil service to encourage each of his grandees, the permanent secretaries in the different Departments, to establish a link with a separate university? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that underlines the fact that the civil service offers a fine career to all, regardless of their educational background, since selection and promotion are purely on merit?
      Mr. Renton: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In recent years the aim has been to spread entry into the civil service. During the past three years the proportion of Oxbridge candidates has dropped from 70 per cent. between 1982 and 1984 to 50 per cent. now. I hope that that trend will continue. As for the heads of the various Departments "adopting a poly", as it came to be called in the newspapers, that is a very imaginative idea, the purpose of which is to make the prospect of a civil service career much more widely known.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Since we are told that a fast stream has been created to enable more graduates to enter the Brussels organisations, why is not it possible for the Minister to create a fast stream and to increase pay rates so as to encourage more women graduates to go into higher-paid civil service jobs?
      Mr. Renton: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that women are particularly successful in the fast stream competition. That is one area where their prominence is—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Why not for the home civil service?
      Mr. Renton: Not just for the European fast stream, but for the domestic fast stream. It is there most particularly that women are getting a high percentage of the jobs and it is they who will be in grade 1 and 2 in future years. That is where women are showing that they can come first past the post.

      Arts Organisations (Secondment)
      Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants have been seconded to arts organisations.
      Mr. Renton: The Government are very ready to consider seconding civil servants to other areas where their experience can be of use. Details are not collected centrally, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I know of six such cases where civil servants have moved to arts organisations.
      Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the jewels in our cultural crown, based in Battersea, is the Royal Academy of Dancing? It sets the standards and the syllabus for dance and ballet tuition throughout the world and in particular throughout the European Community. The Governments of France, Italy and Greece are financing bids by their own organisations to rival the academy. Will my right hon. Friend ascertain whether his Department can support the Royal Academy of Dancing in such a way as to ensure that British dance tuition standards remain at the top of the ladder in the European Community?
      Mr. Renton: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a good friend of all the arts organisations in his constituency. I know of his interest in the Battersea arts centre and I am interested to hear what he said about the RAD.
      On my hon. Friend's point about qualifications, that matter may fall under the provisions of the treaty of Rome on the free movement of persons and recognition of qualifications. If my hon. Friend cares to write to me about the matter, I shall gladly look into it in detail.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Can the Minister give the House any information about the number of Scottish civil servants who have been seconded to the Scottish Arts Council and, indeed, to the Scottish Film Council, given what we are hearing about the much-awaited renaissance of the Scottish as well as the British film industry?
      Mr. Renton: If the hon. Gentleman had asked me about secondments to industry and commerce in Wales, I could have answered him because that is the subject of the next question. I am afraid that I cannot answer off the cuff his question about secondments in Scotland, but if he cares to write to me in detail, I shall be pleased to find out the answer for him.

      Industry (Secondment)
      Mr. Murphy: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many secondments to industry from the civil service have taken place in Wales.
      Mr. Renton: There have been 15 secondments from civil service departments to industry and commerce in Wales since the beginning of 1990.
      Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to the Minister for both answers, but I suggest that the number of secondments is not sufficient. There should have been more secondments from the civil service to industry in Wales to improve the quality of advice from the Welsh Office. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the figure will be improved in the months ahead?
      Mr. Renton: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality of advice from the Welsh Office could be improved. Having just listened to the end of Welsh questions, I am very much aware of the deep knowledge of and expertise in all Welsh matters of my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that my comment received rapturous applause from both sides of the House.
      On the hon. Gentleman's particular point, it is not for us to direct secondments from the civil service to industry and commerce. People have to find partnerships in which they are willing to engage. I am sure that the Welsh Office will take the hon. Gentleman's point on board and I hope that the number of secondments will increase.

      Equal Opportunities
      Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in achieving equal opportunities for women in the civil service.
      Mr. Renton: Much has been achieved since 1984, when the Government launched a programme of action on equal opportunities for women in the civil service. A report on

      21
      progress was published on 28 October and copies have been placed in the Library. To keep up the momentum, a new programme for action will be launched in the spring.
      Mr. Hague: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made so far. What improvements have been achieved in the proportion of women recruits entering fast stream competition? How many Departments have joined Opportunity 2000 and what is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage the rest to do so?
      Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. In 1984, 28 per cent. of those entering administrative fast stream competition were women and the proportion is now just over 40 per cent. That figure emphasises the position of women in the future because they are the people from whom the future top people will be chosen.
      Four Departments have already signed up, but many more are considering doing so. I have no doubt that in a few weeks' time the number will increase.

Child Abuse (Leicestershire)
3.33 pm
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the abuse of children in children's homes in Leicestershire.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): As the House will be aware, on 29 November, three child care officers formerly employed by Leicestershire county council were convicted on extremely serious charges of sexual assault and other acts of violence which occurred in three Leicestershire children's homes between 1973 and 1986. These were particularly despicable crimes. They went on over a long period and affected many children who had been entrusted to the defendants for care and help. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to put into words the outrage of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and of the country at the things which we heard during that trial.
The first concern of hon. Members, particularly those representing Leicestershire constituencies, will be to know whether children in Leicestershire children's homes are now properly protected against abuse. As soon as the charges came to light earlier this year, the Department's social services inspectorate carried out an inspection to assess the present quality of child protection in the county's children's homes. The report showed that there had been many changes and improvements since 1986, but that some deficiencies remain. The inspectorate's recommendations are now being vigorously addressed under the leadership of the present director of social services, Mr. Brian Waller.
Through the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulations and guidance, the Government have ensured that a much more effective framework for controlling children's homes is now in position. It includes proper complaints and rigorous inspection procedures. This new framework is both endorsed and supplemented by the Utting report of last August.
As I announced at the end of the trial, I am immediately doing two things. First, I am directing Leicestershire county council to establish a statutory and legally chaired inquiry whose terms of reference will be to inquire into management responses to complaints or other prima facie evidence of abuse, malpractice or other related matters in Leicestershire children's homes between 1973 and 1986; and any other relevant management and personnel management matters during that period or subsequently.
No amount of legislation can in itself guarantee that there will be no more child abuse in our children's homes. This trial shows yet again the danger that work with vulnerable children, particularly in residential homes, may attract the very people who should be kept at the greatest possible distance from it. This means doing more than checking qualifications and setting up systems, although these things should be done. It means that there must be constant vigilance by the authorities; it means that there must be methods of responding swiftly to alarm bells that may be rung either by staff or by children and that there must be alarm bells that can, in real life, be rung.
But the trial shows the need to look with the utmost care at staff selection procedures. I am therefore also
24
establishing a national inquiry whose chairman will be Mr. Norman Warner, former director of Kent social services. The inquiry's terms of reference will be
"to examine selection and appointment methods and criteria for staff working in children's homes and to recommend improvements; and to make such further examination as the committee may consider justified of management or other issues relevant to the protection of children and young people and to the support and guidance of staff in such homes."
I will wish to see the report and its recommendations by 1 July 1992.
I have no doubt that the majority of staff working in this difficult field do their job with compassion and professionalism, but this trial has shown that we can afford to take nothing for granted.
Mr. Ashby: I think that the whole House will welcome that statement and the fact that two inquiries will be set up. This is yet another major scandal involving the social services department of a council, and the country is rather tired of such scandals. I hope that the second inquiry, of which Mr. Norman Warner will be the chairman, will look closely at the role, quality, education and training of social workers as well as the way in which they are selected.
In respect of the inquiry into Leicestershire county council, in general there appears to have been a major cover-up by those responsible for the care and welfare of these children. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish the inquiry to investigate how numerous complaints came to be disregarded, how Mr. Frank Beck was able to simply resign, why the police were never informed of the complaints so that they could be fully investigated at the time, why Mr. Frank Beck, having resigned voluntarily after numerous complaints, was given a reference, why there was not even a report into the then Department of Health and Social Security, and why the inquiries by Brent therefore proved negative.
My right hon. Friend will agree that those questions must be answered and that we have to get to the very heart of the scandal to ensure that it should not happen again, not only in Leicestershire but elsewhere, and those responsible for the cover-up are made to realise what they have done and the subsequent effect it has had on numerous children.
Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question. He raises a range of issues into which the statutory inquiry must look.
On the first part, I could quote to the House increased statistics for money spent on training, but I do not wish to mislead the House into thinking that there is any qualification that can guarantee against the abuse that we have seen. Mr. Beck was a formidably powerful personality and doubtless would have passed any examination set for him in his profession—indeed, he did so. Examinations do not preclude against evil. What matters is that the authorities exercise their responsibility for checking and double checking what happens on the ground.
Mr. Greville Janner rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that everyone in Leicestershire will welcome the setting up of the inquiry into the regime of Frank Beck? There was, of course, not a shred of truth in any of the allegations of criminal conduct made against me during the trial by Beck and by

25
his accomplice, Winston. I hope to raise many important aspects of the matter in the House tomorrow evening, if I am fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
As my wife, my family and I have had a taste of the suffering that Beck can impose on innocent people, will the Minister join me in sending to the real sufferers, the individuals who endured Beck's homes and whose lives have been wrecked at his hands, the profound sympathy of us all?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the House has demonstrated its feelings on the matter in relation to the hon. and learned Gentleman by the reception that he has just received. I am sure that the House wished to join him in sending its sympathy to the many victms, some of whom may have suffered irreparable damage. We hope that that is not true in too many cases.
Mr. Michael Latham: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said about the vile allegations and lies against my hon. and learned Friend—I use both words advisedly—the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).
I thank my right hon. Friend especially for the inquiry into Leicestershire. This terrible matter has brought shame on Leicestershire, and we expect to get to the heart of how it could have gone on for so long, while apparently nobody did anything about it.
Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly what the local statutory inquiry must get to the bottom of. I am sure that it will wish to consider a wide range of evidence, including the Newell report producted by the county, which I am sure contains matters germane to the inquiry. We must get to the bottom of the matter. I repeat that there is no system that can automatically preclude evil people getting into positions of power over vulnerable people. That is why we must have complaints procedures that can be worked and really do work, why authorities must use their powers in the proper way and why we must have constant vigilance.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for acting so expeditously in establishing the two public inquiries. I also take the opportunity to inform him and the House that the people of Leicestershire have been shattered and appalled by the relevations of abuse in our children's homes. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that the public inquiry in Leicestershire establishes the circumstances that permitted the regime of terror to go on for so long and that permitted complaints made by the children to be ignored for long? Only if that background is established can we be assured that abuse will not take place in future either in Leicestershire or in other counties.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger exactly on some of the issues that must be addressed most seriously. The citizens of Leicestershire need not feel shame. There is no reason why such evil cannot happen anywhere, and it is their ill luck that many of their children have suffered from it.
Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend will recall that I asked on 18 July for an inquiry, and my constituents will welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today. Is the discredited regression therapy still taught and used in any homes and, if so, will he make
26
it illegal? What plans are there to tighten up the foster service vetting which, in this case, allowed a known homosexual to adopt a child? Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the inquiry of Leicestershire social services department to investigate departments throughout the country?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, the statutory inquiry must consider this case. Lessons may well be learned from it, but the statutory inquiry has the terms of reference that we have directed the county to adopt, with, I must say, the full support of the county and its present director of social services who, I am reliably informed, has a very high reputation in the service. On the other matters, we should await the report's conclusions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), I have personal views about some of those matters, but we should await the report, when we will have a little more to go on about the circumstances and how this could have happened. There are discredited and out-of-date theories around, and I have asked officials in my Department to report to me on those matters. However, we will need a little more evidence before we reach conclusions on some of these things.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May I join the hon. member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) in condemning the cowardly attacks made on the character of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I am sure that we all want to pass on our good wishes to his wife and family after their terrible ordeal over the past few months.
On 18 May 1989, in Standing Committee B, I moved an amendment to the Children Bill, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which would have required all local authorities to appoint a children's rights officer. Bearing in mind the fact that the first complaint in this case was made on the advice of the Leicestershire children's rights officer, will the Secretary of State reconsider the Government's view about the appointment of those officers? Will he, as a matter of urgency, issue a directive or circular to all local authorities requiring them to appoint an officer as a matter of urgency and not simply to wait until the end of the inquiry before making such an appointment?
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the important thing is the provision in the Children Act 1989 to have a named person to whom children in such homes can complain. It is no earthly use appointing a particular officer if the childen do not know how to complain to him or her and cannot do so. That is the vital and most important thing that has been done. I warn hon. Members not to think that there is an easy institutional panacea for any of those matters. All the authorities must work properly and openly if we are to avoid such abuse in future.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider the chasm that seems to exist between local authority children's homes, where 85 per cent. of the staff are unqualified, and private sector residential homes, which are run as businesses and which charge local authorities as much as £1,000 a week and the directors of which draw as much as £750,000 per annum?
Mr. Waldegrave: I would warn the House, and repeat my earlier point, that Mr. Beck had qualifications. There is no particular reason to think that people who are

27
determined to get their hands on vulnerable children will be so stupid that they cannot pass examinations. The issue is a little more complex than that.
Mr. David Bellotti: I congratulate the Government on appointing Mr. Norman Warner to conduct the national inquiry. His views and leadership will be well respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In that inquiry, do the Government intend to consider two very important aspects, the first of which is funding? The Secretary of State will be aware that the social services departments of many local authorities are struggling to meet their financial commitments in implementation of the Children Act 1989. Many local authorities are millions of pounds short of the necessary resources. For example, Hampshire is £2 million or £3 million short, and East Sussex is £2 million short for next year. I hope that the inquiry will consider all those aspects, because the things that we all desire come at a price.
Secondly, is not now the time for the Government seriously to consider an independent inspection service for complaints because in many cases—pindown was one, Leicestershire is another and I understand that there may be further examples at Wrexham and Bangor—the local authorities are not the best bodies to investigate the complaints? Will the terms of reference of the Warner inquiry include those two important aspects?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for Mr. Norman Warner, whose appointment will be widely welcomed by those who know him as an independent-minded and good man. However, I warn people against lumping together pindown and what has been happening in Leicestershire. Pindown was a serious professional failure, but was a hundred miles removed from the level of criminal activity of which we heard in the recent trial. Although the House was right to be concerned about pindown, we are talking about something of a different order of magnitude in this case.
The Warner report will not become involved in the issue of independent inspections. However, we have now insisted that there should be arm's-length inspectorates. Our own central social services inspectorate will be not only carrying out its own inspections, but also checking on the quality and systems of the arm's-length inspectorates that have been set up by the local authorities. It must be for the local authorities, which have the statutory responsibilities, to take those responsibilities extremely seriously and I would not want to divorce them from the primary responsibility for undertaking those tasks.
More money could, of course, be spent, but if we think that this is simply a matter of money—
Mr. Bellotti indicated dissent.
Mr. Waldegrave: Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) did not mean to say that. There are things on which we should be spending money, which is why we have increased the standard spending assessments in recent years, but in this case—
Mr. Bellotti indicated assent.
Mr. Waldegrave: I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because I can see him assenting. This is not
28
necessarily a matter of money. Evil men can be fully qualified and have resources at their command, so we may still find that we have evil to contend with.
Mr. Roger Sims: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that we should be grateful to the vast majority of staff who work in children's homes and who deal daily with children who, almost by definition, are difficult and disturbed. Although I accept that people can be both highly qualified and evil, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have adequate numbers of properly trained staff in such homes? Is he satisfied that the establishment of the homes is sufficient and that a sufficiently high proportion of the staff are properly trained? Does he further agree that there might be a case for extending the training of social workers, especially in this area?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that there is common ground with my hon. Friend, because I accept that we need steadily to improve training—indeed, we have been putting more money into that. Although the Utting report. which was published in the summer, made it clear that training was not the central issue in such cases, I am not arguing that professionalism is not important. As I was saying earlier, paper qualifications cannot guarantee to exclude the kind of evil that we have been reading about in the past few weeks.
Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome both the inquiries that the right hon. Gentleman has so speedily set up, but may I advise him that, if we do not get it right this time, we shall be at the Dispatch Box again to consider still more cases? Unfortunately, there has recently been a terrible saga of children who have been abused. The crux of the matter today is that those children were not listened to or believed when they complained to the very people in whose care we had put them for protection. Although we must get it right, we will not necessarily be able to prevent such cases from happening again, because human beings are full of frailties. Nevertheless, this case could have been avoided. In connection particularly with the second inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that we have children in private as well as in local authority homes, all of which need to be looked into quickly?
How is it possible not only that children are not listened to when they complain, but that the man against whom they are complaining can leave one employment for another and be given a reference by the very people who have already received complaints about him? That seems unbelievable.
I hope that the Secretary of State, who I know is as appalled as all of us about the matter, will pay special attention to how that could possibly happen. I hope that the inquiry will underline the fact that, by and large, children do not lie about such matters and that the people who have now come forward as adults have probably been permanently damaged because no one would pay any attention to what they said.
It is important that we examine the Children Act 1989 to make sure that we have got the complaints procedure right. There must be an independent person to whom children can complain. The children's charities are backing our policy of a children's rights Commissioner to whom children can go, wherever they are, and be listened to. That is important.

29
I accept the Secretary of State's point that all the training in the world will not deter an evil man like Beck. The main inquiry will examine the vetting of people who work with children. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that the police tell me that there is a backlog of six to 10 weeks for vetting certain people, especially teachers? To avoid other children being subjected to abuse during the inquiry, it is important that the backlog is dealt with as a matter of the gravest urgency. These are our most vulnerable children, and they deserve our best support and protection.
Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the hon. Lady's comments. I will take up the latter point both in my Department and with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is probably an issue that we should examine.
I strongly support the thrust of what the hon. Lady said. Children must be heard, and must feel confident that they have an independent person to whom they can complain. We have taken steps to draw to the attention of all children who go into a home the fact that there is a telephone number, a contact point and a named officer separate from the home to whom they can complain if they feel the need. That is a vital step.
The inspection under the Children Act 1989 is now extended to private homes. That is a welcome step. The reference issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) also mentioned, is one of the matters to which the statutory inquiry must direct its attention. I shall not make any further comment about it today, but it must be one of several essential issues which the inquiry will have on the table.

Home Secretary (Appeal Court Judgment)
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I should say that I understand that a notice of appeal has now been lodged but that I propose to exercise my discretion in respect of the sub judice rule to allow questions covering the Home Secretary's statement.
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker)rose—
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Baker: The House will know that, on Friday, my action in the case of the deportation of a Zairean national was subject to a judgment by the Court of Appeal. I have now had the opportunity to study that judgment and I have taken further legal advice. The court gave me leave to appeal. I have decided that an appeal to the House of Lords should be lodged, and this has been done.
I have placed a copy of the judgment, together with the earlier judgment of Mr. Justice Simon Brown, in the Library of the House of Commons. The issue centres upon the response to an order made by Mr. Justice Garland in the early hours of 2 May and the consideration that I gave to that order at a meeting at 4 pm on the same day. I was, of course, advised throughout not only by Home Office lawyers but also by Treasury Counsel.
As this matter will be central to the proceedings in the House of Lords, the House will recognise that I can say no more about it.
As the Master of the Rolls has acknowledged, this case raises issues of constitutional importance, issues which go far beyond the facts of the case which gives rise to them. The question posed by the judgment of the majority of the Court of Appeal is whether Ministers of the Crown and civil Servants, acting in the course of their duties, can be separated from the Crown itself.
I should like to make it clear to the House that I accept full responsibility for the actions taken in this case by officials of the Home Office and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who dealt with it. I was involved in the case at a late stage, and that is the subject of the court's findings.
On any view that may be taken, this case breaks new ground of great constitutional importance. Every Minister acts, and must act, under the rule of law. The only comment I wish to make at this stage is that the court recognised that I had no intention to act in defiance of an order of the court or to hold myself above the law.
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Where is the honour?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit down.
Mr. Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that, by purporting to describe his motives in persisting with the deportation order despite the instructions of the court, he is contributing to a debate which he described as sub judice? Will he understand that had he wished, as his

31
statement claimed, to remain within the law, his proper course would have been to accept the court's ruling and then appeal, not to flout the court's judgment? He claims that he had no intention of acting in defiance of the court order. That is exactly what he did. He also broke an undertaking which had been given to the court in his name.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that, aside from the point of law to which he draws our attention and which will soon become sub judice, the judgment described Home Office procedures as reflecting no credit on the Home Secretary, and called the treatment of that asylum seeker a disgrace. Does he understand that, while he may postpone or prevent debate on such matters in the House, outside he will be called upon to justify his incompetence?
Finally, the Home Secretary will recall that, at the time of the Brixton escape fiasco, he claimed that no blame attached to him because he had not been consulted. In the case of the wrongful deportation of any asylum seeker, he admitted that he was consulted, but he hides behind the excuse that he did no more than accept civil servants' advice. Are there any circumstances in which the Home Secretary would feel it right to take the honourable course and resign from the office which he discharges so inadequately?
Mr. Baker: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman mistakes the constitutional wood for the political trees. He has sought to make a political attack on me, and I shall reply in the same way because the right hon. Gentleman has been highly selective in his summary of the case.
I remind him that the applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 September 1990 on a flight from Lagos, Nigeria, using a false passport, and claimed that he would be persecuted in Zaire—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary should bear in mind the fact that this case is sub judice.
Mr. Baker: Could I say that the actual issues that go to the House of Lords do not relate to the earlier events to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
I wish to come to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised specifically about my role in this matter. I remind him that the applicant was interviewed three times, on 24 September, 2 December and 17 December, and was given every opportunity to present his case. The case for asylum was turned down, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and there were three applications for leave to move for judicial review. Three hearings took place, two of them on the afternoon of 1 May.
Could I now come to the events of which the right hon. Gentleman accused me—namely, my involvement on 2 May? In the various judgments that have been made in the High Court by Mr. Justice Brown, no contempt was found against officials or my hon. Friend for what is called phase 1 and phase 2. I was involved because an order had been made in the early hours of 2 May. I was advised by my legal advisers in the Department, and subsequently by first Treasury counsel, that that order was beyond the power of the court, and I was given leave to apply for it to be varied or discharged. I asked for that to be done at the earliest opportunity, the following morning at 9 o'clock. When the court met, that order was withdrawn.
That is the issue that will go to the House of Lords. As I said, it is an important issue, because it involves a
32
decision which I took. I do not shirk any responsibility in this matter, nor do I shirk any responsibility for the actions taken by my officials or for the way in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary handled the case.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept that no hon. Member on this side of the House and, if they can leave aside party politicking for a moment, no hon. Member on the Opposition Benches, would believe that my right hon. Friend was capable of flouting the law —[Interruption.]—as has been suggested, either in his personal capacity, or, still less, as a holder of one of the great offices of State?
Is it not a fact that this is now an area of very important constitutional dispute, that my right hon. Friend accepted the advice of senior Treasury counsel, that two judges have spoken in his favour and two against, and that the House of Lords may find that he was right and they were wrong? Is it not also a fact that in this case it is clear that, if the Court of Appeal believes that he had no intention of flouting a court order and of putting himself above the law, that should be good enough for the rest of us?
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those comments, and I quote from the judgment of the Court of Appeal—[Interruption.] I could read the whole of it if I am asked to do so. On the question of the rule of law and observance of the rule of law—this is a very important matter; Ministers are subject to the laws of the land and to enforcing the rule of law—the Master of the Rolls said:
He"—
that is, the Home Secretary—
"has disavowed any intention to act in defiance of an order of the court or to hold himself above the law."
That is a disavowal which I fully accept.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, in his high office, he is the prime protector of the liberties of the subject and upholder of the rule of law, and that his position has been fatally compromised by his unwillingness to carry out the order of the court and to ask questions about it subsequently? Is he aware that, by persisting in the claim that he was not bound by the order of the court, he is compounding his offence?
Mr. Baker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had made himself familiar with the two judgments in the case—those of Mr. Justice Simon Brown and of the Master of the Rolls. If he had, he would know that what he has said is not right.
Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend rightly accepts responsibility for what happens in the Home Office. Is it not a fact that everyone in the Home Office associated with this case has been properly advised by qualified lawyers, that the facts that my right hon. Friend had produced to the House today are not in dispute and that the issue is one of constitutional importance only?
Mr. Baker: As I said, I think that this issue is of very considerable constitutional importance, because the effect of the judgment is to separate the activities of a Minister acting under his own name from those carried out while acting as a Minister of the Crown. That has considerable implications for the conduct of affairs. It is certainly at variance with the constitutional practice—
Mr. Alex Carlile: Oh?
Mr. Baker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has his own view, but I think that, as a lawyer, he will agree that it is at variance with the constitutional practice that has operated hitherto. It certainly cannot be limited just to matters of contempt but must relate to the other coercive jurisdictions of the court. This is a matter of major constitutional importance which will have to be looked at by the House of Lords and no doubt considered by this place in due course.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that his decision of 2 May put that Zairean teacher in an extremely dangerous and vulnerable position, and that it is not the first time that his Department has deported people in the face of a court decision that they should remain in this country? Does he agree that it is now essential that he withdraw the Asylum Bill now under consideration and instead institute a proper system of legal appeal that gives automatic rights of appeal to political asylum seekers and does not leave them at the mercy of his erroneous decisions?
Mr. Baker: In the consideration given to that case, the most scrupulous care was taken of the safety of the Zairean. Right at the last minute, before the final Court of Appeal hearing on 1 May, evidence alleging torture was adduced. It was looked at by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and was available to the Court of Appeal when the appeal was turned down. As for the safety of the Zairean, I was glad to see that, in his judgment, Mr. Justice Brown said:
"However, it is at least now clear that no irreversible damage has resulted from his removal on lst/2nd May"—
as he has been in touch with his solicitors both from Zaire and Nigeria since then.
I certainly will not withdraw the Asylum Bill. Indeed, such legislation would have helped in a case like that, because the asylum seeker concerned sought asylum at the port of entry. The Bill gives asylum seekers in that position the right—it did not exist when the case was before the court—to appeal to an independent adjudicator.
Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has considerable sympathy on this side of the House and in the country, especially as there is now some doubt about whether the judge had the power to make the order that he made?
Mr. Baker: I would be treading a little widely in the direction of sub judice if I were to answer that, because any decision is for the jurisdiction of the court. All that I can say is that the judges who have considered the matter so far are divided.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Although I accept that the Home Secretary will not resign at this stage, does he accept that, when that case is combined with prisoner escapes and Sunday trading, his credentials as a law and order Minister begin to look a little threadbare?
Mr. Baker: That raises very different questions. The Attorney-General and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), made statements on Sunday trading, whereas I have made a statement on the interpretation of last Friday's judgment.
Mr. David Sumberg: Is not the hypocrisy and confusion in the Opposition ranks shown by the fact that, when that judgment was announced, the legal affairs spokesman for the Opposition was immediately in the media demanding my right hon. Friend's resignation, while the shadow Home Secretary was demanding that he remain. After a weekend's contemplation, the shadow Home Secretary now says that my right hon. Friend should resign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case breaks new ground, that he acted at all times on legal advice and that wise counsel should permit the case to go before the House of Lords rather than rush to judgment now?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is entitled to change his view, as he does from time to time. The view that he changes is not usually very considered and, from his short statement, he has clearly not studied in depth either of the judgments that we are discussing today. I hope that he now applies himself to them, because he has not applied himself to the rest of his portfolio.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this judgment typical of the decline in standards of political integrity over the 11 years of the regime of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)? Is not it particularly typical of the tacky conduct of the Home Secretary in every office that he has held?
Mr. Baker: I had not appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley had been involved in the matter; as far as I know, she has not. I know perfectly well what responsibilities I have for the Home Office and for the actions of Home Office officials and the Minister who handled the case, and I know my own responsibility in this matter. If the hon. Gentleman would do me the service of going to the Library and reading the judgments, he would find that in the earlier proceedings, neither the Home Office nor my hon. Friend were held in contempt for the actions that were taken on 1 and 2 May.
Mr. Patrick Ground: Is it correct that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal said that the present order was irregular and should not have been made, and accepted that my right hon. Friend acted on legal advice to that effect? In such circumstances, is it not absurd for Opposition Members to talk about resignation?
Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because that is exactly what the judgment says. I must in no way criticise the judgment or make any comment upon it, because this is material to the House of Lords. I note what my hon. and learned Friend has said on the basis that the order was irregular. None the less, a constitutional issue was raised on separating the function of the Minister acting personally from the Minister acting as a Minister of the Crown. That has considerable constitutional implications.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Of course the Home Secretary has criticised the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and I deplore the attempts to rubbish the decision taken by three senior judges. As Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman has awesome power in immigration cases.

35
As resignation is an issue, if he is not prepared to resign at this stage, will he resign if the House of Lords dismisses his appeal?
Mr. Baker: One should see what the House of Lords makes of this case. It will be an important matter. I know perfectly well my responsibilities for the Home Office and for the decisions that have been taken on my behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Blaming others."] I am not blaming anybody. The decision taken on 2 May was mine, and I make it absolutely clear that I will answer for that decision. It was taken with the fullest advice from Home Office lawyers and from first Treasury counsel, which is exactly how Ministers operate on these occasions.
Mr. John Watts: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to reflect upon the bogus indignation of Opposition Front Bench Members in respect of the allegation that he failed to observe an irregular order of the court, and to contrast it with the deafening silence from that same Front Bench in the face of an assertion by an Opposition Member that, if he had information about the identity of the murderer of a police officer, he would withhold it from the police?
Mr. Baker: I will say only that I thought that that was a disgraceful statement by an hon. Member. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will dissociate himself from that statement and condemn the Member who made it.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. On this matter, I call Mr. Hattersley.
Mr. Skinner: Have you had your eyes tested recently?
Hon. Members: Order!
Mr. Speaker: Fortunately, I do not hear everything. The two hon. Members, who just rose, have made so many comments, not necessarily sedentary comments, that I do not intend to call them
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will recall that, in answer to my original question, before you, Mr. Speaker, reminded him of the sub judice rule, he began to explain his opinion that M, the man at the centre of this case, was not a genuine asylum seeker. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, on page 16 of the judgment, the Master of the Rolls says:
"Whether M was a genuine asylum seeker is irrelevant"?
The serious error of judgment made by the Home Secretary concerns his dealings with the court, not the evidence that he claimed to put before the House.
Mr. Baker: I do not disguise from the right hon. Gentleman or the House the fact that the matter on which I was found to be in contempt was the decision taken on 2 May. The position that I put to the House and the right hon. Gentleman, that the decision about whether this Zairean national was an asylum seeker was heard twice before a court of law and by the Court of Appeal, which was presided over by Lord Justice Donaldson on the very afternoon on which the decision was taken.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Home Secretary given notice of an intention to make a statement about the ruling of Mr. Justice Popplewell this morning in a case that is germane to the matter under discussion on which he has just made a statement? In the High Court, Mr. Justice Popplewell has asked the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision to deport to India a leading Sikh independence campaigner, Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal. If there has been no such request from the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is present and may feel it appropriate to make a statement on whether he intends to observe the advice of Mr. Justice Popplewell.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I say something on that case. The decision to deport Mr. Chahal for national security reasons and other reasons of a political nature, including the international fight against terrorism, was taken by my predecessor—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Baker: If the House will be patient, it will hear the facts.
Since then, an application for asylum was refused by me. This was challenged by judicial review and the judgment given in the High Court today. The judge asked me to reconsider Mr. Chahal's status as a refugee, and I shall most certainly do so. I give the House an undertaking that if, after consideration, I come to the conclusion that Mr. Chahal should be deported, that will not occur until he has had an opportunity to go back to the courts again.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. I know that you do not get the opportunity to study the weekend papers in Scotland, but perhaps you will take my word for it that they have been full of reports that Government sources have said that there will be a statement tomorrow on hospital opt-outs, which will approve the opt-out of hospitals in Ayr and Aberdeen.
Have you had notification, Mr. Speaker, of a request to make such a statement, and if so, have you been told what the contents of it will be? Is this not just another example of parliamentary accountability being reduced to the same farce that we have seen in the Government's crooked consultation exercises on this issue and in the whole untenable position of the Government north of the border?
Mr. Speaker: Since my recent happy visit to Dundee, I do see the Scottish newspapers, but I have not had any notification of such a statement.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in saying that you are allowing further questions to the Home Secretary on his second statement?
Mr. Speaker: As the Home Secretary made that comment, I will allow questions to be put to him on it.
Mr. Gale: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, both in the previous case

37
and in the case of Mr. Chahal, all the correct legal processes have been, and will be, followed? In the light of the comments made earlier, can my right hon. Friend tell the House of the growth in the numbers of people seeking asylum in the past four years? Is not that growth a sign that the system is being abused, and if so, is it not to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers, and is that not what the Asylum Bill will redress?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend goes rather wide, but as the House knows. there has been a substantial increase in the number of asylum seekers. My Department has before it 6,000 applications from Zaireans, all of which have to be processed and looked at individually. I agree that the Asylum Bill is necessary so as to distinguish between the genuine and the bogus asylum seeker. I hope that it will find its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will call one more hon. Member. Will the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) please sit down while I say this? I shall call him, but it does not help the Chair if comments of the kind that I have heard this afternoon from him are made from a sedentary position.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, but it may be that the sound system is not as accurate as it should be.
Does not the Home Secretary's assurance on the second case—that the person will not lose his court rights--arise directly out of his contempt in the first case, which has demonstrated that he has ignored his responsibility to the court and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not about the first case.
Mr. Cryer: Yes, it is. I am linking the two and saying that the Secretary of State has given the House a welcome assurance, but that is surely an attempt to retrieve his position in the first case, which is digraceful.
Mr. Baker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the two judgments. He will find that the Zairean applied for judicial review on three occasions, and had three hearings, two on the last day. In the case of Mr. Chahal, this is the first of his judicial review cases, and I have given the House a clear undertaking.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, in the early hours of last Friday morning, Sergeant Alan King of the Metropolitan police, who was based at Chingford police station, was callously and brutally murdered in the execution of his duties—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This comes directly within the sub judice rule. I cannot allow the hon. Member to make comments about the case.
Mr. Summerson: I do not wish to make a comment about the case, Mr. Speaker. My purpose in raising a point of order is to ask whether you have received a request from the Government to allow them to make a statement about the control of knives, which appear to be used more and more for violent purposes.
Mr. Speaker: I have not received a request for a statement to be made on that matter.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has nothing to do with the previous point of order. It is another matter.
Mr. Speaker: Maybe, but sit down please. Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have proof, which was sent to me anonymously, that the Islington, North Labour party black section Christmas fund-raising social is being advertised by using House of Commons internal envelopes. Is this a matter that I should raise with you, Mr. Speaker, or with the House authorities? It is a disgrace that taxpayers' money is being used for that sort of organisation.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will bring the envelope to my office, I shall have the matter looked into.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have been checking the records lately about what is unparliamentary or otherwise, I ask you to check the word "crap". It has been drawn to my attention that the Tory party has recently received £25,000 from Gerald Ratner. We do not want £25,000-worth of crap being dished out in here, do we? Or is it that Gerald Ratner will be put in charge of propaganda for the Tory party?
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. Let me deal with one point of order at a time and think about this one.
I rule that that is definitely an unparliamentary word in this Chamber.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary whether he plans to make a statement about the planned visit tomorrow to this country of the fascist leader from France, Jean-Marie Le Pen? Will he make a statement to the effect that Le Pen is not welcome here and that his nazi connections are found to be odious by everybody in this country who believes in racial harmony and justice rather than a perpetuation of racist ideas?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no notice of that, but the matter was certainly raised during business questions last Thursday.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS
That the Education Support Grants (Amendment) regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. John D. Taylor.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Transport and Works Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is one of those rare Bills which will change radically the business that Parliament transacts. It is being presented in response to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which is chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). I pay tribute to him for the way in which he conducted the Committee and to its report and findings.
  There has been a remarkable increase in weighty private legislation authorising public transport schemes and works at ports. This reflects the profound changes in those industries. It has become clear that Parliament is not prepared, as it once was, to see numerous Bills brought before it to authorise such schemes and works. For example, in 1838, Parliament was able to deal with the 62 Bills deposited in that Session with relative ease. Today, Parliament has great difficulty in handling less than half that number of new Bills each Session. A number of causes cêlêbres have emphasised that.
  The Bill will give effect in the most part to the proposals published in "Private Bills and New Procedures", the consultation document published by the Government in June 1990. It proposed that a system of ministerial orders should be created to cover the works most frequently authorised by private Bill—railway and tramway works —and that the Harbours Act 1964 should be amended to encompass a greater range of measures than it does at present. The consultation documents was widely welcomed in the House and elsewhere. Those who currently promote Bills had reservations about the time that would be taken under the new procedures to authorise projects and I shall deal with these issues as I describe the Bill. First, I shall make some general comments.
  Mr. Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the wide acceptance that the consultation procedure produced. He may be aware also that the Select Committee which dealt with the matter earlier—which he rightly complimented—did not mention canals or inland waterways. There was no consultation with the inland waterway authorities. If my hon. Friend intends to press ahead with that part of the Bill, will he either immediately consult those bodies or, better still, build into the Bill a consultation procedure before the orders, which could be very damaging to small organisations, are made law?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I will cover some of my hon. Friend's points later, but I assure him that we want to hear from all relevant bodies. We are still open to consultation on specific points about which individuals or organisations feel aggrieved.
  We tried to achieve a fair balance between the interests of promoters and those who are affected by their proposals —the objectors. A system for authorising projects should
  40
  not be used as a means of holding up development that is generally desirable. At the same time, promoters should be sensitive to the needs of those on whose lives their proposals will impinge.
  The well-established local inquiry system, which has been with us for more than 40 years, enables the promoters' proposals and the views of objectors to be examined thoroughly. It will be one of the available means for deciding new orders. The Government's concern is to provide a framework in which decisions can be made as quickly as possible, while affording those with an interest a proper opportunity to make their views known. That is what part I of the Bill does.
  Part II contains safety measures for railways and other forms of guided transport. Some are necessary because the principal legislation is so out of date that private Bills have been used to give the railway inspectorate the powers it needs to supervise railway and tramway works. The most important changes are made by chapter I of part II, which provides a modern code on drink and drugs abuse.
  This is a technical Bill and therefore I shall not describe every clause in detail, but I will pick out the main features. The first four clauses describe the kind of works that will be subject to the new system. They empower the Secretary of State to make orders authorising railway, tramway, trolley bus and inland waterway schemes. They refer to guided transport systems that are to be further described in regulations.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with those matters will know that there are already several novel systems of that type in the country and more are planned. We want to avoid the need for private Bills for those systems, so we drafted a comprehensive definition in an attempt to provide for all foreseeable modes. However, it seems wise to provide for specific regulations to be made later, when it has been possible more closely to assess their principal features.
  There is also a power to prescribe types of work that would interfere with rights of navigation. Those, too can be varied. At present, such works mostly require a private Bill.
  It would be convenient to mention time scales at this point. We are not introducing this legislation primarily to speed up the process of approving works, but it is important to ensure that we do not slow them down. We looked at the recent history of the progress of private Bills —not just the notorious ones, but all the others. There can be no doubt that they are taking longer to enact.
  Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday, 16 of which would involve works. That means that the average time taken is bound to increase.
  The time taken by local inquiries and by the inspector to write his report has been criticised in the past. In recent years, the Department of the Environment has done a great deal to sharpen up inquiry procedures, with some success. We therefore hold to the view, advanced in the consultation document, that projects which are progressed by order will, on the whole, take no longer than private Bills and that the smaller ones will progress much more quickly.
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but to make sure that we avoid incorporating delay in the new procedures, will there be no holding out on a decision whether or not to grant an order? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stipulate a timetable in the Bill, so that the Secretary of State could not unreasonably delay his determination on whether an order should be granted? Also, will my hon. Friend make it clear that if inquiries are necessary in certain areas because there are objections, enough inspectors will be available to conduct those inquiries? If not, a large number of public inquiries could be in the pipeline—and in the case of railway works in particular, that could slow down the development of the system.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The suggestion that the Secretary of State should have to adhere to a timetable is an interesting one that does not appear on the face of the Bill.
  Mr. Robert Adley: It jolly well should.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall look closely at my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Department of Transport does not wish to hold up schemes after an inquiry has been held. Important works are often necessary. My hon. Friend also asked whether sufficient inspectors are available. We shall keep that matter under constant review. If problems arise, we shall have to address them. I can be no more specific than that.
  Orders may be applied for at any time, whereas at some moment private Bills can be deposited only once a year. In some respects, that would help the flow. It would do away with the great dash to deposit Bills by a certain date in November. The very fact that there would be no specific date by which orders had to be deposited and that they could start their natural progression at any time of the year would go some way towards relieving the existing bottleneck.
  The Joint Committee also identified limitations in the Harbours Act which meant that, even though harbour works could be authorised by order, the private Bill route would still be available. There were some purposes for which orders were not available—for example, the setting up and construction of purely recreational harbours. These matters are dealt with in clause 57 and schedule 3. I should mention here that we have not provided for the complete closure of a harbour by means of a harbour order. Dismantling the regulatory, navigational and conservancy functions of a harbour authority might raise wider issues which we thought should still come before Parliament on the rare occasions when the closure of a harbour is envisaged.
  Those clauses cover a good 95 per cent. of all the works Bills that come to Parliament. What remains are those works which are normally authorised by procedures outside Parliament, but, because of the need to amend private enactments, some aspect of the scheme must come here. It would have stretched unduly the scope of the Bill to deal with those circumstances and a general provision would have been indefensibly vague. The Joint Committee recommended that the private Bill system should be so policed that only the powers required to be sought in Parliament should be the subject of a Bill and that, if its primary purpose could be achieved elsewhere, it should be.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister has outlined the order-making procedure and compared it
  42
  with the private Bill procedure. The abolition of the private Bill procedure would have certain advantages, but does not the Minister think that the orders which are to take the place of the private Bill procedure should be subject to the affirmative procedure? The scrutiny of negative procedure instruments in this place is appalling. There is no guarantee that time will be made available to debate a prayer. The Bill therefore provides Ministers with a great deal of power that will be subject to no scrutiny. It is going from one extreme to the other.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but I hope to be able to answer some of them later. If he is here when I do so, he will hear me explain why we feel that the affirmative procedure is not the best course to adopt in some cases.
  It is, of course, for the House authorities to act on these matters and to decide when a private Bill should come before the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is content that they have adequate powers to do so.
  Clause 5 deals with what may go in the orders described in clause 1 to 4. Our examination of the purposes for which private legislation has been sought has led us to seek this power; schedule 1 lists some of the objects for which orders may be made. The powers in subsection (3) are apparently wide, but can be exercised only in relation to the objects for which an order could be made. They will be used to apply existing legislation—on compensation, for example —to apply or disapply the old Railways Clauses Acts and to modify legislation so that its purpose is retained but it is tailored more closely to the requirements of the relevant order. Paragraph 51 of the Joint Committee report foresaw that a provision of this sort would be necessary.
  The procedure for making orders is dealt with in clauses 6 to 14. It follows the normal pattern which we have come to expect where orders are made by Ministers following a public inquiry. Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make rules about applications for orders. The rules will require that an environmental statement should be submitted with most applications for orders. We may have a system like the one that applies to private Bills now, where the applicant might seek a dispensation from the Secretary of State that an environmental statement need not be submitted because the works proposed in question order were clearly not likely to have significant environmental effects.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public inquiries. Does the procedure mean that Ministers can state how long a public inquiry should last —one week, two weeks and so on?
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Bill does not provide that power. It would be wrong if it did. A public inquiry may want to look into matters that. initially felt were not relevant. There would therefore be no time limit.
  The exact text of the rules will be informed by the discussions that are now going on with the Commission. We shall abide by, the directive on environmental impact assessment, as we always have. That European directive is, I fear, vaguely drafted. The orders will in due course be based on model clauses, which can be prescribed in clause 8. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to propose orders for defence purposes or where works have been abandoned and are a danger to the public.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister happy that the promoters will have to provide environmental statements? Is that better than requiring the promoters to commission an environmental statement from a neutral body? One danger is that an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement in support of a scheme may look at matters differently from an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement from a neutral point of view.
  Mr. McLoughlin: That is a problem, but I think that it would be addressed by a public inquiry. An environmental statement which was made in the initial stages could certainly be questioned by a public inquiry and by anyone who wished to make representations to it.
  Mr. Bennett: As Ministers have decided that the House should approve a measure first, surely the House should have that independent information before making its decision. I have coresponded with the Minister about the possibility of having two stages in Parliament, one before and one after an inquiry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments about not having a second stage, although no doubt we shall come to that matter in Committee. If Parliament is to give its approval about a scheme before a public inquiry is held, it is important that it has available to it impartial environmental information before making any decision in principle.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not dealing with a scheme's national significance, when Parliament would be asked to give a broad view: I am dealing with strict criteria and local public inquiries, rather than a later stage. The hon. Gentleman's point about independent environmental statements can best be discussed in Committee, when we can listen to the arguments in full, but it is certainly worth thinking about.
  I hope that, in dealing with clause 9, I shall cover some of the points made by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The clause is important, even though I do not expect its provisions to be exercised often. The Joint Committee noted that there were occasionally schemes of such importance that they touched on national policy, and a variety of devices had been used to bring them before Parliament. In the debates on the Joint Committee report, there were those in both Houses who wanted such a mechanism.
  In the consultation document, we suggested that that might be done by affirmative resolution after a public inquiry, but a number of objections were put to us. Perhaps the most important is that, if Parliament is going to say no to such an important scheme, it should do so early in its progress rather than waste a lot of time and money and cause invonvenience to those who would be affected by the scheme. The Council on Tribunals was concerned that the inquiry system could be brought into disrepute if, after a long and thorough inquiry, the whole process were overturned by perhaps a single vote in Parliament. The Royal Town Planning Institute recommended that local decisions should always be taken in a strategic framework and, although I would not go quite that far, what we are proposing is consistent with its suggestion.
  There is, of course, another point of view. There are those who say that no decision in principle should be made until all the details of a scheme are thoroughly
  44
  investigated. I certainly agree that no final decision should be made until that has been done, but these schemes are so huge that it is simply not practical to work them and all the other options up in fine detail before making a decision in principle. No decision in principle often means no decision at all. If this country is to prosper, it must be able to make difficult decisions of this kind.
  In any such case, the draft order and supporting documents, including the environmental statement, will be available to Parliament at least two months before any debate—that point, which was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, could certainly be considered in Committee. Both Houses would then be invited to pass a resolution which endorsed the need for the project and, broadly, the chosen option, but all the questions about detailed alignments, mitigating environmental effects and so on would be left to a public inquiry.
  The Secretary of State would be prevented from making an order which was inconsistent with Parliament's resolution, but he would not be compelled to make the order. Those proposals should play to the strengths of Parliament, in making broad judgments, and the local inquiry, which is better suited to sorting out local details.
  Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the handling of objections and inquiries. They provide for a full local inquiry and fewer formal hearings or written representations. A relevant local authority or the owner of land proposed to be taken by the order may insist on an inquiry or a hearing; otherwise, the method of assessing objections is left to the Secretary of State. The inquiry rules will be made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Once the objections have been considered, the Secretary of State will make his decision on the order under clause 13 and publicise his decision under clause 14. There will be no further parliamentary involvement unless National Trust or common land is to be taken, in which case special parliamentary procedures could apply.
  One of the advantages of a private Bill is that all the consents for a scheme which would otherwise be required under different legislation can be obtained in one go. Clauses 15 to 20 seek to achieve that for orders.
  Clause 23 makes provision for the handling in the courts of any proceedings about orders and is modelled on very similar provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Harbours Act 1964.
  When we published the consultation document, we thought that there might be schemes so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required. Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them.
  The system of orders which I have been discussing will not apply in Scotland. The existing Scottish system, governed by the Private Legislation Procedures (Scotland) Act 1936, is judged generally to work well. The greater part of the Scottish private legislation procedure is administered locally, is relatively informal and takes up very little parliamentary time. One effect is that cross-border schemes will continue to require private legislation. That requires an amendment to the 1936 Act which is contained in clause 25. However, such cases will be rare.

  45
  I come now to the safety provisions and, first, to the offences about drink and drugs in clauses 27 to 41. These provisions back up operators' strict policy on alcohol and drug abuse. It is a rule on BR that no one should report for duty under the influence of, nor take while on duty, alcohol or any other substance which might impair their safety, efficiency or vigilance. Similar provisions apply to London Underground staff. BR's code of practice views contraventions of that rule very seriously and regards dismissal as the normal result. BR has a policy of pre-employment testing for drugs of recruits to safety posts. It also has voluntary in-service and post-incident testing.
  Although the operators' disciplinary codes are useful, experience has shown that statutory provision is necessary. Clauses 27 to 41 provide comprehensive powers. The House will no doubt be relieved to know that, as most of those clauses are based on road traffic legislation, t do not propose to describe them in detail. For nearly 150 years, it has been an offence to work on a railway while drunk.
  After a railway accident at Morpeth in 1984, the Government undertook to modernise the drink offence and extend it to drugs in the light of the inspector's subsequent report. Since then, we have had the Cannon street case. After the inquest, the coroner wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the absence of police testing powers. I have put a copy of his letter in the Library. We have concluded that the law must be brought up to date. Most people whom we consulted this autumn agreed with us and with what we propose.
  Clauses 28 and 29 are the key ones. They create criminal offences of being unfit through drink or drugs or being "over the limit" of alcohol in the body while working on a railway, and of operating a railway where such offences have been committed without doing all that is reasonable to prevent them. We have specified the types of work in respect of which offences might be committed. They are all jobs where it is possible to affect directly the safety of the travelling public.
  The operator has an important role to play in preventing incidents of this sort. Operators must show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent drinking and drug taking if they are to avoid prosecution. As the House will see, at clause 56, it will be possible to prosecute individual directors as well as companies for safety offences under this Bill. The provisions also apply to tramways and other forms of guided transport.
  We have decided that the alcohol limits in this Bill should be the same as for road traffic offences. It would be hard to justify a difference, say, for a tram driver or a bus driver on the same road. The best rule is for no one to work on the railway when under the influence. That is reflected in the operators' rule book. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking up to these limits is a safe practice. The offence of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit is a second line of defence to operators' strict standards, and the prescribed alcohol limit is that which justifies a criminal—rather than disciplinary—offence. We will keep the prescribed limits under review, and clause 39 enables them to be amended by regulations.
  This is not the place to discuss whether the road traffic alcohol limits are right. The British Medical Association has pressed for them to be lower, but I must say to the House that lower limits, whether on roads or railways, should be soundly based. If we are to criminalise an action, we must be sure that an act has been committed which
  46
  justifies the term "criminal". The first line of defence must be the working rules operated by British Rail and other railway undertakers, which is a matter of employment practice. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking and drug-taking of any kind by railwaymen is a safe practice.
  The remainder of the safety clauses are in the Bill principally because, without them, some private legislation would still be required. Clauses 42 to 44 give the railway inspectorate powers to carry out supervision of new work and to receive accident reports. We are taking this opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports on the King's Cross and Clapham Junction accidents which also pointed out that the legislation, which dates from 1871 and 1933, is inadequate to deal with modern conditions.
  Consequently, clause 42 gives the Secretary of State a wide power to make regulations about the approval of new works and equipment to be used on railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other systems of guided transport. Clause 43 extends the powers of inspectors to all those forms of transport. Clause 44 allows for the reporting not only of accidents but of those incidents which could easily have led to them, such as signals failing on anything but red.
  The provisions at clause 46 and 47 are principally aimed at heritage railways and tramways which have blossomed all over the country. They are normally authorised by light railway orders made under the Light Railways Act 1896. They will now come within these provisions except in Scotland where the Scottish private legislation procedure will apply, but it is thought wise to take powers limiting speeds and loads and to ensure that these railways are properly insured against accidents involving third parties.
  There has been some controversy about clause 48 and schedule 2, which amend the Highways Act 1980 so that footpaths and bridleways which cross railways can be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds. That can be done only by a private Bill at present, the most inappropriate means imaginable for something which is essentially local. In these provisions, we have tried to strike a balance between safety and convenience and we have provided for a local inquiry to examine all the issues.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are all worried about safety —there have been some horrific accidents—but does the Minister accept that, if the balance is to be right, the Bill should contain a mechanism under which British Rail, when speeding up train times on the line, should be required to provide either an underpass or a bridge?
  Mr. McLoughlin: That might be one of the matters best addressed by the local inquiry. A private Bill is not the best method for such matters because of the possible delay involved. We could consider the issue in Committee, but it will need to be considered by the local inquiry because it is essentially a local matter rather than one that needs to come before the House.
  The remainder of the clauses deal with safety at level crossings, especially private ones.
  If Parliament passes the Bill, we would hope to have the new orders system running as soon as possible. As the House will understand, the Bill provides for a lot of secondary legislation—for orders and the safety provisions —which must be in place before the new system can work properly. It would be wrong of me to promise that we shall

  47
  have it all ready by a particular date. There may be amendments which change the timetable. It is important that we get the secondary legislation right so that the new system has a good start.
  In this necessarily brief tour of the Bill's provisions, I hope that I have said enough to describe broadly what we are trying to achieve.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister make it clear to outside interests when he expects the House to stop accepting works Bills? That would be helpful and I should have thought that it would be very foolish for anyone outside—presuming that that legislation is passed—to expect to introduce a works Bill in the next Session of Parliament.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that I can go further than I have already. The Standing Orders of the House do not allow issues to be introduced in private Bills if they could be introduced by any other means. When dealing with secondary legislation, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, the time scale will depend to some extent on when the Bill finally seeks the approval of both Houses.
  I do not think that the Bill's provisions are controversial, but they are necessary. The legislation arises from the recommendations of the Joint Committee and I have already paid tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest chaired the Committee and made the recommendations. I am glad that we have had this opportunity to introduce legislation which, I hope, goes some way to meeting the Committee's recommendations. The Committee comprised members of all parties and made its recommendations almost unanimously. I sense that there is cross-party support and I hope that today's debate bodes well.
  I commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will have a swift passage through both Houses.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I believe that the Bill commands a degree of cross-party support and I shall attempt to point out the issues on which we agree as well as the one or two which might cause some difficulty at a later stage.
  Part I of the Bill will replace the current parliamentary procedures for Bills involving new railway works or harbours with orders granted by the Secretary of State and subject to public inquiry. Those changes should avoid the uncertainties of the private Bill procedure and will on occasion, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are aware, reduce the parliamentary time spent on such matters.
  The regulatory provisions in part II will make an important contribution to ensuring the safety of passengers on rail and other transport systems. As for part I, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for outlining the principle of the changes inherent in this section and, basically, we welcome them. The existing private Bill procedures impose time-consuming and unpredictable obstacles in the passage of legislation and hon. Members from both parties have occasionally used the existing procedures to delay important railway schemes as a result, sometimes, of factors not wholly related to the scheme or to the Bill in question.
  48
  I will outline some of the reasons behind our welcome for the general thrust of the Bill. We believe that the public inquiry procedure has a number of advantages over the current parliamentary rules, especially for the general public. Such inquiries are better able to consider technical details than some parliamentary Committees are. Such inquiries can be held locally rather than in London and can consider alternatives broader than merely the provisions of a single Bill. The cost of attending a parliamentary Committee hearing would be eliminated for members of the public. I hope—I seek clarification from the Minister —that the new procedures would require environmental impact assessments to be considered where appropriate. I have no wish to linger too long on the Government's griefs over their present difficulties with the European Commission, but I hope that we shall receive some reassurance from the Minister that in future such assessments will be considered.
  The Bill does not concern only conventional railway schemes. A number of light rail initiatives have been taken by local authorities and some of them have already become bogged down in our somewhat elaborate procedures. Some have been bogged down as a result of deliberate delay and obfuscation at the Department of Transport. The aims of part I will be achieved in the way in which the Minister would like them to be achieved only if certain issues are properly clarified.
  Clear timetables must be set for inquiry hearings and for the announcement of a decision if we are to ensure that the new procedures work more effectively than the existing procedures. I suggest that a time limit be written into the Bill in Committee: a period of six weeks for the appointment of the inspector and a similar period for the inspector to report after the conclusion of an inquiry. The Minister looks a little doubtful. I have no doubt that his advisers will tell him, "That is very difficult, Minister." I can see some of their lips moving now on those lines.
  I hope that Conservative Members who take an interest in such matters will agree that with schemes which might be embarrassing for any Government or might lead to difficulties in any area for a prominent member of any Government, the temptation without a laid down time limit would be to prevaricate, especially if an embarrassing political event, such as a general election, was due. I know that the Minister will want to do what he can to reassure people outside that such unworldly considerations will not unduly delay schemes to be considered under the Bill.
  Mr. Barry Field: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he confirm to the House for the record that, if a Labour Government faced an inquiry concerning one of the privatised industries—privatised industries, such as Associated British Ports, hitherto required private legislation—he would believe that a timetable should be instituted by a Labour Secretary of State who might be tempted to use the public inquiry procedure as a way to delay implementation of the reforms? That might hold up the trading position of that privatised industry.
  Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any transport industry affected by the Bill would be treated by an incoming Labour Government in exactly the way that I urge the Minister to treat such an industry. The hon. Gentleman may be artful in introducing such irrelevancies —[Interruption.] Once again the Whip, the hon. Member

  49
  for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) cannot contain himself on the Government Front Bench. He obviously has not read the legislation. Of course, it is not his job to do so —his job is to get the Bill on the statute book regardless of what it contains.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who takes an interest in these matters even if his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not, will be aware that the Bill is specific about the industries that it covers. It covers transport matters, most of which are railway matters. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I urge its provisions, with the safeguards that I propose, not merely on a Conservative Government, but on a future Labour Government whom I expect to abide by them as well.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: I fear that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to resist some political barb about these matters. If he does make such a barb, I may pursue him down that road, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the early cross-party consensus may be prejudiced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. If, after reflection, he wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way.
  The Secretary of State must adopt standard criteria for deciding which schemes come within the remit of clause 9 —"schemes of national significance". Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intervenes, I must tell him that such decisions should not be left simply to the discretion of a Secretary of State, even a Secretary of State as wise and as far-seeing as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
  Mr. Moate: I shall be as constructive and as cross-party as the hon. Gentleman always is to me. We all welcome timetables which require Secretaries of State to set up planning inquiries rapidly, although there are practical difficulties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are trying to make the normal planning procedures apply to railway works? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would urge any future Government to set up a public inquiry within a certain time? Is he saying that the Labour party commits itself to do the same on all planning matters? The arguments that apply to roads, highways and housing are the same as those that apply to railway works. If the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, why not?
  Mr. Snape: The short answer is that it is vital that a time limit is laid down for minor schemes. It would be impossible and undesirable to put time limits on the length of an inquiry into a major scheme. However, a future Labour Government would approve such a time limit for appointing inspectors and for reporting after the conclusion of an inquiry. I stress that that does not affect the length of time of the inquiry because, for obvious reasons, some inquiries will be more detailed and technical than others. However, the time limits on either side which I have proposed are eminently reasonable and I look forward to urging them on the ever-receptive ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.
  Will the Minister assure us that if a scheme does not come within the remit of clause 9, the rules for making objections under clause 10 will not unreasonably limit those objections? It would be highly unsatisfactory if
  50
  inquiries were limited to very local and detailed issues concerning, for example, the precise alignment of a route and if they could not consider wider issues that might affect people locally.
  There should be a clear separation between the order-making procedure and the role of the Secretary of State in grant-aiding, for example, light rail schemes. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
  The Bill does not provide for local order-making power for minor schemes, although such a provision was included in the original consultation paper. Would it not be more sensible if in relation, for example, to small changes to previously aproved schemes, such local power was reinstated? Under the Bill, it does not seem logical that minor proposals would also go back to the Secretary of State and would be subject to the full-blown order-making procedures.
  For railway proposals that include the closure of an existing line or station, it appears that the new procedure wil replace the closure consideration held by the local transport users consultative committees. Will the Minister give us an assurance that all objections will be heard at the public inquiry, and that both the relevant TUCC and any individual users affected will be given the status of statutory objectors under clause 2?
  I will ask the Minister to comment on other provisions in part I in due course, especially if the Government are really committed to helping local authorities plan and implement light rail and other desperately needed public transport initiatives. Will the Government give a commitment during the passage of the Bill to review investment appraisal techniques and rules to ensure that differences in such techniques for road and rail schemes cease to result in discrimination against public transport schemes in the allocation of resources?
  Will the Minister give us an undertaking that his Department will work with local authority associations to develop a package approach to transport investment in urban areas under the provisions in the Bill? Does he accept that there is a need to develop a transport investment programme embracing all transport modes, which would replace existing trunk road and the transport supplementary grants programme? Will the Minister undertake to inform the promoters of major public transport schemes whether such schemes have passed grant appraisal, even if the Treasury tells him and his fellow Ministers that funds are not available and, given its habitual parsimony, are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future?
  I want now to consider part II and the introduction of a new regime controlling the use of drink and drugs by those who work on the railways. Working in the railway industry is, from my experience, to become involved in a mixture of long-standing rules and regulations and to be subject to an everyday system of discipline which is almost akin to military life.
  The observance of numerous rules and regulations by those working in extremely responsible albeit pretty shabbily paid jobs explains the 150-year-old safety record of railways and lies behind my belief that a modern railway system is still the safest mode of transport. However, over the years there have been a number of railway accidents which have been partly or completely alcohol—related. In a modern high-speed, high-technology railway environment, the provisions of the Railway Regulation Act 1842

  51
  about the conduct of what were known then, and in my experience are occasionally still known now, as railway servants, are obviously outdated.
  Those of us who are interested in railway matters, railway management, the men and women who work in the industry and their trade unions all support the provisions of part II which deal with those matters. Having said that, there are a number of points that I want to put to the Minister about the introduction of the regulations which are based on the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  My first point relates to the decision in the Bill to adopt the same limits of alcohol concentration for a train driver's offence as are prescribed for drivers of motor vehicles. At the outset, we should acknowledge that the driving of trains by drivers whose ability is in anyway impaired by alcohol could lead to consequences far worse than those caused by drivers of even the heaviest motor vehicles.
  The British Medical Association has written to hon. Members about the Bill and has made known its concern at the possibility of a person driving a train with a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg per 100 ml. It is right to draw our attention to that. The best possible concentration of alcohol while a driver is on duty is zero. It should certainly be less than the proposal in the Bill.
  The possible anomaly to which the Under-Secretary of State rightly drew our attention was the subject of discussion behind the scenes. A Treasury solicitor suggested to the draftsmen of the Bill that, unless we varied the proposed limits, it would be anomalous, to say the least, for the driver of a Manchester metro vehicle to be prosecuted if his blood alcohol count was less than that of the driver of a motor vehicle with whom he had collided.
  The Minister was right to say that this debate is not the time or place to consider blood alcohol levels and whether the levels should be reduced, but none of us would enjoy being told that the driver of our train had been breathalysed and had revealed a blood alcohol level slightly below the legal limit and was then, under the provisions of the Bill, free to drive the train. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best alcohol limit for train drivers is zero. However, I appreciate the difficulty of enforcing such a provision.
  Mr. McLoughlin: This important point requires clarification. Under BR's code of employment, it would be an offence for a driver to have taken alcohol before coming on duty. The Bill is concerned about criminal negligence or liability, and that is a point for wider debate. However, it should not be thought that we condone people driving trains if they have consumed alcohol before taking charge of those trains. The difference between criminal law and BR's operational guidelines is important.
  Mr. Snape: I understand that, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing it out. He is aware that the BMA has expressed considerable reservations about the enforcement of the levels and about the legislation, particularly given the lack of experience of the transport police in administering the law in respect of railway staff. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions of the Bill will be operated specifically and only by the transport police.
  Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: We shall be asking for more details in Committee about who else will be involved and how they will discharge their duties. While I stress that we believe that the safest limit is no alcohol at all, we should be reluctant to see the Metropolitan police in London entering railway property willy-nilly to enforce the provisions of the Bill. Could that happen under part II? Will police forces other than the transport police be responsible for administering certain aspects of the Bill?
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Primarily, it will be for the British Transport police to carry out the tests. However, other police forces will also be able to enforce provisions if a transport police constable is not available, or in relation to systems not covered by the British Transport Police, such as tramways, preserved railways and the Tyne and Wear metro. Normally, however, one would expect the transport police to be responsible, but it is possible for other police officers to conduct tests.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, and we shall wish to return to the matter in Committee because there must be safeguards on both sides. In Committee we shall consider the way in which this merited and necessary change in the law can be administered.
  Chapter II of part II provides for amendments to legislation dealing with railways and similar systems and the footpaths that cross them. It amends the Highways Act 1980 to allow closure or diversion of footpath crossings on grounds of safety. That part of the Bill has been strongly opposed by the Ramblers Association, but I imagine that it will be welcomed by railway locomotive drivers who, for example, face more than 100 such crossings whenever they drive from King's Cross to Newcastle.
  The blocking of footpaths and the removal of rights of way are obviously contentious. As a former railwayman, I read the views of the Ramblers Association with some scepticism. In its brief, the Ramblers Association has stated that it
  "doubts whether such new powers are needed."
  That shows a failure to appreciate the dangers of crossing a railway line. Those dangers were amply illustrated by the recent terrible accident at Carr lane crossing, Doncaster, when a woman and two small children were killed.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Snape: I know that my hon. Friend will have something to say about this matter and I shall give way to him later.
  In the case to which I have referred, the footpath to a privately owned nature reserve crossed five railway tracks. The maximum speed of trains on at least two of those tracks was 125 mph. At that speed, pedestrians would have had seven seconds from the time the train came into view until it reached the crossing. For the Ramblers Association to state:
  "BR should be required to improve safety or make reasonable alternative provision, for example by building a bridge"
  demonstrates a lack of feeling for the views of the bereaved and for the two drivers involved, both of whom will remember that tragedy every day for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Bennett: The Ramblers Association does not dispute that there is a problem. It has made it quite clear that it believes that the existing legislation can deal with

  53
  such matters. The association has stated clearly that it is up to British Rail—and, perhaps, the Government—to take such dangers into account if they wish to increase railway speeds, as many of us would like, and to ensure that people can cross the line safely, even if that means the Government providing the money either for an underpass of for a bridge over the line.
  Mr. Snape: I am aware that the Ramblers Association has said that, but there are 100 such crossings on the east coast main line, which is the example that I gave. Is my hon. Friend saying that an alternative method of crossing should be provided for each and every one? If so, I must advise him—and Conservative Members before they intervene—that that is not a commitment that I should like to make on behalf of any future Labour Administration because it would be an unreal commitment.
  Indeed, the Ramblers Association has gone further than my hon. Friend has suggested in connection with that line, and has stated that, if British Rail increases the speed on a line, it will also be reducing the safety on it. I do not see it like that, and I am sure that the nation as a whole would not either. If we were to take the Ramblers Association's argument to its logical conclusion, every train on the east coast main line would be preceded by a man on foot, carrying a red flag, in case someone wanted to walk in front of the train.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if British Rail has decided that only 13 of those crossings are unsafe, it therefore appears to believe that 87 are perfectly safe? Is that not an interesting observation? Surely, if only 13 of the 100 crossings are unsafe, it is not unreasonable for British Rail at least to propose alternative crossings at some of those points. I am sure that if British Rail had done that, the ramblers would have been prepared to compromise. They were upset because British Rail wanted to close 13 crossings as unsafe without offering to provide alternatives at any of them.
  Mr. Snape: I am not here to defend British Rail's management decisions—I am usually better at condemning them—but during the passage of the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred earlier, British Rail stated that it had picked the least safe of the 100 crossings to which I have referred. From my discussions with British Rail, I know that it made specific proposals for the diversion of at least four of the crossings and that the Ramblers Association objected to them all. There must be some co-operation from both sides.
  I do not think that British Rail should be given carte blanche to abolish rights of way on every railway track, but where train speeds and frequencies are as great as on the line to which I have referred, we must recognise that the combination of pedestrians and such high-speed trains is deadly. The evidence that proves just how deadly that combination can be is on my side. I hope that at a later stage we can persuade the Minister that a compromise is possible, feasible and affordable.
  Opposition Members support clause 56, which seeks to make the directors and managers of British Rail personally liable for offences attributable to their neglect. In the aftermath of the Clapham disaster, I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is both necessary and overdue.
  We also welcome the provision in part III that removes the use of the private Bill procedure to obtain powers that
  54
  could be granted by orders for harbours. I should, however, like the Minister to clarify the issue of rights of way in dock areas, where I do not think that many trains will be travelling at the high speed of 125 mph. Such orders are often made in connection with works. However, diversions or blockages of a right of way can be considered under the provisions of part I.
  So far, we have achieved a degree of unanimity. Although we welcome the Bill, we shall subject it to detailed scrutiny in Committee. I give an undertaking, however, that we shall not attempt to delay its progress unduly. Both sides of the House could and should support most of its provisions, but where improvements are necessary we shall be pressing them on the Minister, and I hope that we shall receive as fair a hearing from him as I have tried to give his Bill this afternoon.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: As this is a tightly drawn Bill, there is no opportunity of making a general speech on transport matters, and I have no intention of trying to abuse the procedures of the House by doing so. I welcome the presence on the Treasury Bench of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping. I have rarely met two Ministers who take more trouble to carry out the duties of their ministerial office. The presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State shows that he does not miss any opportunity to listen to his colleagues.
  We are dealing with a time-honoured procedure. Those who have some knowledge of railway history will recall what was known in the last century and in the early years of this century as "the railway interest". One can only assume that, if the Bill had been introduced 70 or 80 years ago, the House would have been rather more crowded than today. Although I welcome the presence of my. hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) immediately in front of me, I should have welcomed equally the presence of the attractive blonde lady who was sitting in front of me last week, but she obviously has other things to do this week.
  Although it is clear that the House welcomes the Bill, the provisions appear to have been drafted largely with British Rail in mind. Before I comment on the Bill in any detail, I must declare a possible future interest with British Rail in activities that are unrelated to my parliamentary duties. I say that more in hope than expectation, but one never knows.
  My main concern about the Bill is its possible effect on some of our preserved railways. I am not sure, but I believe that I am the unpaid, unofficial "parliamentary friend" of the Association of Independent Railways Ltd. That body has not yet contacted me about the Bill although the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and David Morgan thereof certainly have. I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Minister one or two points which, due to his courtesy, I have been able to discuss with him briefly during the past few days. I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed to me.
  Almost all the proprietors of the preserved railways are members of either the Association of Independent Railways or the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, and carried more than 6 million passengers on their railways in 1989, which is the latest year for which I have the full figures.

  55
  Like any other railway, a preserved railway normally requires statutory authority for its operations, which nowadays—until the Bill becomes law—is, in practice, enacted under a light railway order. It is likely that, in recent years, a majority of such orders have been sought by the preserved railways under the very procedures that are to be replaced by those laid down in the Bill. Thus, the Bill is of vital interest to those railways, and they are probably much more affected by it than the two earlier speeches have suggested.
  If we are to look after the legitimate interests of the preserved railways, one or two changes need to be made to the Bill. The first is in connection with Scotland. Although there are no hon. Members from Scottish constituencies in their places at the moment, my hon. Friend the Minister made a passing reference to Scotland, which is one of the issues that I discussed with him the other evening.
  The memorandum at the front of the Bill refers to ministerial orders in England and Wales, but schedule 4 shows that the whole of the Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are to be repealed; so Scotland will find itself in an invidious position. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on the matter, but his interpretation was not one which I or the Scottish preserved railways share. He said that, if the Bill is passed unamended, the preserved railways in Scotland would have to be dealt with under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. That is correct, but not satisfactory. Such an arrangement is potentially much more complex than the existing one. It would be a time-consuming and expensive procedure which required provisional orders under the Act.
  It seems wrong that a few legitimate private railways in Scotland should be disadvantaged by the Bill. The only beneficiaries would probably be the lawyers. It is my impression that the Department of Transport has not so far been sympathetic to the potential plight of some of the preserved railways in Scotland. I should prefer to see the Bill amended so that the two Light Railways Acts were repealed only in England and Wales.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to that point. The Conservative party is not exactly in the ascendant in Scotland. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who has Scottish ancestry, that to upset large numbers of railway enthusiasts in Scotland would not be of additional help to the Conservative party north of the border. If that is special pleading, so be it.
  The second point that worries me is also a minority concern. For some reason best know to those who drafted the Bill, line 23 of clause 60 says that a railway means a system of transport employing parallel rails which
  "(b) form a track of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres."
  At least one narrow-gauge railway in Britain operates on a gauge of 10·5 in, and there may well be others. If those words are retained in the legislation, those railways would still require a light railway order at some time. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that he could simply delete that line of clause 60. I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.
  Everyone in the House welcomes the proposals in the Bill which relate to safety. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He dispassionately and properly referred to the feelings of locomotive drivers.
  56
  They are people whom we rarely consider in this House, but when there is a suicide or accident on the railway, the driver, and his mate if appropriate, may be mentally scarred for life by the experience. It is surely incumbent on us to do everything possible to ensure that safety is paramount. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East made the simple proposal that it should be a criminal offence to take any alcohol if one is driving a train. I should certainly like to see the Bill amended to take care of that point.
  In his few remarks on clause 56, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East assumed that it referred to British Rail. He talked about British Rail's management. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to imagine the effect of the Bill as it is presently drafted on the preserved and private railways. Such railways are manned mainly by volunteers. Clause 56 could put a terrific burden on the unremunerated directors or officers of a preserved railway. If a ganger was working on the track and was found to be over the limit, a director or manager could be found guilty of a criminal offence.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister allow me to bring a delegation from the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to discuss the matter and the other two matters that I have raised? It would make the association feel that it had had a better hearing if it saw the Minister face to face rather than pursuing the matter in correspondence.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I give the undertaking that I will meet any delegation that my hon. Friend wishes to bring to me.
  Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had no doubt that he would say that.
  Railway safety is a big subject. It is just one illustration of the double standards that we have tolerated for generations that, for one and half centuries, the House has rightly imposed the strictest safety rules and regulations on the railways, while doing virtually nothing about the roads. The result is that we kill 5,000 people and maim a quarter of a million on our roads in the name of personal convenience. I have often thought that I should like to push through the House a simple single-clause Bill which would reduce death and injury at a stroke: it would be to insist that road traffic operated with signals in the same way as trains. That would save an awful lot of lives and make travelling by train a great deal more attractive and competitive.
  I understand from a brief discussion that British Rail is reasonably happy with the Bill. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) about the delays that could be inherent in the new system proposed by the Bill. None of us would want to find that, at the end of our work, we had produced a piece of legislation that increased the delay in obtaining the approval necessary to build new railways. My hon. Friend the Minister must pay attention to the point that has been made—that time limits must be set for, first, appointing an inspector and secondly, the production of the inspector's report once the inquiry is complete, if not necessarily on the length of the inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made several interventions—I was going to say on behalf of, but that sounds rude; in which he put the view of—the Ramblers Association. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that it does not make sense to go back to the days of the red flag, but we

  57
  must find a compromise between the passenger's interest, which is the interest of the railways, and the pedestrian's interest. I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not see why British Rail, as ever, should be expected to bear the full cost. That simply illustrates yet again the inequality and double standard which we employ in the treatment of road versus rail.
  If the Government of the day decide that a motorway is to be built and a footpath is to be built over the road, the cost of building a bridge or underpass is all part of the cost of building the motorway, and it is borne by the taxpayers. I see no earthly reason why we should shackle British Rail in providing a better service still in terms of safety and speed if it comes into conflict with those who want to walk across the line. We must find an equitable solution that does not put a yet greater financial burden on British Rail.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he is as keen as I am to provide a level playing field for road and rail, he should recognise that, when motorways were built around Greater Manchester, of three footpaths that crossed the motorway, one was closed or diverted and bridges or underpasses were put in for the other two. That sort of compromise would be reasonable in dealing with footpaths that cross railways.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Member illustrates my argument —there are double standards. As he said, two of those motorway crossings were paid for by the taxpayer. I shall not pursue the matter further, as I have bored my Back-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues endlessly with it, but it is fair to say that there should be an equal playing field.
  Talking of double standards, of road versus rail and the Bill, where footpaths are concerned we are talking about the removal of ancient obligations. British Rail has an ancient obligation to pay for its own police force. In this day and age, why should we expect that? Let us think of the cost that the police incur on all our behalfs by attending accidents. Think of the untold billions of pounds spent by the police on attending court cases dealing with so many facets of the internal combustion engine. However, nothing in the Bill would relieve British Rail of that burden, which costs in excess of £40 million a year.
  I do not think I would be out of order in recalling a private conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport about a year ago on this subject. He said that he did not think that it was a high priority to ask the Home Secretary to take £40 million out of his budget and put it on to the Secretary of State for Transport's budget. He did not think that he would get away with it. It is a shame that the Bill does not deal with that matter.
  Nor does it deal with the historical obligation for British Rail to maintain hundreds of listed buildings. It offered an opportunity to do so. Perhaps those matters may be attended to during the passage of the Bill.
  Finally, clause 56 states:
  "Where an offence under this Part committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall he guilty of the offence."
  We are prepared to clobber the ganger working on the Keighley and Worth Valley railway or his notional supervisor, or send him to prison. Meanwhile, large supermarkets are defying the law by opening on Sundays
  58
  and abusing society in almost everything they do, but we are doing nothing about it. I should like clause 56 to be utilised to deal with the activities of many other organisations.
  I welcome the Bill, I wish it a speedy passage and I hope that some of my suggestions will result in one or two minor changes in it.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the Bill, even though on the surface it hands considerable powers from Parliament to Ministers. I have spent too many hours on these Benches arguing on behalf of Bills, often at considerable length. I have meandered round all sorts of fairly obscure topics, just about pleasing the Chair by remaining in order, knowing that whatever I said it would not make the slightest difference to the outcome of the private Bill. Provided that I and my colleagues could keep going until 10 o'clock, the fate of the Bill would be decided by whether 98 hon. Members returned from dinner or 102. It was a pretty farcical procedure.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend is far too modest. We all know that what he terms his "meandering" round private Bills has been responsible for a good deal of heartache and not a little management time in British Rail spent trying to meet some of his objections. Those objections might not always have been covered by the Bill that we were discussing, but we understood his argument.
  Mr. Bennett: I accept that, and I admit that there have been occasions when I and other hon. Members have blackmailed various organisations, including British Rail, with the amount of time that we would take in the House unless they did something to improve the position of our constituents.
  It is high time that the private Bill procedure was reformed. However, we must be clear in our minds that we are dealing with substantial issues. We are considering the rights of individuals as against the rights of the state and of corporate bodies. We must also recognise that any changes that we make will almost certainly not satisfy people outside. I sometimes think that it would be almost impossible to satisfy them. If someone wants to put a nuclear power station, a new road or railway, a science park, a supermarket or even a public convenience at the bottom of one's garden, most people would not want it. However one designs the procedure—whether a parliamentary procedure or a public inquiry—the majority of poeple will think that it is unfair that it is being forced or inflicted on them.
  The Bill will be a better way at least to convince people that they have an opportunity to influence events than the present private Bill procedure. We all know what is supposed to happen. The House debates a Bill on Second Reading and it is passed by chance rather than as a benefit of the arguments. Then the Bill goes to Committee. Four hon. Members are appointed—two from each side of the House—as well as the key appointment, the Chair, who has a casting vote. We all know that all sorts of manipulations take place during the appointment of the members of a Committee.
  It always amazes me how Bills which the Government support end up with a Chairman from the Government side of the House, thus giving the Government a majority.

  59
  People argue and give evidence to the Committee, for perhaps 10 or 12 weeks or longer. In theory, everyone listens carefully to the evidence, but some of us know that the reality has much more to do with the political persuasion of hon. Members appointed to the Committee and to discussions that take place when they are debating.
  It can be extremely frustrating for people who have to travel to London and face the expense of preparing a case —sometimes employing parliamentary counsel to put their case—knowing that decisions are not necessarily taken on the merits of the arguments but on political considerations.
  Mr. Barry Field: I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I chaired the Committee that considered the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which will improve the safety of a number of London underground stations when it takes effect, including Oxford circus, which several million commuters pass through every day. The Labour party, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) belongs, objected to that Bill and voted against it. Is he suggesting that, by wanting to improve safety in one of our biggest underground stations, I am a Government stooge?
  Mr. Bennett: I am not suggesting that. However, various political considerations come into play with some Bills rather than their merits. Any hon. Member who does not understand that is relatively naive.
  It is important that we discuss the new procedure. There may be problems and differences between the two sides of the House over the way in which we plan Britain, especially as we move into the next century. The Conservatives have a tendency to believe that planning decisions can be taken on the profit motive. Opposition Members believe that there should be more objective planning criteria.
  Some of the measures that will come before us will have international or national significance and others will have regional or local significance. Under the Bill there will be problems deciding whether the matter has local or national significance. Perhaps I may pursue that in Committee.
  Another question is whether Parliament should give its approval first before a public inquiry is held or whether Parliament should have a say after the inquiry. There is also the question of the evidence put to Parliament, and I want to take up those issues in Committee.
  I press the Minister to consider carefully the order-making procedures. For most of my time in the House, I have been dissatisfied with them in the same way as I was dissatisfied with private Bills. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation. Whether it is affirmative orders for national schemes or negative orders for local schemes, the procedure is very unsatisfactory.
  When hon. Members table an amendment to a Bill, it can concentrate the Minister's mind on a clause or section and occasionally hon. Members can be persuaded to force amendments on the Government. It is almost impossible to form a coalition of interests to get something changed in a statutory instrument or an order, so if there is broad agreement that an instrument is a good idea, one must either take it all or have nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend further agree, on that important issue, that it cannot be argued that there are no precedents of statutory instruments being subject to amendment? For example, orders relating to the census are subject to just that procedure.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I regularly argue with the Table Office that we can table amendments to Bills which make provision for orders that are amendable because of the census legislation. I cannot recall it precisely, but I believe that there is one other parliamentary precedent to that effect.
  In Committee, the Minister invariably points out that Parliament has a simple way of dealing with orders and that we should stick to it. He points out that they are negative or affirmative orders and that the Standing Orders of the House lay down that such matters may be debated for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock.
  Although we are now debating a piece of works legislation, it represents a major reform of parliamentary procedure, so I put down a marker at this stage to the effect that the Minister should be more forthcoming in considering whether we should have new procedures for dealing with orders. Such new procedures could allow for longer debates, perhaps in Committee, with the ability to amend regulations and with provision for an effective vote to take place in Committee.
  It is nonsense for us to debate such matters in Committee for an hour and a half and then, at the end of the debate, we vote not on the merits of the matter but on whether it has been considered. A day or two later—whenever it suits the Government—the theoretical actual vote takes place on the Floor of the House and, if a Division is called, most hon. Members do not know what they are voting about.
  On this occasion, because of the unique nature of the measure, we should be prepared to consider in Committee changing the way in which we deal with statutory instruments, enabling us to give them more adequate scrutiny. That is especially so at this time, when we are effectively handing from Parliament to Ministers the right to decide, on private Bills, to lay orders. That is a considerable sacrifice of parliamentary power. Although I accept that it is right for us to do that, a counterbalance should be a more effective way of scrutinising affirmative and negative orders.
  Various organisations have lobbied me about the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) in pointing out that the Inland Waterways Association believes that it was not sufficiently consulted on the Bill. That association is particularly concerned about a measure that is proceeding through the other place and the question whether it will be dropped and be replaced by the provisions relating to canals in this legislation. I hope that, when we come to that part of the Bill in Committee, the Minister will assure us that the association has been consulted and its fears allayed.
  The fears of ramblers' associations about closures have been rehearsed. I appreciate everything that has been said about the need to maintain safety standards. We must be equally concerned about the effect of what we do on engine drivers. Historically, British Rail and its predecessors have argued to the House for certain railway lines to be built in a particular way. They argued at that time that pedestrian crossings of railways were perfectly safe.

  61
  For almost every railway line built by the different railway companies—permission for which was passed by the House in different eras—we laid down different procedures. It was common for some to build footpaths across the lines and in other cases bridges were built. Indeed, on some lines, bridges were built on almost all occasions. It should be possible to obtain a compromise which is effective in the legislation and which says, in effect, "There will be some crossings which are so rarely used that people are not inconvenienced by their closure." In other cases, a simple diversion, often involving the use of a private crossing that already belongs to British Rail, could be brought into use to enable people to cross in safety. In some instances it will be necessary to provide a bridge or underpass.
  I am often upset when people approach British Rail on the safety issue and ask how much it would cost to do the job properly. The price quoted for a bridge or underpass is always horrendous. The old railway companies had almost Meccano kits for bridges which were built as standard in various places. They varied only according to whether the approach was from the right or left. If it was possible to do that in the past, it should be possible now for British Rail to design relatively cheap crossing facilities.
  I appreciate that there are problems. In one instance, when a local authority was asked to approve a bridge, which could have been built relatively cheaply, the authority refused because, it said, the bridge must be suitable for use by the disabled. I appreciate the arguments that go on nowadays, but let us not forget that the old crossings were not suitable for the disabled, which is why, in the case to which I am referring, it seemed unnecessary for the authority to insist on a ramp being built. I hope that in Committee we can make some progress on that front.
  I have received a set of objections from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is concerned about the implications of the legislation on estuaries. I a m keen for the Bill to cover estuaries, in view of my experience with private Bills over the years. In the 1970s many local authority Bills were introduced dealing with issues such as procession clauses. More recently, we have had many railway Bills. I predict that, if we do not reform matters, we shall have introduced a large number of Bills dealing with estuaries.
  There are power schemes and other proposed developments involving estuaries. That particularly applies to the Severn and the Mersey. There are schemes on hand for virtually every estuary in the country and it is important for the legislation to cover them. At the same time, we must have a proper national debate to see how many estuaries can be changed from being tidal areas, where there is extremely good feeding for birds, to areas which, in effect, become inland lakes.
  That has significance nationally and internationally, especially if we reduce the facilities for large numbers of birds. We must ensure that there are proper safeguards in legislation. Although a scheme may appear local in nature and the amount of an estuary that it encloses or otherwise alters, we must take the national significance into account for breeding birds. I am worried by the enthusiasm of some of my constituents for the Bengal tiger and rare species in various parts of the world, while tending to disregard animals in our local habitats. I hope that we can deal with that, too, in Committee.
  62
  We must look carefully at environmental statements which accompany orders flowing from the legislation. I appeal to the Minister to give at least some consideration to how far the environmental statement should come from a neutral source rather than from the promoters. Although promoters may employ reputable consultants, it is difficult for a consultant to a project to put all the disadvantages from the environmental point of view as thoroughly and firmly as would be done by a totally neutral person. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind.
  Many attempts have been made in the House to reform the private Bill procedure and many of them have collapsed because it has always been easier for a private measure to be introduced. We must do all we can in the coming few years to block any parliamentary private Bill which could as easily be dealt with through this legislation. It is a question for the Court of Referees, and it will be a matter for the House.
  I would have hoped that the Minister might have spelt out more clearly the fact that he would not expect any more private works Bills to be introduced. We have had 23 this year, of which 13 or 14 have been works Bills. They may go through, but I hope that he will make it clear that, in the next Session of Parliament, this legislation will apply, and anybody considering introducing a works Bill will do so through this legislation and not as a private measure.
  I hope that we shall have a useful Committee stage in which many of the points that I have made can be answered.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: No mention of private Bills would be complete without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he chaired the Committee which sought to untangle this web. His knowledge and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is considerable. I also pay tribute to Mr. Willoughby and the staff of the Private Bill Office, whose courtesy is unfailing. They have assisted many hon. Members, including myself, in fathoming the difficult procedure.
  No mention of private Bill procedure would be complete without mentioning the Dartford warbler. It is always endangered and turns up whenever we discuss a private Bill. Whether it is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill or the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, the Dartford warbler is always certain to be nesting in the middle of the projected works. If we ever want to save endangered species, the private Bill procedure may be one way to ensure that they are more plentiful.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) assured me that a Labour Secretary of State would be bound by the timetable that he proposes for public Bill procedures. However, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill took 41 hours to be discussed in the Chamber and 86 hours on 24 days, spread over five months, to be discussed in Committee. After several weeks, the Committee's proceedings were suspended because a Labour Member departed from the Committee. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attempted to resolve the situation and eventually you made history in the House by deciding that the Committee would be quorate with just two members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. As I recall, the Chairman of Ways and Means did not attempt to resolve this situation—he did so.
  Mr. Field: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did so most expeditiously. I would not be so ungallant as to doubt the word of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East today, but given the pressure that Labour Members placed on that Bill, a serious question mark would hang over any Labour Secretary of State who did not give way to pressure regarding the timetabling of a public inquiry procedure and who did not take some time to allow the result to be published or deliberated on.
  Mr. Snape: I was beginning to fear that the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's speech was part of the delaying tactic that he denounces. I made a couple of moderately long speeches on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, but we are not discussing existing procedure. The undertaking that I gave refers to the Bill before us. It refers not to truncating the inquiry but to the timescale before appointing an inspector and publishing the report. I can only give an undertaking and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I hope that he will also accept that Conservative Members have used the existing procedure to delay legislation which they have disliked over the years, which is why we want to change it.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be the first inspector's decision that took some time to see the light of day once it had been referred to a Department. That was the point that I was trying to make.
  I have been in the House for only a short time, but since I have been here I have been involved in a number of private Bills. The Isle of Wight Bill was my alma mater. Because of the activities of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in holding it up, I eventually became the wrecker of every other private Bill. It always amuses me when Liberal Democrats accuse me of having a ministerial career. If only they had seen the correspondence that flowed to party chairmen from "Horrified of the Home Counties" when some of those Bills hit the deck; one example was the correspondence from the lighthouse keepers association. Some of my colleagues, even to this day, hardly speak to me because of how their Bills were delayed. With your wonderful knowledge of the Bible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you produced the Lazarus motion which revived them all from the dead and they eventually passed on their way through the House.
  I also served on the Committee considering the London Local Authority Bill which was, remarkably, opposed by the ice-cream alliance when the SDP and the Liberal Democrats were in a state of meltdown. That Bill abused the rights of individuals to object to private Bills. London local authorities had delayed hearing petitioners' cases and put them to considerable inconvenience.
  In July 1990, I chaired the Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which subsequently passed into the trust ports legislation, about which I hope we shall hear more before the end of the year. Recently, I chaired the Committee on the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, to which there were some 56 petitioners. We resolved the situation and the Bill was out of
  64
  Committee within two weeks, so the fact that there are many petitioners or objectors to private legislation does not always delay it.
  For more than three centuries, large-scale projects of public significance, such as the building of railways, the construction of bridges, and the regulation and construction of ports, have required the authority of an Act of Parliament. The sanctioning of transport infrastructure, central to the development of national commerce and industry, requires the careful balancing of national and local needs, environmental issues and the interests of the private individuals affected. It has long been recognised that Parliament is the ultimate planning authority best suited to deal with such issues.
  There are important constitutional aspects to the Bill. We are transferring substantial power to the Executive and taking away from Back Benchers a power to make decisions, as Committee members, that affect people's lives. The ability and right of hon. Members to legislate on behalf of individual citizens is important. I am worried that the desire for an easy life could lie behind the Bill. Those of us who remember the late-night sittings associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will remember how difficult the parliamentary timetable was.
  Anyone who suggests that public inquiries are a speedy way to resolve matters worries me. Planning inspectors who reach speedy decisions ar rarer than rocking horse manure. As a device for speeding up matters, the Bill seriously concerns me. If the Crossrail Bill currently before the House were the subject of a public inquiry, I wonder how long it would take. The channel tunnel and Winchester bypass legislation are examples of how public inquiries go on and on. I wonder why we have put our faith in public inquiries in this Bill, especially given that the Government have been so pleased with the result of some of the private Bill procedure.
  The other day, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that one reason why he took action in this country was the amount of correspondence that he receives from the United Kingdom compared with any other EC state. The attention that this country pays to those matters is one reason why it takes so long to resolve them in public inquiries.
  I am pleased that marinas are included in the Bill. In Ventnor in my constituency, we had a proposal for a marina. Half the population thought that I had a magic parliamentary wand and the other half thought that I was fully in agreement with it, because, knowing private parliamentary procedure as I did, I realised that it would take at least 18 months to two years to come to fruition. They interpreted my rather laid-back approach as an indication that I agreed with the marina, and did not realise that I would not be allowed to take part in the debate.
  The Bill allows for guided transport schemes. Will that include buses of the type that are used on the continent? They travel on guided tracks and switch from diesel power to electrical power which allows the bus to be driverless. We shall see more of that sort of transport in the United Kingdom and certainly it is much better for the environment of cities. I hope that the Bill takes cognisance of such future developments.
  Clause 7 deals with redundant transport facilities and mentions military installations. Will the clause affect the redundant Victorian piers on our shores? If it does, it will be welcomed in many seaside towns with rather decrepit

  65
  structures. A long time ago, I asked the Civil Aviation Authority whether it tested its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol and I was told that it did not. As I say, I asked a long time ago and I am open to correction.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend's mention of clause 7 prompts me to pick up a point that did not occur to me before. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the piers of the former Fort Augustus railway in the highlands. Because of the Bill's effect on Scotland, at what stage could somebody who did not like the piers in the middle of the river use clause 7 in a way which I am sure nobody could have intended?
  Mr. Field: Whether intended or not, I hope that they do and that the Minister will offer some comfort on that. Many seaside resorts are fed up with the state of their piers and the Isle of Wight is no exception. We would like a procedure to resolve that so as to make our sea fronts more presentable. I hope that the clause encompasses such structures.
  I was speaking about the fact that the CAA does not test its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol. That seems remarkable—if it is still the case. We now rightly propose to test train drivers for drugs and alcohol, but it seems that air traffic controllers are not tested. If that is correct, perhaps we could extend the Bill's provisions to include such testing. The Minister will appreciate that it is an important matter, although I do not say for a moment that air traffic controllers suffer from problems of alcohol or drugs. Many companies now adopt such test procedures. Esso tests its bowser drivers and merchant naval officers. This is a suitable area for extension.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I can help my hon. Friend on this. Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, it is an offence for air crew to be under the influence of drink or drugs. From 1 October 1991 air traffic controllers have been subject to the same requirements as air crew. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point. We shall consider the matter to see if further legislation is needed.
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend has given me a full answer, and I am pleased to note it.
  Will the harbour orders cope with the fact that for some time the Royal Navy has been trying to give up its Solent navigational and harbour duties outside the Queen's harbour jurisdiction? I do not know whether the Royal Navy is on the record about that. It is extraordinary that the Navy is responsible not only for the eastern part of the Solent but for the navigational aids in that area. I have often asked the Secretary of State for Defence about what defence purpose that fulfils. Jurisdiction over Wootton creek on the Isle of Wight by the Queen's harbourmaster seems arcane in this day and age. In that respect, will the harbour orders serve a useful purpose?
  For some time I have felt that there is an air of Government morality in the private Bill procedure. The Government have worked wonders in rolling back the areas of state ownership and have returned hundreds of valuable assets to the efficient control of private enterprise for the benefit of customers and shareholders. They have not fulfilled all their duties towards those companies, which are required always to jump the hoop of the private Bill procedure. I welcome the fact that recently the
  66
  Government have been taking over some private Bills, such as the trust ports legislation, and they took over the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
  I hope that the Bill will be a natural precursor and will pave the way for the easier privatisation of British Rail in which, as the Minister knows, I take a deep interest. I even found a purchaser for British Rail's interests in the Isle of Wight. To my consternation, I was held up over that, but it has always been the case that where I lead others will follow tomorrow. I hope that I may soon take the Government with me and that the legislation will enable privatisation of British Rail to proceed much more quickly.
  I remain concerned about the speed of public inquiries and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will deal with it in Committee. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill's principles.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Most hon. Members seem to agree that the principles for approving transport projects are antiquated and in great need of reform. I welcome the principle of clause 1, which lays down new procedures for the consideration of transport schemes. Whether it will continue to have my support depends on Government or Opposition amendments in Committee.
  I am concerned about some parts of the Bill. When any new transport infrastructure is proposed, conflicts of interest between those affected by the scheme and the need for the infrastructure are difficult to reconcile. Although I accept that the private Bill procedure has not proved to be competent in resolving such conflicts, I am not yet convinced that the public inquiry procedure and our system of compensation are any better.
  The Bill gives little detail about the new procedures and leaves much of the process to be decided by rules issued by the Secretary of State. The amount of discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State is quite wide, and in some areas that is a matter for concern. For instance, clause 9(6) deals with schemes
  "which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are of national significance".
  The Bill does not set out the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers to decide what is of national significance. The national interest and what is of national significance are far too important to be left to the opinion of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech. I hope to have an opportunity to clarify that point in Committee and to define on the face of the Bill the specifications which constitute a scheme of national significance.
  I share the concern of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that clause 9 appears to provide for parliamentary authorisation for the principle of a scheme before a public inquiry is held. This is in contradition both with the recommendations of the Joint Committee and with the Department of Transport draft paper.
  We cannot tell from the Bill whether the order to be presented to Parliament will be accompanied by an environmental statement. Hon. Members will not be able to make a proper judgment about a transport scheme unless they are aware of the impact that its proposals will have on the environment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's reassurances at the beginning of the debate on that matter.

  67
  However, I was surprised that a Bill such as this, which has the potential to create an explosion in the number of transport projects and wreak havoc with the environment, contains so little about the protection of the environment. The Government's continuing argument with the European Commission about the environmental impact assessments of the east London crossing and the Winchester bypass—the latter has already been mentioned —are examples of their lack of commitment in this respect. The Government should take the opportunity of the passage of a Bill such as this to make a clear statement about their objectives on environmental issues.
  If the procedures set out in clause 9 are not reversed, the clause will limit the terms of reference of any inquiry and may prevent consideration of alternative schemes. It may also hamper legitimate and important objections, particularly if they raise issues of principle. Under the present procedure, a Select Committee can reject a scheme after investigation, whereas in the proposed procedures, the outcome of the public inquiry will be limited to modifications of the scheme rather than outright objection. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  Before giving full approval to part I, I shall be looking to ensure that the right for members of the public and their representatives to be heard is not diminished by the proposals. Those who can demonstrate an interest, including amenity bodies, must be ensured of a full hearing. The Bill must set out clearly the conditions within which a public inquiry will be held, the consultation process and the rights of third parties. Only then can we be sure that the powers in the Bill will not be used to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people and the public at large.
  I do not see any new procedures working without a clear statement from the Government setting out a coherent transport strategy. The removal of the decision-making process from Parliament to the hands of local government and public inquiries may be welcome, but it must be accompanied by a transport strategy and that we do not see here. The decision-making bodies must have a framework within which they can work, confident that their decisions will be upheld.
  Our transport systems have suffered from lack of investment, lack of direction and short-term piecemeal decisions without a clear and coherent policy. The Bill could plunge us deeper into the mire by an explosion in the number of projects for light supertram systems, built for their entrepreneurial opportunities rather than in the interests of the community.
  The Bill is an enabling Bill. Its powers are permissive rather than mandatory. The Secretary of State is the one who blows the whistle. The interpretation and application of the Bill may reflect the ideologies of a Secretary of State rather than the transport and environmental needs of the country. The Bill must be seen in the light of the Government's desire to give free rein to the market economy and to privatise the railways and any other form of public transport. Some of the clauses in part I should be amended to clarify the proposed procedures and make them more specific. I hope that the Secretary of State will make draft rules available to the Committee before we start our proceedings.
  68
  Part II, which provides for safety on rail and other guided transport systems, has my full support. Some clauses may require amending, or will at least be the subject of much discussion. These are the clauses pertaining to the permitted levels of alcohol and to the procedures of evidence. Some of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State should perhaps be amended to place a duty on him, but that will be a matter for the Committee.
  Another subject that will require attention is the stopping up and diverting of public footpaths and bridleways in the interest of safety. As the Bill stands, there will be no requirement on British Rail to provide alternative means of access. That is a cause of concern to the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and other groups. Judging from what I have heard, other hon. Members will, like me, be seeking assurances that the provisions will not seriously reduce access to the extent that it affects the quality of life, particularly for the elderly, infirm or disabled. Near Southport is what people call the "devil's crossing". To my knowledge, at least three people have been killed there and I have heard that it may be as many as six, so we need a safety provision that will satisfy the Ramblers Association and others who have complained about it.
  On the whole, I expect part II to be given a smooth passage through all its stages. However, I stress that I do not see the safety measures taking the place of more effective means of making our transport system safe. The criminalisation of public transport drivers may be necessary, but it should not deter us from insisting on adequate investment to introduce other measures which may provide a greater guarantee of safety. For example, the introduction of automatic train protection to stop drivers going through a red light is probably a more effective measure. The Clapham and King's Cross disasters arose from under-investment and overworked staff, not irresponsible drivers.
  I and my party are in full agreement with the principle behind the Bill. We have reservations about part I, but these could be partly dispelled if the Government would announce a clear and coherent transport strategy.
  I hope that the Minister will answer one question for me. Once the proposed procedures are in place, what role will the Secretary of State for the Environment play in transport matters? He is the Minister responsible for local government, where many of the decisions will be taken. The recent transfer of the docklands light railway from London Transport to the London docklands development corporation has brought that system within his sphere. His plans for the development of the east Thames corridor will, I am sure, encompass various transport schemes, including the channel tunnel. Given all this, will the Minister clarify who is to have ultimate responsibility for transport matters? Will he clearly spell out the lines of responsibility, and where they lie?
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping on bringing forward this much-needed and sensible measure. The Bill will improve the way in which transport schemes are dealt with, while reducing the burden on Parliament and thereby enabling it to concentrate its time on those matters which are more properly its responsibility.

  69
  Part I provides a much better system, by which railways, tramways, other guided transport schemes and canal works can be approved by ministerial order instead of, as at present, by a private Bill. The order will give all the necessary and specific authority, including compulsory purchase and planning permission. It implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and will reduce the number of private Bills by an estimated half. Replacing private Bills in this way will play an important part in the Government's wider plans to release more time and reform the grossly inefficient and antediluvian way in which Parliament conducts its business in the last decade of the 20th century.
  The growth in the number of private Bills relating to rail and light rail projects, together with a much greater interest in, and highly organised support for and opposition to, such schemes has meant that the burden on Parliament has become intolerable, while the time taken to process the applications has dramatically increased. This is not in the interest of Parliament, the promoters of private Bills or those affected by the planned developments. In the last Session, 23 of the 28 private Bills dealt with transport or transport-related matters and took on average 19 months to receive Royal Assent.
  Any proposal to speed up this process is to be warmly welcomed, particularly given the escalating construction costs of those much-needed projects, which are frequently delayed in the House not by reasoned and constructive debate but by filibustering designed to block the whole project and kill the Bill—a ploy that can succeed unless 100 Members happen to be available to support a clause. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to this earlier on.
  It is wrong that procedures should be allowed to get in the way of improving our transport infrastructure. The job of Parliament is to remove as many unnecessary obstacles as possible to the ability of private and public enterprise to undertake capital projects. As the Joint Committee rightly said:
  "Private Bills are not in the opinion of the Committee an appropriate system for authorising works of purely local significance. The Committee would regard the transfer of power from Parliament in these cases not as a substantial constitutional shift, but as a logical step in a pattern of historical development and a necessary response to modern requirements."
  Sensibly and neatly, the Bill makes the distinction between local and national schemes. Those that are of essentially local importance will henceforth be authorised by means of a local public inquiry rather than detailed scrutiny by Members. These schemes will inevitably be speeded up considerably. For those projects of strategic and/or national importance, Parliament will properly have an opportunity to debate and approve the principles and policy involved before the scheme goes for detailed scrutiny to a local inquiry. In that way, due weight can be given by the inquiry to the wider implications of the scheme.
  There must be a suitable balance between national and local interests, but it cannot be acceptable that very localised concerns should prevent a major strategic project from proceeding as soon as possible. If public funds are responsible for the construction costs, the wider public have the right to expect that their interests are given due account. But even private sector promoters are entitled to have the wider national benefits of their schemes given maximum weight.
  70
  Part II deals with important safety measures, including new police powers to test drivers and other persons working on the railways for drink and drugs. The measures are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that the proposals, which have been both warmly and widely welcomed within and outside the railway industry, will go through the parliamentary process unopposed.
  Also to be welcomed are the new powers for the Secretary of State to approve the safety standards of new works, plant and equipment, and to require more reports on accidents and occurrences. The amendment of the safety regulations to ensure that all serious incidents are reported to the railway inspectorate, whether an accident occurs or not, will implement recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports. The drafting will cover existing and anticipated forms of transport, and it is a sensible piece of foresight. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me what other forms of transport he might be anticipating. As I have said, it is sensible to include such foresight in the Bill in a technological age.
  I am especially pleased to see that the Bill will give the police new powers to allow them to breathalyse train and tram operators where there is even a suspicion of an offence, or after an accident. The powers will extend to include all those whose job involves controlling the movement of a vehicle, such as level crossing keepers, as well as guards and drivers.
  Train drivers are responsible for far more passengers than car drivers, so the effects of alcohol and/or other drugs on their actions are correspondingly more serious. I agree, therefore, with the British Medical Association that the Bill should require a zero level of blood alcohol for those driving or involved in the operation of railways, trams, and other means of guided transport. I support random breath testing for car drivers, and to be logical and consistent, I should like to see that approach extended to those who are involved in the operation of rail systems.
  It is important also to ensure that there will be adequate special training for the British Transport police to enable them to use breath-testing equipment properly in accordance with their duties under clause 30. I am sure that that is something to which my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving attention.
  Safety is and will remain British Rail's highest priority. Investment in safety last year was £140 million, and it will reach £330 million over the next three years. All new and recently built trains are being fitted with black box recorders, and pilot tests of automatic train protection equipment are to begin shortly.
  The Government have rightly made it clear to British Rail that high standards of safety must remain its top priority. All the recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham junction accident, which were published in November 1989, either have been or are being implemented. New procedures have been introduced for wiring and testing signals, staff training has been reviewed and procedures for dealing with emergencies have been updated. A further 24 measures are in the pipeline, and two are for later implementation. British Rail's external financing limit for 1990–91 was raised to £700 million in July 1990—an increase of over £100 million—to pay for safety measures.
  British Rail has taken many initiatives which demonstrate its commitment to safety. For example, all staff have been issued with a safety policy statement, and last February a safety plan was published. The fitting of

  71
  black box data recorders has now begun, as has that of cab radios, together with automatic train protection, a device that is designed to prevent a train from passing a signal at danger and to control a train's speed if the driver does not. Two pilot schemes are now being tested on the Chiltern line and on the Paddington-Bristol line.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Cryer: Who wrote this?
  Mr. Amos: I did, this morning, and I wrote it in great detail.
  Although road projects are already catered for by the planning and public inquiry system, this is a good opportunity to urge the taking of action to speed up pre-construction procedures for road improvement, which already tend to be slower than the existing procedures for railways. Many of the delays occur when the Department of Transport is considering the next stage—for example, at the conclusion of public consultation or after a public inquiry.
  Gestation periods of 20 years or more are common for major road schemes in Britain, and not only major motorway schemes such as the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham, the M3 Winchester bypass and the M20 missing link from Maidstone to Ashford. I shall not pursue that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order. I have made the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has noted it.
  The Bill is a good, sensible and useful measure, and I wish it a speedy passage.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I rise with some pleasure because I dare say that I am the only hon. Member who for many years past has had the pleasure of obtaining a light railway order and transfer order to transfer the powers of the Light Railways Act 1896, as amended by the Light Railways Act 1912, to apply to the five-mile Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in west Yorkshire. I am the owner of five shares, which have never received a dividend. They were part of the £3,500 capital with which the venture was started. That is when the railway was transferred to the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway.
  The procedures under which powers were obtained to run what was a standard-guage standard railway for the purpose of a light railway operation proved to be flexible and reasonable. They ensured that there were proper and adequate standards of operation. The fact that amateurs run many light railways does not detract from the need to ensure that they have the highest standards of operation, which is commensurate with public safety. Light railways have proved that they have been able to meet those standards. The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway has been a tremendous success. When it was started, many potential critics thought that it would go bankrupt in a year or two.
  I seek an assurance from the Minister that the new legislation will not prevent access and flexibility through the repeal of existing legislation. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are both to be repealed by the appropriate schedule to the Bill and I am not too happy that that legislation should be replaced by a series of orders.
  72
  We recognise that the private Bill procedure has been unsatisfactory, and dissatisfaction has been stimulated by the way in which the Government have abused the procedure, and by little else. We must ensure that it is replaced by a good system and that we do not succumb to the temptation merely to hand over order-making powers to the Minister so that Parliament is reduced to a legislative sausage machine in which there is no scrutiny of legislation.
  Nearly all orders are subject to the negative procedure, which means that a prayer has to be tabled to ensure that an order is considered. The procedures for ensuring that prayers are debated are less than adequate and Parliament does not scrutinise delegated legislation in an adequate fashion. It is a matter of concern, therefore, that so many powers should be allocated to the Minister.
  All the procedures are negative, with the exception of those relating to the powers in clauses 9 and 39 on alcohol limits, which are exercised by the affirmative procedure and require a resolution of the House to gain approval of the instrument.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the maximum debating time permitted for an affirmative order is one and a half hours and no amendments are allowed except for a tiny class of instruments. There is no reason why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could not consider a new orders procedure that would allow amendments to be produced and for debate to extend beyond the usual one and a half hours when such legislation is considered in Standing Committee.
  The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce far better procedures than are now available. I say that in the knowledge that the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in 1978–79 was 794, and that in 1979–80, in the first Session of a new Government who were meant to take legislation off our backs, the number was 1,800. In 1980–81, the figure dropped to 1,225; in 1981–82, to 1,076; and in 1982–83, to 786. That latter figure was markedly lower because it was a general election year.
  In 1987–88, the number of statutory instruments shot up to 1,947; in 1988–89, to 1,380; in 1989–90, to 1,457; and in 1990–91, to 1,366. That is an enormous number. In one two-year period, 260 were reported by the Joint Committee or Select Committee as being defective in some way.
  I am concerned that clauses 6, 7 and 10 allow powers to be exercisable by statutory instrument. Where the negative procedure is invoked in respect of other clauses, that is mentioned. I hope that the Minister is noting my comments, because these important points need answering. Clauses 6, 7 and 10 state that the powers that they confer
  "shall be exercisable by statutory instrument",
  but the procedure is not defined. That is the draftsman's way of saying that the Secretary of State is being given powers to make a statutory instrument that he is not even required to put before Parliament.
  That is a legislative disgrace.
  If my interpretation is correct, the Minister should come clean. He should make it clear whether that is the case, or whether the fact that the Bill does not state that

  73
  clauses 6, 7 and 10 shall be subject to annulment is an omission or oversight. That requirement is stated in all the other clauses where order-making powers are listed.
  Too often in primary legislation, Ministers are given excessive powers. Those included in clause 6 embrace all forms of application for orders under the Bill's general provisions, the rules that apply in respect of any such application, and the fees payable. Therefore, the Secretary of State appears to be giving himself money-making or money-raising powers without any parliamentary accountability being required.
  Clauses 6 and 46 give the Secretary of State the power to make directions, but they are not defined in the Bill. Do they have to be in writing? Will they be published? If so, where? Under the other application procedures, reference is made to the London Gazette. If we are to shift a system away from Parliament and the private Bill procedure, we should retain at least some element of occasional parliamentary scrutiny.
  Clause 48, which follows on the failure of British Rail's Bill on the closure of rail crossings, allows a Minister to close a railway crossing by order. Although it is true that the clause stipulates certain criteria, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in arguing that there must be cases where the Government could provide a little money to make crossings safer, or to provide bridges to enable pedestrian access.
  The railways were built under powers granted by the House which provided for access across railways, and that provision for access should be honoured rather than removed by ministerial fiat.
  Under clause 24, applications can also be dealt with by appointed persons. The Secretary of State is given the authority to appoint persons to exercise powers given by the Bill—which makes it clear that officers of the Department of Transport, Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will be permitted to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State.
  Many years ago, Thomas Dugdale established an honourable precedent: everyone thought that he was a wonderful man for resigning over the Crichel Down issue, in which he was not directly involved. That precedent has long disappeared. Today, we had the example of the Home Secretary coming to the House to say that he is appealing against a judgment which found him guilty of contempt of court.
  If the Secretary of State is to have powers to give civil servants the power to exercise primary legislation, it must be made absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for their actions without qualification and that there will be no shrugging off of responsibility for accidents or errors because something happened to be done by a civil servant. In view of recent examples, we must ask the Minister to make it clear where responsibility will lie in such cases.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) expressed concern that there had been no consultation with organisations representing the interests of waterways and said that it was understood that they would not be included in the Bill. The Minister replied that consultation was continuing, but that is not very satisfactory. We want an assurance that the Minister is prepared to meet delegations from the waterways industry as and when necessary—and that, if they can make a strong enough case, he will table amendments in Committee.
  74
  There is agreement in all parts of the House on clause 39 and the affirmative procedure in respect of prescribing alcohol and drug limits, but let there be proper standards across the board. The Government should examine, for example, proper ways of dealing with alcohol abuse, which is a serious national problem. In Bradford, an important hospital, Scalebor Park, was closed, with the result that there are no facilities in Bradford now to treat people suffering from alcohol abuse.
  It is not enough to impose punishments or to increase penalties. They may be necessary, but alcohol is a disease of society. Let us see Government action in curbing advertisements and the glamourising of alcohol. Consider the cheating that goes on when sporting events are televised and huge placards advertising alcohol can be seen in the background. All that should stop.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Cryer: I would rather not, because I know that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) hopes to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to prolong my remarks.
  I hope that the Minister will give positive replies to the points that have been made. I welcome the Bill in principle, but I remain cautious about its detailed application.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I also appreciated listening to his experiences as the director of a successful privatised railway company. I hope that we shall soon hear him advocating the extension of that privilege to many more people throughout the country.
  I welcome the support that has been given to the Bill by all the parties and the constructive, co-operative approach that has been adopted. I say that as one who sat for what seemed like endless months on the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). That co-operative approach is warmly welcomed.
  The Committee agonised for a long time over whether to adopt this radical approach to the transfer of public works Bills out of parliamentary procedures and into the planning procedures. It was not an easy conclusion to reach. We heard representations from many interested parties. I believe that the Committee reached the right decision and that that view is now being endorsed by the reaction of all the parties and, generally speaking, by outside bodies.
  It is a historic decision. The fact that it is being debated in a spirit of co-operation and amity does not mean that it is any the less decisive. A system that has grown up over the centuries is to be changed. The way in which public works of this sort are to be considered during the next century is to be decided by this legislation—if, indeed, to sound a note of caution, it reaches the statute book this Session. I welcome the Bill's early arrival this Session, but who knows what other events might occur to truncate our legislative programme?
  I very much hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. It provides a much more efficient and fairer system for dealing public works matters. It cannot be right that

  75
  decisions on motorways which carved up the countryside were taken by inspectors at public inquiries and by the Secretary of State while the house spent hours and hours debating very small matters such as minor railway diversions and even footpaths. It was an illogical system. The one that we propose is much more logical. It will treat railways—we hope that there will be more of them—as we have treated roads. If one can be dealt with seriously, sensibly and fairly under the planning procedures, I believe that the same logic should be applied to railway projects and, for that matter, to ports. Moreover, the public would regard it as logical.
  I believe, too, that it is fairer. Like many hon. Members, I have served on many private Bills, but I have never been completely satisfied that it is a fair system. Hon. Members often enjoy taking part, but the system is not always fair to petitioners and promoters. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills at great expense, only for them to return to the Chamber and be defeated by what we, as parliamentarians, believe to be legitimate tactics. However, is it fair to use what is a quasi-judicial system as a means for indulging in parliamentary tricks that should be reserved for public Bills? We have some way to go yet in tightening up the procedures for all private Bills so that they receive fair treatment at all stages.
  My hon. Friend the Minister should clarify—not necessarily today, but at some stage—the criteria that will be used to determine what is a matter of national significance. It may be impossible to specify that in legislation, but guidelines should be provided.
  I had intended to ask about the Bill's impact on the biggest issue of national significance that will come before us—the high-speed rail link. We need to know whether it will be dealt with under this procedure, as a matter of national significance, or under the private Bill procedure as it stands, which it might well have to do, or whether it will be dealt with under the hybrid Bill procedure, in which case all the rules and dangers of that procedure will apply.
  It is vital that we should be told soon what procedure will be adopted for that scheme. The success or failure of the high-speed link will be determined by the procedures that are adopted. If it is the hybrid Bill procedure or the private Bill procedure, the scheme could be delayed for several years, and I am anxious that that should not happen.
  I think that we should all give a warm welcome to the Bill. I hope that it reaches the statute book soon. We must endeavour to get it through Parliament as quickly as we can so that it is not endangered by a general election. I share the wish that public works coming forward for consideration next year should be dealt with under the new procedure, not under our outdated and inadequate procedure.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: Unfortunately, I shall not have time to deal with many of the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall endeavour to deal with specific points in Committee.
  For obvious reasons, the House has given a warm welcome to the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the interesting and not so interesting debates that have taken place throughout the past few years on a number of
  76
  private Bills. It is right, therefore, to try to devise an appropriate procedure to ensure that Bills which go through all their parliamentary stages are not prevented from reaching the statute book late in the day.
  A number of hon. Members consider that time limits should be imposed on public inquiries. We shall have to consider that issue in Committee. Some difficulties may be encountered, however, over imposing strict time limits on how long the Secretary of State may have to consider inspectors' reports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made an important point regarding how schemes of national significance are to be decided. He referred to the high-speed rail link. If it were to come under this procedure, it would be regarded as a matter of national significance and would be debated in the House.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants us to adopt criteria. We believe that the criteria may be too inflexible. The Secretary of State will decide each case on its merits and expects only the biggest schemes to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State needs to be flexible, but schemes that are regarded as of great national importance will have to come automatically before the House.
  A meeting is being arranged regarding inland waterways. The Bill will have no effect whatever on the Bill that is now in the other place. That should not cause problems for hon. Members.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the fear is that this Bill duplicates some of the provisions of the Bill now being considered in the other place? Will the Minister agree to meet those concerned before the Bill is considered in Committee so that time can be saved?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I very much hope that we can set up a meeting as quickly as possible. It would obviously be practicable to do so before the Bill reaches Committee.
  Many references were made to whether we should or should not close public footpaths. That is an important issue. We believe, however, that that is best left to the discretion of local public inquiries. I was grateful for what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said. I do not believe that every time a public right of way or public footpath is proposed to be closed it should be necessary to come to the House for approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has great experience of private Bills and other private legislation procedures, amply illustrated the need for the Bill.
  I am glad that the Bill has received a generally warm reception. We shall have to discuss a number of issues in Committee, but I believe that all hon. Members wish the Bill to make progress. However, progress must not be made at the expense of getting the legislation wrong. It is important that the legislation can be adapted to meet the many needs that are catered for in private Bills. The aim is not necessarily to speed up their passage, but to ensure that there is a better way of securing progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that, before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be virtually a zero alcohol limit for professional drivers, not a bottle of wine in an hour.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  TRANSPORT AND WORKS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation have been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport and Works Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

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

British Railways Bill

  (By Order)
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  7 pm
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The nice juxtaposition of the remaining stages of the British Railways Bill and the Transport and Works Bill, debate on which preceded it, will not have escaped hon. Members' attention. The latter is likely to make Bills such as the British Railways Bill unnecessary.
  The Bill was deposited in November last year, had an unopposed Second Reading on 19 March and was reported on 13 June. It may assist hon. Members if I refresh their memories by saying that the Bill has 47 clauses. In their various ways, all are concerned with improving the general structure of British Rail's operations throughout the country and, so far as is possible, continuing the policy which has been in place for some years of encouraging the transfer of the movement of goods and passengers from road to rail.
  In some instances, the principal works outlined in the Bill are reinstatements of old works. For the convenience of the House, I shall go through some of the more important works provisions. Work No. 1 provides for the reinstatement of a chord line at Guide Bridge in Greater Manchester to assist the construction industry in moving stone by rail rather than by heavy lorries. Work No. 2 provides for the reinstatement of a curve at Edge Hill, Liverpool, to allow coal trains for Gladstone dock to reach Fiddler's Ferry power station—again, a move from road to rail.
  Work No. 3 provides for the restoration of the rail link between St. Helens and St. Helens junction on the Liverpool and Manchester railway to take account of the new passenger service between St. Helens and Warrington. Work No. 4 provides for a temporary diversion of the railway at Bingley to allow the construction of a bridge for the Airedale trunk road. Works Nos. 5 and 6 allow the construction of two extra tracks on the western approach to Leeds station to handle the increasing number of passenger trains planned for the future with West Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
  Work No. 7 relates to the rail link to Dover, which ultimately will be of great significance to the channel tunnel plans. A new footbridge will be provided for pedestrians and the nearby Crow Corner bridge will be widened to take the extra road traffic. It will mean a general improvement in traffic flow in the area.
  Work No. 8, which was of significance on Second Reading, provides for the establishment of a chord line at Clarborough near Gainsborough, which will allow coal trains from the Immingham coal terminal to reach Cottam power station direct. It was agreed that it is far better to move coal by rail than by road.
  Work No. 9 is for a new siding at Sherburn in Elmet, between Pontefract and York, to carry gypsum trains. That gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station, and trains will use the new railway siding which is to be built there.
  Small changes were made to the Bill in Committee. As hon. Members will see, they are typographical changes.

  79
  Under clause 29, three level crossings were to have their status reduced. The Bill was amended so that all three crossings would retain their status as bridleways. That is the only change of any significance. The rest of the Bill contains the normal, standard provisions with which the House will be familiar. They have been included in every British Rail Bill so far and I do not intend to waste time explaining them yet again unless specific questions are raised.
  It is essential to recognise that the Bill is part of a continuing strategy. It is important, therefore, that it should progress swiftly to the statute book. I am always delighted to play a small part in assisting British Rail to achieve powers which are of such significance to its operational future. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments on a Bill which, as the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, makes some additions to our railway system. I am bound to say, however, that a Bill which adds a few metres to our railway system is a poor comparison with provisions in France, where they add to the railway system by hundreds of kilometres at a time. I found it painful to have to talk in metres and kilometres rather than the furlongs and miles which are the normal way of describing lengths of railway, but there is a big difference between what happens in this country and what happens in France, whatever measurements one uses.
  My point arises from a statement on behalf of the promoters, which was made available to hon. Members. It stated:
  "The Board are continuing with their attempts to negotiate a settlement with those opposing the Bill and, meanwhile, respectfully submit that the Bill should be permitted to pass Consideration stage and proceed to Third Reading."
  I wish to counsel hon. Members that all the undertakings and all the arrangements that BR negotiates with people to secure the passage of the Bill must be considered in the light of experience.
  My experience is that, when BR undertook to restore overnight services on the east coast main line, it did not carry out its undertakings. The result is that I continue to receive a great deal of correspondence from angry constituents who want to know why they cannot have an overnight service to and from London, which they used to have and which could readily be provided.
  When those who are still worried about some aspects of the Bill are approached by members of British Rail bearing gifts of concessions and arrangements which they expect to be the basis of letting the Bill proceed through all its stages, I hope that they will bear that experience in mind and recognise that sometimes those undertakings are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that reminders of what happened in the past will eventually persuade BR to reverse that foolish decision.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I recognise that I spoke just before 7 o'clock on the Transport and Works Bill, and it may be worth linking it with the British Railways Bill. I
  80
  congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) on the way in which he presented the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Perhaps I should give a little guidance and remind the House that this is a most historic day and a most historic time. For many years, the House has sought to improve the private Bill procedure. It made the changes a short time ago and the rules of debate are therefore new to us today. We are now on Third Reading and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) can refer not to what might have been or to what should have been but only to precisely what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: If that debars me from continuing to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has presented the Bill, I apologise, but it will probably be in order for me to congratulate a fellow hon. Member on his speech, which is what I was trying to do.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: But not to link it to the previous Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: I was going to say, by way of apology, that my service on European Standing Committee B prevented me from being here during the previous debate. Those words are not part of this Bill—I am fully aware of what this Bill is about.
  I had not intended to oppose the Bill. My precise reason is dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but British Rail has annoyed me. It has found a way to let an operator use part of British Rail property for a market without planning permission. If that continues to be an option for British Rail, I regard it as a suitable reason to oppose many British Rail Bills.
  In view of all the fuss about shops opening on Sundays, for British Rail land, made available by agreement or by authority under such Bills, then to be used for another purpose to the exclusion of those who wish to use the railways, makes one wonder whether the new procedures are right or whether Parliament should retain some control under the procedure which will operate if the previous Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that I am right in saying that the Bill received a Second Reading but has not gone through all its stages.
  The issues that we are discussing are basically about safety and level crossings. I strongly support the idea of British Rail having powers to get rid of unsafe crossings of railway lines, because the speed at which trains now move requires more bridges and more grade separation. It is a mistake for British Rail Bills to leave out powers to close bridleways. My hon. Friend mentioned—as I do in passing —that that change has been made to the Bill since it was last considered on the Floor of the House. As more trains use the lines, and as headway is reduced, people must accept that there is greater danger for those who cross railway lines at rail level.
  During my service as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, I had the experience of going to the Slaght level crossing crash outside Ballymena. Anyone who has seen the effect on a train—let alone on a car—of a train hitting a car will understand the importance of supporting British Rail in its basic aim of increasing safety of railway lines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned bringing back into use lines which had previously had

  81
  railways on them. It is an issue on which this country made a mistake compared with France. I think that I am right in saying that, where a railway line was taken up in France, it was not available for other use but was protected.
  In the United Kingdom—this applies to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland—we have too often allowed small sections of land to pass into other hands at low prices. That is partly due to the ideology of the present Government during the past 12 years—they were not willing to look ahead to see changes in transport needs and to accept that there might be different competitive advantages in different forms of transport.
  I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about trying to help to move traffic from the roads to the railways where that is commercially viable and, if necessary, with some subsidy. Again I refer to previous experience, this time at the Department of Transport. Although I was called the Minister for Roads, I strongly supported the apparent subsidies to have heavy goods railheads in quarries and to allow other goods to go by rail where possible and thus to allow British Rail to get freight business as though between consenting adults instead of by Government diktat. That is an important way of allowing British Rail's freight business to become more prosperous.
  British Rail should give more consideration to replacements for unsafe and unsatisfactory pedestrian bridges over railways. That also applies to subway tunnels. Many of the bridges and tunnels built in the 1920s and 1930s are no longer satisfactory. There is a greater expectation that people with pushchairs and shopping and that elderly people should be able to take gentle ramps rather than decaying concrete steps.
  I hope that, if British Rail is willing to consider the issue, it will examine not only the Sunday market in my constituency, which I regard as unsatisfactory, but the crossing of the railway line at Middle Park, which, although it is not part of this Bill, should be.
  7.14 pm
  Sir John Farr: I do not want to delay progress, but someone must say that he is not entirely happy about the way in which British Rail has promoted
  82
  the Bill and about the contents of some of the clauses. Many of us believe that parts of the Bill—especially part III, which has been considered in Committee—could be improved.
  There is a widely held view in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands in general that British Rail is riding rough shod over many thousands of people and their elected representatives merely by failing to take the opportunities available. For example, part III contains provisions for the purchase of and rights over land, part IV relates to protective possession and part V contains the usual provisions relating to planning permission and arbitration.
  A great sense of frustration is building up because many hon. Members feel that the Bill represents a lost opportunity for British Rail. I shall seek to remain in order by referring to what is in the Bill. Nevertheless, I must say briefly that the constant inability of British Rail in successive British Railway Bills to recognise a real need is causing much frustration. If one writes to British Rail, one gets the brush-off. If one writes and asks—or begs—British Rail to include improvements in the Bill which it could easily have done by extending part III, one gets the same treatment.
  Part III deals with purchase of land and the rights over land and schedule 3(1) specifies the purpose. Those parts of the Bill are vehicles for British Rail to do work that is publicly demanded but which it resolutely refuses to give even the slightest hint that it contemplates.
  I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but it is what is missing that worries me. What is missing and what concerns tens of thousands of us is that the midland main line should be electrified as soon as possible.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given guidance on the rules of debate. This is Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Construction Board (Training Levy)
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
  The proposals before the House seek authority for the construction industry training board to raise a levy on employers in the building and civil engineering industries to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme.
  The basis of the proposals is a levy of 0·25 per cent. on the payroll of employers in the industry and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Employers with a payroll of £45,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. The proposals have the support of the employers, as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982, and have the full support of the board.
  The House will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain the statutory training board. In principle, we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general, the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not good.
  In the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", we recognised that the industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry and the mobile nature of its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontract and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances.
  Against that background, we consulted the industry widely about the contruction industry training board. There was a widespread and strongly held view that the CITB should be retained, but that its management should be streamlined and reformed. In addition, the employers in the industry argued strongly for the retention of a statutory levy because of the largely self-employed nature of the labour force.
  We were persuaded to give the industry a chance to reform its training board, to remodel it as an employer-led body and to alter the basis of levy collection. I am happy to say that much progress has been made. The board was reconstituted with a majority of key employers from within the industry, its operations and financial systems have been restructured and a strategic plan has been produced which sets out clear objectives against which the success of the board's actions can be judged. New measures have been introduced to counter the effects of the recession on training, and the board is on schedule to create national vocational qualifications for all major occupations by September 1992.
  All the signs are that the board, under its chairman, Sir Clifford Chetwood, is fully committed to demonstrating its value to the industry and others. I especially draw the attention of the House to positive relationships that the board has established with 102 training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies for the provision of training for about 20,000 young people on its youth training schemes and to the £6·5 million that it is using
  84
  from its reserves this year to maintain the momentum of training in the industry. The improvement in effectiveness will be taken into account next year, when we review the continuing need for statutory arrangements in the industry.
  It is right for 1992 that the House should approve the draft order. I commend it to the House.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: The construction industry is an industry in crisis. The crisis has been created by the Government and it provides the context in which there have been tremendous implications for training. The Minister introduced the order characteristically, outlining the Government's interest in voluntarism and the fact that the order has the support of the construction industry training board. The reality is far removed from his speech.
  We have no desire to divide the House, because this is a procedural order. It allows the board to continue with the levy, which ensures that income will be gained and that training can continue. However, important issues should be raised this evening. The order does not command the support of the CITB. A pistol is pointed at its head, because it has been warned that, in the next year, there will be a further review under which it is likely that it will again lose its statutory framework and be cast adrift into voluntarism along with the 22 other boards which have been dismantled in the past eight to nine years.
  In that context, it is important to identify the flaws in the order. The crisis in the industry has now been reflected in the near-collapse of skills training in the sector. There is probably no better example of an industry and a sector in which economic policies are causing so much damage. The crisis has been created over the past 10 years, and this is the second recession in which the building industry has been hit hard.
  A number of strands to the crisis should be identified. First, there is the recession. It is clear from all those in the industry that the recession has a devastating impact on emloyment and on the ability to train. It is measured in the repossession of houses and in the lack of new house starts.
  Secondly, the crisis is measured in terms of Government cuts in training. Over a year ago, just after the autumn statement, the Government cut almost £340 million from the training budget, including the budget for adult training and the budget for youth training. Over the past year, some of the cuts have been reinstated, but the damage has been done. As will become clear tonight, the construction industry still suffers from the irresponsible cuts imposed by the Government.
  Thirdly, uncertainty now surrounds the future of the industry. The Minister suggested that the Government had listened to the employers and had decided to provide a statutory framework for the CITB. We welcome that. However, the decision to allow the board to continue was cloaked in Ministers' remarks suggesting that the statutory provision would be short-lived. We have the major problem that one of the key sectors in British industry has hanging over it the threat that, in a year's time, the decision will be further reviewed and the industry will again lose its ability to impose a statutory levy.
  Fourthly, the threat is an example of the Government's lack of commitment to training and to skills development. Every other nation in Europe puts that at the top of the agenda, but in Britain training is used as a political

  85
  football by the Conservatives. The Government have launched TECs, but they have then provided less funding than was envisaged. Morale is low, and many people are disillusioned.
  One problem above all is the lack of commitment to sector-based training. The French, the Germans and, increasingly, the Italians value strong sectors producing quality training in which the employers and the trade unions have confidence. That is very different from the approach of the Government, who have not only abandoned a serious commitment to training, but have suggested that sectors do not have a valuable role to play.
  We have one of the best construction industries in Europe, but unfortunately, it has one of the worst Governments. In a "State of Trade Enquiry" report published in November by the Building Employers Confederation, we read the outline of one of the bleakest futures for any construction sector in the whole of Europe. The confederation asks why, after two recessions and amid the deepest recession since the war, the Government show no sign of listening to the pleas made, or to the concerns expressed on the training front and, more importantly, on the need for investment.
  The Building Employers Confederation had a meeting with the Prime Minister, which was reported on 1 October in The Independent. It was clear that the employers proposed a plan to generate more immediate investment in the sector to provide some stability and to ensure that quality training would be provided. The article says:
  "Mr. Major disagreed with the delegation's gloomy forecast of when the recovery in construction would begin, saying he expected industry to emerge from recession in the middle of next year."
  Clearly the construction industry has extremely bleak prospects, and the Government do not take its major concerns especially seriously.
  We talked about the importance of the sector to the economy. One would not think that it was important from the statistics that have been compiled about the industry under this Government. Over the past 10 years under this Government, the number in employment in the construction industry has declined by almost 250,000. In the present recession, almost 100,000 jobs have gone, according to the Government's figures published in Employment Gazette. The industry says that the figure should be almost 165,000, and that more jobs are threatened to go in the next few months.
  Construction output is falling rapidly. We have to look back to the first quarter of 1988 to see a time when construction output was so low. We have to go back to the first quarter of 1986 to see such a low figure for construction output per person in the past decade. Regardless of the statistics used, we now find that one of Britain's greatest industries is threatened by a Government who ooze indifference, and who are not interested in investment or in investment in skills.
  We really discover the extent of the difficulties facing the industry when we consider training. Between 1989 and 1991, the number of construction trainees enrolled by the CITB fell by 40 per cent., from 14,385 to 8,500. In the same period, the number of apprentices registered with the council fell by 45 per cent., to just 2,710 starts. That 2,710 starts for apprentices must be set against an industry which employs nearly 1·8 million people, half of whom are
  86
  employees and the other half self-employed. Those starts cannot sustain the skills in the industry in the decades ahead.
  Local authority direct labour organisations are the cornerstones of training in construction. According to a recent survey by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, training places have been cut by 27 per cent. for women and by 47 per cent. overall between November 1990 and November 1991. The construction industry has an excellent provision for youth training, unlike many other sectors of British industry, but by 20 November 1991, only 9,562 young people had started on YT, compared with 11,877 by the same date last year. That is a reduction of 2,315, or 19·5 per cent., in just 12 months. The raw statistics show that training faces a crisis for many reasons.
  The Government fail to appreciate—although they are prisoners of their own rhetoric and ideology—several important points which others readily grasp and would clearly like to do something about. The cut in the number of trainees has already been identified. It is also obvious that there are fewer apprentices. One of the damaging implications of the recession is that very few employers are now able or willing to offer employment to trainees. Indeed, very few employers are willing to provide work experience instead of full employment. All that has been compounded by the Government's crazy cuts in youth training, including in the construction industry.
  The Government laughingly refer to a YT guarantee for every young person. However, it is clear that, throughout Britain and particularly in the construction industy, the YT guarantee for many young people is simply not worth the paper that it is printed on. Because of that, the CITB has had to introduce various schemes using its own investment to tide it over what it believed at the outset would be a short recession, but which has now become a very deep and long recession. If the recession lasts much longer, and with present cuts in Government funding, the board will not have enough money to invest to tide itself over this period in which young people face such difficulties.
  The board faces a crisis, and the Government are unable—some people would say unwilling, but I would be more charitable—to assist. However, that behaviour is characteristic of the Government. What can we expect from a Government who are dismantling quality training in the construction industry and whose record on training boards over the past decade has been one of failure? There used to be 23 such boards, but 16 were demolished. Of the seven remaining, five were then demolished and the two that remain are now under threat. What next for the training boards?
  Skill centres are a key part of the provision in any sector, but the Government have privatised them. That privatisation was ludicrous. Four of the sectors under the TICC consortium have entered receivership, and £2·1 million of public money has simply disappeared. The Government have reneged on all their commitments to the civil servants who were transferred into the private sector. We have lost capacity, skills and people who had some faith in the Government's processes. They have been sold down the river.
  What about the Manpower Services Commission? It was charged with the objective of bringing Britain into the

  87
  premier league for skills. However, the Government nearly abolished it. Many people deplored that. Clearly, our national focus for training has been removed.
  The employment service is disillusioned, demoralised and underfunded. In a sense, it is not required by a Government who preach the market model and who see no long-term future for the service. The treatment of training in the construction industry falls into line with the Government's practices over the past decade. The Government have nothing to be proud of over that period. After all that and the investment of nearly £30 billion in real terms, this nation has nothing to show for 12 years of this Conservative Government.
  The order refers to the future of the CITB and the continuation of a levy. The Minister said earlier that that is supported. It is not. The Building Employers Confederation and the trade unions—the key providers —do not want a levy at 0·25 per cent. of payroll. That is far too small. They are arguing for a minimum of 0·5 per cent. of payroll. I am sure that the Government were informed of that, but they did not listen.
  The Building Employers Confederation wanted no exemptions, because it must be right that every employer should contribute investment to his employees. The BEC must have told the Government that, but they did not listen. Exemptions have been raised from a base of £ 10,000 to £45,000. The industry wanted to be able to use the funds that it had generated to invest in youth training.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that charities are also exempt. Does he object to that?
  Mr. McLeish: Every employer in Britain, including charities, small businesses, medium-sized and large businesses, must contribute to the skills needs of the country. When we talk about exemptions, the Government refer to them simply from a basis of ideology. They do not want a levy: they want everyone to be exempt. That is the essence of voluntarism. The BEC, which is not a strong supporter of the Labour party, has requested no exemptions, because it sees the benefit of every employer being involved, but the Government ignored that plea. The Government also ignored the Confederation's plea to use its finances to support YT when it saw fit. The Government encouraged heating and ventilating and plumbing and electrical to remove themselves from the scope of the CITB.
  Why do the Government preach that we should listen to industry when they ignore everything that industry tells them about training in the construction sector? The simple facts speak for themselves. I received a letter written by Mr. Smith, the secretary-director of the CITB, on 28 November. He made a point about the exemptions from the levy and said:
  "The Board and much of industry considers that there should be no exclusion from levy but that the whole of industry should contribute to the cost of training. However, the current legislation and Government policy requires a level to be set and the present level is reluctantly accepted on that basis."
  That is the board's view of Government policy—the very same Government policy that the House has been told has been endorsed by all those in the construction
  88
  industry. I must advise the Minister that that is not what the construction industry is saying to others about the problems that it is facing.
  Faced with such a crisis, we need some action. We are facing a loss of jobs, skills and capacity. The prospects for the immediate future are bleak. The Government need to take action on four issues, the first of which is the skills shortage. By instinct and possibly by ideology, the Minister never shows much interest in this subject, but perhaps he should listen to this debate. If we ever climb out of the current recession, the skills shortage in the industry will be a major problem.
  Some forecasts suggest that, by the turn of the century, 250,000 skilled people will have been lost to the industry. That is a product of the present lack of interest in the construction industry which the Minister must address, because the skills shortage is of crucial concern not only to those in the industry but to Britain, because we must invest in training in the 1990s if we are to survive.
  Secondly, there is a widening trade deficit in building products. Why, in 1989, did we have a £3 billion trade deficit in building products against the background of building firms, building material producers and brick-makers all going to the wall? It does not make sense to squander important resources that the nation can ill afford to lose.
  The third issue is our failure to meet the demand for new housing. Is the Minister interested in building homes in Britain not only to tackle the problem of homelessness but to allow peple to move within the private sector? Is he not interested in ensuring that building skills are available and, more importantly, that homes are made available in the right place and at the right time?
  The fourth issue is something in which the Minister will not be at all interested—European competition in the 1990s. Whether the Minister likes it or not, we must be prepared to face such competition, because major European contractors are already in Britain, winning contracts and using skilled labour from their own countries in which there is better investment.
  Those are some of the important reasons why the Government should be alive to the problems faced by the industry and the challenges that lie ahead. The first thing that Britain needs is a new model for sector skills training. We need to take advantage of the European experience. We need strong sectors and effective organisations that are widely representative of their members. We also need organisations that are free to determine and to organise the most effective way to tackle those needs. We need sectors that will work in partnership with Government.
  Secondly, along with the development of the training and enterprise councils, Britain's sectors should be given a key strategic role. We need national coverage in key sectors to provide skills and company-specific training. There should be an interface with the delivery of local training through the TECs, which can provide an intimate local delivery mechanism based on their own activities and local intelligence.
  Thirdly, we need a CITB and engineering construction sector from which the heavy hand of conservatism has been removed. If the industry wants a levy, it should have one. If it wants to decide on the level of that levy, that issue should also be left to the sector. If the industry does not want to have any exemptions from the levy, it should be able to undertake such a policy in partnership with Government and the TECs. That is what we mean by

  89
  freedom from increasing centralisation and from the Government's highly prescriptive policies. Industry should be allowed to fashion and to shape its own policies based on the needs of the employer group companies.
  We need a sector policy that will look closely at the Engineering Training Authority, which was also dismembered by the present Government. The construction industry's authority should remain a statutory body while the Engineering Training Authority should be allowed to take over the functions of the old engineering industry training board. Because of the importance that we attach to their manufacturing activities, we should take an early look at those organisations' progress and performance within their sectors.
  That amounts to an important step forward for the sectors. I am sorry that the Minister finds this subject uninteresting. In the past decade, it has never been clear whether the Government have found satisfying their own political philosophy more important than satisfying the training needs of the nation. In the last two or three months before they leave office, they have an excellent opportunity to mend some of their ways and to start to take the construction sector seriously. They should embark on the programme and policy that Labour will certainly pursue when we are in office.
  Finally, it has been said that the Department of Trade and Industry bears the mantle of the most unsuccessful Department of State. However, the Department of Employment shows no leadership, no understanding, no commitment and no real interest in training. It contains a "hands off—do nothing" set of Ministers. Time is running out for them, but, fortunately for the sectors involved, we will invest in them when we take office and will start to do the things that are being done in Europe which have made companies there so successful and so much more competitive than ourselves. That is the way forward. That is what we intend to do when we remove the Government from office at the earliest opportunity.
  7.45 pm
  Sir Michael Neubert: I must declare a new interest at the outset of my speech in that I have recently become the parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders.
  As the order's reference to the 27th levy period suggests, the motion is not a great parliamentary novelty. The previous 1991 order was discussed at a slightly later time of night, but on the same day of the week nine months ago, since when there has been no significant change in the construction industry's circumstances. Times are still hard, not to say very hard.
  Although the order does not propose any great innovations, it is worth making some brief comments on its background. I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will understand that I do not intend to follow what he said in his long speech—it was almost the same length as his speech in our previous debate on the subject—or his wide range of criticisms of the Government's policy. This is not because I share his criticisms—quite the opposite—but because, like him, I anticipate and relish the prospect of my hon. Friend the Minister replying to the debate, when I hope that he will give a robust rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms.
  As far as it goes, the order has the support of the industry, although that support is not unreserved, does not
  90
  come from all quarters and does not relate to all aspects of the provisions. Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I refer to the exemption of small employers with a payroll of less than £45,000. The advantages of exemption can be easily seen, if only as an illustration of the de minimis principle.
  However, things can look rather different from the angle of those just above the exemption limit. At the best of times, the industry is very competitive, but this is not the best of times. When price competition is at its keenest, the extra on-cost that is entailed in the payment of a statutory training levy can be unwelcome for a company that is competing with a slightly smaller concern which enjoys the exemption.
  The same factor comes into play with value added tax, in which there has been a change as a result of last spring's Budget. Those just below the VAT level can have a clinching advantage over those just above it, but that is the nature of thresholds. Such considerations may appear comparatively unimportant in other industries, but the construction industry contains many small firms, more than 23,000 of which are likely to qualify for the exemption that is provided in the order. However, as I said, the industry broadly goes along with the CITB's proposals and with this order, which embodies them.
  The dominant day-to-day concern of the industry is naturally the recession. Technically, it may have come to an end, but recovery will be slow, sluggish and patchy. By tradition, the construction industry is the first to feel a recession and the hardest hit—and this recession is no exception. In his statement on public expenditure—in part, this refutes what the hon. Member for Fife, Central said —my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced increased programmes in a number of Departments which will provide substantial work for the industry. Of course, for the next financial year that is still some dark winter months away.
  When the upturn comes, there will be a renewed demand for skills. It has been estimated that the industry may be short of some 50,000 skilled craftsmen in the next two years. That is a round figure subject to the hazards of forecasting, but no one should doubt that, among the quarter of a million people who lost their jobs in the recession, there will be many craftsmen and trainees, who will be permanently lost to the industry. That puts the importance of the order in sharp focus.
  Unless training continues, the future of the construction industry will be in jeopardy. Wage inflation and overheating will be in prospect as employers chase scarce skills with higher payments. That underlines the importance of the construction industry training board. The Federation of Master Builders fully supports the board and believes that the special character of the industry justifies its continued role and its statutory powers to collect a levy and pay grants for training. It is difficult to see how the training function could be guaranteed otherwise.
  The construction industry is different. In a competitive climate, it has short-term objectives. In good times, the timespan can be as much as three months. In any other times, it can be less than a week. In those circumstances, it is not a realistic option to take the long view which is characteristic of other industries and to invest in benefits that are achievable only years ahead. So a statutory levy makes sense. Without it, the short, cheap cut would almost always be taken.

  91
  It has to be recognised that the construction industry consists of a large number of businesses which are mainly small. They are widely dispersed and are engaged in a wide variety of activities. The workload is cyclical, vulnerable to changes in economic policy and economic performance, and often subject to the late award of contracts. In those circumstances, forecasting of manpower requirements a matter of weeks or months ahead, which might be typical in other industries, is impossible.
  Large projects can distort the skills requirement in a locality for short durations. The construction industry is a mobile industry. The site is the working place and the working place is the site—and for short periods at that. Businesses come and go with alarming frequency. Well established firms are relatively few. However, it is all to easy for a person to establish his own business or become self-employed, however inadequately trained or qualified. Yet in one respect, training in the building and construction industry is particularly important. The nature of the work means that the industry has a high risk of accident and injury, so safe working practices are imperative. They can be inculcated only as part of proper training.
  My last point is realistic and understandable. No employer will willingly train a craftsman only to see him go down the road to work for another employer who has invested nothing in training. In those circumstances, a central statutory requirement for a training levy is absolutely necessary. Contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, the Government have made the judgment that an exemption is warranted. It is clear from my brief remarks that I endorse the Government's judgment. The purpose of the order is of high importance and it deserves the support of the House.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). He explained why a training levy is important, especially in the construction industry. Plenty of studies, and my own experience of talking to people in the construction industry and especially small businesses, have shown that the fear of poaching is constant. It is the reason why people do not invest as much in training as they should. They feel that the benefit of any investment that they make will be enjoyed by someone else.
  The hon. Member for Romford was also perfectly right to point out that, in the construction industry perhaps more than in most industries, health and safety are of considerable importance. Regrettably, the number of deaths and injuries is far too high. The importance of training in health and safety cannot be overestimated.
  As the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, it is a disappointment that the number of people engaged in training in the construction industry has steadily declined. The number of youth training trainees on the construction industry training board's programme dropped from 14,385 in 1989 to 11,379 last year—a fall of 20 per cent. A further fall of 20 per cent. to 8,500 is expected in the current year. That is clearly related to the recession, which has hit the construction industry particularly hard.
  92
  It has been a severe recession for the construction industry. Whatever the technicalities of coming out of the recession, to those engaged in the industry it does not appear to be over. If there is any upturn, people wonder when it is going to benefit them and whether it can be sustained.
  My hon. Friends and I have proposed some measures, which we accept will not slash the unemployment figures but which would be helpful. The receipts from council house sales should be unfrozen to be invested in housing. More should be invested in the fabric of our schools. We should engage in more energy efficiency projects such as draught-proofing and insulation. Such projects are all worth while in their own terms, but they would also bring direct benefits to the construction industry and should be introduced and stimulated.
  The chairman of the CITB, Sir Clifford Chetwood, made a statement in July this year in which he announced some of the board's projects to stimulate training. He bemoaned the recession, and said:
  "The government does not appear to be aware of the seriousness of the situation, especially with respect to smaller builders who are on short term jobs. Amongst them bankruptcies are up 100 per cent. this year compared with last year. It is now a question of survival. Mere exhortation to train is not enough."
  When one criticises the exemption, as some hon. Members have done tonight, one must bear in mind the fact that, for many small businesses, survival is of the essence.
  I regret that I do not know at what level the exemption was first introduced. I think that it was originally about £10,000. I cannot recall whether it was a Labour Government who set it at that figure. If it had been index-linked, it would now be about £100,000. At £45,000, only the smallest of businesses are affected. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Romford—that any threshold gives rise to feelings of unfairness. I suspect that it might be administratively difficult to have a sliding scale from £45,000 to 100,000, but a levy of 0·15 per cent. or 0·25 per cent. might be worth considering. The jump would not be as high as is implicit in the order. I understand why the Government have maintained an exemption for small businesses, for which survival is of the essence.
  There is another unfairness in the system. I have found that employers who are registered with the CITB feel that it is unfair if other companies which have set up just down the road do not appear to be on the board's records. What steps have been taken by the CITB to ensure a maximum register of employers and that none slips through the net? As all hon. Members who have spoken have said, training is exceptionally important in the construction industry. Another relevant factor is the sense of unfairness and the feeling that some employers seem to get off free. I hope that the Minister will deal with enforcement when he replies.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: I came to the House 12 years ago. In my first few years in Parliament, the building industry experienced a tremendous downturn in its work load and was worried about its future. However, from about 1982 to 1989–90, there was a tremendous increase in building and civil engineering activity in Britain. The industry is comparing the biggest boom it ever had—the peak in 1989–90—with today's admittedly lower level of activity.

  93
  In recent months, the industry has been whingeing and moaning. I agree that there has been a drop in investment, but this is a good time to invest in building—whether in property, in house building, for industry, in extensions or in repair work.
  I am delighted to be able to say that I have just received notice from the Department of the Environment that Chorley is to be allocated an additional amount for doing up old housing—nearly £0·25 million. That will have a fantastic effect on local housing and the lack of facilities in my constituency. The money will be put to good use, and the work is labour-effective. A great deal of labour is required for repair work and for such fiddly jobs as roofing, installing an extra bathroom, or for mechanical, electrical and plumbing work.
  The present recession is a complete about-turn. Normally, the regions and the north-west suffer badly, but at the moment the south is suffering. In my patch, many small builders are doing well and are struggling to find enough labour to keep them going in today's market. However, it is impossible for small builders to take on trainees. They do not have the wherewithal to carry out the administration and paperwork or to watch over them and ensure that they learn on the job and produce an effective piece of craftsmanship. Only the medium and large builders can mount a training campaign and ensure that it is effectively carried through.
  I have no interest to declare in the construction industry, but during my first 10 years in that industry I worked for John Laing, then I worked for Wimpey for about eight years, and I was the head of the largest direct labour organisation in the country—the Greater London council—for nearly three years. I speak from hard experience at the workface. Mention has been made of direct labour and of how such organisations have reduced the number of trainees by about 40 per cent. in the past year.
  In a downturn, it is inevitable that there will be fewer trainees, but in the boom years of the mid and late 1980s, much good training took place. That is why the industry was able to cope with its highest work load ever in real terms, and did not suffer the labour shortages experienced in the 1960s.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said that the Federation of Master Builders—it is composed of small builders, and there are a large number of them—fully supports the order. Small builders cannot see their way to take on many trainees. It is right and proper that the medium-sized and larger building firms should carry out proper training. Admittedly, they are training on behalf of some of the smaller firms, but it is in the interests of the industry. Many of those trainees go to smaller firms, perhaps taking over positions of responsibility or even taking over from the owners when they die and thus continuing the industry's good work.
  I fully support the order. A levy of some sort is essential, so that the industry plays a major part in all training. I pay tribute to the efforts of the construction industry training board. However, small builders need to be exempted. I am delighted that the value added tax position was eased in the last Budget. That has made an enormous difference, and has replaced a lot of penpushing with bricklaying and planning.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Forth: This has been a useful debate on an important subject. The knowledgeable contributions made by hon. Members—certainly those made by Conservative Members—have added greatly to the value of the debate.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It is all very well for him to pepper a debate with the emotive terms to which he is addicted, such as "crisis" and "collapse", and to describe the board as having "a pistol to its head". That sits oddly with the fact that the board was reconstituted as recently as May 1990 and has been rationalised, streamlined and reinvigorated since that date. To suggest that the board was cowering timorously before the Government is ludicrous and pays no tribute or attention to its good work and to the robust way in which it represents its interests and those of the industry.
  I should be surprised if many Conservative Members opposed a review, although Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that reviews are a bad thing. I should have thought that it would be common ground that it is right to review such organisations from time to time to establish whether they are achieving their objectives. If the hon. Member for Fife, Central dislikes the idea of reviews, it suggests that his attitude to public expenditure is less rigorous than I would have expected.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister acknowledge that, if the review takes place next year, the construction industry training board may say that it wants to retain a statutory levy, to determine the rate of levy imposed and also wants flexibility on exemptions. Will the Minister respond positively and allow the board to do what it wishes?
  Mr. Forth: That is hardly my idea of a review. A review is what it says. I confirm that, when undertaking a review we would consider what the board has done, how it has done it and whether it had achieved its objectives and we would draw the appropriate conclusions. To ask me to give commitments in advance of the review is an outrageous request, and I cannot meet that commitment for the reasons that I have given.
  Another criticism was about levels of expenditure. Given the robust level of reserves that the board has enjoyed, and given that about £6·5 million of the reserves is being drawn down by the board to ensure a continuous and constant level of training, I should have thought that the board was exhibiting a responsible approach. Having built up the reserves, it is prepared to use them in difficult times, and that is the right thing to do.
  As for the comments made by Opposition Members about the reduction in the number of trainees in the industry, regrettably that has to be explained by the fact that the industry has been going through an especially difficult time and still is. My hon. Friends, from their knowledge and connections with the industry, pointed out that fact.
  The fact that the numbers of trainees have been maintained at present levels, despite the difficult times that the industry is experiencing, is a tribute to the continuing commitment in the industry to such levels of training, assisted by the board and the work that it is doing. I should have preferred that to be put in a more positive light than the hon. Member for Fife, Central was able to do.
  Several hon. Members referred to the exemption provisions. They drew an interesting distinction between

  95
  the Government and Liberal Democrat approach, and that of the official Opposition. We fully recognise the need for an exemption provision. We believe that the level is about right, although in a sense it always has to be arbitrary.
  I confirm to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that the exemption level was introduced at £15,000 many years ago and was only recently raised to £45,000. That was not indexation but a recognition of the fact that, if an exemption is to be made, it should be at a sensible and workable level. It is worked out at broadly the level of a payroll of three employees. In the circumstances, that is about right.
  The fact that the Opposition seemed to find exemption so objectionable was interesting. With my responsibility for small firms, the House will not be surprised that I for one would robustly defend the exemption level and the fact that it helps small firms in the industry. I would applaud that.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister misses one essential point about the changes in the labour market. The construction sector employs under 1 million people at present and there are 800,000 self-employed workers in the industry. The nature of the sector is changing dramatically. If the exemption policy continues, one will probably find that the group of people one wants to bring into training is completely outwith the scope of the board.
  In 10 years' time, the balance between the self-employed and employees will have altered significantly and we shall have to think up new methods of bringing the self-employed and the small business sector into training. That is the crucial issue—not the politics of whether or not there are exemptions, but the fact that the labour market is changing and the Government must deal with that as other countries such as France are doing.
  Mr. Forth: That is a tortuous argument. Considering the number of small employers—now ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), whom I congratulate on his association with that key part of the industry—to play fast and loose with the future of such companies, which are under pressure from the recession and have other difficulties, would be a risky approach, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is taking it.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister confirm from his experience that just because certain firms will be exempt from the levy does not mean that they are not training? Some firms to which the exemption might apply will have an apprentice or trainee, and may therefore have training expenditure, albeit they are not paying the levy.
  Mr. Forth: Yes. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, which is obvious but important.
  Hon. Members have spoken about the potential loss of skills to the industry and the need to maintain a commitment to training. The board attaches importance to that. The activities that the board is pursuing, and the use of its funds, are in many ways directed to addressing that very problem, compensating for the fact that in times of difficulty and recession, with the sort of pressures being faced by the industry, there is need to compensate for the natural, if regrettable, loss of skills to ensure that the training commitment is continued so that when recovery comes, as it undoubtedly will, the industry can recover quickly.
  A similar point was made about the connection between health and safety requirements—which are paramount in an industry whose record in this regard is not of the best—and training. Wearing my health and safety hat, I appreciate that connection. It is essential to maintain a commitment to, and resources for, training so as to give the industry the best possible chance to develop and maintain an acceptable record of health and safety which many, even in the industry, agree is not and has not been the case.
  We are debating an important matter. It comes before the House each year and gives us an opportunity to review the activities of the CITB. We are satisfied that the board is in good health, is doing good work and, since its reconstitution and redirection, has achieved a new sense of dynamism and effectiveness. We shall be reviewing it next year, and I look forward to that review in a positive way, as it makes a major contribution to the efforts of the CITB and the support that it gives the industry in these difficult times.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

  JUDGES
  Resolved,
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  CHILD CARE
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7845/91, relating to child care; and supports the Government's view that the terms of the Recommendation are welcome in principle, subject to detailed changes to improve the text to ensure adequate recognition of the principle of parental choice and the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors, and to ensure that the wide range of developments in child care services, leave and other arrangements for employed parents are not adversely affected by the imposition of statutory arrangements.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

  Tobacco Advertising (Children)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  8.13 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I wish at the outset to explain what this debate is not about and I am pleased that we have rather longer to discuss the matter than would have been the case had the previous business run for its full time.
  This debate is not about the banning of smoking, whatever my personal feelings may be about that. It is not even about banning tobacco advertising, although I deeply regret the Government's refusal last month to support an EC proposal to that effect. A ban on tobacco advertising should, in my opinion, be matched by a rethink of the enormous sums spent under the common agricultural policy on subsidising tobacco production. That costs about £900 million a year. I would rather some of that were diverted to help the national health service, which currently spends £437 million dealing with tobacco victms.
  The debate is specifically about the impact of tobacco advertising on children. Some people more cynical than I say that it is a cold-blooded and calculated effort by the tobacco manufacturers to recruit sufficient under-age smokers to replace the 300 men and women who die every day from smoking-related diseases.
  The debate is also about how the voluntary codes of practice which govern tobacco advertising are failing our children. There is now sufficient independent and expert evidence to suggest that tobacco advertising influences under-age smokers and that the current voluntary codes governing tobacco advertising do not work in the best interests of our children. As a matter of urgency, we should be pressing for a strictly enforced, independently monitored, statutory system of advertising control.
  Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) successfully piloted through the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to strengthen the law governing the sale of cigarettes in shops to children. I served on the Committee which dealt with that measure and, like other hon. Members, I was appalled by the concrete evidence laid before us of tobacco companies flouting the voluntary code.
  As a result of that measure and pressure from Parliament and the health lobby, many of the offending advertisements were withdrawn or resited, but a recent survey revealed that, some of the offending advertisements are still in place. Should any hon. Member doubt that, I have the details.
  Last month, The Observer ran a front page story which claimed that in Canada, Imperial Tobacco Ltd., a subsidiary of BAT Industries, was targeting non-smokers as young as 12 as part of its marketing strategy. The article was based on documents laid before a court in Canada during a legal fight over the banning of tobacco advertising. The judge ruled in favour of the tobacco industry on the basis that an advertising ban violated the industry's freedom of commercial speech. That case has now gone to appeal, and the ban remains in force.
  The judge discounted thousands of pages of evidence related to health issues, but among the documents were
  98
  papers which revealed an advertising strategy which acknowledged that children as young as 12 would fall within a targeted range.
  I wrote to the chairman of BAT Industries. I wanted him to dissociate himself from the activities of the Canadian subsidiary. I wanted reassurance that such practices as detailed during the Canadian court case had since ceased. I also wanted confirmation from a leading figure in the British tobacco industry that the rules governing the protection of children from harmful tobacco products were both fully understood and fully accepted.
  I received two letters in reply. The first was from Helen McDonald of BAT Industries' external affairs department, enclosing a copy of a letter written by Mr. Mercier, chairman and chief executive officer of Imperial Tobacco Ltd., addressed to Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer. Miss McDonald drew my attention to this sentence in Mr. Mercier's letter:
  "Imperial Tobacco did not and does not advertise to non-smokers or to anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes."
  Those were weasel words. Imperial Tobacco knew the age range of readers of magazines in which it placed cigarette advertisements.
  Adam Raphael, in The Observer, quoted from Imperial Tobacco's own document:
  "If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it is that the industry is dominated by companies which respond most effectively to the needs of non-smokers … Young smokers represent the major opportunity group for the cigarette industry."
  The second letter which I received from BAT Industries was from David Haywood, the deputy chairman, who wrote:
  "BAT believe that smoking is an adult choice … Imperial Tobacco did not and does not advertise to non-smokers or to anyone below the legal age to buy cigarettes."
  He went on:
  "We certainly would not promote cigarettes to non-adults or to any non-smoker."
  Again, those are weasel words.
  The tobacco industry needs young smokers. Research has shown that, if people are not smoking by the age of 20, they are unlikely to start. As more and more adults either kick the habit or kick the bucket, new smokers must be found to keep up the sales and the industry's profits. The number of adult smokers is falling, and I am glad about that, but in the past decade the decline among teenage smokers has ceased. The latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly—[Interruption.] I am happy to clear my throat. The smoke in the Tea Room has probably affected it.
  I feel extremely strongly about the issue, because my area of Salford has the dubious distinction of having the highest proportion of deaths due to smoking of any district health authority in the UK. Of a total 3,400 deaths a year, more than 20 per cent. are attributed to smoking. The victms are the grandparents, and, sadly, in some cases the parents, of children in my constituency. It is too late to help them, but it is not too late to help their children.
  I do not suggest that advertising alone determines whether a child will smoke. A range of factors, including the example of parents and friends and other social pressures influence young people. However, for 25 years Governments and the tobacco industry have accepted that tobacco advertising recruits children as smokers. That is one of the main reasons why cigarette advertisements were

  99
  banned from television in 1965 and why hoardings advertising cigarettes have been prohibited within sight of schools. But the Government have concentrated on protecting children through voluntary agreements with the industry.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although tobacco advertising is banned on television, the ban is not effective because cheating goes on the whole time? On many sporting occasions that are attractive to children and young people, placards are shown around the ground and are picked up by television cameras, no matter how careful the television companies are. That amounts to deliberate cheating and it, too, should be prohibited.
  Miss Lestor: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and was about to come to that point.
  The Government have concentrated on protecting children through voluntary agreements with the industry, but they do not work. As someone put it recently, the policeman may be around but he is not on duty. Despite a ban on television advertising, cigarettes are heavily advertised in newspapers and magazines, cleverly promoted through sports sponsorship, and widely available in corner shops and supermarkets festooned with bright and eye-catching posters that are attractive to children.
  When tobacco advertising was in its infancy, the general trend was towards adverts that presented tobacco smoking as an adult or even sophisticated thing to do. Children who saw those adverts were in no doubt that smoking was an activity primarily for adults. But then came a move toward a more subtle approach. Golden Virginia has run a series of adverts which depict its brand name and logo in attractive and unusual materials such as mosaics, carvings and jigsaw puzzles. Readers of those advertisements are rewarded by cracking the code. They feel clever at guessing the message and advertisers clearly intend that that feel-good sensation should carry the reader on to purchasing their product. The increasing use of imagery associated with childhood blurs the distinction between an adult activity and one that is appropriate to children.
  A new advertisement takes that trend to the extreme. Benson and Hedges are currently promoting their cigarettes with full-colour advertisements on hoardings in the street, and in newspapers and magazines featuring a puffin and a book. That is an outrageous theft of a symbol associated specifically with children. There can be no excuse for such advertisements. Puffin Books is a long-established and highly respected publishing house, and it is horrified at being blatantly associated with the promotion of smoking to children. The Publishers Association has also stressed that publishers of educational and children's books take the greatest care to avoid association of their products with practices such as smoking. The voluntary code has clearly been violated by Benson and Hedges' promotional material.
  Benson and Hedges are marketed by Gallaher Tobacco Ltd. Ian Shepherd, its public affairs manager, tells me:
  "We have agreed not to seek to encourage people, particularly young people, to start smoking".
  100
  I have heard that before. In response to my specific point about the puffin advertisement, which Mr. Shepherd referred to as "Beak", he said:
  "Considerable efforts were made to give it an adult appeal, through the use of text drawn from ornithological reference books depicted on the left hand side of the picture".
  In other words, Gallaher was aware of the obvious connection and, to get round the Advertising Standards Authority, looked for a cleverer way to disguise its message.
  Mr. Shepherd assures me that Gallaher has had no complaints about the advert. I have news for him. I have a letter from the publishing director of Puffin Books, which describes Benson and Hedges' use of a puffin in cigarette advertising as highly objectionable. Puffin Books has now issued a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, explaining:
  "We at Puffin Books have been distressed and dismayed to receive calls from several members of the public complaining at a children's publisher associating itself with the promotion of smoking."
  I well understand that, yet Mr. Shepherd tells me that he has had no such complaint. I, too, have received complaints, which prompted my interest in the matter.
  What a remarkable coincidence that Benson and Hedges chose the puffin for their latest advertisements in the same year as Puffin Books celebrates its 50th anniversary. Bookshop windows throughout the country are emblazoned with the puffin symbol. There are competitions on BBC's "Blue Peter", newspaper features, and events at Alton Towers and at the Edinburgh festival. The main message of Puffin Books' promotional efforts has been that children should get enjoyment from reading Puffin books, as they do. Imagine its upset at having its special year sullied by a cheap trick of that nature.
  Tobacco companies will deny the link with under-age smokers. They hide behind the claim that they do not advertise to recruit non-smokers, especially children. They say that they advertise to improve their market share and make existing smokers more brand aware—an absurd claim. Advertising not only reinforces the habit of those who already smoke but recruits new smokers, the majority of whom are under age. Research carried out by the advertising research unit at Strathclyde university shows that cigarette advertising reinforces under-age smoking. Another study among 10 to 12-year-olds revealed that those who notice and take a favourable view of cigarette adverts are twice as likely to start smoking within a year as those who do not.
  There is increasing evidence that children are receptive to cigarette advertising. That is all the more disquieting when set against the need of tobacco companies to replenish their stock of customers. Substantial sums of money are paid by the industry to have its brands placed in children's films, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South might also have referred. For example, Marlboro appeared in "Superman" and Lucky Strikes appeared in "Beverley Hills Cop" and "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" That is advertising directed toward a young market, because mainly youngsters watch those films.
  Even the Tobacco Advisory Council's own spokesman, Brendan Brady, admitted in a television interview:
  "Every industry has to recruit new customers. We recruit new customers once they are over the age of 16. Of course they see the advertising before that age; of course, they see people

  101
  smoking before that age. They make up their decisions before that age. But we are not interested in that market under the age of 16."
  But the industry is there to recruit and influence those young people. That market is worth some £90 million to the tobacco industry, so I shall let hon. Members draw their own conclusions.
  In this country, tobacco advertising is governed by voluntary agreements negotiated between the Department of Health and the tobacco industry or, in the case of sports sponsorship, by the Minister of Sport and the industry. Independent observers representing health interests are not allowed at those meetings and the industry refuses to allow publication of the research Commissioned by the monitoring Commission. That information should be made available.
  The very existence of these voluntary agreements, especially when they relate to young people, is proof that the industry and the Government accept the substantial health threat to youngsters posed by tobacco and the need to protect them from harmful information. They accept that it is wrong to position posters within full view of schools. Why is it not wrong to position the same posters near bus stops used by school children, or in magazines or newspapers that are read by them? Who is monitoring the content of those advertisements with a view to child protection?
  It is clear that as long as the industry can claim, hand on heart, that its advertisements are legal, decent and honest the question of their appeal to children directly or indirectly will not be addressed by anyone in authority. Tobacco advertising is everywhere. It swamps health advertising and undermines its effectiveness. It influences children to smoke. A study of 18 countries carried out by the New Zealand Toxic Substances Board shows that countries with a ban on tobacco advertising saw a decrease in the number of children smoking. Of course, tobacco advertising is subject to inadequate controls.
  I raise this topic now and have raised it in other ways over the years because we have a duty to protect our children. We cannot always expect adults to behave in a healthy fashion. That choice is theirs. We can warn them about the dangers, but when advertisements such as those that I have shown—and I could show others—are directly aimed at attracting children by using a symbol that is meant for children, the voluntary code has been exploded. I urge the Minister to make suggestions that will provide for children real protection from the effects of unscrupulous cigarette advertising.
  8.31 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will agree that the Department of Health should look at what it costs this country to deal with the effects of smoking-related diseases. Although the evidence has been available for many years, it is extraordinary that the House still does not give sufficient weight to the impact of those costs on the national health service. One of the saddest and most frightening statistics of the past decade has been the increase in the deaths of women from smoking and smoking-related diseases.
  Without wishing in any way to add to the guilt of any of the women concerned, I can tell the House that in many homes smoking has once again become part of the acceptable face of family life. That adds to the enormous pressures on children at every level.
  102
  Advertising does not assume that its sole role is educational. It seeks, and has always sought, to present products in a way that makes them attractive. Therefore, advertising that is specifically aimed at children does not seek to fulfil a pure information role. It does not say to those who are at or leaving school, "You should think about this but remember that it has implications." Advertising is meant to do something rather different. It aims to sell a product. There would not be anything wrong with that if society as a whole had not considered the impact of smoking on the young, but we know what happens. We know that, if smokers are caught young, they will be customers for many tens of years.
  When I was a small child—which was not very long ago —it was customary for working-class children to smoke because it was regarded as a sign of growing up. As a naturally perverse child, I was the only one in my class who did not smoke, because it was an easy way to stand out. People were encouraged to feel that smoking marked the divide between the small child or the teenager and the adult.
  For a while, because of the voluntary code of conduct and the acceptance by the industry of the need to understand that cigarettes were a health hazard, society started to come round to the idea that there should be direct controls on advertising and that we should do nothing to encourage the young. Unfortunately, that has undoubtedly changed. The techniques used by advertisers are far more sophisticated than before, and that is the real hazard.
  It is no longer a question of simply having a glowing picture of a cowboy on a horse. Advertisers now make specific and cynical use of detailed marketing techniques. Companies pay educational psychologists and those with knowledge of marketing techniques to work out how goods can be presented most attractively to the young. Therefore, such advertising is no accident. The companies know that they are targeting specific buying groups who will have access to money, will be hooked on the product and will produce large numbers of future buyers.
  The House has a specific duty. When we originally debated the code of conduct, we were told that the industry not only accepted the difficulties but was prepared to comply with a voluntary code because it knew that that was the way in which it could best fulfil its duty. We were told, and many hon. Members genuinely believed, that the industry accepted that its advertising campaigns had an impact on the health of the nation. I never believed that. I never accepted that such a large, expensively maintained and profitable industry would lightly give up an advertising habit of a lifetime without continuing to look at the customer as the ultimate and most important object.
  What is happening now is outrageous. Quite small children are being encouraged at every level to regard smoking as an activity that is almost automatically tied in with specific health promotions which are important to them. Why does the tobacco industry spend so much money on the promotion of sports events? It is because the young, almost automatically, go to those events. They are excited by what they see and become followers of a sport or a team. Automatically they begin to see within the ambiance of that sport the constant advertising of certain goods. Almost without thinking, they accept that that is somehow or other part of the sport. Football is the classic one, but such sponsorship now appears everywhere.

  103
  Motor racing is just one of the sports which for many years has been promoted in connection with certain famous tobacco company names.
  Despite all that, the industry is still prepared to suggest to the House that the voluntary code is working. Not only is it not working; it is being exploited in the most cynical, almost depraved way. If we were asked to give to every teenage or pre-teen child in our constituencies a noxious substance in a mild form to which they would become addicted and because of which they would face possible death and certain illness, the House would react violently. It would say that there was no conceivable way in which hon. Members could be asked to pass or support laws that would somehow or other put children at risk. But by not insisting on very deliberate controls and by ignoring what is happening in the tobacco industry, that is what we are doing, week after week, month after month.
  For about 30 years I have watched developments in the health service and have seen the rising graph of deaths from carcinoma, coronary heart disease and smoking-related diseases. In my active time in the House of Commons, I have done everything that I can to promote the need for controls on the tobacco industry, but it is still necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to make her plea tonight. She and I call one another "sister grandmothers" because we have been here for some time and our concern for our families and grandchildren makes us feel strongly that the House of Commons has a duty to protect those who are most at risk.
  Enough of the cynicism, and of the abandonment of common sense to the promotion of commercial which that are dangerous substances. Enough of a House of Commons which no longer regards health promotion as something that requires equal commitment in terms of money and support to that which is expended by the industry in promoting its goods to the young. Enough of a House of Commons no longer fulfilling its proper watchdog functions and allowing noxious substances to be sold to our children. If we do not understand the implications, the deaths, illnesses and long-term unhappiness of many families will be on the consciences of every elected Member of Parliament.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on securing an Adjournment debate on the important topic of targeting children in advertising tobacco. It links with the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who promoted what has become the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to curb advertising at point of sale in retail shops.
  I shall deal with two areas—a regulated one, television, and a non-regulated one, which is now covered by my hon. Friend's Act. The Independent Broadcasting Authority was replaced by the Independent Television Commission under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1987, under which the most recent auction of franchises took place. Hon. Members felt that the IBA was a toothless watchdog and we expected the newly constituted Commission to do
  104
  better. The House took a long time debating the broadcasting Bill. I served on the Committee that spent many hours in diligent examination of it.
  I have already mentioned my particular concern in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). It is the way in which—at sporting events in particular, but all outside broadcasting events—the names of tobacco products are visible for all to see in the background. I am not much in favour of sponsorship, particularly that by the tobacco industry, and I think that one can divide sponsorship between that done by those who are genuinely seeking to assist an organisation and that by those who wish to exploit it. There is no question in my mind—this was reinforced by the evidence produced by my hon. Friend—that the tobacco industry falls in the latter category. Furthermore, it seeks to exploit the young.
  Outside broadcasts of test matches, soccer matches, rugby league and rugby union matches and track activities at athletic events are keenly watched by a significant proportion of our young people, as they should be. Watching such events helps to stimulate young people to take part in sports, but in the background there is always advertising of tobacco products. On the whole, it is advertising of cigarettes, although sometimes it is of pipe tobacco, which is less of an offence.
  Club owners and sports event organisers fix up events so that tobacco advertisements are given prominence. For an outside broadcast with a big audience, they can ensure that the advertising space commands a premium, particularly for those displays that are near where the main events in an athletics competition are to be held or within the camera range at an important cricket match or test match. Therefore, it is important that the Government, through the ITC, make it clear that broadcasting of cigarette advertisements on television is a breach of the 1965 ban.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that, some time ago, researchers for the Esther Rantzen programme "That's Life" were preparing a television programme about children and tobacco, which unfortunately was never broadcast? As an experiment, they sent children to tobacconists in my constituency, together with an adult who kept out of sight. All those children were able to buy cigarettes.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, first, parents must be encouraged not to send their children round the corner to buy a packet of cigarettes and that, secondly, tobacconists must be asked not to sell to children who say that they are buying for their parents, but who nine times out of 10 are not? They are doing so for themselves, because they have been encouraged by the advertising to which my hon. Friend referred. I should like to see anti-smoking advertisements at sporting events saying that every cigarette is a coffin nail. Rather than linking tobacco with healthy sports, we should be linking it with death.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. The link between cigarette advertising and sporting events is mischievous. These events are about healthy exercise and can sometimes be very glamorous. They involve strenuous physical effort and sometimes shrewd mental processes and selective judgment. By associating that with cigarettes, the advertisers give a false image to cigarettes. As my hon. Friend said, if cigarettes are mentioned at all at sporting

  105
  activities, people should he told that they are a drug which produces an addiction and which can lead to death if smoked for long enough. as we know.
  A week ago, the Tobacco Advisory Council held a reception in the House of Commons for small retailers who were concerned about the reduction in their turnover that would result if taxes on cigarettes were increased. Ironically, that was the same day as the publication of yet another report setting out the dangers of tobacco smoking and the enormous consequences for the rest of us because NHS facilities must be used to cater for those who are endangering their bodies and losing their lives as a result of their addiction to cigarette smoking.
  The ITC has the power to do something about this advertising, but it does not. Year after year, there has been deliberate, organised cheating by the ITC and its predecessor body to allow tobacco advertising despite the ban. It is time for the Government to say that they want an end to all placards advertising cigarettes on outside broadcasts from both the BBC and the ITV. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to this useful debate, will make a clear statement on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles spoke about the disgraceful use of tobacco products, and cigarettes in particular, in feature films. Feature films are well enough financed, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles—"Superman" and "Who Killed Roger Rabbit'?", which were financed by American money—and they should not use advertising in a dishonest way. That is when advertising in concealed within a story that is presented by the film without an explicit reference to the fact that money is being paid to promote a particular product.
  That is something that we do not allow on television. We do not allow invisible advertising. The last "invisible" programme that was allowed was shown in the 1960s. The programme was a weekly trip to a consumer magazine, which went through various products, and it was paid for by the promoters of the products shown in the programme. That abuse was stopped. It is unfortunate that we do not have an organisation to examine hidden advertising in feature films.
  I am concerned because I consider the feature film industry to be important and I believe that we should have one in the United Kingdom. The criticism that there is hidden advertising cannot be attributed to British producers, but it can rightly be directed towards American producers. It should be made clear that, if such advertising is incorporated in a feature film, the practice can be taken into account when the censorship certificate is being awarded.
  The censorship system is essentially trade organised, but I think that the Government should make it clear that they deplore the sort of advertising that I have described, which is a form of cheating. The advertising is not made clear and specific on television. Instead, it is part of the background. The same could be said of any feature films that promoted cigarettes in a hidden and dishonest way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) intervened to talk about advertising at retail outlets. It has been stopped specifically by the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East. It was a simple measure that passed through the House because of the good will of hon. Members on both sides and their wish to ensure that such advertising at retail outlets was curtailed. That advertising
  106
  is attractive to children, and very often the small retail street corner shop—I accept that their number has diminished and that this form of retail advertising applies to all shops—is used by children. Their parents ask them to go for small items such as milk, loaves of bread and tins of food. If they see the advertising, they find it a temptation.
  When the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East was passing through the House, many examples were quoted of shopkeepers who were prepared to split packets and to sell single cigarettes to children. The Bill merely enhanced existing legislation by providing facilities for local authorities to institute prosecutions against shopkeepers who adopted that practice. When the Bill was being considered, I recall asking the Government to provide financial resources to local authorities to ensure that environmental health officers could put the relevant legislation into operation and to make it clear to all shopkeepers that, if they were found to be selling cigarettes to children, they would be pursued, prosecuted where evidence was available and fined heavily in the courts.
  It is no good the Government taking action on advertising that helps to lure children if, when lured, they can buy cigarettes easily in the street corner shop or in the local supermarket. It must be made clear—I hope that it will be by the Minister—that the Government will take action.
  What is the Government's position? They stood idly by while supermarkets opened their doors on Sunday in town after town and city after city. The supermarkets traded with impunity, unfortunately. The Attorney-General told us last week that he could not do anything. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that he could not do anything either because, as he claimed, the law was confused. In this instance the law is not confused. If the resources are available, local authorities will take action against the scavengers who are selling the poisoned weed to schoolchildren who are often younger than 16.
  We must be careful in this place about the effects of the tobacco industry's lobbying efforts. It has been said that, when the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security—he is now the Minister for Housing and Planning—he said that he was determined to introduce much more widespread curbs on advertising. It has been reported in books about the advertising industry which have been written by practitioners that the hon. Gentleman became a victim of lobbying.
  I warn the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), that if he is determined, as he should be, to improve the health of the nation by completely curbing tobacco advertising, especially that which is highly accessible to children, he should be aware of the influence of the lobbyists. They will pad round this place with a view to sidling up to his superior Minister, the deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister, and saying, "Self-regulation is better. The young Minister is going beyond his brief. He is trying to do something that will harm the tobacco industry." They will not say that the intention is to save children's lives or to save them years of miserable existence as they cough out their last few years.
  I say that as someone who has never smoked cigarettes. My father died of a heart attack when he was 78. I think that a number of years would have been left to him if he

  107
  had not smoked Capstan full strength for so long, until his doctor advised him to stop doing so because his smoking was causing his health to deteriorate.
  My father started smoking as a young lad when he volunteered to serve in the first world war. It was a period of great stress, deprivation and difficulty. Many people smoked and they did not think much about it. After all, the next cigarette might be their last. The thought of living until their 70s and 80s, or perhaps beyond, by avoiding tobacco did not occur to them.
  My father became addicted to Capstan full strength, which were probably the most poisonous of all the attractively packaged poisons that were available in the form of cigarettes. I am certain that his life was made more miserable as a result. He coughed heavily every morning of his later life and was afflicted with a heart condition in his final years. The tobacco industry is powerful and certainly wealthy enough to employ parliamentary lobbyists. If it is true that their influence displaced a Health Minister who was determined to achieve something important and useful—curbing tobacco advertising—I hope that such a thing will never happen again.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles for allowing me to contribute to her Adjournment debate. I am glad that she initiated it, but unfortunately I think that we will have to agitate much more forcefully before we will be satisfied with the Government's action in this and similar areas.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I share the delight of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in being able to participate in tonight's debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on initiating it.
  The debate reminds me of the Jesuit dictum—"Give me a boy when he is seven, and I will give you the man." That is how the tobacco industry looks upon our young people —"Give them to us young, and we will keep them throughout their adult life."
  Research—not least by Strathclyde university's advertising unit, which is part of its marketing department—for the report "From the Billboard to the Playground", which was published a few months ago, show that almost all smokers start as children. I did the same. I started smoking at 14 years of age because I thought that it was the right thing to do, just as my classroom friends did. It was also one up on the teacher.
  At lunchtime, my friends and I would go to buy singles —or on days when we were well off, five Players. Our English teacher, who was a particularly nasty little character, was even nastier than ourselves. He knew which of us smoked, took our cigarettes—calling us "smoky beasts" in the process—and then kept them for himself and his pals. I did not think that that was particularly fair.
  I was hooked on smoking from 14 years of age, and I did not give it up for 11 or 12 years, until I was about 25 —despite making six or seven attempts to do so. I stopped because my father made me. He died of an arterial disease, and had both his legs off because he was a heavy smoker. After I reached the age of 20, I had a litany from him every
  108
  day, exhorting me to give up cigarettes for my own good. I did not listen to him then—but later I tried again to stop smoking, and eventually, at 25 years of age, I succeeded.
  Those who start smoking at an early age can take it from me that it is very hard to get off the weed if one starts on it at an early age. The tobacco industry knows that very well. Why else does it spend £160 million a year trying to convince people that smoking is good? It spends that money because it receives its rewards—but those rewards are to the detriment of the country, and particularly the national health service, to which the cost of smoking-related diseases is £437 million a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, every hour 12 people die from smoking-related diseases—nearly 300 per day.
  My late father spent many years receiving hospital treatment. I often accompanied him on his hospital visits, and the consultant challenged me to find one patient suffering from vascular problems who was not a smoker. It is true to say that not one non-smoker was to be found in those wards. That empirical evidence, burnished in my mind, is enough for me to know that smoking damages health.
  As a former schoolteacher, I was dismayed to learn that the incidence of smoking among the young has not diminished. Although the number of adult smokers is falling, research shows that 30 per cent. of 19-year-olds smoke regularly, and in the past nine years, the decline in teenage smoking has been arrested. Latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that 10 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds smoke regularly. What are the Government doing about that? They are fighting the European Commission because they do not want the Commission to impose a ban on cigarette advertising. The Government have succeeded in obtaining a six-month stay of execution. They should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right when he says that the Government are behaving disgracefully, but does he accept that the Commission has double standards? It is spending about £20 million a year on a tobacco mountain. It has bought tobacco at a fixed price. The wine lake, the cereal mountain and all the other mountains have now been joined by a tobacco mountain. The Commission ought not to subsidise tobacco growers.
  Mr. McFall: I did not think that it would be possible to mention the European Commission without my hon. Friend jumping to his feet, but I take his point. Yes, the Commission is hypocritical in a number of respects, but we should join it in fighting to have this directive implemented.
  Cigarette smoking harms young people, but it harms women and young girls even more. Medical research shows that pregnant women who smoke have underweight babies. The tobacco industry focuses its advertising campaign on young girls. Strathclyde university's report, "From the Billboard to the Playground", shows that the tobacco industry's advertising campaign is directed specifically at young people. The report was Commissioned by the Cancer Research Campaign and demolished the argument that the tobacco industry advertises only in an effort to attract smokers to particular brands. That is not So.
  The position was summed up by the chairman of McCann Erickson, an advertising company, who said that the primary purpose of tobacco advertising was to create

  109
  "a positive climate of social acceptability for smoking, which encourages new smokers to join the market."
  Reference has already been made to cigarette advertising in cinemas and sports grounds. Advertising by Marlboro, and all the other cigarette companies, is designed to make people feel good. They show cowboys on horses riding the prairies, beautiful clear streams and wonderful weather; then somebody sits down and takes out a cigarette. Why? Because it is another world that advertisers are trying to show to young people. They are faced not with reality but with a dreamlike world. Young people are falling for it. It is an acceptable alternative to everyday reality.
  The Minister and the Government know that the voluntary code does not work. Why otherwise does the tobacco industry spend £160 million on advertising? That question must be answered. By their inactivity, the Government are condemning people to a slow and painful death. They are also condemning those who work in the national health service to looking after them. It makes no sense. Only the interests of big business are being served. The sooner the interests of big business and the tobacco industry are subordinated to the health of all adults and young people, the better.
  Mr. Cryer: I have not received the details of Labour party research that may have been carried out this month into any contributions that the tobacco industry makes to the Conservative party. If. however, the industry has made any such contributions, it would behove the Government to send them back so that they can be seen to be completely free from any tobacco company influence. They ought also to send back the money that Asil Nadir and the other crooks have contributed to Conservative party funds.
  Mr. McFall: I could not have put it better.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be some equivalence between the amount spent on advertising and the additional expenditure occasioned to the national health service by its consequences? That would happen if, instead of donating to the Conservative party, tobacco companies donated to the NHS the sums that it has to spend because of smoking.
  Mr. McFall: As I said, advertising by the tobacco industry costs £160 million per year, whereas the cost to the NHS of tobacco smoking is £437 million a year—a 3:1 ratio. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should do something about inversing that ratio.
  I am sure that the Under-Secretary will give a dismal response, because the Government are not willing to take on the tobacco giants and to preserve the health of young people. A dismal message is being sent to young people —they can continue smoking and damaging their health, but the Government are not interested, because there are a few bucks coming in the front door, and perhaps a few coming in the back door, too.
  Strathclyde university's research has shown that the subliminal message which gets across to young people, in advertisements for the John Player and Marlboro brands, is that smoking is associated with excitement and fast cars. It was found that children as young as six were aware of that excitement. The message that it is nice to smoke cigarettes because it brings excitement and another world is getting through to young people.
  110
  Brand stretching has been mentioned. Cigarette advertisements are displayed around football grounds. On the one hand, Ministers want health education councils to make life for young people more pleasant and varied, but on the other they are encouraging young people to smoke, thereby negating all the assistance given to health education councils. That is massive hypocrisy, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
  As long ago as 1979, a British American Tobacco memorandum stated:
  "Opportunities should be explored by all companies so as to find non-tobacco products and other services which can be used to communicate the brand or house name, together with their essential visual identifiers."
  Strathclyde university's research showed that that strategy works well with children. An example was given of an advertisement for John Player Special grand prix holidays which did not mention cigarettes or carry a Government health warning, but 91 per cent. of 12 to 16-year-olds said that it advertised cigarettes. What a triumph for the advertisers. They got their message across easily, and the Government by their inactivity are condoning that strategy.
  If the Under-Secretary of State does not have anything positive to say to us tonight, he should be ashamed of himself. He should think of the young people who are dying, and of those who will die in the future. He should also think about the national health service. If it is supposed to be safe in the Government's hands, it should be made safer for the people who use it. That is the message to get across. We want action from the Government, not total inactivity. The facts have been spelt out. The nation's health is at stake. The Under-Secretary of State should do something for a change.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I fully endorse the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for the Under-Secretary to do something. I suspect that my hon. Friend will be disappointed, because short shrift was made of the last Minister who tried to do something about this matter—the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young); he was sent—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend was promoted to housing.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister said that the hon. Gentleman was promoted to housing, but it was by a somewhat circuitous route. He was sent sliding down the greasy pole, was a poll tax rebel for a while and was then brought back to housing. He has certainly not uttered another word about smoking and health. I suspect that any Minister who has been in such a position will have learnt the lesson that to speak out as a matter of principle about the tobacco industry and its influence is not likely to lead to promotion within the Conservative party.
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman was very honourable in his actions but when the tobacco industry got word of what he was doing they had a word with Downing street. According to one policial pundit, the Prime Minister at the time—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—asked, "What is he—is he clever or not so clever?" Someone said, "He is clever," so she said, "Well, he's got to get the bag."
  Mr. Wilson: The one episode of "Yes, Minister" that rang true was that in which the wheezing advocate of the tobacco industry ended up as Minister for Sport in the Conservative Government.
  However, the subject should not be treated with levity. It has interested me for a long time, both politically and personally. My father was a heavy smoker and a non-drinker who died after a massive heart attack at the age of 59. I am sure that he was one of the triumphs of the tobacco industry's activities in the past few decades.
  There is something peculiarly obnoxious about an industry that knows that in order to guarantee its continued profits far into the next century it now has to hook young people—the most vulnerable in our communities—on a habit which is unanimously agreed to be addictive. People who have not yet reached the age of reason, who are not responsible and who have their whole lives ahead of them are caught at an early age by the industry in the cynical knowledge that once they are caught as kids, the industry will probably have them for the rest of their lives.
  The fact that those lives are truncated—often markedly —and blighted by the cost of the exercise is as nothing to the tobacco industry or its handmaiden, the advertising industry, which promotes its wares. Those facts are irrelevant to the industry as long as it can keep churning out the profits for its shareholders—that is the extent of its interest. It is in every sense of the word a dirty business and it is a pretty grubby Government who defend the industry's activities and who live as closely with it as the present Government do.
  I have been interested in the issue for some time and I am grateful to my hon. Friends who quoted what I have written about it recently. I was struck by the absurdity and degradation of the fact that above all else in the European debate the Government are desperate for flags to raise as witnesses to their success in defending British interests against the wiles of Johnny foreigner in Europe. However, the best they can come up with is that they are "leading the Opposition" to an EC-inspired attempt to ban tobacco advertising.
  What a proud activity for our Government to be engaged in. We are supposed to be proud that they can carry on flogging their wares and promoting cancer and the sale of cigarettes to youngsters. That is possible on every front with the massive budgets to which my hon. Friends referred because in order to display their proud anti-Europeanism, the Government have successfully opposed a ban on advertising in the European Community.
  It was timely that, as the debate was getting under way, we had news from Canada through The Observer—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said—that some documents have emerged. I do not believe that they differ from the existing documents in every tobacco multi-national in the world. They reveal that the strategies make it perfectly clear that all the verbosity and apologia for what advertising is supposed to do is so much padding. The fact is that the whole marketing strategy is to aim at children from the age of 12 upwards, especially girls of that age. In the industry's own terms, it is a great triumph. Every piece of research shows that the strongest client market for new smokers is that category, especially young women from the lower social and economic background.
  Millions of vulnerable, poor people are targeted. For the industry to be sustained, it has to get them into the
  112
  addictive habit between the ages of 12 and 18. How can any Government, even of the calibre and stamp of this one, defend that as a legitimate commercial activity? How can they refuse to take the modest step that my hon. Friends have proposed? To their honour, some Conservative Members support that step, and they would have been here if they had known that there would be an elongated debate. The issue crosses the House, because it is a question of basic morality. How can anyone accept that an industry should be allowed to go on flogging its wares in that way?
  This may be a convenient point at which to get the libertarian argument out of the road. If people make a decision to smoke of their free will, that is their business. If they are in possession of the facts and decide to smoke, it is a decision freely made. I may quibble with their right to smoke in places where there are non-smokers, and there is a whole debate about secondary smoking, but, if they make the decision when of mature age and with the information available from many sources, I cannot quibble with it.
  However, I quibble deeply with the idea that smokers should be deprived of that free will and that the argument should be so weighted towards those who have a vested interest in abrogating free will by pushing their wares through the most subtle techniques of advertising, marketing and sponsorship specifically directed at the people in society who are known to be the most vulnerable.
  Other hon. Members referred to the report "From the Billboard to the Playground", Commissioned by the Cancer Research Campaign, which is an extension of the Cancer Research Organisation. It is a timely report, because it considers precisely the issue of the impact of tobacco advertising on youngsters. It considered first the familiar self-justification which everyone in the House and in the country knows is rubbish. The industry says that all it is trying to do is to switch customers between competing brands. Nobody believes that, and I hope that it will not form part of the Minister's defence tonight.
  If tobacco companies were only promoting brand switching, the industry would have an ever-diminishing number of smokers among whom to share out the various brands. The Minister says that there are a diminishing number of smokers. That is true in spite of the best efforts of the tobacco and advertising industries, but it is not a sharply diminishing number. To prevent it from becoming a sharply diminishing number, the industry has to have new recruits. Everybody knows that advertising is targeted primarily at achieving those recruits.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister will probably claim that the decline in the number of smokers is greater in this country than it is in Italy and in France. However, the decline is smaller than the decline in the United States, where smoking among the middle class and among college students is virtually unknown. It would be great if we could achieve that level of non-smoking among school and college students. The banning of tobacco advertising would be a great contribution to achieving what the United States has already achieved.
  Mr. Wilson: Everyone recognises that the banning of tobacco advertising does not achieve all those ends on its own—that it has to be part of wider strategy. It is obviously highly desirable that middle-class youngsters and students drop out of smoking—even in this country,

  113
  they do so in relatively high numbers—but that concentrates with an even stronger focus the efforts of the tobacco and advertising industries on youngsters 'who do not come from such categories.
  A huge gulf exists. I do not have the statistics to hand, but they show how the number of smokers differs between socio-economic groups. In a group of 20 or 30 youngsters from the background described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) it would be considered odd for someone to be puffing away and spreading filth in the direction of others in that group. However, in a group of 20 or 30 youngsters from the least successful socio-economic background, who have the least going for them and the smallest incomes, the chances are that there will be a greater number of smokers. The corollary of that is that a higher proportion of their income is spent on tobacco products.
  The attitude that smoking is anti-social is gaining currency among the more articulate, better educated and more aware groups in society, but the vicious corollary is that the tobacco and advertising industries must get their recruits from the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
  I attended two meetings in my constituency yesterday. The first comprised people with advanced educational qualifications. To some extent, it was a self-selecting group. There were no smokers in the room. However, there was a much wider range of society at my second meeting. There were more people from lower socioeconomic groups. I emerged from that meeting, like everyone else, covered in the smell and stains of tobacco smoke because 60 or 70 per cent. of the people had been smoking at the meeting.
  It would be desirable if we could reduce the number of smokers to the level found in the higher socio-economic groups. As an interim step, we must try to wean from smoking the people in society who are most vulnerable to the habit.
  The Strathclyde university report stated:
  "The idea of a mature tobacco market"—
  that means a market which cannot expand any further—
  "cannot be supported … the key group for the tobacco industry is young smokers. They have to be recruited and retained for the industry to flourish. In no sense can this market be said to be mature."
  The report examined research from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and concluded that cigarette advertising is getting through to children and encouraging them to smoke and to carry on smoking. That will doubtless be satisfactory news in Canada, and probably in the United Kingdom, where we know, from incontrovertible evidence, that that is the precise name of the tobacco industry's game.
  I want to refer to the relationship between tobacco and sport, and particularly the role of sponsorship. Recently, I was astounded to receive a document in my post entitled "British International Sports Relay." It is difficult to establish who published that document. Where one would normally expect to find those details, there is the logo of the Sports Council, and the statement:
  "Additional copies of Relay available from Sports Council International Affairs Unit."
  Under the heading "Tobacco Sponsorship" is a debate in which David Pollock, the director of Action for Smoking and Health, argues against tobacco sponsorship in sport under the accurate heading, "A cancerous growth on sport". However, to my bewilderment, I found that the argument in favour of tobacco sponsorship was not put by
  114
  some fruitcake from the tobacco industry's front organisations, but by the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Mr. Peter Lawson.
  If the Minister for Sport was on the Treasury Bench, I would ask him—instead, I ask all hon. Members and the country—what is going on when the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation puts his name and that of his organisation to a positive argument in favour of tobacco sponsorship in sport?
  His words read like an ultra-right libertarian tract rather than the reasoned utterances of a representative of a body that has been entrusted by the Government with the responsibility for sport and physical recreation. He begins:
  "Sport in Britain is strapped for cash."
  We all know that. The article continues:
  "Sports bodies are denied resources by government, which takes more from sport than it ever gives back. The gap between government parsimony and the needs of sport is filled by commercial sponsorship. Without it, sport would wither."
  That may be a wee indictment of the Government, but so far the argument is reasonably incontestable. However, Mr. Lawson then continues by making no distinction whatsoever between tobacco sponsorship and any other form of sponsorship.
  I very much regret that it is impossible to have a sports event, club or team these days without having a commercial sponsor. We could have an interesting separate debate about the role of sponsorship, but we accept that, if any sport in this country is to get off the ground, such sponsorship is a mandatory part of the scene. Surely, however, there are lines to be drawn, and it is not only remarkable, but worrying, to find that someone in such a responsible position can argue that the tobacco industry provides a neutral form of sponsorship.
  Mr. Lawson continued:
  "The tobacco industry is frequently and unfortunately vilified for its association with sport. Such criticism is, in my view, totally misguided. The governing bodies of sport are not naive, nor are they irresponsible. Sponsorship decisions that they face and must take because of their impecunity are based on a careful assessment of their impact upon their participants and their supporters. Sponsorship of sport by the tobacco industry is controlled by voluntary agreement and is carefully monitored to ensure that young people are not recipients of a pro-smoking message."
  With respect, that is so much cosh. Mr. Lawson knows it, the tobacco industry knows it and the Government know it. Indeed, I would be deeply concerned to think that the people who preside over the Central Council of Physical Recreation do not know it. It is extraordinary that an employee of that body is allowed to write publicly in such terms. It is even more odd that the Sports Council should publish his words.
  We know that the controls over tobacco sponsorship of sport do not have the affect that Mr. Lawson attributes to them, because all the academic research shows that the tobacco industry's sponsorship of sport is aimed at a younger market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has said, the sponsorship is aimed at a market that identifies sport with glamour and, by extension, with tobacco. That is not only the market at which the advertising is aimed—it is the market that it hits. It is appalling for the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation to argue otherwise.
  However, Mr. Lawson continued:
  "The often repeated suggestion that sports bodies are free to select sponsors as and when they wish is nonsense."

  115
  I shall stop quoting Mr. Lawson there because, until that point, he has used the argument of impecunity. The Government must address that argument directly.
  I am not interested in scoring cheap points in this debate about the underfunding of sport, but if sport is using underfunding as an excuse or justification for taking large amounts of money from the tobacco industry, the Government must address the question whether they should put more money into sport so that sport does not have to use that excuse.
  Mr. Lawson moves on to what I regard as even more dangerous territory. He writes:
  "At base, there is a larger issue than that of finance. Fundamentally, it is a question of freedom. Are sportsmen and sportswomen to be at liberty to negotiate in the interests of their sport or are they to be browbeaten by the lobby of latter-day puritans?"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject before the House. He should return to the targeting of tobacco advertising on young people.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sponsorship is a form of advertising. Every sponsorship is accompanied by advertising. There is manifold evidence which I could—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the financing of sport.
  Mr. Wilson: I have left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As Mr. Lawson writes:
  "At base, there is a larger issue than that of finance."
  So we are off finance altogether. He continues:
  "Fundamentally, it is a question of freedom. Are sportsment and sportswomen to be at liberty to negotiate in the interests of their sport or are they to be browbeaten by the lobby of latter-day puritans?"
  Mr. Lawson applies that description to people like me, who believe that tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sport are immoral and have precisely the effect that they are intended to have, which is to recruit young people into smoking.
  Mr. Morgan: Surely the critical issue is that of role models. Sporting heroes are naturally role models for young people. The deviousness and deceitfulness of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship activities which are directed at children lie in the fact that they tell them that one must be healthy and have lung function of 120 per cent. to do well at sport, while it is practised by people wearing jerseys and caps carrying insignia and logos which bear a message about a product which will reduce one's lung function to 80 per cent., 50 per cent. and eventually zero per cent.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. There is a link between the the words "advertising" and "sponsorship". The tobacco industry plans a long time ahead. It sees the writing on the wall for its advertising. It knows that, whatever the Government say, eventually European law or the law of a more enlightened British Government will say, "You just cannot do it."
  Tobacco advertising on television was banned in 1965. The industry has had 26 years grace for other forms of advertising. That will not go on much longer. Now the
  116
  tobacco industry is going for the slightly more subtle form of advertising which is sponsorship. It is aimed at the same target, which is the young and vulnerable people in society whom the industry needs to recruit.
  I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak. The points are obvious and clear. The only question is whether the Government have the will to do anything about them. Let us confront the matter. It is a moral question at root. We talk in many different contexts about the need to protect young people from various vices in society. The fact that something happens to be legal as a matter of tradition going far back into history does not mean that it is not a vice in society.
  I suspect that, if someone now discovered a substance as addictive and harmful as tobacco, even this Government would be highly unlikely to license it to get it off the ground as a marketable product. We experienced a similar event in Scotland, when Skol Bandits started to be manufactured in East Kilbride. They were a relatively new product. Eventually, the Government intervened to prevent the manufacture of that product in Britain.
  We all inherit a tradition from a different age when tobacco was acceptable. As I said earlier, one cannot switch off the tap and ban tobacco. That is not the proposition, but the fact that one does not ban it does not mean that, with the knowledge that we now possess, we do not regard it as a debilitating and dangerous influence on society, and especially young people. The question is whether we protect those young people from the recognition of the information that we have accumulated in the past two or three decades. That is a moral choice.
  I have no wish to attribute motives, but clearly finance intervenes. Every advertisement on behalf of the tobacco industry delivers millions in tobacco tax to the Treasury. If that is the wages of sin, to what extent are the Government prepared to maintain them? If the price of doing that is leading another generation into that habit—
  Mr. Alun Michael: The subject of the debate is the targeting of young people. Surely all hon. Members would argue that it is wrong for the industry to be able to target young people. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have the worst of both worlds? They seem to be allowing the targeting of young people through advertising, but, because of the tax regime that they have introduced in the past few years, they seem to be exporting jobs in the tobacco industry. We seem to have the worst of both worlds. We still seem to have cigarettes, but jobs are going overseas, yet we allow the targeting of young people. Both parts of that equation seem to be crazy.
  Mr. Wilson: It is tricky to agree with that argument. I am not that interested in where the jobs that make the product are located, but I have sympathy with tobacco workers. Like everyone else, they were taken into whatever jobs were available for them. If a social and political decision is taken against tobacco products and cigarettes, clearly there is a social and political responsibility to find other forms of employment for those people. In parts of Glasgow, the tobacco industry is very important. One cannot shut up shop and say, "We wipe our hands of those people." There is a responsibility to create other employment, and that would be the view of any responsible Government.

  117
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that it is doubly absurd to destroy jobs in the British tobacco industry—as has been done on a large scale—if that leads not to a reduction in tobacco consumption but to the substitution of imported brands of cigarette.
  Mr. Michael: There is a large tobacco factory in my constituency. I have made it clear to the people who work there and to the management that I am against the encouragement of tobacco addiction and in favour of measures which will prevent the use of tobacco in public places. However, when the company was considering the service and repair of machinery and was thinking of sending it abroad to Scandanavia, it was willing to listen and to ensure that the work was carried out in this country.
  The Government, through their tax regimes, do not seem to be interested in that. Tobacco consumption will be a fact of life in this country for some time. During that period, we want to do all we can to reduce it, especially among young people, and we want to avoid targeting them in advertising. However, we must do what we can to ensure that that does not have a consequent effect on unemployment in this country through a failure to understand that process.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend argues his own case very well. I do not disagree with a word of it.
  I suspect that people who work in the industry are under no illusions. They know the way that the wind is blowing, and would be only too pleased to be redeployed into another trade. The tragedy is that, whatever the direction that market forces blow, when they are left to their own devices, the choice for workers in such industries is not between the status quo and redeployment, but between the status quo and loss of their jobs. In those circumstances, it is natural that those who work in the tobacco industry should be as anxious as anyone to defend their jobs.
  I conclude with a plea to the Minister. We are faced with a moral choice: do we allow our youngsters to be exploited? Do we allow people from the age of 12 to be induced into a habit which is addictive and will undermine, and in many cases destroy, their lives? How many smokers who were hooked when 12, 13, or 14, in their formative years, are grateful for having been subjected to the wiles of the tobacco and advertising industries? The vast majority curse the day they became hooked on the habit. That surely places a responsibility on any Government of any political complexion to trample on the bogus libertarian appeal of the tobacco and advertising industries that they are only offering choice.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity that we have been afforded by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to debate an extremely important subject. We are also indebted to the Minister and the Whips for allowing us adequate time in which to adduce our arguments.
  The debate is not about banning the advertising of tobacco. It is about the impact of tobacco advertising and the promotion of tobacco on young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
  118
  Wilson) pointed out, we in Scotland know that the words of some irresponsible sectors of the tobacco industry during the 1980s turned out to be weasel words.
  One thinks of the way in which the industry set up a factory, with considerable Government money, to produce Skoal Bandits, and then blatantly promoted that carcinogenic product, which promotes mouth cancers, to children in nearby schools. That factory turned out to be a short-lived exercise and a gross waste of Government money. It was a symptom or symbol of the 1980s and a lesson for the 1990s of collusion between Government and irresponsible elements who have done much to give the tobacco industry a bad name.
  I pay tribute to people who have advised parents and children of the dangers of taking up smoking. Dr. Lynne Michelle, of Edinburgh, has highlighted in her studies on the perception of children of the promotion of cigarettes the grave danger, almost the entrapment of a younger generation by irresponsible elements in the industry and, sadly, the example set by other adults, including parents. Those results were published last year and cited by an all-party group in Westminster Hall. The findings were horrific. I also pay tribute to Alison Hillhouse, of ASH in Scotland, who has done much to highlight the dangers of smoking.
  Mr. Michael: While my hon. Friend is paying tribute to several people who have highlighted those issues, will he also pay tribute to a specialist in Wales, with the Celtic name of Dr. Ian Campbell, who has highlighted those issues strongly? In the light of his experience and expertise at Llandough hospital in my constituency, he has alerted people in Wales to the dangers of smoking, the burdens that smoking places on the NHS and the tremendous damage that it does to health. He, too, has sought to publicise and to persuade the public of the need to avoid the activities that are being condemned in this debate.
  Mr. Griffiths: I could not pay a more eloquent testimony to the doctor than my hon. Friend has just paid. He, too, will have had a chance to study the fourth report of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, several paragraphs of which deal with the targeting of tobacco advertising at young people.
  Before I go into the details of the report's findings and the accompanying and interesting, if depressing, press statement by the Minister on 9 September, I should say that there is not only increasing public awareness of the problems of smoking and its long-term consequences to the health of smokers, but an increasing awareness of the dangers of passive smoking, particularly to children. Lothian Region Transport plc has done much to ensure that smoking is banned from public transport in the Lothian area. As in America, smoking is now increasingly prohibited in public places in Britain, which means that children are less influenced by adults who smoke and whose passive smoking does much to damage young children's health.
  I look forward to the day when restaurants, pubs, cafes and public transport undertakings through the United Kingdom take seriously the problems of smoking. If they permit smoking, they should set aside special rooms for those who wish to smoke and for those who do not.
  Mr. Morgan: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, if, we are to stop young people inhaling smoke unintentionally and passively in public places such as restaurants and railway carriages, the physical segregation between areas where people are allowed to smoke and those where they are not must be far better.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that relates to the targeting of advertising on young children.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to come to that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I will allow the hon. Gentleman to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Griffiths: It was not an unhelpful intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because one of the problems in dealing with the targeting of advertising is that advertisements aimed at adults will be less effective than the Minister may wish if they take account of the fact that children may be present. The problem that my hon. Friend rightly highlights of there being no closing doors on trains between smoking and non-smoking areas exposes children to smoking.
  Mr. Morgan: The point that my hon. Friend is about to come to is that the advertising directed at young people creates a climate of social acceptability in which children will then not complain about the awful smell of smoke from the other side of a physical barrier—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nonsense. Mr. Griffiths.
  Mr. Griffiths: The fourth report of the Committee on Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship was produced this summer and the Minister will have had time to study it in detail.
  One of the most disturbing aspects of the report relates to the financing of the committee. The funding for direct mail research was £24,000, the chairman's fees were £2,000 and there was a miscellaneous sum of £331 for telephone, stationery and the like. That is a total of £26,331. An additional sum for certain members and secretaries' expenses was met by the Department and the companies, but the amount is unspecified. That is a derisory total for a committee monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. It is less than £30,000, compared with the tens or hundreds of millions that are spent on promoting tobacco.
  Only four members of the committee represented the Department of Health, but there were seven from the trade, the Tobacco Advisory Council and various tobacco companies. That shows an imbalance. More disturbing is an analysis of the complaints. A fifth of the complaints against companies for advertising in an irresponsible fashion in breach of the code were upheld. That is serious in view of the fact that the committee has been running for more than four years. One would have thought that its very existence would be some sort of deterrent. The fact that one in five of the complaints were held to be breaches of the code shows that the tobacco companies have perhaps been treating the committee and the issue in a cavalier way.
  The report shows that the committee devoted some time to analysing a helpful report from the Health Education Authority, "Beating the Ban", which was published in 1990. It grieves me to say that the committee
  120
  seemed to spend some time trying to denigrate the authority's findings and to vindicate the tobacco industry. It should have spent a little more time looking at the serious work being carried out by the Health Education Authority and less time on carping criticisms of the authority's work.
  Sadly, the preface to the report, the covering letter from Mr. John Belloch, chairman of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship, shows that the increase in the number of breaches in the past year has risen by 35 per cent. Perhaps that increase reflects a decline in profits, the recession and the drive by tobacco companies to advertise their products even more fiercely. None the less, the rise is worrying.
  The committee was set up under the terms of a voluntary agreement. The Minister and I may disagree about whether the emphasis should be on voluntary or statutory agreements. The agreement was concluded with the Government on 1 April 1986. The committee contains leading representatives of the tobacco industry and its task is to monitor the operation of the agreements on advertising and on sponsorship of sports by tobacco companies in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North spoke about that.
  That is a more recent agreement, dating from January 1987. I shall not read out the main provisions of the agreement, because they fall outwith the terms of the Adjournment debate topic, but they are available to the general public, and to hon. Members in the Library. The problems that are highlighted—here is where we question the faith of some of the marketers of tobacco companies —include the limiting of expenditure on cigarette brand poster advertising to 50 per cent. of the level in the year ended 31 March 1980. The problem arises from the fact that—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Griffiths: I was saying that the proportion of advertising expenditure given was for that in the two lowest tar groups, which was rather less than the proportion of total sales.
  I do not want to carp about the work of the Committee. I welcome the fact that the industry gets together with the Minister's representative and with representatives of other Departments, and I welcome the agreement to cease advertising in cinemas and to support an advertising campaign about illegal sales to children under 16. These measures have the full endorsement of the Labour party, which also welcomes the fact that notices about the law will be made extensively available for display by the retail trade and will be fixed to automatic vending machines by operators.
  I know that the industry and the Department of Health are to consider what further action is needed to publicise the law in the light of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. I refer to the case outlined in the report of breaches of the code and to the cases behind the figures that I have given.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has mentioned the reports of the Committee, including one on the general aspects of two televised sporting events sponsored by tobacco companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is

  121
  not the specific element, but the general targeting of young people, which may not be explicit, that causes the most difficulty? All of us who have worked with young people know that, in relation to pop music and sport, the impact of the event and the personality goes way beyond w hat one would expect. Should this not be taken into account, and does it not appear that it is not taken into account in the voluntary code?
  Mr. Griffiths: I endorse that point, which follows on from the one that I have been making. There are volumes of evidence to substantiate what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope to give the House some examples. The Evening Standard of 20 May this year published an excellent critique of advertising and the ways in which the tobacco industry had dodged bans on advertising. Anyone who has not read Mr. Eric Clark's excellent article charting how classic adverts, in the past and in the present, have succeeded in linking the cigarette with sophistication, should read it.
  As he so rightly says, despite all the increasingly tougher codes, much of what is happening in advertising now does not contravene codes, yet tobacco companies get the message across in the same way. Marlboro, for instance, does not have to show or even mention somebody smoking cigarettes—it just has to show a cowboy. That is an example of what my hon. Friend has in mind.
  Mr. Morgan: There was a notorious example, similar to the one that my hon. Friend has given, which no doubt had a great deal of appeal to young people. It was the famous Peter Stuyvesant advertisement which showed passengers on aircraft. No doubt it had a great deal of appeal because it suggested that, if someone could afford air travel, he must be a bit of a swinger and must be with it. That was bound to appeal to young people as well. That was shown about 20 years ago, shortly after the first voluntary code. Instead of the advertiser stating directly that someone is a with-it swinger if he smokes, he implies that to young people by showing them smoking Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes on airliners.
  Mr. Griffiths: It could well be that it will take more than the measures that the Government have introduced to strip the glamour from smoking, notwithstanding the 115,000 smoking-related deaths per year in Britain alone. Tragically, as my hon. Friends have said, the image that is portrayed is still one of the smoker being chic or macho. That image is targeted at adults and at children, who are the most impressionable.
  Mr. Michael: It seems that my hon. Friend is going to the essence of the argument. For many years before coming to this place, I worked with young children. It strikes me that it is young people who are most at risk and who have most to lose. The children with whom I worked had the least opportunity in terms of personal development and careers, and they were likely to be drawn into a variety of different forms of behaviour, among which the first was often the use of and then addiction to tobacco.
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes the point well and pithily.
  122
  The article in the Evening Standard takes up the issue in the same vein. I am sure that that newspaper lives or dies by its advertising and can claim some expertise on the subject. The article states that we have only to look
  "at the black-and-white magazine shots of Val Kilmer, Jim Morrison in The Doors, with a cigarette. Read about Julia Roberts as she takes 'a deep draw on the cigarette in her right hand'. Or visit the Olivier/SWET '91 award-winning play Dancing at Lughnasa and hear talk of 'Wild Woodbines'."
  All these things have an impact on the public. In particular, as the journalist, Mr. Clark states, they have an effect on his daughter, who is 13. She mimes smoking. I am sure that that will be familiar to hon. Members with teenage children. That shows the impact of smoking. It is almost passive advertising and promotion, but I am convinced that it is carefully crafted in many instances by the advertising companies on behalf of the cigarette companies.
  The notion that we do not have to have anything to do with those who want to smoke is odious, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said. The notion also that advertising is designed to persuade people to smoke one company's brand instead of that of another—in other words, to switch—has little validity.
  Today's cigarette has 110 years of image-making behind it. Part of the task of the modern tobacco promoter is to make the smoking habit appear clean and healthy, and to imply that it is all right to smoke if we take plenty of exercise. Spurious devices are used to put forward a powerful message.
  For young women in particular, the message conveyed is that of elegance, poise, and perhaps a hint of luxury. Such an image can be seductive to people who have not enjoyed so-called rising prosperity—the number who have not done so is increasing—and have fewer pleasures in life. I refer to people who, as I speak, are sitting at home, unable to put on their electric fires. The message that one can gain for just a few pence, by smoking, something that a Liz Taylor or a Julia Roberts with all their millions have can be seductive—and it is being deliberately promoted.
  The tobacco industry has done much to sidestep the Secretary of State's restrictions by moving more into other marketing areas, such as sampling, road shows, travel films, clothing, and sponsorship—from Glyndebourne to rock, from angling to snooker. Earlier this year, Philip Morris appointed a London agency to explore news areas of so-called non-conventional advertising.
  At the heart of the debate, and of the promotion of cigarettes to young people, is a crisis of confidence in the House and the country over the good will of the tobacco industry. The Government have at least been partly honest in their stand. A few years ago, they went in to Europe with the deliberate aim of sabotaging any tough ban on cigarette advertising, and any insistance on tough medical warnings of the kind that appear today.
  Since then, the Government have perceived public opinion and disquiet with their handling of the issue, but still they have not fully learnt the lessons. When the new voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising was concluded, the Secretary of State for Health issued a trumpeting press release stating:
  "The agreement will ensure that the new health warnings such as 'Smoking Kills', which will appear on cigarette packets from 1992, will also appear on advertisements."
  Three cheers for that—but they are three cheers three years too late in terms of Government action, the tens of

  123
  thousands of people who have died from smoking, and the tens of thousands more who have taken up smoking during that time.
  The messages that the Secretary of State trumpets in his press release are "Smoking Kills," "Smoking Causes Cancer," "Smoking Causes Heart Disease," "Smoking Causes Fatal Diseases," "Smoking When Pregnant Harms Your Baby," and "Protect Children: Don't Make Them Breathe Your Smoke." They are all welcome but my right hon. and hon. Friends—together with responsible interests outside the House, such as the British Medical Association and other medical authorities—have pressed for such a policy for some years.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State's inability to press that policy on the industry, and the industry's failure to adopt it voluntarily before now, has done much to heighten public awareness of the reticence of the Secretary of State and of the industry to take the issue as seriously as they might.
  I believe in tough regulations, not knee-jerk reactions to public opinion—but the industry should be allowed to gear up to them and to plan five or 10 years ahead. If the industry had gone along with the sort of scheme that we were urging three or four years ago, it would be well geared up to meeting the challenge now, instead of being caught short by its friends—who I am sure the industry feels have in some way betrayed it.
  In his press release the Secretary of State says:
  "Many of the new measures are designed to protect children from being influenced to take up the deadly habit of smoking."
  Again, we welcome that, but is it not sad that it comes 12 years after this Government were elected and after not just one but two Secretaries of State since I have been a Member of Parliament have been influenced because of criticism of tobacco advertising and irresponsible elements in the tobacco industry?
  The Secretary of State said that he wants to discourage
  "children and young people, particularly young women, from taking up smoking"
  and that it is
  "one of the most important things we can do to protect their future health."
  We welcome that statement. In the remaining 15 minutes we look forward to hearing from the Minister what he intends to do to advance that cause further.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on securing this debate and on mobilising so much support from her side of the House. Despite the best efforts of one or two of her hon. Friends, I do not believe that the debate has revealed a party political difference on anything other than the very narrow issue of an advertising ban. There is no dispute about the incidence of smoking among young people and among the population as a whole, which must be reduced.
  Statistics have already been quoted and they bear repetition. They show that 100,000 unnecessary deaths a year are the result of tobacco consumption. That is a Lockerbie disaster every day of every year. A third of all deaths in the age group 40 to 70 are smoking-related. That is a frightening statistic. A few Opposition Members told us that smoking costs the national health service £437
  124
  million a year. I am not sure how accurately that can be measured, but it represents a substantial cost to the NHS, which the hon. Member for Eccles compared, in my view rightly, with the large sums of money that the European Community still commits to subsidising tobacco production, against which we have argued vehemently in Brussels. At the very least there is something contradictory—most people would apply a stronger epithet to it—about an organisation that subsidises tobacco production but seeks to present itself as interested in reducing tobacco consumption.
  This Government's record, as well as that of our predecessors who pursued precisely the same policy, shows some success in delivering the objective that both parties have espoused—reduced tobacco consumption. The number of smokers has fallen from 45 per cent. of the population in 1974 to 32 per cent. of the population in 1988, the most recent year for which figures are available.
  The Green Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published this summer, entitled "The Health of the Nation", suggests, as part of the consultation about health targets, that we should adopt as a target a further reduction, within the time span of the White Paper, when it is published, of that proportion of the population who smoke from 33 per cent. in the case of men, as it was in 1988, to 22 per cent. and from 30 per cent. of women down to 21 per cent.—a reduction of more than 30 per cent. on present incidence rates.
  There cannot be and there should not be any attempt to open up a party political divide over the importance of further reducing tobacco consumption. Nor is there any serious basis on which it can be argued that there is a party political divide over the particular of reducing tobacco consumption among children.
  Clearly, if we want to deliver long-term reductions in tobacco consumption, we need to ensure that the smallest possible number of children—preferably none—take up the tobacco habit. Once again, that is not in dispute.
  We have made it clear that we are disappointed at the figures revealed in the latest survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of tobacco consumption by young people. It showed that, in 1990, 10 per cent. of children aged between 11 and 15 still used tobacco. I was horrified by the definition of "regular" users. Those are not children who smoke one or two cigarettes a week to prove to their contemporaries that they are older than they are; if they are boys, they smoke more than 56 cigarettes a week and, if they are girls, more than 49 cigarettes a week. By any definition, that is a substantial level of tobacco consumption by children, to whom it is illegal to sell cigarettes.
  Action has been taken, not just in the past few years but consistently by successive Governments since 1904, to inhibit tobacco consumption by children. The sale of cigarettes to children has been illegal since 1904. Successive legislative steps have been taken since then to tighten the restrictions on access to tobacco by young children.
  The most recent was the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned. It was passed with the Government's support. The Act makes it an absolute offence for a shopkeeper to sell cigarettes or any other tobacco product to young people. It makes it clear that a shopkeeper who sells cigarettes to young people cannot simply say that he did not know that

  125
  he was doing so. To establish his innocence, he must prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the Commission of an offence. In other words, if a shopkeeper cannot show that he took every reasonable step to satisfy himself about the age of the person buying cigarettes or any other tobacco product, he has committed an offence.
  Action has been taken to deal with one of the issues which undoubtedly is an important contributor to tobacco consumption by young people—their access to tobacco products. The law is tighter than it has ever been, and it has the backing of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman really wish to imply that it is difficult for young children to buy cigarettes from a local corner shop? My impression is that the old trick of saying that the cigarettes are for one's mother or older brother still works 99·99 per cent. of the time.
  Mr. Dorrell: The House need not rely on the hon. Gentleman's view that it happens 99·99 per cent. of the time. One of the slightly more encouraging findings of the OPCS survey—I emphasise the word "slightly"—was that, in 1988, 8 per cent. of young smokers had been refused cigarettes by the supplier the last time they sought to buy them but that, in 1990, the figure had risen to 15 per cent. Although that meant that 85 per cent. had been able to buy cigarettes illegally without challenge, none the less it was a welcome trend.
  The special position of young people has been recognised in the voluntary agreements that the Government have negotiated with the industry and it was explicit in the 1986 voluntary agreement. It has been suggested that the voluntary agreement makes no reference to children and young people, but that is not true. I quote the 1986 agreement under which the industry agreed
  "to take special care to ensure that their advertising … and promotion does not represent a greater attraction to young people than to the population as a whole."
  The agreement hinds the industry and is carried forward into the new agreement. It is the basis on which any discriminatory advertising directed at young people can be challenged under the terms of the voluntary agreements between the Government and the industry.
  The voluntary agreement published in September this year by my right hon. Friend takes several further steps towards restricting the extent to which advertising is directed—purposefully or otherwise—at young people. The voluntary agreement commits the industry to a 50 per cent. reduction in shop-front advertising starting at the shop fronts closest to schools. It commits the industry to applying the same ban on billboard advertising overlooking playgrounds as already applies to billboard advertising close to schools.
  It also commits the industry to a ban on cigarette and other tobacco advertising in magazines specifically aimed at the young women's market. "Specificially aimed" in that context is defined in the agreement as describing any magazine where the age group 15 to 24 comprises more than 25 per cent. of the magazine's readership. This year, we also insisted on a substantial strengthening of the nature of the health warnings put on packets and on any tobacco advertising. To suggest that the Government have
  126
  taken no action, or have taken no action against the specific problem of advertising directed at children, is a charge that does not stand up.
  The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned the case of the Canadian company Imperial Tobacco Ltd. The charges against that company are serious, although the hon. Lady made it clear that there is no suggestion in any of the supporting paperwork that the claims relate to any sales outside Canada and certainly not that they relate to any sales in this country. Indeed, it would be hard for them to do so, because British American Tobacco does not sell tobacco in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Lady also quoted the use of the puffin symbol by Gallaher. That is a good illustration of the strength of the voluntary agreement approach to advertising and of the weakness of seeking to enshrine it in statutory to legal bounds. If the hon. Lady or Puffin Books can show that the use of the puffin symbol contravenes the text that I quoted from the 1986 voluntary agreement, without being bound by court procedures and legal niceties and technicalities, we have a system deliberately designed to be sufficiently flexible to allow action to be taken and new barriers which will not be allowed to be broken. We will not extend the limits of what is acceptable.
  I have stressed that there is no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition about the importance of reducing tobacco consumption or of reducing access to tobacco, especially among children, as a contributor to that objective. If the House is to take that objective seriously and then to deliver that objective, we need to consider what influences tobacco consumption among children.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have only two minutes and I want to make some more points. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The evidence suggests overwhelmingly that the biggest single influence on whether children smoke is the parental influence. First, it is a mistake to imagine that access to tobacco for children is an entirely discrete subject. Advertising directed at reducing tobacco consumption by parents has a substantial secondary knock-on effect on children. The second point to bear in in mind when we consider what influences children's consumption is the question of access and the tightening of that access. Hence our support for the Bill last year. The third is to ensure that children understand the health hazards that they run. One of the most encouraging aspects at the moment is that the Health Education Authority recently found that 87 per cent. of schoolchildren between nine and 15 think that smoking can kill. Therefore, the education message is getting through.
  Our most important priority is to secure the agreement of the industry to effective voluntary agreements and then to police them robustly. Evidence from the continent and comparison of our record with that of other European countries show that that is the route which delivers a substantial reduction in tobacco smoking.
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.