Sitting of 6 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Member Sworn
  The following Member took and subscribed the oath:
  Austin Vernon Mitchell, esquire, Great Grimsby

  Member Sworn
    PRIVATE BUSINESS
      YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
      To be a read a second time upon Thursday
Oral Answers to Questions

  WALES
  Mr. Speaker:Question No, 1, Mr. Davies
  Mr.D.E. Thomas: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not take points of order at this stage. I shall take them after Question Time.
  Mr.D.E. Thomas rose—
  Mr. Wigley rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said to both hon. Gentlemen that I do not take points of order until the right place for them. They take time out of questions. Question No. 1, Mr. Ron Davies
  Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again that I am not prepared to take points of order at this stage. It takes time out of questions, and the hon. Gentleman has a question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Wigley: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am on my feet. Mr. Ron Davies.
  Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 ( Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 94.
  Question accordingly negatived.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what research his Department is sponsoring into the quality of Welsh domestic water supplies.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Research into the quality of United Kingdom domestic water supplies is sponsored by the Department of the Environment. This Department does participate in the formulation of the water research programme. In the current year, £1·1 million of the research programme relates to domestic water supplies.
  Mr. Davies: May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) on his new appointment? Does he accept the latest medical evidence that there can be no safe level of lead in domestic water supplies? Will he accept that in Wales, where the water is becoming increasingly acidic and where one in four households have lead pipes, the problem is particularly severe? Will he press the EEC to lower its acceptable levels, and will he undertake to sponsor in his Department an immediate programme of public education so that people who are receiving contaminated water will be aware of the fact, of its causes and of its possible remedies?
  Mr. Grist: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the outset of his remarks. Secondly, I hope that he is not trying to promote public panic and concern over this matter. It is a serious issue, but the Welsh water authority has a programme in hand whereby originally it identified some 600,000 persons who were affected. Some 350,000 persons have already been cleared. Currently, 125,000 are being cleared, and it hopes that it will finish the programme in the next 18 months. That should put people's minds at rest.
  Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that something stronger than Welsh water must have been drunk by two Welsh Members to have wasted so much parliamentary time earlier?
  Mr. Livsey: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. What will he do to guarantee the quality of
  4
  water in Wales, should the Welsh water authority be privatised? Does he not think that with the leanings of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to wetness this is a totally inappropriate matter for privatisation?
  Mr. Grist: No, I do not. What is more, the standard of safety will be maintained under the privatised system. The national rivers authority will be taking over the responsibility for research in the area from the water authorities.

  Water Supplies

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On 14 May 1987, 9,118, 26,084 and 157,779 persons were unemployed in Newport district, Gwent and Wales respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he has inherited an appalling legacy from his predecessor, which cannot be camouflaged by restart schemes or by fiddling the unemployment statistics? Will he investigate the situation at Alpha Steel in Newport, which has sacked just about all its employees? Will he also seek an early meeting with the chairman of British Rail about the proposed closure of the Severn tunnel junction, which I believe will be a monumental blunder?
    Mr. Walker: I hope to see the chairman of British Rail in the future and will discuss the matter with him. On this first occasion, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor for the marvellous work that he did for the Principality. To have inherited a situation where regional selective assistance applications so far this year are 38 per cent. up on last year, where regional development grant applications so far this year are up 52 per cent. on the same period last year, and where the CBI industrial survey shows the most bullish and optimistic results in years for the Principality, is a great tribute to all the work that my predecessor carried out.
    Mr. Raffan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. I assure him that the vast majority of the people of Wales are far more impressed by the wide experience that he brings to the job, than concerned about where he comes from. Will he reassure the House that he will continue the highly successful economic and industrial policies of his predecessor — policies that have led to unemployment falling faster in Wales than in any other part of the country, which have attracted 25 per cent. of overseas investment in the United Kingdom to Wales and 70 per cent. of Japanese investment, and which have encouraged so many people to set up in business on their own?
    Mr. Walker: I very much agree that the trends in new businesses in inward investment and the speed at which unemployment is falling are very encouraging. I know that both my predecessor and my hon. Friend agree that there is still a great deal to be done and that with the policies that we are pursuing we can achieve great things.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Perhaps the Secretary of State is not aware that unemployment in Fishguard is the highest

    5
    in Wales, at 24·1 per cent. 1 urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the situation and to report to me in due course on what can be done to try to resolve this problem.
    Mr. Walker: Obviously, I would like to look at all the areas in the Principality that have particular problems. I realise that Fishguard does, and I will certainly look at it.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State. I am sure that he will bring to Wales the same determination and energy as he has displayed in previous appointments. Is he aware that in my constituency we have the highest numerical unemployment in Wales and that it is not being helped by Dyfed county council's new traffic scheme in Tenby, which came in on 1 July this week? A survey this morning shows a 40 per cent. drop in takings in those businesses already, which will do nothing for jobs in my constituency.
    Mr. Walker: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I know that businesses in his constituency are being hit at what should be the peak season for the tourist trade. However, it is a matter for the local highway authority. It said that it was carrying out the scheme on an experimental basis, and I hope that it will rapidly learn the lessons of the experiment.
    Mr. John Morris: As unemployment in Wales in May 1979 was under 6 per cent. and in June 1983 it was over 13 per cent. and has now gone down by 0·4 per cent.—I congratulate Her Majesty's Government—would it be unreasonable for me to believe that if the existing trend of improvement is continued it will take 70 years to bring Welsh unemployment down to the level when Labour left office?
    Mr. Walker: That would not be the case. In fact, the drop in unemployment over the past 12 months has been encouraging. I am glad to say that there has been a bigger drop than in any other region of the country.

    Roads
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk road have been laid since that year.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Expenditure on the improvement and maintenance of trunk roads and motorways in the period 1979–80 to 1986–87 was over £860 million. Twenty two miles of motorway and 95 miles of trunk road have been provided.
    Mr. KnoxI congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their considerable achievements since 1979 in building roads in Wales. Will my hon. Friend say what his plans are to build more roads there?
    Mr. Roberts: Our record on road building is almost as good as the record attendance here this afternoon. We have 27 miles of trunk road currently under construction, at an estimated cost of around £300 million. A further five projects are planned to start this financial year, at a total estimated cost of £55 million, and between January of next year and December 1990 a further programme of 28 schemes is planned, providing over 60 miles of trunk road and motorway improvements.

    Rechem International
    Mr. Murphyasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will meet the management of Rechem International to discuss the implications for the local environment of the operation of its plant at Pontypool.
    Mr. Grist: The plant is closely monitored by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the Minister for his useful reply. However, will he investigate reports that large shipments of hazardous waste are being transported secretly from Australia and New Zealand to that plant, causing much anxiety to my constituents? Does he agree that Torfaen is fast becoming the dumping ground for the world's poisons?
    Mr. Grist: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has taken up where his predecessor left off, which, in some respects, I regret to say, is to continue to alarm some of his constituents unduly. The practice and rules under which waste products from abroad are treated are exactly the same as those for treating home-produced waste.

    Labour Statistics
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of registered unemployed in Wales at the latest available date; what was the number 12 months previously; and what are the corresponding figures for notified vacancies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Unemployed claimants in Wales totalled 157,779 in May 1987 and 179,200 in May 1986. The corresponding figures for vacancies notified to jobcentres and careers offices were 13,353 and 12,054.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the routine demonstration that we have just had to endure from Plaid Cymru, there is a general welcome in Wales for his appointment and a feeling of great optimism that the successful policies of the Government, tempered by his individual approach in these matters, promise a great future for Wales, with jobs coming into Wales as a result of inward investment and jobs generated in Wales as a result of development and individual initiative?
    Mr. Walker: The support that has been given by the Government and local government in Wales for inward investment has been encouraging. In 1986 there was a new inward investment project every six working days, and so far this year there has been a new project every three and a half working days. Total inward investment last year amounted to £150,000 per working day, and so far this year it has amounted to some £850,000 per working clay.
    Mr. Anderson: What estimate has the Welsh Office made of the likely job losses when certain local government functions, such as school dinners, refuse collection and street cleaning are put out to tender? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the remarks made yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who said that had he been offered the Welsh Office it would have been an insult to Wales?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) is quite

    7
    capable of speaking for himself on these matters. I can only say that it is a great privilege to be given this task and I hope that I can make some positive contribution.
    As regards job losses due to work being put out to competitive tendering, I believe that any of us who are interested in seeing improved services, be they in health, education or anything else, want those tasks to be tackled as efficiently and as well as possible.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In contrast to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) does my right hon. Friend agree that the regularly negative approach to jobs and opportunities displayed by the Opposition is the prime reason why, last month, the people of Wales gave the Labour party its second worst election result since the war?
    Mr. Walker: I can only say that on those matters, although there are many differences between the political parties, the task of attracting inward investment and getting new businesses under way is, I hope, supported by both sides of the House. I look forward to the collaboration of Socialist-controlled local authorities as well as Conservative local authorities in achieving those objectives.
    Mr. Barry Jones: It falls to me to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his office. It is one of the most important offices of state. It is an office of great and immense patronage and has major powers over our communities. The right hon. Gentleman is the seventh Secretary of State, albeit an Englishman.
    We will always encourage the right hon. Gentleman to make efforts to find real jobs and to invest in our communities. The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman will make major changes in the Government's policy as it affects the Principality, because, at the general election, our people signalled their passionate desire to reverse the Prime Minister's policies. Indeed, there are now only eight Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that we want real jobs for the army of Welsh unemployed? We want a much improved regional policy. We want a boost for the Welsh Development Agency and an urgent review of and fight against the great housing crisis that we now face. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that nothing less will do and that public opinion demands those changes in policy.
    Mr. Walker: May I first express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new position and for his good wishes. Obviously, we shall have major differences. As regards the areas that he has just mentioned, I have studied with keen interest the relative expenditure on house improvements during the period of this Conservative Government and their predecessor. I have discovered that substantial progress has been made in this area, and I am glad that further progress will be made in the future.
    As to the analysis of the election results, I obviously deeply regret losing a number of colleagues from the Welsh seats—they were very fine colleagues at that. Our share of the vote was not all that dissimilar from the 1983 election, whereas I might say that the vote for those who demonstrated earlier — there was no reason for the demonstration — the vote for Plaid Cymru, as a proportion of the Welsh electorate, has gone down at every election since 1970.
    Sir John Stradling Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to convey the main thrust of his answers regarding inward investment to Mr. Arthur Scargill at Rothesay?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I certainly hope that some of the major investment that will take place will not be handicapped by the actions of that gentleman.

    House Building
    Mr. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing starts were made in the public sector in Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: In the year up to March 1987, 1,227 dwellings were started in the public sector.
    Mr. Thomas: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his ministerial office. It is a great privilege to see a Member representing a Welsh constituency promoted to the Welsh Office. May I also commiserate with the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts). At a later date I would be extremely interested to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman is still of the view that he held before the appointment of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the Secretary of State for Wales should represent a Welsh constituency. Will the Minister tell us what the proposals will be to bring back housing starts in the public sector in Wales to the levels that they were pre-1979?
    Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the situation. One of the first things that the Government decided to do, largely with the agreement of the loccal authorities, was to safeguard the housing stock that we already had. To that end, we have enormously increased expenditure on house renovations and repairs. Indeed, the increase under the Government has been about 430 per cent., which has been mainly in the private sector, but also in the public sector, an area that was largely neglected by the Labour party.
    Mr. Raffan: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new appointment. Does he agree, as is widely accepted in my constituency, as in many others in Wales, that there is a surplus of housing? The Government are absolutely right to concentrate their emphasis on the improvement of the quality of existing housing rather than on building new housing. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is the core of our housing policy and that it is correctly directed within the Principality?
    Mr. Grist: Indeed, I do, because of the age of our housing stock, which has made that a requisite.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Miniser aware that in many of our communities people now wait for repair and improvement grants — the very improvements that the Government boast about — for three to four years? Irrespective of what happened previously, when will the hon. Gentleman be able to assist the large numbers of people who are now waiting, not for one or two years, but for three or four years for those vital repairs and improvements?
    Mr. Grist: To put it into perspective, the repair grants on private housing under the Government have come to over £400 million as opposed to some £57 million under

    9
    the Labour party, and £328 million in the public sector compared with just £86 million under the Labour party. That is bringing help to the people in a true fashion.
    Mr. John: Does the Minister accept that the measure of need is the waiting list for public housing in each local authority? If he does, does he further accept that in my local authority 3,000 are waiting and, at the rate of 1,200 per year being housed in the whole of Wales, it will take a very long time for that need to be satisfied?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman always shows up what his party seems to think about the citizenry of the country. He always thinks in terms of council housing. I remind the Labour party that the Welsh Office was largely responsible for introducing private money into housing association schemes, and that on the basis of such schemes submitted so far to the Housing Corporation, another 800 homes for rent may be achieved next year, through partnership schemes such as at St. Mellons in Cardiff.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend reject the notion that the only way forward in housing is with local councils when a substantial volume of accommodation is grossly under-used because of excessive rent and tenancy legislation?
    Mr. Grist: I do, indeed. That is precisely why we put forward the various proposals in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I also welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. To me, he is the living embodiment of life after death. When will he recognise the severe housing crisis from which Wales suffers? Does he appreciate that the Government's record, particularly in the public sector, is appalling? When will we get the housing drive that would make so much social and economic sense for Wales?
    Mr. Grist: Housing association completions do not satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Enveloping schemes do not satisfy him. Is that not a drive? We are involving private money in housing associations. Does that not not satisfy him? For the fifth year running there has been an increase in private house building in Wales. Does that not satisfy him? There is a record spend on renovating and saving our housing stock. Does that not satisfy him? If it does not, nothing will.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales what numbers of persons were registered as employed and unemployed in 1979 and in 1987 in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In June 1979 the number of employees in employment in Wales was estimated to be 1,033,000, and the number of self-employed 124,000. Corresponding figures for June 1986 — the latest available— were up 861,000 and 154,000 respectively. Figures for adult unemployed claimants for the same dates were 70,000 and 175,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Some of us viewed with trepidation the appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales, but we accepted the fact that, like my parents, who came from Worcester, he would, perhaps, bring something good into Wales.
    However, he started by praising his predecessor. It is appalling to think, given the legacy left to the Secretary of State by his predecessor, that he can stand at the Dispatch
    10
    Box and praise him. Is he aware that in Ogmore, when his predecessor was appointed in 1979, the unemployment rate was 3·7 per cent. in the Port Talbot travel-to-work area? It is now 18·7 per cent. What will the right hon. Gentleman do, and what aid will he give us to try to resolve that appalling unemployment in Wales?
    Mr. Walker: May I first say how delighted I am to hear of the hon. Gentleman's association with Worcester. I welcome that.
    Yes, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is very high. I wish to see it reduced. In fairness to my predecessor, I can only say again that he had to act in my present capacity during what was the worst world recession in manufacturing this century. I am delighted that, as a result of many of the actions that he took, Wales has had a fast-improving trend over the past year, and a great deal of inward investment and new commercial and economic activity are taking place there.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Revenue
    Mr. Chapmanasked the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what proportion of the Church Commissioners' revenue comes from income on their assets; and what proportion of their expenditure goes to meet the clergy's salaries and pensions.
    The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): Sixty-six per cent., the rest coming mainly from parish giving. Eighty-one per cent. of total expenditure was spent on clergy pay and pensions.
    Mr. Chapman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his spiritual elevation after the more turbulent, temporal post that he held in the last Parliament. Does he agree that those figures underline a simple point: that if we are to improve the clergy's stipends and pensions it is absolutely vital that the Church maximises the interest on its assets; and that it is important for the Church to have assets in land and property as well as in industry and elsewhere?
    Mr. Alison: I agree with what my hon. Friend suggested in his supplementary question. In fact, the Church Commissioners' assets are judiciously and diversely spread. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the main equity investment of the Church Commissioners yielded an income that rose, in 1986, by no less than 12½ per cent. Anyone who managed his personal portfolio of shares so effectively would have reason to be pleased with himself.
    Mr. Frank Field: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position and say that his appointment was probably the only acceptable consequence of the general election that Opposition Members welcomed.
    Does he accept that the level of clergy pay is acceptable? If not, what sort of levels should we be aiming at, and what part should the laity play in meeting that target?
    Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his kind and rather sweeping commendation of my own preferment.
    One should always aim for the highest possible figure. I feel that the minimum of £8,000 a year could be improved. It would be a pity if clergy and their families. had to have regular recourse to family income supplement.

    11
    We have to take into account, too, that there are benefits in kind — housing benefit particularly — that make the level of income perhaps not quite as low as it might appear from the bare figures.

    Ordained Clergy
    Mr. Harry Greenwayasked the hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many ordained clergy were in possession of a parson's freehold on 1 January 1987; how many were priests in charge of churches; how many were in charge of churches in another capacity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Six thousand, nine hundred and eight. In addition, 731 clergy were priests or curates in charge of churches and 568 were team vicars.
    Mr. Greenway: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elevation to higher things. Do not the figures that he has given show a discernible movement away from vicars and rectors being granted parsons' freeholds? Does that not mean a weakening of tenure for vicars and rectors?
    Mr. Alison: In statistical terms there is a marginal change. The figure last year was 6,968, so there has been a change of only 60. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the granting of benefices and incumbencies continues apace and sustains the traditional pattern of the Church of England without any grave threat of a fundamental change.

  WALES

    Bridgend
    Mr. Win Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Wales when next he intends to visit the Bridgend constituency.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have no immediate plans to visit the Bridgend constituency, but I hope to find a suitable opportunity to visit Bridgend before very long.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many good reasons to visit Bridgend? May I ask him about only one of our pressing problems? Is he aware that in January this year the Welsh Office reduced the capital allocation of the Mid Glamorgan health authority by over £9 million, as a result of which the authority will have to put back by about a decade the start of phase II of the Princess Diana hospital in Bridgend? Will the right hon. Gentleman make an urgent visit to Bridgend to meet senior hospital staff, Mid Glamorgan health authority administrators and the community health council, with a view of putting that money back into the budget?
    Mr. Walker: I am examining the distribution of expenditure on health services throughout Wales. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall contact him about it.
    Mr. Butler: When my right hon. Friend travels along the M4 towards Bridgend will he note the expansion of high technology industry along that corridor, particularly in the Bridgend constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be appropriate if I drew to the attention of the House the fact
    12
    that questions 8, 9 and 14 are basically open questions. The Chair usually declines to call supplementary questions to an open question. I shall not follow that practice today, but I give notice that I shall have to do so in future. That supplementary question was not really appropriate.

    North Wales
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay a visit to north Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Yes. I shall make many visits.
    Dr. Marek: I hope that the new Secretary of State will not follow the practice of his predecessor in giving selective, or statistically insignificant, simplistic figures, showing that black is white or white is black. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to north Wales, will he give me two hours of his time so that I can show him what is wrong with the Wrexham area and what local people expect him to pay attention to?
    Mr. Walker: Yes.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: When my right hon. Friend comes to north Wales, as he has done on a number of occasions—notably during the general election campaign—he will also perceive a number of things that are going right with the area and the new atmosphere of confidence and optimism that is beginning to burgeon.
    Mr. Walker: Some recent developments in the area are encouraging. There has been a great deal of inward investment and new activity and a great deal of optimism. I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) tells me, but I think he will agree that some exciting things have also happened in Wrexham in the past few years.
    Mr. Barry Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman visits north Wales, will he bear in mind the 25 per cent. male unemployment rate in Holyhead and the 11,000 unemployed in the Shotton travel-to-work area? Will he also bear in mind the slashing of regional policy assistance from £137 million in 1979 to a proposed paltry £33 million next year? Will he remember the real-terms cut of 54 per cent. in our housing expenditure since 1979 and the loss of £672 million in rate support grant? I am asking the Minister on behalf of the people of Wales for a major change in policies. We expect him to fight in Cabinet for more resources to tackle our urgent problems.
    Mr. Walker: We could swap figures for most of the afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the very encouraging figures that I gave earlier about regional selective assistance applications. The jobs forecast in connection with those figures is up 70 per cent., while regional development grants in terms of jobs are up 61 per cent. so far this year. Those are remarkable figures.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: When the Secretary of State visits north Wales, will he make sure that he visits the Ynys Môn constituency, the loss of which is at least one reason why his Government have no mandate in Wales? Will he commit the Government to investment in the A5 and particularly in bypasses for the villages, bearing in mind the very high unemployment rate in Holyhead? Will he make his visit to Ynys Môn at an early date?
    Mr. Walker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being elected for that constituency in spite of my efforts

    13
    to see that he was not. The hon. Gentleman talks about mandates. He is a member of a party that obtained 7·3 per cent. of the votes in Wales and should not lecture a party that obtained 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should reconsider his view.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    South Africa
    Mr. Bernie Grantasked the Lord Privy Seal whether any items of South African origin are purchased for the House; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I am advised that none of the items in regular supply to the House of Commons is of South African origin.
    Mr. Grant: I am pleased with the Lord Privy Seal's statement. May I seek an assurance from him that he will investigate the source of all items, because it is now becoming clear that South Africa is using other countries to process its produce? May I have an assurance that he will investigate this and that if I am able to find any country processing South African produce he will strike out that country as well?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's question was a factual one and I gave him a factual answer. If he wishes to press the matter further, he should take it up with the Services Committee.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend further reassure the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) by telling him that when the North Atlantic Assembly was held in Westminster Hall in 1982 the elegant chairs on which we all sat and which had been hired specially for the occasion were all made east of the iron curtain?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his own point.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, although the general position is as he says and that no regular supplies come from South Africa, there are no supplies from South Africa? If he cannot tell us that today, will he inquire, and if he finds that there are, or may be, supplies purchased from South Africa, will he let the House decide whether that is an appropriate way for the House to deal with its contracts
    Mr. Wakeham: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further, he should take it up with the Services Committee.
    Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are very disappointed that there are no South African goods available? If he intends to go down the road suggested by some Opposition Members, will he give us the chance to draw up a list of countries of which we disapprove and from none of which we will accept products for this place? Will he assure us that he will not single out any one country for such ridiculous treatment?
    Mr. Wakeham: I should perhaps make it clear that my answer covers not only the Refreshment Department but the purchasing agencies such as Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Crown Suppliers, which supply the House of Commons and for which I have no direct ministerial
    14
    responsibility. Naturally, these agencies seek their supphes from United Kingdom sources where possible. I am sure that the House supports that approach.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not the truth that the Minister cannot give the assurance that is asked for by the Opposition and will not be able to in future, nor will the Committees be able to make the judgments that he has stated? That is because of changes made to consumer legislation immediately prior to the election affecting the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. As a result of that there will no way in which any hon. Member will know whether he is using South African goods.
    Mr. Wakeham: I gave the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) a factual answer. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he should take it up with the Services Committee.

    Self-seal Envelopes
    Mr. Harry Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking to issue self-seal House envelopes to hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and he will know that three types of white self-seal post-paid envelopes approved by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee have been issued to right hon. and hon. Members through the Serjeant at Arms stores since July last year. In addition, a stronger self-seal brown envelope is being tried and the results of the experiment will be reported to the Sub-Committee as soon as practicable.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend see whether we can move over completely to self-seal envelopes? While we may need a mix, as some colleagues obviously want this, could we consider the opinions of secretaries, who find the present gum on envelopes so obnoxious? Could we not change the taste to peppermint or something more pleasant?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Services Committee takes a keen interest in these matters, and I am sure that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee will look into any points that my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Mr. Faulds: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Services Committee has dealt with this matter. Most of us have enough spit to seal our own envelopes, and the self-seal envelopes that were somehow or other got together by the Services Committee do not stick.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am aware that there has been a fault, with which Her Majesty's Stationery Office is dealing. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 6 April.
    Mr. Gow: Why is it that we do not have second-class self-seal envelopes? Why do we have only first-class envelopes?
    Mr. Wakeham: If my hon. Friend feels strongly about this matter, I am sure that he will take it up with the Committee direct.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend know whether any of these envelopes come from South Africa? If they do not, why is he discriminating against black workers in South Africa in this way?
    Mr. Wakeham: Further to my previous answer, they do not come from South Africa.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Lord Privy Seal write to the Services Committee, using any envelope of his choice, to protest about any South African goods being made available in the House, as the vast majority of Members find such economic support for the evil regime of apartheid totally repugnant? Will he—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not relate to this question.
    Mr. Wakeham: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, Sir.

  WALES

    Agriculture Industry
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the state of the agriculture industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The Government continue to give substantial financial support to the industry: grants and subsidies paid directly to Welsh farmers amounted to an estimated £108 million in 1986–87. I welcome the recovery in farming incomes in Wales in 1986. The changes made in the monetary compensatory amounts agreed last week will also benefit Welsh agriculture.
    Mr. Howells: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to Welsh farmers that he will go to Brussels on their behalf to negotiate for an extra allocation of milk quotas for those young farmers in Wales who would like to start dairy farming on their own?
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have many years' experience of negotiating in Brussels. I will certainly collaborate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in any way possible to assist our negotiations.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the progress in reducing hospital waiting lists in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The National Health Service in Wales is treating an increasing number of patients, so that inpatient lists fell in 1986 by 2·6 per cent. and out-patient lists by 5·6 per cent. This is welcome progress. To maintain the momentum I have recently allocated a further £1
    16
    million to health authorities to help them tackle their worst waiting lists in 1987–88, and the Welsh Office is continuing its collaboration in health authorities' efforts to manage lists more effectively.
    Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's answer. However, is there not still considerable room for increased efficiency? In the interests of putting patients first, could not much be achieved by computer-based schemes offering patients the opportunity to join the shortest waiting lists, rather than using the nearest hospital, which is the more usual practice?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. At present, general practitioners in Wales are made aware, through a bulletin published every six months by my Department, of waiting lists in Welsh health local authorities. From the list, the GP could advise the patient as to the relevant time that he or she might have to wait for treatment. However, like my hon. Friend, I would wish to see the system made more rapid and more easily and widely accessible. I shall draw the attention of the Welsh Office waiting list team to what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that waiting lists for the regional specialty of cardiology in Wales have now reached a disastrous level? The waiting list for cardiac arterial surgery in the south Glamorgan area—which serves a wide area of Wales — has now reached 18 months, compared to three months in Southampton. Effectively, all the non-acute cases are never on a waiting list because the 18-month waiting list means that new emergency cases continually take the place of non-emergency cases, so people never reach the operating table.
    Mr. Grist: That is precisely why there are plans to enhance the facilities for cardiac surgery in Cardiff. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. It would be useful if I were to mention to hon. Members that the health authorities in Wales have been set a target to ensure that by March next year no patient should have to wait more than one month for urgent in-patient treatment; one year for non-urgent in-patient treatment and three months for a first-time out-patient appointment.

    Hospital Waiting Lists

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
      Ordered,
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

"Today" Newspaper
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the motion on the future of the Today newspaper, and I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet at the moment. However, I shall take the point of order before I call the Minister to move the motion.
Mr. Thomas: My point of order arises out of today's Question Time. In the past, at Welsh Question Time there have been present hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies, and they have often been called to contribute to our proceedings. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, and that of others observing the proceedings of the House, that a large number of hon. Members representing constituencies outside Wales were present for Welsh Questions today, including, of course, the Secretary of State for Wales.
A question of constitutional propriety is raised upon which I should like you to rule, Mr. Speaker. Is it to be the practice of the House that the will of the Welsh people, as expressed at the general election, will not be reflected in the balance of hon. Members called during Welsh Question Time? This is an important democratic principle, to which I ask you to address yourself.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I really need a great deal of help on this, but I call the hon. Member.
Mr. Forth: When considering the representations made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), will you hear in mind, Mr. Speaker, what English hon. Members might feel about Welsh or Scottish Members intervening in strictly English matters, and weigh up the propriety of English Members taking a healthy and, I hope, welcome, interest in matters Welsh, Scottish or, indeed, Northern Irish?
Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also bear in mind, when considering whom you call at Question Time, the fact that I had 11 times as many votes as the Plaid Cymru candidate in the Rhondda? I received about 35,000 votes, whereas the Nationalist received about 3,000. Does that mean that I will be called 10 or 11 times more often than the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas)?
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been watching with interest the various manoeuvres of parties trying to receive privileges and the masterful way in which you have handled them. I would very much appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker. If the 49 Conservative hon. Members for Kent, Surrey and Hampshire, who enjoy majorities of a totality and depth that makes the Scottish representation of the Labour party look as fragile as blown glass, were to join together and call themselves by some suitable title, such as "the well managed alliance", or something of that nature, would we be able to claim the sort of privileges claimed by these other splinter groups?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this matter now.
Mr. John Morris: On a serious point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) first.
Mr. Morris: As this is the only opportunity for questioning Welsh Office Ministers until late October, and as 30 per cent. of our valuable time today was wasted by the activities of Nationalist Members — and the Nationalists make up the only party that has succeeded in cutting down Welsh parliamentary time, especially when hon. Members wanted to ask questions about hospital waiting lists — is there any procedure for extending Welsh Question Time, or, if those hon. Members repeat their antics, for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the matter now. I think the House accepts that this is the United Kingdom Parliament and that every hon. Member should have a right to put questions to departmental Ministers, even though they may be Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers. However, I think the House accepts also that the Chair should give substantial precedence to Welsh Ministers at Welsh Question Time, and I have done exactly that today. The interesting suggestion of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is unlikely to be achieved!
3.35 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister
of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give his consent to the transfer of the ownership of the Today newspaper from Lonrho plc to News International plc; notes that Today was seriously loss making and manifestly uneconomic as a going concern; further notes that unless the transfer had taken place Today would probably have ceased publication immediately with he attendant loss of over 500 jobs; and congratulates the Secretary of State on ensuring the continuation of Today as a separate newspaper.
Mr. Speaker: I have already announced to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Clarke: I am sure that there is quite a wide measure of agreement among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the ownership of newspapers and the sort of newspaper industry that we would like to have. I am sure, also, that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, and of the public, would like to see a wide diversity of titles and choice of reading matter. We want to see newspapers and the media open to a variety of arguments and we would like to see many owners of newspapers. We do not wish newspapers to fall into too few hands.
In recent years there have been more hopes and encouraging signs about the future of Fleet street and of the British newspaper industry than the reverse. I look back to the start of the Today newspaper, which was one of the most encouraging events to occur in Fleet street. Eddie Shah introduced new technology into Fleet street and he was a new proprietor, opening the first new national title since the establishment of the Daily Star some time before. Following the opening of Today,there

19
were disputes at Wapping and elsewhere that gave hopes of bringing to an end the restrictive practices, overmanning and excessively high costs that had been the worst problems for Fleet street and the greatest inhibitions to a wide range of ownership over former years.
The Daily Star began to be printed in 1978, and Today opened in March 1986. Since then, Sunday Sport, The Independent and News on Sunday have been attempting to enter the newspaper market. The current state of Fleet street suggests that there is more prospect of more titles coming along and more prospect of diversity of ownership than most would have thought possible a few years ago.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: There is a tendency to assume that consideration of the newspaper industry involves London, and London only. A concentration of ownership has been taking place, and one example of that is Mr. Murdoch's takeover of Today In addition, the origination of the Daily Express and the Sunday Express was lost to Manchester this very weekend. The flight from Manchester is something that the Minister should be acutely conscious of and worried about.
Mr. Clarke: I agree that my remarks about the need for as many titles as possible, as wide a diversity of opinion as possible and as wide a diversity of ownership as possible apply as much to the provincial press as to the Fleet street daily press. I believe that the principles that I have been underlining reflect the underlying purpose of the Fair Trading Act 1973. The purpose of that Act, which followed on previous pieces of legislation, was to try to guard against an over-concentration of ownership in Fleet street. I remind the House that the basic requirement of the Act is that the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required for all newspaper mergers which either cause a newspaper proprietor's total circulation to rise to 500,000 or more average paid-for copies per issue or add further to a circulation of this size.
The Act envisages that, generally speaking, this consent will not be given until the Secretary of State has received a report on the matter from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It follows that Parliament in 1973 accepted, and the Government now accept, that the provisions of the 1973 Act recognise the significance of newspaper mergers. The Act requires any report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on.such a merger to say
"whether the transfer in question may be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account all matters which appear in the circumstances to be relevant, and, in particular, the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion."
Again, I am sure that those objectives would be endorsed by all of us. However, we all know that, over the years, particular problems have always arisen when a stage of crisis is reached for a loss-making newspaper—and Fleet street has had more than its fair share of those.
There is usually no doubt about the need to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a question that arises over the future of a title when the newspaper is reasonably viable and plainly has a long-term future, and when there is time for a considered view to be taken in the public interest — over weeks if not months—about whether over-concentration of ownership will result. However, the legislation of 1973, and the policy that has followed it, have not been able to suspend or disregard
20
basic economic common sense in the newspaper industry. Troubles occur, although sometimes with more force than others, when a newspaper gets itself into serious economic difficulty.
I spoke earlier about titles coming on to the market, but there is still a somewhat worrying decline in the total extent of newspaper readership in the country, and it is a difficult market to get into to achieve economic viability. Profitability is really the best guarantee that a newspaper has of its independence, and the best basis that a Secretary of State has for referring to the MMC any possible mergers or changes of ownership. There is no doubt that, in dealing with a newspaper that is making serious losses, the Secretary of State needs wider powers. lie cannot rely on a stark policy of saying that everything must be referred in all circumstances.
The legislation upon which all this is based recognised that at the time. It was anticipated in 1973, and also in the preceding legislation. The legislation had to recognise that circumstances might arise in which an MMC inquiry, lasting up to three months—that is the period that the Act allows, and it can be extended for a further three months—would be undesirable because of the pressures of the case. The 1973 Act therefore contains specific exceptions to the usual requirement that the Secretary of State should have a report from the MMC before he makes his decision.
The exception that is relevant to the transfer of Today is set out in section 58(3) of the Act, which provides that consent may be given without a report from the Commission being required if the Secretary of State is satisfied on two matters. First, he must be satisfied that the newspaper being transferred
"is not economic as a going concern and as a separate newspaper".
Secondly, he must be satisfied that
"if the newpaper is to continue as a separate newspaper, the case is one of urgency."
If the Secretary of State is satisfied on both those points, he may give consent without a report from the commission. Parliament had to allow that, and in some circumstances it is plainly necessary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was the Secretary of State provided on this occasion with convincing evidence that the urgency of the matter was such that he had to act within a matter of hours, and did Ministers find that evidence convincing?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has moved to the next logical step in the case. I have set out the two grounds that the Secretary of State must have before he is able to consent to a transfer without reference to the commission. The House must then quite properly consider the basis on which the Secretary of State was satisfied that both those conditions existed. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will allow me, I shall begin by dealing with what I consider to be the simplest and least contentious aspect on which the Secretary of State was satisfied when he had to consider whether the newspaper was a going concern.
Unfortunately, because Today was launched with considerable good will behind it—the paper has been heavily loss-making since its inception. I do not believe that it achieved anything like the circulation figures for which it hoped and which were necessary for its viability. That led to its rapid transfer from its original owners, to

21
News UK, a subsidiary of Lonrho, in 1986. Since then the losses have continued. My right hon. and noble Friend was provided with evidence that satisfied him that Today was not economic as a going concern and as a separate newspaper. When I was questioned in the House last week, on the day of the decision, it seemed to be common knowledge among a large number of hon. Members that Today was incurring losses of over £30 million a year or over £500,000 a week. It was losing money hand over fist.
The second point, which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow was whether there was urgency if the newspaper was to continue as a separate title, and on what basis would my right hon. and noble Friend be able to come to that conclusion. The losses that I have just described are at the heart of the matter. Lonrho had concluded that these losses could no longer be allowed to continue. When he took his decision, my right hon. and noble Friend had before him a resolution of the Lonrho board to the effect that, in the absence of his consent by midnight on I July, no further financial support would be given to the subsidiary company, that redundancy notices would be issued forthwith and that Today would forthwith be closed. A resolution by a public company is the only way in which one can communicate. It is its only authoritative statement of policy.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment. First, I want to conclude my arguments on this point.
The resolution and the application that were before my right hon. and noble Friend do not mean that we accepted that it was midnight or nothing. No deadline was imposed on Ministers. The Secretary of State had to decide whether this was an urgent case. The resolution of the Lonrho board was only one piece of evidence, though a rather crucial piece of evidence, in deciding that question. We had to ask whether there was a serious risk of that paper folding if a reference was made. That involved asking questions about the resolution, although we had no reason to doubt it. Also, we had to ask whether Lonrho would just accept the losses while waiting the necessary weeks or even months while the reference was made. Furthermore, was there a risk of News International going away and of the deal folding while it waited for a decision? In merger and takeover decisions that is not unknown.
The evidence was the history of the newspaper, which had been loss-making from the start, the scale of the losses being incurred and the fact that the proprietors had closed Today on Sunday a short time before. To have said on that evidence that there was no urgency in the case would have been a mere gamble. Hon. Members who lightly say that the company's resolution ought to have been ignored and that its bluff should have been called ought to remember that the independence of the title and a large number of jobs were at risk.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: There were two potential buyers, Maxwell and Murdoch. If the paper had folded, it would have been worth nothing. While it was in being it was worth £40 million. It is nonsense to say that Lonrho would have shut down Today unless the deal was done that day.
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Maxwell had already publicly declared that he had withdrawn from the attempt to purchase Today, but more arises from the hon. Gentleman's
22
question than that. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to look at the position of the Secretary of State when faced with this application. The paper was undoubtedly losing money hand over fist and the proprietors had decided to close it. They had already closed the sister title. It is not the Government's duty to look for other buyers. The Government cannot act as a marriage broker in such cases. The hon. Gentleman should think through the implications of his question. If he is saying that the duty of the Government is actively to look for buyers, to weigh up one buyer against another and to encourage buyers, it would lead to the danger of far greater political patronage and politicisation than would otherwise occur.
On the other hand, had there been other applications—and we have received none, other than the one that came in last week — there was nothing to stop the Secretary of State from granting each application. Therefore, had a series of alternative buyers wanted to acquire the newspaper, several applications might have come to the Secretary of State, he might have decided that the terms of the Act were satisfied in all cases and he might have given his consent to them all. But so far as we are aware today, and so far as anyone was aware at the time the Secretary of State made his decision, only one application satisfied the terms of the Act, and there was a clear indication of urgency that the title was about to close.
Mr. John Smith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that solicitors acting for one of the other potential purchasers contacted the Secretary of State before he made his decision to inform him that they were still interested in purchasing the newspaper?
Mr. Clarke: A variety of representations reached the Secretary of State, but there was certainly no other application. I do not recall that the solicitors said in terms that their clients were still interested in buying the newspapers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that in circumstances of this kind a variety of other people, including competitors of one or other of the proprietors concerned, are inclined to come rushing in with representations of one kind or another. There were some newspaper stories of one alternative purchaser who wished to buy the title at an earlier stage—although he, too, pulled out—in order to close the paper down and to use the presses for his own title. As of now, my belief is that Mr. Maxwell has publicly withdrawn. There was one application before the Secretary of State, and urgency arose.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Surely the crux of the matter is that, to test the credibility of Lonrho's position, the Minister was obliged to make a relative calculation of what Lonrho stood to lose by selling and by closing down that night. If the Minister is not prepared to make that relative calculation, what he has said today amounts to a charter totally to ignore the terms of the legislation, and any two multinational companies, irrespective of how rich and powerful they are, can come forward with an ultimatum and everything on the statute book, can be swept aside.
Mr. Clarke: The Secretary of State must decide these matters on the evidence before him and on the best

23
evidence that he can get. There is no one method of testing the credibility of evidence. The Secretary of State must ask whether this is a case of urgency. I have no reason to doubt the credibility of Lonrho, but Lonrho's resolution, although extremely compelling, did not settle the matter. It did, however, make sense in all the circumstances. It had been known for months that Lonrho had been losing interest in the ownership of the title and was losing a great deal of money. The risk of a reference would have given rise to further weeks and months of uncertainty, during which a prospective purchaser might go away or the losses incurred might become unsupportable. It was looking at the circumstances as a whole that led the Secretary of State to say, "There is urgency here. A reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would probably do more harm than good and would run the serious risk of closing down the title altogether." That is the basis upon which he decided that he had discretion under the Act not to refer.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Had Mr. Maxwell been successful in his bid, and had it been accepted by Lonrho, would not Opposition Members now be begging my right hon. and learned Friend not to refer this matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree. After the exchanges last week, I have tried to keep the temperature down, and I hope that I shall succeed in doing so. Last week we saw quite nakedly that the Opposition's objections arose because they disapproved of the politics of the person who had acquired the title. The history of other references and non-references under the Act shows that that is the principal concern.
Considerations of that kind played no part in this. I have shown how, looking at the two considerations that he was obliged to look at under the Act, there was absolutely no doubt that the Secretary of State was justified in deciding that Parliament had given him a discretion not to refer in this case. It is only a discretion. He could still have decided to refer or not to refer—and I am in no doubt that he was legally entitled to refer.
When one looks at the wider considerations and whether the risk of the title closing was worth carrying in this case, one sees that there are other relevant considerations. Today is a comparatively new title. There was no such newspaper 15 months ago, so it is a desirable newcomer on the scene that is threatened with extinction, and not a long-standing one about to go. It had already nearly folded once. It got into immediate financial crisis and had to be transferred to Lonrho very shortly after it opened. So far as I can recall, nobody demanded that any reference be made at all—and I have looked through the Official Report.Under the terms of the Act, with The Observer already owned by Tiny Rowlands, it could well have been referred, but to the best of my recollection nobody asked me to refer it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) that, for some reason best known to themselves, Opposition Members were less worried about Tiny Rowlands than they were about Rupert Murdoch. This was a new title, it had already nearly folded and it had only achieved a comparatively small circulation. The trouble is that at the moment it commands about only 2·5 per cent. of newspaper circulation. That is a relevant
24
consideration when one looks at the impact that this has on the possible monopolistic concentration of ownership. It is also relevant that one looks at whereabouts this newspaper is in the market, because it is not correct to look at all newspapers as though they are all the same, as though they are all read by the same people and as though they are are all aiming at the same market. Mr. Murdoch owns The Times and The Sun, which are not exactly in the same part of the market. This newspaper is in the middle of the market, where News International does not at the moment have a newspaper.
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Member mentioned this last week. If the question of the part of the market to which the paper applies, in which it deals, or in which it is placed was a relevant factor in whether the Secretary of State was to make the decision that he did, may we be told whether question was put to Mr. Murdoch about whether he intended to keep the paper in that sphere of the market or, if it was put to him, whether anyone on the face of the planet would believe what Mr. Murdoch said in reply?
Mr. Clarke: At the moment, there is no doubt that it is in that part of the market where it is in competition with the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which are owned by different companies and different proprietors. We did not question Mr. Murdoch about that or about News International. If News International, in its commercial judgment, decided to move into a different part of the market and to go into competition with one of its own titles, I suppose that is a matter for it to decide. I would have thought it unlikely that it would do that, but that is not a matter for me.
What was being acquired was a newspaper with a comparatively small circulation that is plainly seen by all those who look at journalistic affairs to be in competition with other peoples' newspapers other than with News International's. That was relevant when deciding whether the discretion should be taken advantage of by the Secretary of State, coupled with the very real risk that if he stepped in and made a reference, the paper, in the course of the next few weeks, if not at midnight as stated by the owners—and I have no reason to doubt what they said in their resolution—was likely to close and 500 jobs lost. That result would have done nothing for the freedom of the press, diversity of ownership or anything else. The Today newspaper would merely have closed, there would have been one title less and the readers' choice and the position of Fleet Street would have been further weakened.
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose—
Mr. Clarke: I shall give way one last time, as I intend to speak only very briefly.
Mr. Hamilton: Is it not difficult to understand the argument coming from Opposition Members that competition in newspapers would have been enhanced if Mr. Maxwell had been able to acquire the title? I understand that his group already controls more than a quarter of the British press, by circulation, whereas News International, although it has a larger share, controls about one third. I cannot see how competition would be enhanced by allowing Mr. Maxwell to have 28·5 per cent. rather than 26 per cent., even if that is what he wanted, and there is no evidence that he did.
Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is more than a streak of hypocrisy in those who claim that somehow it is desirable that Today is owned by Mr. Maxwell rather than by Mr. Murdoch if they are pretending that it will be in the public interest rather than their own narrow political interests—[Interruption.] If the Opposition are not saying that, I would be interested to know who the other purchaser might be. I think that Mr. Maxwell is the preferred choice of the Opposition.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the same point the other day about the 500 jobs that were at stake. I pointed out then that on that very day 750 jobs were to be lost at News International on Merseyside. If he was keen on saving jobs on Today, why was his Department not equally keen to save the 750 jobs in my constituency when representations had been made to the Government about the matter? We are talking about the same employer. Why were the Government not concerned about those jobs and our people in Liverpool, when they are now arguing that they were concerned about the 500 jobs on Today?
Mr. Clarke: I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for persistently making representations about his constituency. However, he knows full well that the Government cannot intervene in commercial decisions such as that on Merseyside. It would do his constituents no good and would be of no consolation to them to find that 500 jobs had been lost somewhere else as a result of a totally separate decision. If the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully, he will realise that I am pointing out that had the Secretary of State taken the decision that the Labour party is pressing on him, his act would have brought about the loss of those 500 jobs because the newspaper would probably have folded during the course of the reference. Therefore, in all the circumstances, I believe that the outrage felt by the Opposition last week, and the apparently mild discontent felt by them this week, is not shared by the employees of Today, who do not seem to oppose what has happened in any way. I note also that Mr. Bill Jordan of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers is quoted as being pleased that Today has been saved as an independent voice. Indeed, I am sure that all fair-minded people will have recognised that my right hon. and noble Friend took the right decision and has made possible the continuation of Today as a separate, independent newspaper.
As I have said, it is certainly the desire of all of us that we have a competitive newspaper industry, open to a variety of owners with a variety of opinions, with freedom of expression and accuracy of reporting. The prospects for that are steadily getting better than they have been for many years. Access to the media is opening up to many more people, not least when one looks at television and radio, which are outside my sphere. The coming of new technology, such as satellite television, and so on, means that it is getting steadily more difficult for anybody to have a monopoly of reporting, news potential and opinion. Thanks to the end of restrictive practices, it is getting easier to open newspapers with the use of new technology. However, it is still difficult to open newspapers and win a place in the market. Difficulties can arise when one gets into trouble.
As far as I can see, the Opposition's interest in the press appeared to be to back up vigorously the opposition to
26
new technology and support those trade unions that were doing damage to Fleet street and inhibiting the readers' choice a short time ago. Outrage is expressed by them when they feel that the political opinions of a newspaper are not to their liking or they have taken a particular dislike to a proprietor. The Government cannot be influenced by considerations of that sort, and we are not. My right hon. and noble Friend has been guided by the public interest and I invite the House to agree that he has protected the public interest by his decision.
4.4 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to permit the further concentration of newspaper ownership without any reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and his acceptance of the arrogant deadline on his decision imposed by News International plc; and profoundly regrets that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry so readily abandoned his responsibility to secure the public interest.".
It is most unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State who took the decision is not accounting for it to the House. That is one of the unfortunate features of having a senior Secretary of State in another place. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did his best, but he is a sorcerer's apprentice on this matter. He took the line, I suppose quite predictably, that the Secretary of State took a quite reasonable decision and that only unusual people on the Opposition Benches, motivated by synthetic outrage, would find something to cavil at in the decision.
I shall quote from today's Financial Times which is hardly a newspaper unversed in the ways of the industry or notably sympathetic to the Opposition. It said:
"Lord Young's haste to comply with an artificial deadline conjured up by a couple of entrepreneurs was both naive and undignified. He should have called their bluff and mocked the acumen of businessmen who value an asset at £38 million today and nothing tomorrow. A reference to the monopolies commission was necessary and almost certainly would not have led to the closure of Today."
That judgment might be prayed in aid when one is considering the evaluations.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will no doubt have read or had drawn to his attention the editorial of 2 July, the day following the decision, in The Independent. It said:
"On Tuesday evening, Tiny Rowland, chief executive of Lonrho, and Rupert Murdoch, US citizen, proprietor of national newspapers accounting for a substantial proportion of the British market, arrived at a deal under which Mr. Murdoch would acquire the ailing Today newspaper. As a term of the agreement they had the effrontery to give Her Majesty's Ministers just one day to declare that the transaction need not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as is normally the case … Yesterday afternoon, less than 24 hours later, Lord Young, Secretary of State, duly obliged. Thus a Government freshly elected to office with a large majority is bent to the will of two formidable entrepreneurs."
That is not some judgment emerging from the spite that is assumed to exist on the Opposition Benches.
If that was not enough, perhaps the Secretary of State should have paid some attention to the views of the Press Council, set up to consider these very matters. The chairman of the Press Council, Sir Zelman Cowen, said:
"There could hardly be a more obvious increase in concentration than acquisition of a fifth national newspaper by a group which already owns four.

27
Newspapers which are for sale will often be vulnerable newspapers. To accept a tight timetable set by the owner and the potential buyer if that precludes proper examination by the Commission makes a mockery of the Fair Trading Act.
The decision on Today following the similar one when The Times and The Sunday Times changed hands six years ago signals that newspaper buyers and sellers need not have a Monopoly Commission inquiry if they do not want one."
That is not the view of some synthetically induced sense of outrage. I am correct in thinking that the chairman was appointed by the present Government.
The UK Press Gazette, a specialist magazine dealing with the newspaper industry, said:
"Right up until the moment of sale Lonrho executives were insisting that Today was shaping up nicely, that they were prepared to invest to continue the improving trend and that they believed it had a bright future.
Unless this was the sales pitch of the used car salesman trying to talk up the price of an old banger then we must believe that there was no likelihood of Today being closed. Lonrho chief executive Tiny Rowland's sudden conversion to the gloom scenario seems born of little else but a need to offer Lord Young some reason not to refer the sale to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission."
So much for the notion that somehow we have dreamed up unreasonable objections to the Secretary of State's decision.
Let us look at the facts. The Secretary of State drew our attention to the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and correctly said that two conditions had to be satisfied before the Secretary of State could clothe himself with a discretion not to refer. One condition was whether it was economic as a goingconcern, a matter of acutecontroversy in relation to the takeover of The Times and The Sunday Times six years ago. I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will accept that he has to be satisfied on both counts, namely that he believes also that the case is one of urgency before he acquires the discretion not to refer. That is where the heart of the matter lies. In the circumstances was it a question of urgency or not?
We know—the Secretary of State must have known before he took his decision—that there were a number of other potential purchasers. Indeed, if I read The Sunday Times of yesterday correctly — I am sure that Mr. Murdoch's activities would not be misreported by one of the newspapers that he owns—Mr. Murdoch came on the scene only on Monday of last week when a deal had almost been fixed between Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Rowland. The deal at issue was only effected the day before the Secretary of State announced his decision not to refer, Tuesday 30 June. Again I am relying, I hope accurately, on the report in The Sunday Times that gave us a blow-by-blow account designed to show how Mr. Murdoch had outsmarted Mr. Maxwell.
Attached to the application for the Secretary of State's consent was, I believe, one of the most imperious and arrogant deadlines ever offered to one of Her Majesty's Ministers. If I had been the Secretary of State in question and someone had come to me asking me to take a decision by four o'clock on the following day I would have replied, "Do you know you are speaking to a Minister of the Crown? I might give you deadlines but you certainly will not give me deadlines about a matter of public responsibility." I believe that is the view that the vast majority of people who hold high office in this country
28
would take about such an imperious, arrogant and impertinent deadline that was sought to be put upon a Minister.
Mr. William Cash: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it was well known for a long time in press circles that this problem was coming up? Indeed, way back on 22 January Lonrho had written to the directors of News UK stating that the would give it support only until 30 June. Therefore, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is a load of rubbish.
Mr. Smith: It has been borne out by the facts, and if the hon. Gentleman reads yesterday's Sunday Times he will learn about the accurate sequence of events. However, that is not the main point with which we are concerned today. The question is whether it was or was not a matter of urgency. What did the Secretary of State appear to do about that?
The Secretary of State appeared to rely heavily on the resolution of the board of Lonrho plc— I assume that is the company to which the Secretary of State referred. The Secretary of State did not tell us when that resolution was made, but let us assume it was fairly near to the time, perhaps right on the heels of or immediately prior to the application.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was careful to say that the Secretary of State did not rely entirely on that resolution. I hope that that is the case, because if one accepted everything people said one would not make the independent, objective analysis that the Fair Trading Act 1973 requires of the Secretary of State.
Let us consider the other evidence. Apart from the fact that it was well known that there were other purchasers in the offing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—and that to turn down this particular application would not necessarily have led to the closure of the newspaper, there is other evidence about the view taken by Lonrho itself. I refer the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to an interesting interview in the London Daily News, which appeared on Tuesday 30 June. I remind the House that this interview was reported the day before the Secretary of State took the decision not to refer the application.
The article was written by Mr. James Levi, the city editor of London Daily News. He reported:
"Rowland"—
that is, the chairman of Lonrho plc—
"called me from a holiday resort near Split on Yugoslavia's Dalmatian coast last night to say he would carry on with the publication of Today."
Since he says, "last night", presumably that was 29 June. I shall quote this article at length because it contains evidence that can be drawn both ways and I believe that, in fairness, it should be quoted in full. The article contains a direct quote from Tiny Rowland, which states:
"'We probably have to reach sales of 500,000 to break even. We have already raised the figure to 340,000 and we are confident that if we spend another £25 million to £30 million we should do it'. He likened the paper to a mine shaft which had not reached the ore-bearing rocks."
[Interruption.] I am giving this quote in full, and if hon. Gentlemen do not think that it is in favour I trust that they will give this as much credence as they think suitable.
The article continued:
"'We are a mining company which has sunk a mine 1,000 feet and we know the ore is at 1,600 feet so we'll keep digging.' Lonrho is rumoured to be losing nearly £30 million a year at Today."

29
I do not know whether that is correct, but in the interests ot. accuracy I ought to give everything that is said in this interview.
"Expressing some surprise that the Mirror publisher had broken off his talks, Rowland added: 'I have been out of touch with my office for just eighteen hours. I am 70 years old this year. If I can't take a few hours off there has to be something wrong.'"
The article continues:
"There have been suggestions that Rupert Murdoch, Publisher of The Sun, News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times was in the bidding. Rowland admits he now has three options"—
this is the crucial point and was reported on 29 June—
" 'We could re-open negotiations with Maxwell, talk to Murdoch or carry on running it ourselves. We think the losses on the paper can be soon be minimised.'"
That was said two days before the reference was made. There was not a word of closing the newspaper, indeed the very opposite. It was Lonrho's intention to carry on with the publication.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
Mr. Smith: I shall certainly give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
I think it is reasonable to assume — it would be amazing if it was not the case— that that article was read by the Secretary of State before he reached his decision. I know that it was specifically drawn to the Secretary of State's attention before he reached his decision. On the face of that, how could the Secretary of State assume that it was so certain that Lonrho had reached its decision?
Mr. Clarke: We certainly read that article before the Secretary of State made his decision. My recollection is that it was drawn to our attention that it was a report written in a newspaper owned by Mr. Maxwell. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell me what he believes is the best evidence of a publicly quoted company—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true?
Mr. Clarke: I have no idea whether it is true. What is the best evidence—the resolution of the board or a reported interview with the chairman of the board who was, no doubt, taking a well-earned rest in Split, by a city news editor, reported in an evening newspaper? Even if the remarks, as reported, are true — I have no means of knowing one way or the other; I do not regard them as highly relevant — they are presumably the words of someone trying to sell as a going concern a newspaper which is actually on the verge of extinction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about evidence, but such evidence is no means of judging the position of a newspaper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to rely on a report made on a radio-telephone from Split and on the strength of that to dismiss a resolution made by the board of the company.
Mr. Smith: What is fascinating about that intervention is that it is crystal clear that the Secretary of State, although he knew those words had been expressed by Mr. Rowland, did not put the matter to Mr. Rowland. On the one hand, I am asked to believe that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds a piece of evidence he does not like, he dismisses it by saying that Mr. Rowland was merely talking up the price of the newspaper. Does it not occur to him that the resolution of the board might have
30
been seeking to talk the Secretary of State into a particular course of action? It seems to me one can make a deduction one way or the other.
At the very best the Secretary of State was presented with a conflict of evidence at the crucial time at which he made his decision. When the Secretary of State acceded to the imperious deadline we are aware that he was anxious to accommodate the person making the application. That was obvious from the way in which it was done so speedily and from the scant information produced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the Secretary of State's decision.
There appeared to be no inquiry into the accounts of the newspaper to establish whether what had been said was true.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There was an inquiry.
Mr. Smith: Why on earth did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not tell us that when he sought to justify the Secretary of State's decision? We know that in the case of The Times and The Sunday Times the officials crawled over the accounts for a week before a decision was made.
Mr. Clarke indicated dissent.
Mr. Smith: The Sunday Times transfer was allowed only on the basis that it was not economic as a going concern. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of that.
Mr. Clarke rose—
Mr. Smith: I will willingly give way because I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather uninstructed on the 1981 case.
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to move off the point. I mentioned the loss making of the Today newspaper, although I did say it did not seem to be the most controversial topic in this case. Of course inquiries were made into the financial position of the Today newspaper and it confirmed the belief that at least £30 million a year was being lost by that newspaper. If anybody in the House doubts that, he should know that so much as is compatible with commercial confidentiality could be given for the inquiries that were made. However, adequate inquiries were made to confirm the view that the newspaper was hopelessly loss-making, losing substantial sums.
Mr. Smith: If I need lessons in moving off the point, I shall take them from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He knows perfectly well that I am attacking the conclusion that it was a matter of urgency. A financial inquiry is relevant to that as well as to whether the newspaper was economic as a going concern. We know that The Sunday Times was permitted not to be referred on the basis that it was not economic as a going concern. It seems to be doing pretty well now after a momentary blip in its history when it was not economic as a going concern.
No full and proper inquiries appear to have been made by the Secretary of State before he accepted the company's resolution. The company is not exactly objective on the matter. It is the suitor to the Secretary of State. Of course, it will buttress its application—as the Financial Times, The Independent and the Press Council are all hinting—by dressing it up in a way that the Secretary of State will find suitable and acceptable.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Having recently joined the House and having been in the business world, I know well the confidence that one needs within a company. The right hon. and learned Gentleman read out a quotation — when a chairman is challenged about whether his newspaper can keep going, he will come out with all sorts of reasons why it will keep going. Once the decision has been made and minuted at a board, saying that it is no longer economic and that it must be sold, the matter of business confidence and whether one holds the 2·5 per cent. readership evaporates overnight. Surely that is the urgency that is necessary.
Mr. Smith: If there was a change of decision on the part of Mr. Rowland, it was remarkably quick. It appears to have been closely related to the application that he made to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. One cannot say, "Don't believe Rowland," when it does not suit one, and, "You must believe Rowland," when it does. It is as simple as that. The quotation shows clearly that the Government were willing, indeed anxious, to be persuaded that this was a case on which there should be no reference.
However, even if the Secretary of State were satisfied that it was a matter of urgency, which I hotly dispute, the matter does not end there. He still has to decide whether he should refer it. His powers are unlimited in that respect. He still has a discretion whether to refer. What possible basis was there for not referring this case? Four newspapers were already owned and a fifth was to be acquired. Mr. Murdoch had 32 per cent. of all the daily newspaper circulation in this country before the acquisition of Today. He has over 35 per cent. of all the Sunday circulation. It is the largest concentration.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: What about Maxwell?
Mr. Smith: I say to the hon. Gentleman who intervenes from a sedentary position that we have made it clear throughout that if Mr. Maxwell had made the application, that should have been referred, too. I do not know where he got the ludicrous notion that he peddled earlier in the debate.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, in taking into account the application to the Secretary of State, which is substantially on Mr. Murdoch's behalf, some account might have been taken of his conduct since the last time the matter was considered by a Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has temporarily left the Chamber.
On that occasion it was accepted that The Sunday Times was not economic as a going concern, but a great deal of fuss was made about conditions that were attached to the Government's decision. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster: if the jobs were so important and if the maintenance of a separate newspaper was so important, why was there no condition that it should be kept going as an independent newspaper or that the jobs should he preserved? That is not an idle question because many people believe that one of the purposes behind the acquisition of Today might be the acquisition of the colour printing presses, not the newspaper itself. The presses would be available to provide a back-up for Mr. Murdoch's other four newspapers.
32
On that previous occasion we were told that we need not be worried about Mr. Murdoch because important conditions were entrenched in the permission that was given by the then Secretary of State. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, quoted them at length and said that they were sanctions backed by the force of law.
On 27 January 1981, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) who unfortunately is not here, got so carried away with enthusiasm for those conditions that he interrupted the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who was speaking at the time, and said:
"One of the things that reassure many of us is the legal status of those conditions. If an agreement with conditions is made by the Minister the breaking of those conditions would be a criminal offence."
When the then Secretary of State wound up the debate, he stressed the great importance of the sanctions and said that it was not just a set of assurances. He said:
"The sanctions that are implicit in the conditions that I attach under section 58 of the Fair Trading Act … are formidable sanctions."
The right hon. Gentleman told us that we should pay attention to Mr. Harold Evans, at that stage editor of the Sunday Times. It was an effective riposte in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Evans, who said:
"No Editor or Journalist could ask for wider guarantees of editorial independence on news and policy than those Mr. Murdoch has accepted and which are now entrenched by the Secretary of State." —[Official Report, 27 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 795–822.]
That is a formidable point.
I now refer to the biography of Mr. Harold Evans, entitled "Good Times, Bad Times". On page 401 he tells us what happened in The Times. He said that Mr. Murdoch
"guaranteed that the editors would have control of the political policy of their newspapers; that they would have freedom within fixed annual budgets; that the editors would not be subject to instruction from either the proprietor or management on the selection and balance of news and opinion; that instructions to journalists would be given only by their editor; and that any future sale of the titles would require the agreement of a majority of the independent national directors."
It was a matter of controversy in the House that one of the things that Mr. Murdoch did speedily was to transfer the titles to News International, but let that pass for the moment.
Mr. Evans concludes:
"In my year as editor of The Times, Murdoch broke all these guarantees. He put his point of view very simply to the home editor of The Times, Fred Emery, when he summoned him from holiday on 4 March to his office shortly before asking for my resignation: 'I give instructions to my editors all round the world, why shouldn't I in London?' He was reminded of the undertakings to the Secretary of State. 'They're not worth the paper they're written on,' Murdoch replied."
That is the man who, on his next application to the Secretary of State, was given the roll-over permission that he sought and had arranged would happen by setting up the application in the way in which it was done.
Now we know that the Secretary of State chose not to exercise his discretion in respect of such a person. Any reasonable Secretary of State would have said, "Should I give way when there has been an imperious deadline and give discretion to a person who broke all the guarantees which my predecessor talked about, and which Parliament supported?" I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Secretary of State knew

33
anything about those affairs. They should have been instructed. I am sure that the civil servants who advised them know only too well what happened. It was embarrassing for the Government that one of the first things that Mr. Murdoch did was to remove the titles. Because there was a fuss in the House, he had to put them back to where they were. It was an instructive insight into his point of view.
Of course, the one thing that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said with which we could all agree is that there is a serious question about the concentration of newspaper power in this country. Clearly, Parliament will have to consider the whole matter a little further. One thing, however, is crystal clear. The Act is too weak, especially when it is accompanied by weak Ministers and a weak Government who have no intention of bringing even its minimal provisions into play. We have a serious problem—
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
There is a serious problem to do with the ownership of the media in this country. It concerns not only the newspaper that we are discussing today. For example, as is noted in early-day motion 43, there is great concern about The Scotsman and the dispute taking place there at the moment. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have expressed their concern that one of Scotland's most important national newspapers should be preserved as an independent voice, facing, as it does, a commercial requirement that it should merge all its editorial and reporting functions with other parts of the group of which it happens to be a member. One of the issues at stake is the proper reporting of Parliament by correspondents who are employed by that newspaper directly, so that it does not have to take the copy that is fed through the evening newspaper chain with which it is associated.
I wish that we had a Government who would take seriously the public concern in these matters. A Secretary of State should intervene in disputes such as that to bring about some resolution of the matter. I speak for more hon. Members than those who sit only on my side of the House when I say that there is serious concern, and that the sooner negotiations start in that case, the better.
This concentration of power is at the heart of public concern. Since we know that the present provisions are insufficient, Parliament will, sooner or later, have to consider stronger provisions. Most probably, we should have some upper limit on the amount of newspaper power that one individual or company can own in this country. I hope that more referrals will be made, so that there can be a proper consideration of the public interest and notice can be served on newspaper proprietors that they cannot bully Secretaries of State by threatening that the titles will cease publication. On the other hand, I say that there might be some justification in the view that the inquiries take too long.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: In a moment.
34
If the inquiries take too long, let us find a way of doing things more speedily. It is not beyond the wit of Parliament, or of a Government who wanted to have an effective method, to devise a way of doing that.
We should also take account of the serious concentrations of power that span the various types of media. Above all, there is the case of Mr. Murdoch, who owns 75 per cent. of all the print in Australia. He also owns satellites, other communications and broadcasting networks in Australia and the United States, as well as the highly profitable newspapers that he has here.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what he would prefer to the present powers? Will he endorse the policy views of the Labour finance and industry group about the Office of Fair Trading references on mergers as expressed in The Independent of January 1987? I quote from The Independent of 20 January:
"the Office of Fair Trading, which would in turn be enlarged by recruiting staff who have 'a political and ideological understanding' of Labour's aims. 'Selection, vetting and monitoring for competence, experience and political inclination will be essential for Labour', says a paper published yesterday by the Labour Finance and Industry Group."
Is it still the Labour party's intention to put people into the OFT on a political and ideological basis?
Mr. Smith: That reinforces my previous view that if I want to be taken off the point there is no better guide than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What I am suggesting—a serious Minister would listen to it—is that it is high time we concentrated on how to obtain an effective method of stopping the concentration of newspaper power. That is a highly serious point, which exercises people throughout the House and country. Since I foolishly agreed to give way to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), I shall stand by my promise.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wise and learned, as we know, and no less so for having given way to me. We have all enjoyed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's vacuous theorising about concentration in the media. However, he has failed entirely to explain how that concentration could be reduced by the closure of the newspaper under discussion this afternoon. Will he apply himself to the factual case that we—and Ministers—must examine as to what are the alternatives to the takeover by Murdoch? The only other interest that has been shown in the newspaper came from Mr. Maxwell, who already controls a quarter of circulation of the press. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would not have approved of a takeover by Maxwell or Murdoch—in which case, closure would have been certain?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I say. I made it clear, today and last week, that in the event of Mr. Maxwell making an application we would have taken the same view, as exactly the same issue of concentration of power would have arisen. I do not accept — as the Government willingly did — that it was inevitable that the newspaper would close. The threat to close it was a bluff that worked on Ministers. As happened with The Times and the Sunday Times, that is the way to roll over Ministers — by putting forward the right statements that allow them to get out of the provisions.
Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a further safeguard to be examined, in addition to those that he has listed? In the United States, there is a requirement of citizenship for ownership of more than a certain percentage of the press. That is why Mr. Murdoch is now an American citizen, rather than an Australian one. Should we not require major slices of the media to be owned by people who are loyal to this country?
Mr. Smith: That is well worth considering, if for no other reason than that we have such a requirement in the Broadcasting Act 1981, covering another section of the media. However, let us not be fooled into thinking that that would deter Murdoch. He gave up his citizenship to advance his interests in the United States. Some of us would never think of giving up our citizenship to advance our commercial interest. However, that is what Murdoch did in that case.
The issue at the heart of today's debate is that this spineless and complacent Government gave way once again, with the result that we have passed another milestone on the road to the heavy concentration of the ownership of the media in this country in hands that do not hesitate to use them for their own benefit and to advance their own purposes. That must be a matter for great regret.
4.37 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made a skilful speech and, not for the first time in newspaper debates, I find myself in some, but not total, agreement with him. I cannot follow him in some of the moral and legal indignation that permeated his speech. I suspect that we are talking about a smaller issue than the one that he has developed this afternoon, although I agree that one of the fundamental points at stake is the weakness of the Act. That weakness is manifested in the fact that the Today horse has already bolted, so that our proceedings today will already be seen as a somewhat academic exercise—an arguing about whether the stable door should have been guarded more vigilantly by the Secretary of State. We should have had the debate before the decision was taken, not after.
To the world outside, the academic nature of the exercise is reinforced by the near-certainty that, had the Secretary of State referred the sale of Today to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that referral would not have been likely to make any difference to the end result, beyond causing an expensive, although perhaps legally necessary, delay.
Let us remember that the Today newspaper had less than 2·5 per cent. of the national daily circulation, and to argue that Mr. Murdoch's acquisition of that loss-making burden somehow represents a significant monopolistic shift in the power structure of Britain's newspaper industry is pure moonshine. We should remind ourselves that the great British public have shown a considerable lack of interest in, or affection for, Today. They have refused to buy or read it in great numbers, and they refused to take its advice to vote for the alliance at the last election. As far as I can tell from testing public opinion in the, admittedly limited, world of pubs in Ramsgate in my constituency at the weekend, most people do not care two hoots whether or not Murdoch owns Today. In short, the debate is about
36
one of those esoteric issues that are exclusively reserved for the chattering classes of journalists, politicians and lawyers.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman complains that there has been all this fuss about a newspaper that had the comparatively minor share of 2·5 per cent. of circulation. Does that mean that he is quite happy that one third of the control of our popular press should be in the hands of one man, who, incidentally, is not even British?
Mr. Aitken: I do not think that it would have made any great difference if Today had gone to Mr. Maxwell, who also has a large slice of daily newspaper circulation. We are dealing with a rather narrow issue, which is of interest, above all, to the chattering classes, rather than to the great British public. However, if we are to put on a little light parliamentary operetta for the benefit of those chattering classes, let us at least enjoy it and reflect on the irony of the situation.
I wish to begin with a little dirge of sympathy for my noble Friend Lord Young. He came into his office with the reputation of being the great deregulator, the scourge of red tape and the breaker of "Barriers to Business" as his famous and successful White Paper was called. What did Lord Young find on his desk on his first week of office? Why, he found this little excrescence of a problem of a failed colour tabloid newspaper, with no readers or advertisers to speak of and with a mangy journalistic reputation about as significant as that of the Ballarat Echo on an off day.
I am sure that Lord Young, with his natural instincts, could not wait to shovel that excrescence into the wastepaper basket. I feel that he wanted to deregulate it into the dustbin immediately, but perhaps he found himself surrounded by a chorus of wailing Sir Humphreys and m'learned friends from the legal division of his Department, all saying to him words to the effect of, "Hold on a minute, Secretary of State. You have some very important responsibilities here; you have some solemn duties under the Fair Trading Act. You must study this great problem, call in great and good men, consult the Director General of Fair Trading and refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission."
So poor old Lord Young had to curb his natural instincts as the Lord High Deregulator for a few moments, in order to consider vital questions such as how imminent the threat of the closure of Today really was, and, above all, whether Today was, in the words of the Act, "a going concern".
Although the Today newspaper was losing a great deal of money, it was clearly a going concern in the eyes of at least three proprietors. Mr. Tiny Rowland has kept it going for many months, partly, one suspects, to wage his private warfare against the Thatcher family, as he did up to and during the general election campaign. It seems from at least one of his interviews with the London Daily News that he was willing to keep it going for even longer.
Then we had Mr. Robert Maxwell, who wanted to keep Today going so badly that he was prepared to offer £30 million for it. Apparently, his only problem—in these internecine rivalries between proprietors—was that he could not stand negotiating with Mr. Tiny Rowland. It must have been a little difficult on a yacht on the Adriatic,

37
and that seemed to be the great issue of principle on which he broke off negotiations. The problem was not the price or wanting the newspaper.
Then we had Mr. Murdoch himself, who was the keenest of them all to keep Today going. Indeed, he was so keen that he was prepared to fly across the Atlantic by Concorde twice in one day to put on the table a mere £38 million.
I think that the activities of these three dinosaurs of iron whim show only too clearly that a paper that was worth £38 million to three tycoons is a going concern. It would not have been closed and made worthless just because a reference was made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It was not, in the Australian vernacular, Sydney or the Bush. Mr. Murdoch, who is well experienced in setting menacing artificial deadlines in stand-and-deliver Ned Kelly fashion knew that, but he said that it was Sydney or the Bush. But then Mr. Murdoch is quite used to not playing the game—and winning it as a result. I think that if his bluff had been called, all that would have happened is that there would have been a delay of several weeks — perhaps three months— which would have knocked £3 million or £4 million off the price of Today. It is as simple as that, and every objective, neutral observer of the newspaper industry that I know shares that view.
There is little doubt in terms of pure law that, under the terms of the Fair Trading Act, Lord Young was under a duty to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission— unless he could he objectively convinced that it was not "a going concern".
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that Mr. Murdoch would hardly have pushed the Government to make such a speedy decision if he would save several million pounds from a delay? Perhaps Mr. Murdoch thought that the newspaper was reaching the point where it would be a viable concern and that Mr. Rowland would have kept it going.
Mr. Aitken: I am not as expert as the hon. Gentleman in reading Mr. Murdoch's mind, but we know that Mr. Murdoch knows a quick deal when he sees one. He knew that he could get Today quickly by putting a pistol to the head of the Secretary of State, and that is what he did.
I think that there was a prima facie case for a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, so how did the Houdini-like Secretary of State escape from his obvious responsibilities? I suspect that he was able to find the only justifiable loophole by going back and studying the precedents set by previous incumbents of his office. And where better to look for helpful precedents than that set by the new keeper of the Conservative party's conscience—the voice crying in the wilderness and in the Sunday Telegraph—Saint John of Oswestry?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) has always moved in a mysterious way, and he was never more baffling than when, in January 1981, as Secretary of State for Trade, he declared himself convinced that the highly profitable Sunday Times could he taken over by Mr. Rupert Murdoch without reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There is no point in going over all that old ground again, but the sorry episode of the Sunday Times demonstrated that, if there ever was a "Stalinist regime" at No. 10 Downing street, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North was, at that time, its most servile apparatchik.
38
After all, my right hon. Friend was the Secretary of State who demonstrated that a coach and horses could be driven through the Fair Trading Act's provisions on newspaper mergers, and he was the originator of Biffen's law, which may be stated as, "A newspaper is a going concern, until Mr. Murdoch says that it is not a going concern."
Biffen's law and its legacy have allowed three successive Murdoch acquisitions to avoid a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Aitken: No. I am just finishing.
Until the sections of the Fair Trading Act on newspaper mergers are reformed and strengthened, the Act will remain a law in disrepute. That is why I have said, only slightly tongue in cheek, that the only logical way to deal with the problem is to give Rupert Murdoch a free pass and have done with it.
4.47 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We were all taken by surprise by the abrupt conclusion of the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which seemed to be directed at everybody in general, but at nobody in particular.
The hon. Gentleman freely hurled abuse at the editorial and journalistic quality of Today and at its general performance, but it is worth recording that in the past three months the newspaper has achieved the biggest percentage increase in circulation of any national newspaper, and has put on nearly 50,000 circulation. That is no mean achievement. It was moving in a positive direction.
It is a matter of regret to us to see the passing of the only newspaper that consistently supported the alliance during the past few months and during the general election campaign. Conservative Members do their party no credit when they sneer at a newspaper that represents a cause different from their own. Indeed, they reveal the corruption that is creeping into the Tory party, which wants to silence all opposition and alternative viewpoints. It is important to note that that attitude is creeping through the Conservative party.
Mr. Buchan: May I remind the hon. Gentleman about the complaints of the Tory party in Scotland, which was weeping because it believed that the press in Scotland was not sufficiently pro-Tory?
Mr. Bruce: That is so, and perhaps it is just a small contribution to the dispute that is now wracking The Scotsman. It is the kind of pressure that the Government are putting on that newspaper.
I regret the passing of Today and I do not agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South in attacking its journalistic standards. I regret its passing, not just in terms of the implications for trade and industry practices, but as a journalist. I have not seen a newspaper vandalised as quickly as that newspaper has been vandalised in the few days since it was taken over. I took the time and trouble to read it and can tell the House that by no stretch of the imagination is it the paper that it was a week ago. It is certainly not a middle-market paper, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster claimed that as one of the reasons why it was OK for the go-ahead to be given. It is

39
already a down-market paper and going fast into the gutter, and that is clearly the objective of the new owners. The Chancellor's argument is spurious.
The independence of Today is simply a joke, and the degradation started immediately that the takeover took effect. On the day of the takeover, the first pre-midnight edition, which was produced before midnight by the outgoing editor, carried a report of the statement in the House on the takeover proposals. That report showed that there had been considerable opposition to the Government's non-referral by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), by other hon. Members, and by me. The second and third editions that night showed a paean of praise for the Murdoch takeover and gave the impression that the entire universe was cheering the event. That was a quite remarkable turn around and a revelation of how independent Today is under its new owners.
The Government motion talks carefully and guardedly about the loss of jobs and about the implications for closure if the Government had not accepted the Murdoch deadline. The first thing that the House should know is that wholesale sackings are already taking place. Many jobs have already gone since Wednesday. What kind of assurances have the Government sought about jobs, and what kind of satisfaction do they expect? I am afraid that the commitment to jobs is very hollow.
The millions of pounds that will be poured into the newspaper from now on will probably preserve the title, but the suggestion that the 500 jobs are really secure is not regarded by most of the staff on the newspaper with equanimity or conviction. I said last week that the Government were guilty of a disgraceful negation of responsibility and that their excuses were lame. I stand by that and I shall embellish it. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said last week, and said again today, that Today represented only 2·5 per cent. of the market and, therefore, its takeover represented no significant further consolidation or concentration of ownership. Will he say the same thing when The Independent newspaper is being added to the the Murdoch stable, because it has just about the same share of the market? Will he tell us at what point concentration of the press under one owner is unacceptably high?
It is certainly clear by now that Murdoch's share of the market is enough to constitute a restraint on trade. I hear reports that the advertising agencies are being bullied, and that if bullying will not work they are being threatened, intimidated or even bribed by Murdoch in an effort to seduce advertising away from newspapers. That applies particularly to The Independent so that its position in the market will be weakened and in future he can add it to the number in his stable. There is no end to the man's ambition to concentrate ownership of the press.
I shall now turn to the argument put forward by, I think, every hon. Member who has spoken about the implications of the threat of blackmail. It has been said that if the Government had not accepted the deadline, Today would have folded. The obvious point has already been made that if Today was worth £38 million last Wednesday, it is inconceivable that if the Government had not acceded it would have been worth nothing on Thursday. The other point is the situation that Lonhro was in. It took over Today when the paper was losing
40
money. Eddie Shah had incompetently tried to launch a newspaper, thinking that new technology was all that newspapers were about. He had no record, and no understanding of how expensive it is to launch a new title and of how much marketing and promotion were necessary.
When Lonhro took over Today, it knew that it was a loss-maker and that Lonhro would have to build up the paper. Lonhro recognised that that would take some time. The problem for Today, which caused the newspaper to suffer a misfortune, was that Lonhro's other trading interests turned sour during the same period. As a result of that the shares were dipping on the market and Lonhro needed to improve its cash position fast in advance of the annual report. Only last month it sold its gambling interests for £126 million. The further £38 million last week gives Lonhro £164 million to dress up the national report. That was the real motive.
If a referral had been made, folding Today rather than waiting for the outcome would have been stupid business practice because, clearly, there would have been an immediate requirement to write off the £30 million of accumulated losses. In those circumstances, the figures that Lonhro would have had to present for the annual report would have been infinitely worse than if it had waited for the outcome of a referral and had then sought to find a bidder. The indications are that the three options outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would have crystallised. Either Maxwell or Murdoch would have firmed up, or possibly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, Today would have reached a level of circulation that would have made Tiny Rowlands and Lonhro decide that it was worth hanging in there to reach profitability.
The paper was making rapid progress in a positive direction. That is the main reason why nobody can seriously believe the Government's claim that if they had not acceded to the request Today would have folded. There is no conceivable or sensible business reason for folding that newspaper. The fact that it is incredible makes me conclude that the Government's decision was not, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East described it, spineless and complacent. It was corrupt.
The telephone call that Lord Young made to Murdoch during the election campaign to complain that the Sun was not giving enough commitment at that stage to the Tory party produced the desired response of another scurrilous outburst of Sun-style support for the Conservative party. The pay-off came when, unfortunately for Lord Young, Rupert Murdoch came to him shortly after he had been made Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and chairman- designate of the Tory party, and asked for support for this takeover. One need not look far from that to conclude that the Government's decision was too close to the interests of the Tory party to believe the lame arguments put forward by the Government to defend their decision.
The Government's excuses are lame in the extreme, and I do not think that I have seen the Chancellor of the Duchy so uncomfortable at the Dispatch Box during the time that I have been a Member of the House. I wonder whether in four years' time Lord Young or his successor as chairman of the Tory party will ring the editor of Today to complain that he is not getting the support that he expects. That is certainly the way that thinking is going on the Tory Benches.

41
Finally, I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. It is worth recalling that since 1965, of 91 applications for press mergers and takeovers, only 18 have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that no national newspaper deal has been turned down. Clearly, the refusal to use the commission in the present situation is untenable and unacceptable.
The 1962 Royal Commission on the press said that the scrutiny of press takeovers
"should be kept entirely free of government responsibility or political association."
One would have thought that the embarrassment felt by Ministers over the last few days on this issue would have encouraged them to adopt that recommendation. They should have tried to find a method of ensuring that there was an automatic referral that could be dealt with in a speedier time of, say, six weeks, and could possibly be handled by a judge accustomed to commercial law. I think that that suggestion would find a lot of favour in the press.
If that were the practice and the law, the kinds of shotgun marriages that we have expected and suffered from Murdoch could not happen in future. Everybody should he keen to ensure that that were so and that blackmail could be eliminated. We have seen the Government accede to blackmail, but in this instance they did not mind too much because the outcome was to their political advantage. This is a sad and regrettable period in the development of the British press.
The independence of the British press is now under severe attack. Such concentration of ownership is a matter of considerable concern. The lack of concern of, and response from, Conservative Members is a sign of the corruption of power, of complacency and of their desire to ensure that the organs of the media express only the views that they wish to see expressed. I would have more faith and trust in the Conservative party's commitment to freedom if I saw action to support plurality and diversity. The Government have failed to justify their behaviour and stand indicted for their accession to blackmail.
5 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: There is no doubt that a respectable case could be made out against the decision taken by my noble Friend Lord Young not to refer this transaction to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I would not agree with that case, but it is legitimate. However, it is not legitimate for the Labour party and its trade union friends to pretend that they are defenders of choice and diversity in the free British press. On every conceivable opportunity given to them, they have been found supporting, and giving succour to, those who want to bring the printing presses to a halt.
It is somewhat ironic that the newspaper about which we are talking is the Today newspaper. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said, the newspaper was not founded by a great press baron such as Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Murdoch or even Tiny Rowland. It was founded by a small business man from the north-west of England, which is where my constituency lies. My right hon. and learned Friend touched on the history of the case and it might be as well for the House to be reminded of that history.
Eddie Shah, who founded the Today newspaper, first came to national attention after the 1983 general election, when he was attempting to expand choice and diversity in
42
local newspapers in the north-west of England. He was tired of the restrictive practices of the trade unions, which had seen the death, not merely the loss of independence, of national and local newspapers. He resolved to try a different way.
The reaction of the trade unions — a reaction supported by the Labour party—was simple. They tried to close down Mr. Shah's newspapers. Nothing was allowed to impede that aim, whether it was personal violence, intimidation or blockading the printing works. Thank goodness, that campaign failed, but it was no thanks to the latter-day defenders of a free press on the Labour Benches.
Mr. John Smith: What has this to do with the debate?
Mr. Sumberg: It is important because the credentials of the Labour party, as it criticises the Government position, need to be examined.
Mr. Shah went on to found the Today newspaper. Pie started a revolution in the printing industry and he attempted to break the power of the printing unions, which had hitherto thought—often correctly—that every newspaper employer was a soft touch. Mr. Shah failed, but the newspaper survived. The Opposition do not like the fact that his legacy was that the power of the printing trade unions was broken for ever. They are finished.
If the Labour party genuinely wanted to see a flowering of opinion, newspapers being created and more opinions being seen, they would have welcomed that development. Not a bit of it. Hon. Members have already criticised the conduct of Rupert Murdoch. When he tried to bring some sense into the printing industry, and to bring it into the 1980s, the Left resolved that he should not succeed. If the Grunwick picket line was the first Ascot of the Left, the Wapping barricade was undoubtedly the second. Less than a year ago, we saw the yobbish tendency of the Labour party fighting on the streets while the so-called refined or respectable tendency was ostentatiously shunning any contact with the Murdoch press while having the gall to complain that their views were misrepresented in his newspapers.
My speech will not be long because I wish only to remind the House of the history. Those who now work themselves into a pious rage over one newspaper, with only 2·5 per cent. of the national circulation, losing its independence, did not give a tuppenny damn about the threat to major national circulation newspapers and local newspapers when they were in danger of losing not merely their independence and freedom but their very existence.
The Labour party has shown in this debate hypocrisy and something worse. I deplore its constant references to the nationality of Mr. Murdoch.
Mr. Ron Leighton: What is it?
Mr. Sumberg: Whatever it is, such jibes come ill from a party that is constantly telling us that it is fighting racism and discrimination. It is wrong to put such an attitude to the House. Labour Members have no right to come to the House to bemoan the fate of the British press. They are responsible for a large measure of this. I think that it was Stanley Baldwin who described the press barons in the 1930s as having power without responsibility. Times have changed. The last election showed that the Labour party has no power, and never will have. This debate has shown that it has no responsibility either.
5.8 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am sponsored by the National Graphical Association. My position is well known, and I shall not go down that road today. However, I shall indulge in some schadenfreude at the expense of Mr. Shah. In many respects, the difficulties that he encountered were ones that the NGA helped to correct, as they were difficulties in the production of the Today newspaper following the debacle of its launching. These problems were corrected by the employment of union members at his plants. In the past few months, an increasing number of people on the production side of Today have taken out union membership. While there is by no means a closed shop there, a substantial number of the work force is engaged in producing what, technically, is now regarded as an attractive product.
The issues that we have to confront today are the role of the Secretary of State and the application of the criteria on the bid, and the nature of the purchase and its significance for newspaper printing and production. There has been much talk about circulation and the importance of the jobs, but there has not been much mention of the interaction between the production facilities and the future of other sections of the British press. That is the most glaring omission from the criteria behind which the Minister has sought to hide.
In comparison to the News International bid, Sunday Sport, at what has modestly been called the bottom end of the market, talked in terms of a sum of money substantial enough to make Mr. Rowland, if he were in the financial difficulties described by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), seize that bid in advance of his consideration of the Murdoch one. Anything up for sale in Britain strictly requires the interest of Mr. Maxwell. He is like the ladies who attend jumble sales organised by the Labour party who come along and look at every bargain and try to haggle for a price. When they find that there is another jumble sale down the street next week, they say, "We'll go down there and have a go."
Mr. Maxwell's interest is well founded and well established. That is one reason why Opposition Members would have demanded Maxwell's reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had his bid been successful. Although in many respects he is sympathetic to the Labour party, there are times when we have to watch him very closely. As they say in Scotland, "When you sit down with the devil, you've got to use a lang spoon."
No matter who owned the paper, we would have to be careful. We are not clear whether the interest shown by Associated Newspapers was simply superficial or whether the company, in a predatory fashion, wanted to move into that area of the market in which News International and Today are presently competing.
Many people have suggested that a circulation of 500,000 would have been the break-even point although at one time there was talk that that circulation figure could have been as low as 35,000 if any of the companies involved wanted to make a go of the newspaper. The signs are that circulation had been creeping up and that advertising revenues had been improving. It is probably true to claim that the status of the Today element in the Lonrho accounts is not nearly as red as has been suggested.
We have been down this road before with Mr. Rowland. It is not that long since Mr. Rowland closed
44
another new and exciting paper. The only difference between Today and the paper I have in mind is that people in the locality were prepared in great numbers to be identified with the paper and they strongly supported the quality and standards that the paper was seeking to uphold. Of course, I am referring to the Glasgow-produced Sunday Standard. That paper was closed abruptly for failing to meet fully, in a relatively short period, the targets set at its launch. Its closure was, once again, the result of the whimsical approach of Mr. Rowland to what was becoming a very significant newspaper institution.
Thankfully, the days are long past when the press barons continued to throw good money after bad to support their opinions and prejudices. Perhaps Mr. Rowland became bored. However, perhaps he did not want to be another contract printer. There may be aspects of the face of capitalism that even he finds unacceptable and perhaps he does not want to be involved in printing for other people. At the end of the day, his new presses were doing that. Indeed, the Today operation was running on a better financial footing than at any time since its launch because the London Daily News was being printed at Heathrow and because deals had been struck, following the closure of Today on Sunday, with the News of the World to print the colour sections of that paper.
The acquisition by News International follows logically into the scheme of things as Mr. Murdoch would want them. We have seen the appointment of a new editor to the News of the World whose aim is to increase the circulation of that paper even more. The weapon to be used in that circulation battle will be the colour presses now owned by News International. Those presses will be used until the next phase of Wapping is completed some time within the next 20 or 24 months.
It may be argued that Mr. Murdoch wishes to start up a new paper. However, the truth is that he has no record of starting papers in Britain; he merely acquires them, reduces them to the lowest common denominator of what passes as popular appeal and then sells them in ever greater numbers. That may be a testament to his commercial judgment or his assessment of humankind. I am not sure which. However, Murdoch will acquire and unload assets as and when that suits his purpose. I can well imagine that in two years' time we may be debating the sale of Today's printing presses. Those presses might well be sold to Mr. Maxwell and he would then have the colour paper that he wants to sell in great numbers, in the kind of numbers that he is achieving in Scotland with the Daily Record.
In the antics and moves of the newspaper proprietors we see the quite callous appreciation of the need to secure various means of production in different parts of the country. While we all welcome the retention of the jobs, few of us believe that the deal that has been struck will necessarily resolve anxiety. As I have said, I can imagine us facing the same problems in two years' time because of the nature of the newspaper industry. News International might well have been deterred by the bid being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We cannot be certain about that, but the argument is clear. The paper was a going concern and an attractive proposition.
The Secretary of State seems to have stood idly by. He does not realise that market share is not the only criterion that should have been taken into account. The statistics of the demand or the circulation of the newspaper are not the only important factors. Consideration should have been

45
given to the control of the means of producing the newspaper. In many respects that is just as important in the longer term for the public interest.
A proper examination of those circumstances would have shown that the owners of newspapers today now produce one another's papers. In days gone by, the critics of monopoly capitalism might have identified the interlocking directorships as one of the mechanisms whereby ownership was concentrated. Today, power is exercised by small groups of men and their satraps by affording one another the opportunity to produce journals in different parts of the country and to do that in a way that has resulted in the ending of the origination by Express Newspapers Ltd in Manchester and a considerable loss of jobs in that area.
The lesson of this non-referral is clear. Whenever the Government are challenged by a large newspaper proprietor, they always hide behind the criteria because the criteria do not take account of present circumstances. The Fair Trading Act 1973 is not relevant to today's circumstances. No matter who brings in new technology or who assists in that, new technology requires new systems of control. This non-referral has shown that the Government, and the Secretary of State, are unfit to hold office because they do not appreciate that in trade and industry the needs of readers in the newspaper industry and of the producers and journalists are intermingled in such a way that we must have new controls over publication and ownership of papers and so break the interlocking relationship between the various strands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what sort of new controls and regulations he wants to introduce.
Mr. O'Neill: Time prevents me responding to the Minister's intervention at great length.
We must find a means of adequately separating the production of newspapers from the control of them if the owners of newspapers are using productive powers to interfere with the freedom of the press, or to ensure that the concentration of ownership increases to an exent that means that the Secretary of State is incapable of interfering with it. It is clear that he is incapable of doing so when we consider the episode that we are now discussing.
This may not have been the most successful exercise that the Opposition have waged to secure a referral, but it will alert the public to the fact that much more is required in the ownership and control of newspapers than the fig-leaf-like protection that is afforded to everyone by the 1973 Act.
5.20 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) did not have more time to develop his thinking on how the free press might be made a little less free. He made a significant contribution to the debate, however, and at the same time weakened the Opposition's case. He was the first Opposition Member to express some concern about jobs being at risk. He knows that jobs have been lost in recent years in the Scottish newspaper industry, and he expressed concern about the real risks of jobs being lost at Today. He knows that jobs were under threat, but that concern
46
was not expressed by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
Secondly, and more significantly, the hon. Gentleman reminded us that Mr. Rowland, as with Mr. Murdoch, has had no hesitation in closing newspapers that have made significant losses. No time was wasted in closing the Sunday Standard.
The Opposition have failed to make their case, and that is not because their anger is entirely synthetic. I imagine that it was occasioned by one telephone call from Mr. Maxwell last week. Their failure to make their case is not merely because their anger is conditioned by their perennial anti-Murdoch prejudice, which runs through their entire approach to the newspaper industry. They have failed because they have been unable to advance their case on the central test in the Fair Trading Act 1973 of competition in the newspaper industry.
The first test is whether a newspaper is or is not economic as a going concern. There is ample evidence—this evidence was before Ministers — that Today was losing considerable sums. There were two previous owners, and its sister newspaper, Today on Sunday, had already been closed. That fact was completely ignored by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East. There was no alternative bidder making a firm offer to Mr. Rowland and Lonrho, and it is evident from all that we have seen and read that the business was on the brink of collapse. It seems that the first test of the 1973 Act is clearly satisfied.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman mentioned he closure of Today on Sunday and also Mr. Rowland's ability to close newspapers. Does he regard the present legal framework as adequate when newspaper proprietors can close titles without any reference to the Government? We are talking about a massive concentration of ownership in an industry that provides sources of information for the public. Furthermore, is the hon. Gentleman happy that the provincial press is being devastated by the proprietors? Instead of criticising the Opposition's attempt to get some sanity into the newspaper business, will he urge the Government Front Bench to think seriously about the dangerous concentration within the industry?
Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about closures and whether they should he notified. I shall come at the end of my speech to the general principles that we should examine in the operation of the 1973 Act.
The second test under the 1973 Act is whether the matter was urgent, and it seems that there is ample evidence that it was. Today was losing about £500.000 a week, which means that private business and private interests were losing that money. However, the Opposition have made far too much of the deadline that they feel was imposed on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If a business is losing money week after week, there must be a point at which any sensible management will draw the line and say, "We will not allow our losses to continue after a certain point." The Opposition have presented their case in a way that suggests that Mr. Rowland had some sort of public duty to continue subsidising the newspaper to the extent of about £500,000 a week, and to do so week after week.
The matter was urgent because jobs had already been lost and more jobs were at immediate risk. I should have

47
liked to hear more from the Opposition Front Bench about the extent to which they believe that the 500 jobs would have been secured if my noble Friend had not taken the action that he did. My noble Friend the Secretary of State had a difficult decision to take under the terms of the Act, and if Mr. Murdoch closes Today a year from now, the Opposition will crow. They do not care about Murdoch jobs in any event, but they will crow if it appears that my noble Friend took the wrong decision. On the other hand, if Mr. Murdoch makes a success of Today and turns it round so that it starts to make money, as he did with The Sunday Times, they will argue in a year or two's time that it must have been a going concern all along. It is only management, change of management, and the application of better management, business and marketing techniques that will turn the newspaper round.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State did not have an easy decision to take, but it seems that he took the right one, given that the conditions set out in the 1973 Act were satisfied. That suggests that the Government were fully entitled to agree that the transfer should take place without a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If that is so, there is only one remaining and separate consideration to which we should address ourselves. Given that the Government were entitled to agree to the transfer, were they right to agree that the title should be transferred to News International? It seems that the tests to be applied are whether News International already has a significant stake in the middle market of newspapers, which plainly it has not, and whether the addition of the Today title will increase its share of the total newspaper market to the extent that it will have a dominant position.
It is necessary only to state the reverse of the first test to realise that it cannot be implied that News International's ownership of Today reduces competition in the middle market between the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Did Lonrho's ownership of Today, or its ownership by Eddie Shah reduce competition between the Daily Mail and the Daily Express? It would seem that the presence of a third player in the middle market enhances competition, and I find it rather odd that the Labour party of all parties should seek to preserve an aging middle-class duopoly.
Will the addition of Today to the Murdoch stable significantly affect his share of the total market? Will the numerical increase in the number of his titles have that effect? It does not seem to me that that test is met either. He still does not have even one third of the total newspaper market in this country. I do not think that this decision makes any significant change in the concentration of the newspaper industry.
It is especially important that the Today title should survive, because this newspaper ushered in the era of new technology and the new industrial relations climate that those of us who support and believe in free newspapers should do everything possible to encourage. When I say "free newspapers," I mean not simply newspapers that are free to compete against other newspapers, but newspapers that are free to compete as businesses—free from the archaic working practices and anti-business methods of the past, and free as businesses to make profits and to be
48
successful. We in this House owe a special debt to Today and Eddie Shah for opening the way to wider and freer competition in the newspaper market.
Finally, I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). Surely, however cumbersome they may seem, the real test of the workings of the Fair Trading Act 1973—and I accept that there is concern in Scotland and the north at the closure of titles — is whether newspapers are becoming more, or less, plural. Over the past two years or so we have seen a growing diversity in our newspaper industry. That growing diversity and plurality are quite separate from the question of how many newspapers Murdoch, Maxwell, Beaverbrook or Stevens owns, and all hon. Members should be ready and willing to support it.
I welcome the decision taken by my noble Friend. He has preserved the title of Today, he has preserved it as a going concern and he has secured the jobs that go with it. Of course, if Mr. Maxwell is seriously interested in buying the newspaper it will be open to him to make an application in the future, but it was my noble Friend's action last week that ensured the newspaper's survival, either to prosper on its own, or to be ready to let others try.
5.32 pm
Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) have made much of the fact that 500 jobs would have been at risk if the sale of Today had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Indeed, the Minister—I am sorry that he is not in his place—claimed that the decision not to refer had
"preserved a substantial number of jobs." — [Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 504.]
I must say to the Minister's third representative on the Front Bench—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—that he was in no position last week to claim credit for those jobs. Let me ask him—although I shall not get an answer, because he has left the bone here; even the dog has gone home — what assurances about jobs the Secretary of State sought from Mr. Murdoch, and what assurances were given.
There is bound to be no reply to that question; however, I have the answer. My information is that no such assurances were sought. The Minister and his hon. Friends have no basis for taking the credit, from the day on which the sale and the decision not to refer were announced, for 500 jobs being preserved, as the Minister stupidly claimed. Indeed, on the basis of the reasons given by the Minister for not referring the sale, it is logical to assume that no reference would have been made if Today had been sold to someone else, as precisely the same factors would have surrounded that transfer. Those factors remain the same whether Tom, Dick, Harry or Harriet is trying to buy.
If that is the case, the Minister knows—he said so in part this afternoon at the Dispatch Box— that at one stage Lord Rothermere of the Daily Mail was interested in acquiring the title. The hon. Member for Darlington had better remember one fact about that when he prates on about saving jobs. Lord Rothermere made it perfectly clear that his sole purpose in trying to acquire the Today title was to shut it down, the better to safeguard the flanks of the Daily Mail. That is another reason why

49
Conservative Members should be careful in boasting about jobs being saved and preserved. I believe that time will quickly demonstrate that what they say is not true.
Was it a taste of Murdoch style to come that, on the very day Today trumpeted the news of its purchase, it was under the headline
"Big welcome for £38m Today deal"?
The report began:
"Politicians and union leaders last night welcomed the purchase of TODAY by Rupert Murdoch's News International group."
Nowhere in that report was there one word of the criticism voiced by Opposition Members and supported by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). All that had evaporated. Judging by the new Murdoch-style Today, it never happened. I wonder whether that is what was meant by what I suppose passed for a leader, although it was not labelled as such, which modestly claimed that the newspaper under Murdoch would be "aggressively independent". The only thing that is aggressively independent about other Murdoch titles, such as the sewer Sun, is their independence from truth and facts.
Again, nowhere did that leader, or that news story, make it clear that what the leader modestly called
"Britain's most energetic newspaper group"
includes four other titles—that is, three newspapers and The Sun—or detail Mr. Murdoch's control of a television satellite, or his extensive media interests in the United States, Australia or anywhere else.
My main complaint is that under the present Government—while they prattle on about freedom and freedom of the press—monopoly ownership, and with it a strengthening of uncritical support for the Conservative party, has worsened in the current decade. Ten of the 17 "Fleet street" nationals have changed hands since 1981. The Government's view, which they also apply to radio and television, is that all that counts is the depth of a pocket or purse. Newspapers, television and radio stations — they are all for sale. They are simply other commodities that can be bought by and sold to the highest bidder. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Conservative Members make the point graphically when they say, "Why not?". Let me try to persuade them. I shall simply say to what is left of the Government Front Bench that, if that is their view, the Government should have the courage to repeal the Fair Trading Act 1973 and wrap up the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I do not want that to happen, but it would be much better than the present deceit.
If the present law is to be retained, it needs toughening. Perhaps a Select Committee could consider the matter, and the Government could undertake tonight to respond positively to its suggestions. Better that than the present position, in which a decision not to refer looks to many, both inside and outside the House, like a belated thank-you present to Mr. Murdoch for his unswerving support for the Conservative party and its leader.
If the law is not changed—this is the worrying aspect — Mr. Murdoch, or anyone else with the cash, can and will buy his way further into our media, and then use that power to assault the commercial position of the few newspapers that criticise the Government, argue for an alternative and represent views that are excluded from any of the titles under Mr. Murdoch's control.
There is a legitimate public interest beyond profitability in all this. In a democracy, the public have the right to a
50
range of titles that reflect differing opinions. The fact that views are held by a minority does not mean that they should not be heard. Competition is about much more than just competition in the market place. It is about the competition of ideas and about arguments for alternative policies within our democracy.
The new technology was said to be the dawn of greater diversity in our press. Three owners and three editors later, Today—the first national child of the new technology—has been swallowed by a media conglomerate owner who makes Citizen Kane look like a democrat. On all three continents where Mr. Murdoch rules, his titles support business men's Governments and their ambitions. It is an awesome power, and it threatens our democracy.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Corbett: Not at the moment.
That is not simply because Mr. Murdoch interferes with the editorial content of his newspapers but because his staff know from the moment that they are appointed what is expected of them. They know what to write and how to write it. They know also that if they do not do so they will be out of the front door, before they can pick up their hats and coats.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that the Murdoch newspaper empire is riddled with lies, yet it seems that the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and all his colleagues have been relying heavily on extracts from The Sunday Times to support their case. Could he explain that?
Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman's question is too facetious to bother with.
A month ago, Today decided to support the Liberal party and the Social Democrat party in the forthcoming election. Does anyone doubt for a single moment that its advice to voters at the next election will be precisely the same as that given in this election by The Times, The Sunday Times, the News of the World and The Sun—vote Tory? If that does not happen at the next election, I shall give £100 to charity. I shall look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remind me of that promise.
I congratulate David Montgomery, the new editor of Today, on his return to journalism. I hope he likes the experience, learns from it and determines to stay with it.
5.41 pm
Mr. William Cash: The Opposition have said a great deal this afternoon about the inadequacies of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Scurrilous and perfectly unsustainable attacks have been made on Mr. Rupert Murdoch. A variety of accusations have been levelled against him with not a shred of evidence to sustain them, other than from the book that Mr. Harold Evans published a few years ago in a fit of pique.
Mr. John Smith: In the speech to which the hon. Gentleman is, I believe, referring, I drew attention to the fact that the editor of The Times, who was appointed by Mr. Murdoch, correctly stated in his account of the events that Mr. Murdoch broke all the assurances and guarantees that were offered to Parliament so that the reference would not take place. What is scurrilous about that? That evidence exactly fits the case.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is relying on hearsay from that book. His allegation is based on second-hand information. He has no evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.
Another point that has been completely ignored by the Opposition in their call for changes to the Fair Trading Act 1973 is that section 58(3) of that Act is based on section 8 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965. Who, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, passed that legislation? It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues in the Labour party who passed section 8 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965. Furthermore, all the essential ingredients of section 58(3) repeat section 8 of the 1965 Act. The facts speak for themselves. If the law needs to be changed, the Opposition were guilty of enacting the legislation that they now criticise.
During the Second Reading of the Monopolies and Mergers Bill on 29 March 1965, the President of the Board of Trade of the then Labour Government said:
"what neither a Government, nor even Parliament, can do is to compel the Press to be free, nor even, by Parliamentary decision, make a newspaper pay if the public is not willing to buy it. We have, indeed, allowed for this latter eventuality in the Bill by enabling the Board of Trade to give consent in the case of newspaper mergers if the paper in question has no chance of carrying on successfully with its existing resources."
He went through the various alternatives, which had been agreed by the then Conservative Opposition and Labour Government, that could have formed the basis for a different approach to the law and said:
"There are really, I think, only three practical alternatives here if we decide to do anything at all, and none of the three alternatives is very attractive. The first is judgment by some sort of judicial procedure; the second is decision purely by a Minister, who inevitably, or at any rate probably, has political loyalties of some sort; and the third is an inquiry and recommendation to the Government by some sort of administrative tribunal."—[Official Report, 29 March 1965; Vol. 709, c. 1218.]
All these matters were looked into carefully in 1965, and they formed a perfectly balanced set of alternative proposals. The decision that was taken by the then Labour Government and agreed to by the then Conservative Opposition, that was incorporated into the Fair Trading Act 1973 and that forms the legislative basis for these proposals, has already been thoroughly and exhaustively considered. The basis on which the Government have made this decision lies four square within the provisions of that legislation.
Much has been made of the political complexion of Mr. Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers. It may have escaped the attention of the Opposition that in 1974 there were two separate campaigns. The Sun, which at that stage had already been acquired by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, placed itself firmly under the Labour banner. It is absurd for the Opposition to pretend that there is a substantial case for levelling the charge of political partiality against Mr.
Rupert Murdoch when The Sun supported the Labour party in 1974. [Laughter.]
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mirth on the Opposition Benches comes ill in respect of Mr. Murdoch, as he is one of the principal supporters and bankers of Mr. Hawke, the Prime Minister of Australia?
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When the Opposition start to collapse with mirth it is the
52
best indication that they have no reply to make to the suggestions that are being made on the Government Benches.
Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the scurrilous and vile campaign by The Sun in attempting to demonstrate that the heir to the throne is unbalanced because he visits islands and cares about poverty? Does he agree that any political party that prostitutes itself to a publisher who is prepared to peddle such treachery in the interests of circulation should be deeply ashamed of itself and should be branded as deeply unpatriotic?
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes a series of futile allegations that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the substance of the debate, so I shall treat them with the contempt that they deserve.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made clear, Today has played a very significant role in the preservation of the freedom of the press. Furthermore, when faced with a mixture of financial crisis and urgency, the need to sustain that newspaper was self-evident. Therefore, the criteria in the Fair Trading Act 1973 have been subscribed to and complied with, and the basis upon which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State arrived at his decision was entirely reliable and entirely justified.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) suggested that in some way the decision was corrupt. If, under the basis of the legislation as it now stands, the Secretary of State, when arriving at a decision on a discretion, failed to be properly satisfied in law as to the basis upon which he made that decision—in other words, that there was a corrupt basis upon which he had arrived at the decision —that decision would be capable of being impugned at law. In reality there is no such basis, and we look in vain to the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who no doubt will be replying to the debate, to produce evidence of such corruption and evidence of anything that can justify the impugning of the decision that has already been taken.
This decision was taken in line with other decisions that have been taken in the past — for good and sound reasons. Indeed, over recent years there have been a number of references to the MMC involving national newspapers. There was the one in 1966 when The Times was acquired. There was the 1978 reference in connection with Lonrho's acquisition of Outrams, the publishers of the Glasgow Herald. In 1981 there was the acquisition of The Observer by Lonrho. Therefore, it is not true, as the Opposition have said, that there have been no references in relation to national newspapers that are worth considering, because I have given three examples.
Furthermore, a number of non-references have occurred, including the Evening Standard and Evening News in 1980 and the acquisition of Times Newspapers Ltd. by News International in 1981. Reference has been made to the basis upon which that decision was made then. It was a perfectly proper decision at the time and in the then prevailing circumstances. Indeed, anyone who looks at the consent and the conditions imposed would know that it was a perfectly proper decision that was not capable of being impugned.
There is another aspect of the hypocrisy of the Opposition Benches on this subject. We need only look

53
back to what occurred in July 1969, when Mr. Cudlipp had announced that The Sun would be wound up in January of the following year. At that time The Sun was losing money. The Labour Cabinet considered whether the IPC-Reed merger should go to the MMC. I understand that at the time one of the Secretaries of State, now Mrs. Barbara Castle, went through the motions, weakly supported, so it is said, by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It was said that there was not one supporter for the reference to the MMC by the Cabinet. For those who wish to look it up, they will find that this occurs in the Crossman diaries of 10 February 1970. These matters were looked into at that time.
According to those diaries, the Prime Minister of the day described the attempt to go through the motions of a reference to the MMC— which was not backed up by any decision to do so as there was not one supporter in favour of it—as "political suicide".
When Labour Members say that reference should have been made on this occasion, it would do them no harm to look at the history of the way in which similar references were dealt with by their own Government when in power. I should also add that the former right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, Mr. Roy Jenkins, also agreed with the then Prime Minister on the basis that together they had said that the Daily Mirror was the only paper that was loyal to the Labour party.
Labour Members should not be throwing stones, because Mr. Crossman made a very accurate assessment of the position in his diaries, and no one subsequently suggested that it was not an accurate representation of what happened.
Mr. Leighton rose—
Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Mr. Leighton: No. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman had finished.
Mr. Cash: This decision was properly taken against the background of the legislation that was originally passed by the Labour party. The decision was fully supported by all the criteria set out in the Act, and there is no basis whatever for the Opposition to continue to criticise the decision, which was entirely justified.
5.55 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: One way of approaching this matter—perhaps the only realistic way in view of' the circumstances—is with a massive dose of cynicism. Many people ask whether it matters, as so many of our tabloids are so bad that they live in the gutter, are debased and degraded, are a disreputable part of the entertainments industry, purveying titillation and sensation, and at election times are merely Conservative leaflets. Therefore, many wonder whether it matters at all, as they regard the tabloid press as a lost cause.
Secondly, many people think that this is a political decision— that Murdoch was so helpful in the election that this is his quid pro quo, his reward for services rendered. We all remember what Murdoch's News of the World did to Deirdre Wood at Greenwich and the lies told in The Sun about Labour councils banning nursery rhymes and so on. People think that the last thing this Government would want to do is to stand in his way.
Before anyone says that that has nothing to do with it, we should remember that this is not the first time that this
54
Government have helped Murdoch. The Secretary of State and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were the dogs that did not bark, let alone bite, when this happened in 1981 when Murdoch wanted The Times and The Sunday Times. One loophole in the legislation was whether the papers were making losses. The Secretary of State then said that they were uneconomic. but Harold Evans in his book "Good Times, Bad Times" claimed, and provided evidence, that they were not. We should recall what Murdoch said about Harold Evans in the statement that he issued on the day on which he took over The Times. He said:
"I hope that Harold Evans, whom I regard as one of the world's great editors, will continue to serve for a long time".
That was before Mr. Evans was pushed out. But Harold Evans said:
"It was Mrs. Thatcher's will which prevailed in the Government discussions on the take-over in 1981".
He added:
"I heard on 22 January 1981 that she had insisted there would be no monopolies inquiry. Murdoch had stood by her in the dark days and she was going to stand by him. The new Secretary of State for Trade, John Biffen, put it differently when he rose in the Commons five days later, but it added up to approval for Murdoch on condition that he gave various undertakings of editorial independence, which he readily did."
We all know that in his book Harold Evans said that Murdoch broke all those guarantees.
As a member of Sogat 82, I would not believe a word that Murdoch says about anything. I remember what he said to the staff of the News of the World recently. He strung them along and told them that they were going into Wapping. They formed an agreement that they had initialled and were willing to sign. but he broke those undertakings and wanted to sack 5,500 workers without any compensation or redundancy pay.
We should not be so cynical. What sort of newspapers we have does matter. They arc run as businesses, but they are different from most other businesses. It does matter whether they have standards. Why else do we have a Press Council? It may be a toothless tiger, but it is there. Why set up a Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Why else have a framework of accountability for the electronic media that sets standards and requires political balance? It is because we recognise that access to accurate information and news is vital to the working of our democracy. That is why newspapers should not be bought and sold like packets of tea over the counter if it results in monopoly, because monopoly of news is bad for democracy.
Parliament set up three Royal Commissions on the press, in 1949, 1962 and 1977. They all warned against monopoly and recommended action to maintain and create diversity. The second Royal Commission quoted the first when it said:
"the monopolist, by its selection of the news and the manner in which it reports it, and by its commentary on public affairs, is in a position to determine what people shall read about the events and issues of the day, and to exert a strong influence on their opinions."
It went on to say:
"In addition, the monopoly publisher is in a position to determine who and what shall be investigated and criticised in the area covered by his papers since there he is the principal source of news and comment. Furthermore, a journalist whose writings or investigations clash with the monopolist's policies and purposes may either have to move out of the

55
region of the monopoly, if he is to stay in his profession, or perhaps compromise or suppress his views and the results of his investigations."
How are we to tackle monopolies, and how are we to create diversity? Other countries have approached it in what we might call the positive way. They have done it by giving subsidies, because they believe that each strand of political thought should have its own newspaper. They give start-up aid and subsidies to newsprint. We have not done that in Britain. We have approached it in what we might call the negative way—that is, to forbid mergers and takeovers.
The 1977 Royal Commission said:
"On a reference, the Commission are required to report whether the transfer may be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account all relevant matters and in particular 'the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion'."
This approach has proved farcical and totally ineffective. It is impossible to point to any occasion when it has proved effective. The Act contains fatal flaws and loopholes that enable the Murdochs of the world to drive a coach and horses through it. Under the Act, the Secretary of State need not refer if the paper is not economic, if the paper is to continue as a separate newspaper or if the case is one of urgency. That is fatal. It completely subverts and undermines the legislation. It only needs someone like Murdoch or Lonrho to say the magic words "This is urgent" or to give a 4 o'clock ultimatum for the Secretary of State immediately to roll on his back like a spaniel and led someone like Murdoch play with his Fair Trading Act. It is all very neat, the legislation is so weak. Experience shows that it is useless and that it is no real barrier to monopoly.
No one can say that Murdoch taking over Today is not a big step towards monopoly. If monopoly is bad, we ought to do something about it. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that it saved the title and saved 500 jobs. He deserved a horse laugh. Last week at Bemrose, Murdoch sacked 750 workers who printed the colour supplement for the News of the World all through the Wapping dispute. Murdoch is to saving jobs what Sweeney Todd was to health care.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leighton: No, there is not time.
Murdoch gives absolutely no guarantees at all in respect of the title. One of the attractive things to Mr. Murdoch is the machinery. It gives him facilities to print colour. With all the talk about new technology at Wapping, what a lot of people do not understand is that there is no new technology in the machinery room at Wapping. Those machines are all 17 years old and have been in store. He cannot print colour unless he gets his hands on this colour printing machinery.
If Today's title is to be kept, I am certain that it will bear little relationship to the present paper. I remind the House that The Sun was the original Daily Herald and that Reed International — the Daily Mirror —made the Daily Herald into a tabloid. It did not want two tabloids, so it gave the paper to Murdoch, and we know what he did with it. Today supported the alliance at the last election. If there
56
is an alliance and if there is a Today at the next election —I know they are two big "ifs"—I will wager anyone in the House that Today will not support the alliance.
Some people thought that new technology would radically change the newspaper industry. They said it would mean lower costs and cheap newspapers, that anybody would be able to start their own newspaper and that it would lead to diversity. I did not believe that. They said that it would lead to many new Left-wing newspapers. I looked for this in the United States as the new technology originated there. I could not find any new Left-wing newspapers that had arisen there as a result of new technology.
The argument was that it would greatly reduce labour costs, but the last Royal Commission found that labour costs are only 21 per cent. of a newspaper's costs. The new technology had no effect on the other costs for newsprint and such things. The experience of the Daily Telegraph going over to new technology was that it was so expensive that the paper lost control of it. It is now owned by a Canadian precisely because it went over to the new technology. When Eddie Shah came along with the new technology, we were told that he would run rings around the big boys and break down monopoly. But even his new "cheap" technology newspaper cost £22 million to start up. All that money was lost and many tens of millions of pounds have since gone into it. There have been three changes of ownership and three changes of editorship, and to what end?— to end up being swallowed by Murdoch, the arch-monopolist. So new technology is no solution to the problem of monopoly.
If the slight reduction in costs brought about by the new technology is applied equally to all newspapers, it will not improve the relative position of weaker publications. It will not alter the relative position of competing titles. The proposition now before us is that the first new technology paper be taken over by an arch-monopolist. If we are against monopoly and if it is against public policy and against the spirit of the legislation, why do we allow it? If the Government do allow it, let them abandon the pretence that they are opposed to monopoly.
Murdoch is building a huge monopoly empire across the world of radio, television, cable and newspaper interests—as much as he can get in Australia, as much as he can get in the United States and as much as he can get in Britain. He is willing to sell out his nationality and his soul. He is willing to do anything. He does not like this country. He does not like British people or British institutions. He only uses us to make profits in his newspapers here. He makes more profit from his four British newspapers than he makes from any other par of his empire around the world and he uses those profits to finance further acquisitions in the United States and elsewhere. The Government propose that he be allowed to behave in that way. That must give us pause for thought.
My last point is that market forces in the press will not guarantee diversity. The ineffective monopoly legislation will not guarantee diversity. We must have something else. We have to work towards a new approach. My own party will have to give new thought to this. We need to do two things. First, there ought to be a publicly owned body responsible to Parliament which would acquire and own printing facilities and lease them to any body or group which could show that it could provide a readership and a demand. Secondly, there should be a body to distribute advertising. The old Daily Herald and the old News

57
Chronicle collapsed when they had circulations of 2 million because they did not get advertising revenue. Anyone who says that a paper with a circulation of 2 million ought to go under is not a true believer in democracy. Inadequate advertising is preventing newspapers being viable. We need a body to distribute advertising fairly among the various papers.
6.7 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We have spent the afternoon in the House apparently hacking over the near corpse of a relatively small and relatively insignificant ailing business, deciding in our great wisdom whether we think that it should be allowed to die quietly or whether it should be given the kiss of life by Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Murdoch or someone else, as if we somehow or other have power in these matters. Opposition Members have several times demonstrated their xenophobia towards Mr. Murdoch, neglecting to note, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that the majority of our newspaper groups, of which there are at least four prominent ones, rely heavily on the talents and capital of people from abroad, whether they come from Czechoslovakia, Canada or wherever.
I wonder whether that xenophobia on the part of Opposition Members extends to Japanese or American business men who bring business to the hard-pressed parts of the country where some Opposition Members have their constituencies. I am sure that their electors would be interested to know how they feel about foreigners coming here and investing money. I think that it is a jolly good thing.
Several times during the debate the subject of the Fair Trading Act 1973, which subsumes all that we are talking about, and its offshoot, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, has been raised. It was suggested earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that the Act was a weak piece of legislation. It was also pointed out that weak legislation of that sort brings the law into disrepute. I would go further and say that the legislation, which is the point of the whole exercise this afternoon, is silly. The fact that the House should he deluded into believing that its role is to interfere in what is a perfectly free business decision between two consenting adults, two newspaper proprietors, as to whether the newspaper has a viable future is nonsense. Legislation on the statute book that allows the House to intervene in this way brings the proceedings of the House into disrepute. We should be considering whether we need that legislation on the statute book at all.
A great deal has been said about monopoly and about Mr. Murdoch building up some great monopoly by which he will influence all our decisions. I am not entirely averse to the idea that the owner of a business should have a strong say in the ethos of that business. If the Today newspaper had had a political stance, it would probably not be in its present position. In fact, it muddled about not having any political market and eventually ended up as a soft Left alliance newspaper, where we know there was not much market to be had. If it has now ended up in the gutter. It is a Left-wing gutter, and not a Right-wing gutter on this occasion.
To suggest that Mr. Murdoch could create a monopoly of newspapers by buying up one here or there is nonsense. In addition to newspapers, we have any number of
58
political and quasi-political magazines that people of Left-wing persuasion can read. There are magazines such as the New Statesman. I believe that the Tribune Group has a magazine, and there is a publication called Labour Weekly. There are dozens of journals and dozens of television and radio programmes where the Left can express its opinion. Best of all, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said on more than one occasion, if the Left feels that it is necessary to have a national newspaper, it can set up and run its own. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), representing the National Graphical Association, has pointed out that his interests lie in that direction
We have a piece of legislation that we should he reconsidering. Fair trade is brought about by an open, competitive market. The fact that we are debating this issue now suggests that the House is attempting to constrain open competiton. We do not want legislation to restrict that in any way.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Let us have more massive monopolies.
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that a monopoly can be effective only if it is backed up by the power of Government legislation. As long as there is no method of force for keeping out competition, one cannot have a monopoly. A monopoly is something that Governments can have, but they cannot be created by the private sector. The more open the market is allowed to be, the less chance there is of the sort of restriction about which Opposition Members are complaining.
We want less of the Fair Trading Act. I suggest that we should reconsider the whole thing if it leads us to spend the entire afternoon debating nonsense such as the future of a relatively insignificant newspaper. We should adopt the attitude that the best possible way in which Opposition Members as well as my hon. Friends can get their points of view across is to keep the market as open as possible. It is competition that brings variety to the customer, not the sort of restrictive or semi-restrictive legislation that the Fair Trading Act represents.
Mr. Wilson: Would the hon. Lady extend her argument to television? Would she say that the people who pay for advertising on television should have the power and the right to dictate what television programmes and channels exist, and what the political complexion of the programmes should be? If she does not say that the power of advertising money should dictate the complexion of television, what is her logical argument for saying that the same market forces should have absolute power over newspapers?
Mrs. Gorman: Advertisers would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that they dictate the nature of the programmes around which their advertisements are placed. I am sure that they would like to have that power. The important thing is that that does not happen.
Mr. Wilson: I asked whether the hon. Lady thought it should happen.
Mrs. Gorman: Television is not nearly open enough. We need more competition on television and radio, and I hope that we will move in that direction. Rupert Murdoch, as the financial proprietor of the newspaper, is not wrong in wishing to have some say in the way in which the newspaper goes. It is perfectly logical. If Eddie Shah had

59
newspaper had a political position, it might not have been dying on its feet today. Because the public could not identify its position, they did not buy it. It deteriorated gradually from a mixed bag of opinions into a soft-Left newspaper, and then lost its readership. It is now lucky to be rescued by Mr. Murdoch so that at least the machinery may be used to provide jobs and so on.
One cannot expect someone who owns a business not to have a say in the way in which it moves, the type of product it produces, and the general tone and direction of it. Legislation that allows us to believe that we have some say in a straight commercial market decision is nonsense and wastes the time of the House.
6.17 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: After those closing remarks I am not sure why the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) wanted to come here in the first place, if she believes that we have no power and does not want us to examine—
Mrs. Gorman rose—
Mr. Buchan: I will not give way. With respect, we have heard quite enough. I find that comment extraordinary, as I found her other comments. She said that monopoly cannot occur unless the Government cause it. At present, three people, Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens, control about 80 per cent. of the dissemination of popular printed information in this country. If that is not technically a monopoly, it is bloody near. They are three people with a particular point of view. There are about five people who have a basic monopoly over the whole of western Europe in the popular dissemination of news. For example, there is Berlusconi in Italy and France.
During the entire debate Conservative Members, certainly the hon. Member for Billericay, have not understood the offensive nature of discussing newspapers as if they were commodities to be bought and sold at some sort of auction. At least Beaverbrook was honest when he said that he retained his newspapers in order to create propaganda. Conservative Members— the hon. Member for Billericay and the Minister — think that the first criterion for the preservation of a newspaper is profitability.
Throughout history there have been battles for freedom and for freedom for expression in order to achieve that freedom. There was the fight against the Stamp Acts, the fight against censorship, and now the fight against monopoly by cash. That is the position we are facing. It is nonsense to think that the individual outside has as much power in terms of the dissemination of views, as much freedom in terms of expression and, therefore, as much freedom, as Mr. Murdoch. He has 11 million times more chance of expressing his view than an individual voice outside.
I am told by the Minister that the Government could not interfere in the sense of making a judgment on the case. They could decide only whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. One of the weaknesses of the argument may be that they would not have an opportunity to listen to the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
60
My God, only a year ago in this House two Cabinet Ministers lost their jobs because they were busy interfering in an industry, Westland. Then, there was plenty of interference over a straightforward commercial transaction. Therefore, the Minister cannot come to this House and give us the hypocrisy that this Government are not interested in commercial decisions. They are interested, and there are two ex-Cabinet Ministers on the Back Benches to prove that.
The second reason why we are upset is the result of the comments made by the hon. Member for Billericay during her speech. The hon. Lady accused us of xenophobia, but let me tell the hon. Lady that I spent the entire afternoon trying to prevent the xenophobia of her Government keeping out someone from Pakistan who should be coming here.
Today, I received two letters. One was from my brother-in-law in Canada, who is white, to tell me that he will be coming over here for a month this summer. His letter was not a request for me to make representations so that he may obtain a visa. He can come over— he is white. My brother will arrive on the date that he told me. The other letter was about Mohammed Shafri, who is in Pakistan. He has done the 40-mile trip to Islamabad twice in an attempt to process an application to appear in Britain at the wedding of his widowed sister's daughter so that he may give her away at the ceremony. That application has been refused because of the xenophobia of the Government.
Therefore, we are offended for two reasons, first because of the hypocrisy of Conservative Members in relation to such problems and secondly, because of the Government's failure to understand that we are not dealing with simple commodities. We do not believe that we should leave freedom of expression to the vagaries of the market place or allow the freedom of the big and powerful to dictate and determine.
The hon. Member for Billericay knows perfectly well how Mr. Murdoch uses his papers. He certainly uses his papers to make points, but above all he uses them to make profit. In the process he is prepared to let the precious written word degenerate into the gutter, as he has helped the degeneration of the entire popular press of the country.
I am against monoply, whether on the part of Murdoch or Maxwell. I certainly believe that it is valuable that those men took opposing views during the election. I agreed with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who spoke for the alliance— if I may still call it an alliance. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman said that it was a small voice, but that at least it spoke on behalf of the alliance.
I believe that it is a crime for us to pretend that there is freedom, liberty and democracy when there is a virtual monopoly of the printed word in Britain. It does not stop there. We have seen the Peacock report and the Green Paper on television and radio. Both those documents endorse exactly what the hon. Member for Billericay wants. They want to get rid of restrictive legislation and make it a free-for-all so that the hon. Lady and myself can own a radio station. She nods. Can the hon. Lady afford to open a television station tomorrow? She cannot and I cannot, but Maxwell and Murdoch can. The hon. Lady does not share the same freedom of equality as Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Murdoch.
This so-called freedom is the freedom of two, three or five people to express their point of view and not the freedom of the many. If we want freedom for the many we

61
must understand the nature of freedom in our society. If we want freedom for the many we cannot give power to Maxwell, Murdoch, or to Berlusconi. The power of freedom must be exercised by the social will of the community.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman, in common with so many of his hon. Friends, is obsessed with the monopoly aspect in this affair. The hon. Gentleman says that he could not afford to open up a radio station, but the Labour party could. The Labour party could also open a newspaper. However, the problem may be that if the Labour party opened a radio station or launched a newspaper nobody would listen to it or read it. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about?
Mr. Buchan: It is extremely interesting that the hon. Gentleman should make the rights of one man, Murdoch, the equivalent of the rights of some 11 million trade unionists or members of the Labour party. Thus we arrive at the equation that 10 million equals one, whether it is Murdoch or Maxwell. There is no equality of freedom unless the 11 million have the same power that Maxwell and Murdoch exercise.
I wish to discuss the effect of this decision on another current case, that of The Scotsman. The Scotsman was first acquired by Roy Thompson, almost in the same month as the Manchester Guardian changed its name to The Guardian. Indeed, Mr. Roy Thompson had to be prevented from seeking to change The Scotsman to "The Man." The Scotsman is one of the two quality newspapers in Scotland. Indeed, there are other good newspapers in Scotland, above all the one published by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson), "The West Highlands Free Press." That is a welcome addition, though it does not have quite such a large circulation as The Sun.
At present, The Scotsman is at the centre of an honourable strike. The journalists want to retain the freedom to be able to report this place to the readers of The Scotsman and not to be restricted to reporting this place only from the viewpoint and in the interest of the entire regions of Great Britain — largely, incidentally, for evening papers. In other words, if the group that controls The Scotsman has its way, the voice of that paper will be chopped by those who control that newspaper, Thompson Regional Newspapers. That is what is happening within the Maxwell and Murdoch groups. Those groups, by acquiring another paper, or another group, prevent the wider dissemination of news and prevent diversity of opinion.
The tool they use for that end is the new technology. Peacock and the Tory party have argued that new technology opens up freedom of expression, but it has had the exactly opposite effect. Eddie Shah has been praised today for ensuring greater ease of publication and ease of presentation by using new technology. However, the effect of new technology has been to act as an instrument to reduce the variety of the press rather than increase it. It has been used not to allow greater diversity of ownership, but to reduce ownership. The end point of competition is monopoly. For that reason there become fewer people with ownership and less diversity of views. Such is the problem we face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) spoke powerfully on behalf of the print
62
unions and said that there were solutions. The hon. Member for Billericay thought that the best solution was to scrap everything and let the powerful have their way. History has shown that when the powerful have their way, millions have suffered. The solution to this issue of crucial and social importance is to exercise some social responsibility for it. There was a laugh when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said that printing presses could be established by the Government and groups should be allowed to hire them and pay for their use to enable them to publish. That practice is followed in the extremely good democracy of Sweden. There is no reason why it should not happen here. In addition to such liberating methods we can use restrictive methods and say that no man should own more than X number of titles.
I should have thought that one newspaper is enough for any one man. Apparently, Murdoch thought on similar lines earlier on this year when he said:
"We all slow down as we get older. I and my colleagues have put together a very important group of newspapers, magazines and television properties. Now we should move into a mature phase where we improve them all, and just vvork at them. We have enough."
That was in January. However, he did not have enough, because he has now bought Today. Either Mr. 'Murdoch was telling the truth or he was telling a lie. If he was telling a lie that is all the more reason why we should deplore the Government's decision to let him have his way. If he was speaking the truth when he said, "We have enough," it means that he has, no doubt, bought Today to acquire the machinery in the interests of competition rather than to run that newspaper.
Among other things, this gross interference affects the liberty of the readership.
Mrs. Gorman indicated dissent.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She wants freedom to control the 300,000 newspapers that are printed each day, but what about the freedom of those 300,000 people who wanted to read that particular newspaper which is now changing hands?
The central argument that is facing us in this debate is not the technicalities of sending a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the technicalities of the Government's stupid decision. It is a question of freedom, liberty and democracy. The sooner we come to understand that, the better. The Government's actions, the Peacock report and their decision of last week have stood freedom on its head. They are saying that they seek to give freedom to the rich and powerful at the expense of the many. 'The people had better face up to that because freedom and democracy will be the critical linchpin at the next election.
6.30 pm
Mr. Matthew Carrington: After that speech by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), we should get back to some of the commercial realities.
Today was questionably viable. Its readership was too low to sustain it. If readership is too low, the inevitable consequence is that the advertising also becomes low. One can be sure of one thing about advertisers: they are impartial about which newspapers they advertise in. If advertising is leaving a newspaper, it will not survive.
The newspaper was about to close for perfectly good commercial reasons, that it was losing about £500,000 a

63
week. That is an unsustainable financial position for any newspaper. Investors were needed to make up the amount of money per week that was necessary to keep the newspaper going.
Few investors are prepared to put about £38 million into a newspaper. If the Government's policies have time to continue, there will be many more investors with that sort of money, but at the moment the number of people who can invest that sort of money in such a loss-making venture with the prospect of turning it round is not large. It is worth considering who the potential investors in the newspaper were.
First—we have heard it from Labour Members—we have the desire for an owner of a newspaper to come forward who is politically uncommitted, does not own any other newspapers and would allow editorial freedom—in other words, a man who is rare on the newspaper publishing scene and on the commercial scene in general. Perhaps Labour Members would consider such a man to be Mr. Robert Maxwell. For all his many undoubted virtues as a newspaper proprietor, when it came to it, he was not prepared to put the money up front to rescue that newspaper.
As I am sure many other hon. Members did, I read in The Sunday Times the description of the negotiations before the takeover. It was apparent that Mr. Maxwell's offer, if such it was, was a nebulous, "Cash tomorrow or some time in the future." It was not a real rescue of that newspaper—
Mr. Marlow: It was a political stunt.
Mr. Carrington: As my hon. Friend says, perhaps it can be described kindly as a political stunt.
The second option which has been suggested is that certain hon. Members or their friends outside the House could have had a whip round and bought the newspaper. That is not such an outrageous suggestion as we might think because something similar happened with News on Sunday. Highly politically committed local councils, finding themselves in control of certain funds on a trustee basis, mainly pension funds of their employees in the town hall, felt it appropriate to invest those funds in a highly speculative newspaper venture, News on Sunday,which would have a particular political leaning. At the moment. in its final death throes, it is losing the pension funds of those councils large amounts of money. We must be extremely grateful that hon. Members' friends outside the House did not feel it appropriate to dip into the money that was in trust yet again to rescue yet another paper. The pensioners will be more grateful than anybody else that it has not happened. If it had, they would have been left with relatively little in their pension fund.
The third option was Mr. Murdoch. He is no saint. I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends would consider that any of us have a brief to support him, but in the past he has proved himself a saviour of newspapers. He also has the commercial ability to put a newspaper back in order when it is losing money. I am sure that hon. Members and many people outside the House would rather have a viable Today than pie in the sky tomorrow.
6.35 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: In this debate, the Government had the task to convince the
64
House and the public that they acted correctly in instantly approving the takeover and not referring it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster surprised the House by the feebleness of his attempt to make that case, but at least he attempted to do so. His case was that Today was uneconomic, that there was acute urgency and that the Secretary of State did everything that he could to fulfil his responsibilities under the Fair Trading Act.
Because virtually nobody else on the Conservative Benches made a case, apart from repeating the fact that there was no alternative, it is worth looking at what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said. He said that the economic case was the simple and least controversial part. The reports and facts that he gave the House were mixed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) referred to reports in the UK Press Gazette that Lonrho executives said that Today was shaping up nicely. Indeed, for several weeks the UK Press Gazette has reported that senior executives of Lonrho such as Mr. Nick Morell said that they were optimistic about Today's chances. But those are reports. We should look at the facts. The facts, which no Conservative Member has recognised, or stated, are that Today's circulation has been going up every single month for the past six months. Yesterday the figure was 337,000. Is that failure to increase circulation every month for the past six months?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East also told us that Mr. Rowland, speaking while on holiday in Split, said:
"We think the losses on the paper can soon be minimised … we know the ore is at 1.600 feet so we'll keep digging."
Perhaps Conservative Members do not like reports and would prefer facts. The facts are before us. As the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, Mr. Murdoch was prepared to put in his cash—£38 million — because he believed that it was economic. In that mixture of reports and facts, all that we heard from the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was that there was a resolution of the board and that there was evidence. But we never heard what that evidence was. It was unspecified.
Why was the matter urgent? Lonrho bought the newspaper when it was loss-making. It knew what the problems were. It must have been confident of solving them. It knew the investment that would have to be made. The Chancellor just said that there was a resolution of the board and that he had evidence, but again he failed to tell the House what the evidence was. If he is to reach the core of the debate, which is whether the Secretary of State acted responsibily, he and the Government owe it to the House to put that evidence in front of us. Where is it? We must see it.
I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to place a memorandum of material in the Library of the House immediately after the debate, showing all the detailed working papers that he had, and the evidence that was put in front of him and the Secretary of State, so that we can see it and so that we and the public can make our own judgment on the facts which were before the Secretary of State.
There was a good precedent for that in 1981. The then Secretary of State put a memorandum of material in the Library. I have it here. I ask the Secretary of State, or the

65
Chancellor, on his behalf', to place a similar, I hope more detailed, memorandum in the Library of the House immediately after the debate.
It is not just a matter of having those facts. The House needs to know what questions the Secretary of State asked those gentlemen when they came to see him. What questions did he ask about the financial position of Today? What questions about the assets, the printing works, the property or the good will were asked? What questions about the losses; what questions about the overheads, debts or interest charges? How did he separate the losses attributable to Today on Sunday from those of Today? How did he seek to separate the figures in Lonrho's audited accounts for Today from the rest of Lonrho's accounts figures that were set before him'? I presume that they were put in front of' the Secretary of State. The House needs an answer about how he approached those figures.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that what is required is that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that the newspaper is not a going concern, economically, as a separate paper? The Secretary of State needs adequate information for that. There is no point in compiling information upon information once there is sufficient information to satisfy him on that point. There is no point in proving something six times over. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously doubt that this was a heavily loss-making newspaper that was viable only with a circulation of about 700,000?
Mr. Fisher: On the contrary, what the House and the public need to know is that the facts were there and that the Secretary of State saw them. The public need to see those facts, too. The Secretary of State should recognise that the facts were given before, and we need to know them now. I trust that he will put them before the House. Without them, it is impossible for the House to decide whether the Secretary of State acted properly and wisely.
What questions did he put on the future prospects of the paper? Did he ask for an independent valuation, or did he—as with so much else in the case—simply take the word of Lonrho executives? Did they say, "These are the facts." Did he say, take your word for it entirely. I do not need any independent valuation of my own."? That seems surprising and, if true, it shows a cavalier attitude to the facts.
There is the issue of the timing of events, too. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on behalf of the Secretary of State, made great play of the urgency of the situation. Let us examine that urgency. Will he tell the House—if not, I will ask him a written question, and he can answer in writing — when he first met the representatives of Lonrho and of News International? Was it on Tuesday, or Wednesday morning? Did he, by any chance, meet Mr. Robinson or Mr. Nick Morell on Wednesday morning? Was it on that occasion that these facts and this evidence were put to the Government? If that was the occasion, was it done in writing or verbally?
If it was in writing, and I am right in thinking that it was done on Wednesday morning, the House will know that that was four, five or at most six hours before the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came before the House to make a statement that the Secretary of State had been totally satisfied by all the evidence. So, the Secretary of State is asking us to believe that, in six hours, the
66
accountants in the DTI went through the evidence and saw that the paper was wholly uneconomic and that there was an overwhelming urgency about the case. Six hours of scrutiny!
The Government should be ashamed of themselves. At least in the 1981 case the Secretary of State will recall that it took a whole week for the Department of Trade and Industry to conclude that the case was well-founded. In this case, unless the Government care to tell me that I am wrong, we have been told that the paper's fate was decided and that the Government were satisfied within a maximum of five or six hours.
Mr. Maude: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the break-even point in circulation for the newspaper was 700,000, and that its actual circulation was 300,000? Does he further accept that it had been making serious losses from the moment that it had been set up and that no one has seriously questioned for an instant that it was making serious losses at the time?
Mr. Fisher: No one is in a position to analyse in detail or to question the figures, because no one apart from the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has seen them. If the public—[Interruption.] The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now says that everybody knows about them. What does everyone know? Not a single fact has been put before the House that everyone knows. The Chancellor should understand that the figures are rather more difficult than he says they are. It will be a matter of considerable accountancy skill to withdraw the relevant figures from Lonrho's audited accounts. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he should re-examine them.
The Government have made a decision on virtually no evidence. That brings no credit to the Government or the legislation. The Government have simply rolled over and said, "We take your word for it. We don't need the figures. Even if you give us the figures a mere four or five hours beforehand, we will be satisfied and not ask questions about their accuracy." That is the case that is so overwhelming that it does not need to comply with the legislation and go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster started with some sweet words about the public interest and about how our national press needs diversity and independence. In general, we no longer have that. Three companies own 71·5 per cent. of our national dailies. Three companies own 81·7 per cent. of our Sunday circulation. In this case, News International, with five titles, owns 32 per cent. of our dailies, and 33 per cent. of the total. That represents 10·8 million papers sold every week, out of a total of only 32 million sold in this country.
Mr. Rupert Murdoch, on "Panorama" in January. said:
"We have enough in this country. We are now going to improve our product."
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen from recent editions of The Sun how improved that product has been. Mr. Murdoch, however, should not be taken lightly. He is a ruthless and ambitious man who—[Interruption.] If hon. Members doubt that, they Mould, perhaps, look at his interests in radio, television cable, satellite, film and broadcasting. If they believe that he has satisfied his desire for media control in this country, they should know that he now owns 75 per cent. of Australian

67
print media. It is that cross-media ownership that is so dangerous. All hon. Members should be aware of the situation. It is possible that, in the next 10 years, we shall turn around and discover that Mr. Murdoch and people like him own our cultural media. That is not a light matter.
Every other country recognises that that is a problem. Almost all have specific legislation to protect themselves from it. In Italy, there is specific anti-trust legislation, with a 20 per cent. maximum. In France, there is a 30 per cent. maximum. In Sweden and Norway, there is specific, positive legislation to encourage pluralism. Even the United States has legislation preventing cross-media ownership whereby no paper and television station in the same city may have the same owner. We should have the same concern here.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East referred to the Broadcasting Act 1981, which forbids ownership of ITV companies except by British and EEC nationals, and which affects the concentration of ownership. That is because we recognise that television and broadcasting are powerful media. The same is true of the newspaper industry. We badly need to protect ourselves from a concentration of ownership by specific legislation.
The lack of scrutiny by the Government shows that, whereas they have a duty to safeguard the public interest, they have been stampeded by Mr. Murdoch, who has put a pistol to their heads. They have not even bothered to acquaint themselves with the facts. I hope they will now do so, and put those facts before the House and the public. They have reached completely the wrong decision. The Conservative Government are now not only pawns of the City and the friends of deregulation but, effectively, the party of private monopoly. I invite the House to join the Opposition and vote for our amendment and against this appalling abnegation of responsibility by the Government.
6.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): The debate has taken place in a calmer atmosphere than that which prevailed on Wednesday. I had hoped that a period of calm would have enouraged some Opposition Members to realise that their rejection of the decision made by my right hon. Friend the Seceretary of State was misguided.
The Fair Trading Act, like its predecessor, does not require a Monopolies and Mergers Commission examination in every case. It sensibly recognises that there may be circumstances when time will not permit such an examination. In such cases, if the newspaper is to continue as a separate newspaper—as was the case with Today—and it is uneconomic as a going concern, the Secretary of State may give his consent without an examination.
It astounds me that some Opposition Members should have suggested that Today is still economic as a going concern. No rational person could sustain such an argument. The paper has made losses since its inception. It has already had to be rescued once and further losses lie ahead. Losses of up to £30 million a year have been widely quoted and are not far wrong.
The owners of the paper had concluded that enough was enough and that if the paper could not be sold quickly it would have to be closed. It has been suggested that Lonrho was bluffing and that my right hon. Friend should
68
have called that bluff. That would have been wholly irresponsible. He had in front of him a resolution from Lonrho's board saying that it would close Today at midnight if a reference was made. It had apparently decided some time previously that in view of the substantial and continuing losses being made by Today, it would not fund the paper, in any event, beyond 30 June.
My right hon. Friend did not even have to rely on that evidence alone. No more than three weeks previously, Lonrho had closed Today on Sunday. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) reminded us that the Sunday Standard, based in Glasgow, had been closed by Lonrho — "whimsically", according to the hon. Gentleman. With that evidence before us. it is not surprising that my right hon. Friend decided that he could not take the risk with the newspaper and with people's jobs.
Against that hard evidence, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seriously suggests that the Secretary of State should have taken a different view, on the basis of a report in a Maxwell paper of a telephone conversation with Mr. Tiny Rowland on holiday in Split.
I recollect from the time when I practised at the Bar that there is a rule called the best evidence rule. I do not know whether it applies in Scottish law.
Mr. John Smith: Of course it does. If the hon. Gentleman was in practice he would know that.
Mr. Maude: I am an English lawyer. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been called upon to choose between those two forms of evidence, as he might have been in the long-gone days when he was Secretary of State for Trade, he could have made no other decision than that made by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he accept that the only best evidence is the facts? Will he undertake to place in the Library the facts that were in front of the Secretary of State?
Mr. Maude: There is no serious dispute about the facts. Today was an uneconomic paper. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that it was difficult to disentangle the figures for News (UK) Ltd. from those for the rest of Lonrho. But News (UK) Ltd. is a separate company—a 90 per cent. subsidiary of Lonrho. It was not difficult to extract the figures because there was a continuing subsidy from Lonrho. There is no confusion. It was a clear, straightforward case. Today was uneconomic and was heading for the rocks. It would have been wholly irresponsible to take a risk with it.
My right hon. Friend did not even need to be satisfied that there would be an immediate closure. There needed only to be a serious risk that the paper would not survive for the time taken by an MMC reference. I remind the House that the last transfer of a newspaper referred to the MMC—Fleet Holdings to United Newspapers—took five months to be cleared. Does anyone seriously suggest that Lonrho would have been prepared to keep the paper going for five months with such losses?
In the face of that evidence it would have been a foolhardly gamble to assume that Lonrho was bluffing. The 500 people whose jobs depend on the survival of Today are heartily relieved that my right hon. Friend did not take that reckless gamble.

69
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend should have imposed conditions on the transfer. There could be only two reasons for doing that: either to ensure that Today continued as a separate newspaper—no one has seriously suggested that that is not Mr. Murdoch's intention; all the commercial logic points in that direction—or to guarantee editorial freedom. There was clearly a case for imposing such conditions in the transfers of The Times, The Sunday Times and The Observer—
Mr. Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maude: No. I must get on. I have a lot of points to deal with.
The Times, The Sunday Times and The Observer were well established and substantial newspapers of considerable national importance. Today is of recent origin and has only a tiny market share—no more than 2·5 per cent. of the market even for popular dailies. It could not have been justifiable to impose conditions in such a case.
Listening to some Opposition Members one would think that choice and diversity in our newspaper market were declining. The reverse is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed out in his powerful speech. There are now 11 companies with national newspaper interests, compared with only nine 10 years ago. There are two additional companies with national newspaper interests. If that is regarded as a reduction of choice and diversity, that is an odd definition.
In the past 10 years no fewer than six new national newspapers have come into existence, some free-standing and some from within existing groups. The implied suggestion by Opposition Members that there is a wicked capitalist conspiracy to freeze out newspapers is manifestly absurd. That contention was demonstrated ad absurdum by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) in a contribution of advanced paranoia, couched in the most insulting and offensive terms. I think that when he reflects on it in the morning he will be somewhat ashamed of that speech.
It has never been easier to establish a new newspaper. New technologies and the increasing practice of subcontracting the printing mean that start-up costs are comparatively modest. There is nothing to prevent anyone of any political stance from setting up a new paper, as the recent establishment of The Independent and News on Sunday demonstrate. However, once a newspaper is established, its success and the maintenance of the jobs involved depend on customers buying copies of the paper. No one can compel them to do so.
There is a wide range and variety of newspapers within a comparatively narrow price band and I found somewhat disquieting various suggestions made by Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who has referred contemptuously to the gutter press and on Wednesday referred to the "degrading standard of journalism". The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that no fewer than 8 million people buy the Daily Mirror, The Sun and the Daily Star and many more people see those papers. It is offensively arrogant for the right hon. Gentleman to assume that he is right and all those people are wrong. That attitude may go some way to explain the convincing and shattering electoral defeat of the Labour party.
Much of the debate has been about the nature of the proprietors involved. Mr. Murdoch has been accused of
70
being a foreigner, of inhibiting editorial freedom and of supporting the Conservative party. We may have all sorts of opinions about the proprietors. The fact that a paper is technically foreign owned may be of slight interest, but I doubt whether it makes much difference in reality. I doubt whether it makes a substantial difference to the Daily Mirror that it is owned by a Liechtenstein-based company.
We should not have to decide between the relative merits of newspaper proprietors and about whether Mr. Murdoch is better than Mr. Maxwell or Mr. Tiny Rowland and which has the better record of defending editorial independence. That would be wrong. and the legislation does not allow the Secretary of State to make such decisions.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), I come from a newspaper family. There are some differences. His family owned newspapers and mine worked for newspapers, but I mind about newspapers and about the survival of Today. It would not have been tolerable for the Government to take a callous gamble with the survival of that newspaper and the 500 jobs that go with it.
This debate has been shot through with rancour and hatred from the Opposition. Their rancour arises from the wounding rejection that they received from the electorate and because they are so desperate to find a scapegoat for their disaster. We always hear the same cry, that it was the people who were wrong and that they were misled by the wicked capitalist press. The people were not misled and saw through the Labour party.
The Opposition showed a hatred of Mr. Murdoch and that was exemplified in the speeches by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). That hatred of Mr. Murdoch made nonsense of the contention that they have some high-minded conviction and that the nature of a proprietor does not matter. The Opposition hate Murdoch and that is why they are so agitated about this whole business. Does anyone suggest that if Mr. Maxwell had come forward with an application the Opposition would have made all this fuss? Of course they would not, and they did not make any fuss about it before. The Government's decision is right and I strongly commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 291.

Division No. 6]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Boateng, Paul

Allen, Graham

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Anderson, Donald

Boyes, Roland

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bradley, Keith

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Ashton, Joe

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Buchan, Norman

Barron, Kevin

Buckley, George

Battle, John

Caborn, Richard

Beckett, Margaret

Callaghan, Jim

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Campbell-Savours, D. N

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Canavan, Dennis

Bermingham, Gerald

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cartwright, John

Blair, Tony

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

71

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Clay, Bob

Lambie, David

Clelland, David

Lamond, James

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Leadbitter, Ted

Cohen, Harry

Leighton, Ron

Coleman, Donald

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lewis, Terry

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Litherland, Robert

Corbett, Robin

Livingstone, Ken

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livsey, Richard

Cousins, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cox, Tom

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Crowther, Stan

Loyden, Eddie

Cryer, Bob

McAllion, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McAvoy, Tom

Cunningham, Dr John

McCartney, Ian

Dalyell, Tam

McFall, John

Darling, Alastair

McKelvey, William

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McLeish, Henry

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

McTaggart, Bob

Dewar, Donald

McWilliam, John

Dixon, Don

Madden, Max

Dobson, Frank

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dunnachie, James

Marek, Dr John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Eastham, Ken

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Martlew, Eric

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Maxton, John

Fatchett, Derek

Meacher, Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Meale, Alan

Fearn, Ronald

Michael, Alun

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fisher, Mark

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Flannery, Martin

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Flynn, Paul

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morgan, Rhodri

Foster, Derek

Morley, Elliott

Foulkes, George

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Fraser, John

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Galbraith, Samuel

Mullin, Chris

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Murphy, Paul

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Nellist, Dave

George, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

O'Brien, William

Godman, Dr Norman A.

O'Neill, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Pendry, Tom

Gould, Bryan

Pike, Peter

Graham, Thomas

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Prescott, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Grocott, Bruce

Radice, Giles

Harman, Ms Harriet

Randall, Stuart

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Redmond, Martin

Haynes, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Reid, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Richardson, Ms Jo

Henderson, Douglas

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Robertson, George

Holland, Stuart

Robinson, Geoffrey

Home Robertson, John

Rogers, Allan

Hood, James

Rooker, Jeff

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Rowlands, Ted

Howells, Geraint

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Short, Clare

Ingram, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Janner, Greville

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

John, Brynmor

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Snape, Peter

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Soley, Clive

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Spearing, Nigel

72

Steel, Rt Hon David

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Steinberg, Gerald

Wigley, Dafydd

Stott, Roger

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Straw, Jack

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wilson, Brian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winnick, David

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Turner, Dennis

Worthington, Anthony

Wall, Pat

Wray, James

Wallace, James

Walley, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Ron Davies and

Wareing, Robert N.

Mr. Allen McKay.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Aitken, Jonathan

Emery, Sir Peter

Alexander, Richard

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fallon, Michael

Allason, Rupert

Favell, Tony

Amess, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Amos, Alan

Fookes, Miss Janet

Arbuthnot, James

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

French, Douglas

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Gale, Roger

Ashby, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Aspinwall, Jack

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Atkins, Robert

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Atkinson, David

Gorst, John

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gow, Ian

Baldry, Tony

Gower, Sir Raymond

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bellingham, Henry

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Bendall, Vivian

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Benyon, W.

Grist, Ian

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ground, Patrick

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Grylls, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Body, Sir Richard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hanley, Jeremy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hannam, John

Boswell, Tim

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Harris, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Haselhurst, Alan

Bowis, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hayes, Jerry

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hayward, Robert

Brazier, Julian

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bright, Graham

Heddle, John

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hind, Kenneth

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Buck, Sir Antony

Holt, Richard

Burns, Simon

Hordern, Sir Peter

Burt, Alistair

Howard, Michael

Butcher, John

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

Butler, Chris

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Carrington, Matthew

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Carttiss, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cash, William

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Chope, Christopher

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Irvine, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irving, Charles

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jack, Michael

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Janner, Greville

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

73

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Moynihan, Hon C.

Key, Robert

Mudd, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Needham, Richard

Kirkhope, Timothy

Nelson, Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Neubert, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Newton, Tony

Knowles, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Knox, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Lang, Ian

Onslow, Cranley

Latham, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Lawrence, Ivan

Page, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Paice, James

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Lightbown, David

Pawsey, James

Lilley, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Portillo, Michael

Lord, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Price, Sir David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Raffan, Keith

McCrindle, Robert

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Macfarlane, Neil

Rathbone, Tim

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Redwood, John

Maclean, David

Renton, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Riddick, Graham

McNair-Wilson. P. (New Forest)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Major, Rt Hon John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Malins, Humfrey

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mans, Keith

Rost, Peter

Maples, John

Rowe, Andrew

Marland, Paul

Ryder, Richard

Marlow, Tony

Sackville, Hon Tom

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mates, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Maude, Hon Francis

Shaw, David (Dover)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Miller, Hal

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Miscampbell, Norman

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Shersby, Michael

Moate, Roger

Sims, Roger

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

74

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Speed, Keith

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Speller, Tony

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Walden, George

Squire, Robin

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waller, Gary

Steen, Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Stern, Michael

Ward, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Warren, Kenneth

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Watts, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wells, Bowen

Sumberg, David

Wheeler, John

Summerson, Hugo

Whitney, Ray

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wilshire, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wood, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Woodcock, Mike

Thornton, Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Trippier, David

Mr. Tony Durant and

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the main Question, pursuant to the order of the House [3 July].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give his consent to the transfer of the ownership of the Today newspaper from Lonrho plc to News International plc; notes that Today was seriously loss making and manifestly uneconomic as a going concern; further notes that unless the transfer had taken place Today would probably have ceased publication immediately with the attendant loss of over 500 jobs; and congratulates the Secretary of State on ensuring the continuation of Today as a separate newspaper.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to start a very important debate on the Local Government Bill. As you will appreciate, it is a United Kingdom Bill that foreshadows the privatisation of local authority services and threatens the jobs of thousands of workers in Scotland as well in other parts of the United Kingdom. The essence of the problem that I wish to draw to your attention is that this is a United Kingdom Bill. As you will be aware, there has been a different tradition in Scottish local government. We have our own structure, legislative system and financial base. Our concern is that what should be a Scottish Bill is being buried in United Kingdom legislation, at least partly, I believe to save Ministers the embarrassment of wrestling with separate Scottish Bills.
  The Bill is liberally scattered, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, with references to Scottish statutes as the draftsmen struggle to make sense of two systems that are different north and south of the border. It is an abdication of responsibility when Scottish Ministers sit tight and let the Secretary of State for the Environment conduct Scottish business for them.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, about possible protection for hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish interests. It is unsatisfactory, in terms of the proper scrutiny of Scottish legislation, that this should happen. What options are open to us? I recognise that you are not responsible for the way in which the Government present their business, and I would not try to put an unreasonable burden on you, but how do we ensure that there is some form of expanded Committee, that there is proper representation for Scotland on that Committee, that the Scottish Office does not duck out, and that there is a Scottish Minister in Committee? Would it be possible to have a Committee of the whole House, which will at least ensure that all Scottish Members have a fair chance to take part?
  I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on these matters. Through you, I express our alarm and concern at the cavalier approach of the Scottish Office to Scottish business as instanced by this legislation.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a United Kingdom Parliament to deal with Scottish legislation in an English Bill or Bills that are substantially for England? If that is so, we who are Members on the unionist side of the House believe that this is the correct way to deal with matters in the circumstances in which the House now finds itself.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not now a pressing need to examine the basis for the treatment of Scottish business? Will you give serious consideration to the setting up of a Speaker's Conference with the specific remit of the careful scrutiny of Scottish business and how it is processed in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Willie Ross.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Do you mean me, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise. It was just a slip of the mind.
  Mr. Ross: He looks much younger than I do.
  Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Labour Members are concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State, who is likely to lead for the Government on this Bill, does not know where Scotland is. Given that the Bill will have a major effect on Scotland, it is strange that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here to defend Scottish rights. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the separate Scottish identity is protected. We hope that you will ensure that our voice is represented both tonight, which is essential and important, and in Committee.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a Local Government Bill. As an ex-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I remind the House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, there is a big difference between Scottish and English local government. That is why we had the Redcliffe-Maud report on English reorganisation and the Wheatley report on Scottish reorganisation. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Wheatley report recommended specifically that there should be one association in Scotland speaking for Scottish local government, strengthened by regular communication with the Scottish Office.
  To present the Bill in this way, especially if it is to be seen as a precedent, means that local government in Scotland, which is already gravely under-resourced, is being unacceptably exploited. As Parliament has always felt that its relationship with local government is important, is it not in the interests of the House and its proceedings to ensure a good relationship between Parliament and Scottish local authorities? Therefore, is it not wrong for the Government to pursue the Bill in the way that they are attempting to pursue it?
  Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I endorse much of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said. It is not a new venture for the Government to tag on Scottish legislation to a United Kingdom Bill. It happened in the last Session, on the Public Order Bill. Only one Scottish Member of Parliament served on the Committee. It was felt that, apart from the fact that it was a terrible burden to put on one Member, the resulting legislation did not reflect the best interests of Scots law, which is a distinctive system. Here we are faced with a distinctive system of local government and there will be general concern unless, Mr. Speaker, you consider some of the suggestions that have been put to you by the hon. Member for Garscadden. Scotland will be lumbered with a poor system of local government if the legislation goes through without proper Scottish scrutiny.
  Mr. William McKelvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am just a simple Back Bencher and I certainly do not have a suspicious mind. I ask for your guidance and assistance, as you always give such help to Back Benchers. Is this a new practice? If so, is it not an extremely

  77
  dangerous precedent for Scottish business to be slipped in almost covertly in this way so that we may not have appropriate discussion in the House? Furthermore, if we have to seek meetings with Ministers on Scottish business, must we now seek meetings with United Kingdom Ministers on Scottish business, rather than with Scottish Ministers?
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It appears that the Government will try to adopt a whole series of shenanigans to inflict their legislation on Scotland, where they have no mandate. I am sure that all Scottish Members would be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you would keep a particularly wary eye on the Government's conduct with regard to Scottish business. The Local Government Bill is a dramatic example of legislation that would normally have been two distinct Bills — an English Bill and a Scottish Bill, or even an English Bill and a Welsh Bill. I wonder how much expense the Government have incurred in using Civil Service time to produce this composite Bill, which is an English Bill and a Scottish Bill rolled into one. This is an abuse of the Civil Service and is about to become an abuse of Parliament unless you, Mr. Speaker, can find some way of protecting Scottish interests.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am the hon. Member for a Welsh constituency with 70,000 electors. If you, Mr. Speaker, take into account the point of order about a Speaker's Conference, would you also bear in mind the artificially high level of Scottish representation and the low number of voters in some constituencies, and reduce the level of Scottish representation to the level permitted to English and Welsh Members?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should allow me to deal with this matter. I believe the House knows that the hon. Member introducing a Bill is perfectly entitled to draft the Bill so that it applies to all or any part of the United Kingdom. It is for the hon. Member in charge—in this case the Secretary of State for the Environment — to defend the provisions of his Bill. None of the matters that have been raised are for me. They are matters of tactics. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has correctly described the number of options that could be operated. With regard to the precedent, I must tell the House and the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) that there are plenty of precedents.
  Mr. George Foulkes: I want to raise a separate point of order arising from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and from the precedent set by the Government in introducing legislation in relation to local government that covers England and Scotland. As I understand that in about six months' time the Public Bill Office will be accepting amendments for the English Bill dealing with the abolition of rates and the introduction of the community charge — otherwise known as the poll tax. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it will be in order for hon. Members to table amendments for the repeal of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, thus removing the poll tax that was rejected by the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question.
  Mr. Foulkes: No it is not.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on.
  Mr. Dewar: I shall not delay the House for very long. You said something very important, Mr. Speaker. You referred to the Minister in charge of the Bill. In every instance that appears, in essence, to be the Secretary of State for the Environment in England and Wales. The essence of our objection is that there should be a separate Scottish Bill under the control of the Scottish Office. That should be scrutinised properly in a Scottish Committee. That is the principle upon which we will continue to fight during the remainder of this Session.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. John Maxton rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already taken a point of order from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I call Mr. Maxton.
  Mr. Maxton: I want to pursue the question that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about a Speaker's Conference. We are reaching crisis point in the way in which Scotland will be legislated for in this Session. The simple fact is that the Government suffered a crushing defeat in Scotland. They are left with 10 Members of Parliament and they simply cannot pass legislation for Scotland. That is why we have this Bill —which we could almost describe as hybrid — before us today. If this kind of legislation is brought before us, and Scottish hon. Members and, more importantly, the Scottish public, our voters in Scotland, are, I am afraid to say, to be insulted in this way by the House of Commons, a constitutional crisis will be created in Scotland.
  I know that you, Mr. Speaker, more than anyone else, would want to defend the union, and all Opposition Members, with very few exceptions, would want that also. However, there are limits to the strains that can be placed upon that union by the House of Commons. The contempt with which the Government are treating Scottish parliamentary time is the way in which that strain can be taken to breaking point.
  Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). Please be brief.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Mr. Speaker, you said that this is a matter for the Minister. How can we assure accountability in the House through you when places for Scots Members on the Committee and in this debate are restricted? How can we ensure accountability when the Government are not accountable to the Scottish people and were not elected by them? How can Opposition Members ensure accountability, as that is what we were elected for?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must allow me to deal with this matter now. I do not need any further help. I can tell the House that the House has a responsibility, scrutinise legislation. That can be done in the ??? described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Dewar). The Bill might possibly be committed to a Committee of the whole House, or to an expanded Committee upstairs. That is not a matter for the Chair.

  79
  Indeed, it is not up to the Chair to select those Members for the Committee. That is a matter for the Chairman and the Committee of Selection. There are plenty of opportunities for this matter to be discussed widely, as no doubt it will be.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I know that you are anxious to proceed, Mr. Speaker. However, this is a very serious matter at the beginning of a new Parliament. It is better that the House should spend some time now to understand that feelings are running high about the way in which the people of Scotland and the decision that they made at the recent general election appear to be disregarded. It is bad enough if that opinion is disregarded by the House, but it would be even worse if it was disregarded by Mr. Speaker or anyone else in the House —although I know that that is not the case. However, that impression may be given because of the Government's attitude, and if that is the case the people of Scotland could react to it.
  This is very serious. The Bill has legal implications following what was said in the Widdicombe report. There is a different legal system in Scotland. The Scottish courts could easily rule what is legal in terms of expenditure differently from rulings given in English courts. A ridiculous situation exists at present. No Law Officer from Scotland is present. If and when the Committee to consider the Bill is set up, and if Scottish Members on that Committee call for a legal opinion, there is no Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General for Scotland who can be called to give a legal opinion to the Committee members.
  My second fear is that, because of the Government's attitude, a practice might develop whereby United Kingdom Ministers start a Bill in its Committee procedure, and halfway through the Bill, because the English and Welsh clauses have been disposed of, the Government Whips arrange for the United Kingdom Ministers to be taken off the Bill and we may be landed with Scottish Office Ministers who have heard nothing of the debate in Committee. That would be a most unsatisfactory way to proceed. I ask you to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that you will deprecate such practices in any Committees of this place. As I have said, this is an extremely serious matter.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand fully the points that have been raised with me, but the plain matter of fact is that we legislate in this House for the United Kingsdom. I am aware that there is a different legal system in Scotland.
  Hon. Members: What about Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Speaker: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is not for me to decide which hon. Members will consider the Bill in Committee; nor is it for me to decide whether a Scottish Minister should be a member of it. I think that we should proceed.
  Mr. Max Madden rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Ridley.
  7.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  The Bill represents a further significant step in two of the Government's major objectives—introducing greater
  80
  competition and securing greater value for money. The first steps in this direction were taken in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980, which included the direct labour organisation provisions in part III and which, incidentally, applied to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill introduces other changes in local government law that are aimed at improving the way in which local authorities operate.
  The free operation of the market is the best way of delivering greater choice, higher productivity and better quality services at lower prices. The Government have increased competition since 1979 in such things as air services, conveyancing, opticians' services and bus services, to name but four, with dramatic results.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give way to every hon. Member who seeks to intervene because I have much to say and I do not want to delay the House too long.
  Mr. Maxton: I want to ask the Secretary of State only one simple question. The Bill covers Scotland, and I do not see the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Treasury Bench. I assume that a Scottish junior Minister with responsibility for local government will reply so that Scottish Members will have the chance of hearing something to do with Scotland.
  Mr. Ridley: Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies can listen to what I have to say and to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has to say when he replies.
  For many years we have been trying to persuade local authorities to follow our example and to try competition to help them deliver good quality services at lower cost.
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have spent some time discussing whether there should be a separate Scottish Bill and I have very recently raised an important question with the Secretary of State. Surely it would be common courtesy for the Government to ensure that a Scottish Minister replies so that there can be some response to the Scottish part of the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this place and he knows that the issue that he has raised is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Ridley: Judging from what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said on 24 October 1986, he shares the view that there should be competition in the provision of local authority services. He said:
  "We know that some part"—
  Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: Perhaps it would help the House if I read the quote first. I believe that the House should have the privilege of hearing it. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "We know that some part of the Tory electoral success in 1979, repeated in 1983"—
  and now in 1987—
  "had to do with a recognition of popular disenchantment with public services—a disenchantment not necessarily with the principle, but with the practice."
  Now if that is the hon. Gentleman's view—
  Dr. Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: Very well.
  Dr. Cunningham: I think that I am grateful that the Secretary of State has given way grudgingly but I am not grateful that he should misquote and misrepresent what I had to say in the way that he has done. He has quoted me accurately by reading from the speech that I made at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' annual conference at Newcastle upon Tyne in October 1986, but the complexion that he has put on my remarks is wholly dishonest.
  Mr. Ridley: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw. I quoted the hon. Gentleman's words that were uttered in a speech and set out in a press handout and I am entirely entitled to do so. I did not interrupt the sentence halfway through or anything of the sort. I hope that he will apologise for what he said to me. If he does not like what he said in the past and if he feels ashamed of it when it is brought to the attention of his Left-wing colleagues who sit behind him, he should be more careful and not say such things.
  We issued a consultation paper over two years ago warning local authorities that we might have to force them to expose their activities to competition if they did not choose to do that themselves. A few authorities responded but the vast majority continued to increase the burdens that they were imposing on their ratepayers and, in many instances, provided poor quality services. We therefore decided to introduce legislation to implement the main proposals set out in the consultation paper. Part I will compel local authorities, and other public bodies with a similar role, to open up a range of their activities to competition. The initial list set out in clause 2 covers the services proposed in the consultation paper — refuse collection, building cleaning, street cleansing, catering, ground maintenance and vehicle maintenance. We shall be issuing a further consultation paper shortly on the possibility of adding sport and leisure management to that list.
  Clause 2 also provides a power to add further activities to the list. This power is necessary so that we may add further services later once authorities have coped with the initial list. We shall certainly not use the power to add core services such as teaching, policing, planning control and the like. Use of the power will be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ridley: No, I shall not give way now.
  The way that the public sector unions and many Labour local authorities have reacted to the threat of competition is highly significant. In their endless teach-ins, seminars, training courses and the like the emphasis again and again has been on the need for direct labour organisations to improve their own efficiency. Despite the ritual attacks on the private sector, it is clear from the literature produced by DLO pressure groups that their real fear is simply of competition itself and not necessarily of unfair competition.
  The fear of those pressure groups is local residents' hope—hope for the savings the competition can and will deliver. Wandsworth's total saving over five years from competition tendering amounts to about £25 million. This represents 26 per cent. of the cost of the services and includes the cost of the generous staff severance scheme. Now that most severances are over, the annual saving is running at almost £6 million a year. Another example of
  82
  such savings is the savings from the National Health Service tendering exercise, which are now running at over £90 million a year. From contracting out there comes £26 million and the rest comes from in-house efficiency improvements. The activities listed in clause 2 cost something approaching £3 billion a year. Competitive savings are typically between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. If we hit a modest target of 10 per cent. savings, it would save about £300 million a year. That is worth saving.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will discuss the matters that he has outlined in respect of DLOs and competitive tendering with local government authorities in Wales? There is great difficulty in applying such developments in rural areas where, whatever the circumstances may be in urban areas, they are particularly unsuited.
  Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of-State for Wales will respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. As he knows, I am not responsible for implementing the Bill in Wales, and neither am I responsible for so doing in Scotland. This is a United Kingdom Bill, but my right hon. Friend's attention will be drawn to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  The Bill requires compulsory competitive tendering, not compulsory contracting out or compulsory privatisation. Those who fear contracting out frequently say that it will lead to poorer services. This is utter nonsense. The Bill requires local authorities to specify the standard of service that they require, whether that service is provided in-house or by contractors. For some authorities even that process will be a new departure. Up till now few have attempted the essential management task of saying precisely what outputs they are aiming for.
  "Instead of concentrating almost exclusively on arguing about who should be producing health and social services or education, we should be asking how best to make sure that the appropriate kind of service, whether public or private is being produced, to the right specifications of quality, at the right price and in the right place for the right people."
  That was a quotation from an article about the future of the welfare state published two weeks ago in New Society, and I entirely agree with it.
  Dr. Cunningham: If the Secretary of State is so convinced of the effectiveness of contracting out services, and the ability to rely on the quality of service thus provided, why has the maintenance of police vehicles been specifically excluded from the provisions?
  Mr. Ridley: Because, as the hon. Gentleman would realise if he thought about it for a moment, there are considerable security implications. Incidentally, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get a new buttonhole. His red rose is becoming a bit tarnished. Perhaps he would also pay me the courtesy of intervening a little less frequently. I know that I am keeping many of his hon. Friends, particularly those from Scotland, who may wish to contribute from doing so.
  As anyone who has contracted out services knows, it is easy to develop sophisticated systems to ensure that the specification is delivered. Occasionally, contracts go wrong. The trade unions ensure, of course, that these receive the maximum publicity. But in the vast majority of cases these problems are quickly sorted out, and, where they cannot be, the contract can be terminated and a new contractor appointed. Compare that with the problem of improving an inefficient direct labour organisation.

  83
  I turn to some more detailed aspects of part I of the Bill. Competition for cases where DLOs carry out work for their own authority will be phased in by regulations under clause 6, at a pace with which local authorities and contractors can cope. The phasing-in period is likely to take no more than three years. Clauses 7 to 12 require authorities to publish full specifications. They will then have to invite tenders, and their DLOs can prepare formal bids, too. Tenders received will have to be compared fairly with the DLO bid. If, following that, the work is awarded to the DLO, clause 9 requires authorities to keep separate accounts for the work to ensure that the DLO delivers its price. Clause 10 allows me to set financial targets for work subject to competition. In most cases, targets will be set in the form of rates of return on capital. Clause 11 requires authorities to publish annual reports on each of their activities.
  In order to enforce compliance, the sanction against authorities which insist on sheltering their DLOs from fair competition is to order the closure of the DLO. In the six years of the original DLO legislation, two closure orders have in fact been made. Authorities will not find themselves automatically subject to those sanctions if they fail to accept lowest tenders, despite much scaremongering to the contrary. Proper tender appraisal is not a simple matter of whose bid is lowest. Authorities will have a full chance to explain their decisions. If they can justify rejection of a lower tender in favour of their DLO, they will not face any sanction. The sanction will be available for both anti-competitive behaviour and financial failure.
  Part II of the Bill deals with local and other public authority contracts. Political discrimination in the award of contracts is an offensive and growing practice; increasing numbers of councils subjugate the interests of their ratepayers and business men to futile political gesturing. All that is required of local authorities is to provide good local services at minimum cost to their ratepayers. People want good street lighting, regular and clean refuse collection, level pavements to walk on, roads without potholes, high standards of schooling and a well-maintained housing stock. They do not want the councils' political views and posturing on national policy issues to be a surcharge on the rates, through the imposition of conditions in contracts for the provision of services.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: I am much obliged to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he give a categorical assurance that nothing in part II of the Bill will in any way limit or otherwise affect the powers and duties of local authorities under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote good race relations in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Ridley: The clause to which the hon. Gentleman refers in fact concerns two sections in the Race Relations Act. The point can be debated at length in Committee, but the Bill is perfectly explicit about what he means.
  What is it to do with Leicester city council, Peterborough city council or the London borough of Greenwich whether contractors have any links with the nuclear missile programme? What is it to do with the London borough of Newham whether any of the directors are freemasons? What is it to do with St. Helens council whether contractors on its tender list contribute to funds
  84
  for a hospital in North Vietnam? What is it to do with the London borough of Brent whether companies are involved in the construction of United States bases?
  Those and other authorities of that ilk discriminate against contractors on such grounds in placing firms on approved lists and awarding contracts. Actions of that kind bring local government as a whole into disrepute. Although as yet only a minority of councils go in for such political posturing, the disease is spreading. Already, more than 40 local authorities impose contract conditions relating to links with South Africa. Too many councillors seem to find it more fun to play at national politics at their ratepayers' expense than to deal with the real local challenges and problems.
  Many of the practices that I have mentioned could probably already be challenged under the existing law. Local authorities have to act reasonably, and cannot take account of irrelevant considerations in reaching their decisions. While the provisions in part II of the Bill will strengthen the law by making it absolutely clear that such practices are illegal, this type of blackmail will be stopped only if it is challenged. Firms must use the new provisions to stand up to authorities which continue to abuse the contractual process. Otherwise, they will eventually find themselves being told how much to pay their staff, how many gays and lesbians to employ, and for which employers and which countries they can work.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the fallacy in his criticism of local government in relation to contract compliance is the same as the fallacy in his criticism in relation to tendering? Does he not accept that local authorities comprise people who are perfectly able, whatever their party, to debate the issues and to make an appropriate local decision, and that, occasionally, moral considerations might be as relevant to local government—or more so—than they are to central Government? Local councillors, including Conservatives, are elected to make decisions. Does not the Secretary of State respect local government's right to make decisions any more?
  Mr. Ridley: I do not think that it would be right to impart such political considerations to the provision of services for which the ratepayers are asked to pay the excess costs. As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, the ratepayers do not elect the councils; in his and many other areas, a very small minority of the electorate pays full rates.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: A particularly pernicious habit has been developed by many extreme Left-wing local authorities over the past few years. Many Conservative Members received a great many complaints about it during the election campaign, and we are delighted that my right hon. Friend is bringing the Bill forward. Will he tell the House how it will work? Suppose that someone who has been contracting and working with United States bases comes up with a tender that is better and cheaper than any other, and the council turns it down? How will they be able to take action, and will my right hon. Friend reassure us that such action will be successful?
  Mr. Ridley: It would be a breach of the civil law. The contractor, an association of contractors or anyone else—for instance, a ratepayer—will be able to bring a case against the local authority on the basis of the provisions

  85
  of the Bill, if they become law. If the case were as blatant as my hon. Friend suggests, there is no doubt that the aggrieved person would have a case which would prevail.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I do not intend to give way to him again.
  When I announced in October last year that the Government would bring forward this legislation, I hoped that it would be possible to include a special provision to allow authorities to use the contractual process to promote the employment prospects of inner-city residents.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ridley: Hon. Members will note—
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is clear to the whole House that the Secretary of State does not intend to give way, so hon. Members must not persist.
  Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the Secretary of State opening the debate and the Minister for Local Government closing it, it is clear that the only way in which Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to make any point at all or obtain any information about Scotland is by questioning the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am hoping that the House will hear some Scottish Members of Parliament, but if there are constant points of order their chances are that much less.
  Mr. Ridley: Hon. Members will note that part II of the Bill does not contain such a provision relating to inner-city residents. That is because it has subsequently become clear that European Community rules designed to ensure equal conditions of competition for public works and supply contracts, rules which the Government fully support, do not permit the introduction of that type of measure into the contractual process. The absence of this provision from the Bill should not be interpreted in any way as weakening this Government's resolve to ensure that inner-city residents share fully in the benefits flowing from new investment and new initiatives in the inner-cities.
  Our research has shown that employment growth in inner-city firms assisted through the urban programme has been well targeted on inner-city residents. The jobs did not require especially high skills. The majority needed only on-the-job training. On average, 84 per cent. of new employees lived locally, and the proportion from ethnic minorities was equal to or greater than the proportion of such residents in the district.
  But certain jobs—in construction, for example—need particular skills. To require that a quota of jobs must be given to local residents, with the rise in costs and the fall in standards which that entails, is clearly impractical as well as unlawful. Proper training is an essential component of many inner-city projects. The Manpower Services Commission is reshaping its efforts in favour of the unskilled and unemployed in the inner cities. It is working with my Department, for example, to provide community programme places for the long-term unemployed in refurbishment schemes on rundown estates.
  Within the inner-cities initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Government's task forces are working to encourage firms to recruit more inner-city residents, to ensure that training is well matched to employers' needs and to
  86
  develop the capacity of small local firms to win contracts. Our aim is to raise skill levels so that local people are better equipped to compete for jobs and employers find that it makes sound sense to hire them. We have made very encouraging progress in a number of schemes sponsored by our task forces. These examples demonstrate our commitment. I and my colleagues charged with the responsibility for regenerating our inner-city areas will continue to make sure that our programmes are designed to encourage firms to recruit local labour, and to ensure that that labour is better trained and motivated to grasp the opportunities thus created.
  I must emphasise to hon. Members that the provisions in part II of the Bill are designed to ban abuses of the contractual process. They will not stop public authorities from taking reasonable action—for example, over health and safety, or under the race relations legislation. In the latter case, there is special provision in the Bill to allow authorities to ask reasonable questions, and take account of the answers, in pursuance of their specific duty to carry out their functions with regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. It is the unreasonable use of their contractual muscle by certain authorities that these provisions are intended to stamp out.
  I shall mention very briefly the other measures that he Bill contains. Part III of the Bill and clause 28 bring back the measures on local authority assistance for private rented housing and on land registers which were contained in last Session's Bill but lost when the election was called. Clause 26 honours the commitment we made during the passage of the Local Government Act to reverse the effects of amendments made in another place to the publicity provisions. Clause 27 provides for various changes to the powers of the local ombudsmen, most of which result from representations made by the ombudsmen themselves.
  Clause 30 regularises the basis on which the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment can enter into training agreements with the Inner London education authority and the joint boards created when the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties were abolished. Clause 31 is a purely Scottish provision, which extends the Scottish Accounts Commission's remit to enable it, like the Audit Commission in England and Wales, to carry out value for money studies of local authorities.
  Dr. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall give way, but it will be for the last time.
  Dr. Godman: On the Scottish elements of this English Bill, what representations did the right hon. Gentleman's Department receive from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? Will he list those in Scotland who are in favour of the Bill?
  Mr. Ridley: This provision will be welcomed in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom?"] It was included at the special request of a large number of Scottish interests.
  Clause 32 abolishes the dog licensing system—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No. I said that I would not give way again.
  Clause 32 abolishes the dog licensing system, an anachronism which at present costs about four times as

  87
  much to operate as it collects in fees. As I announced last year, following consultations, we concluded that abolition is the right course to follow.
  My announcement last February that we had to postpone legislation on competition, contracts and publicity caused some dismay among my hon. Friends. I promised then that it would be brought forward at the first opportunity. I am pleased to be able to deliver my promise after a delay of only four months. This Bill will bring major benefits to ratepayers and local residents alike, and I commend it to the House.
  7.56 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Bill's unpleasant nature was, unfortunately, thoroughly matched by the nastiness of much of the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  It is significant that the first Bill to be produced for a Second Reading debate by the Government demonstrates the enduring determination of Ministers, and especially of this Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, to go on diminishing the role of democratically elected local government. The Bill continues the sustained attack on local government of the past eight years. It is the 44th piece of local government legislation to have been proposed since 1979. There is no parallel for that in Britain in any other policy area, nor is there any parallel for it in any other democratic country.
  What the Bill contains does not seem to be so important as that there should be a local government Bill. It is said that the Department of the Environment office where Bills are drafted has been nicknamed The Windmill because, rather like that entertainment establishment, the officers are drafting so much legislation that they never have a chance to close the office. The Prime Minister continues to keep these local government issues in front of the electors bcause it is convenient for her and for the Secretary of State for the Environment to have a political whipping post. They need to blame all the ills and failures of central Government policy on democratically elected local councils.
  As the Secretary of State ploughs on through the rhetoric, the dogma and the new powers, I wonder whether he ever stops to think about their impact? The claim is that, after eight years of Thatcherism, 43 Acts of Parliament, numerous see-saw changes in local government finance, a massive loss of freedom and unprecedented ministerial powers and interference, local government is inefficient. Given the burdens that have been placed upon it in the past eight years, it is hardly surprising if some aspects of local government are less efficient than they otherwise might be.
  In any event, efficiency is not the Secretary of State for the Environment's real objective. That was made obvious during the recent general election campaign in connection with the proposed sell-off of the nation's water assets. When the right hon. Gentleman on 18 May 1987 wrote to the chairman of the Water Authorities Association, he made this abundantly clear, because he said that the Government were
  "committed to extending share ownership and narrowing the public sector…we have been led to conclude that these aims must have priority."
  In other words, it is the Government's philosophy that has priority, not the efficient management of services, whether
  88
  the water industry or any other public service. That is what the right hon. Gentleman said then. I have no doubt that he stands by it. However, his statement today about efficiency being the Government's overriding objective flies in the face of what he knows to be the most efficient management of the water industry.
  Of course, we should not be surprised. These views are the price of survival in what the writings and interviews of the right hon. Member for Oswestry describe as a "Stalinist regime". Dogma always takes precedence in such organisations, and the Secretary of State is the epitome of it doing so again.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Gentleman refer to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) as that is the proper name of his constituency?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Constituency names have changed and we all have problems with that fact.
  Dr. Cunningham: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), but in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday he said of the Tory party:
  "so that we do not have a sort of Stalinist regime any longer".
  It is important to have that on record, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) because I would not want anyone to think that his right hon. Friend's words had been misquoted.
  Just a few days ago in the debate on the Loyal Address, the Secretary of State said that more controls over local government were necessary to control public expenditure—another of the shibboleths that are always paraded on these occasions. It is as if somehow local government expenditure is rising too rapidly.
  Any comparison between the rise in central Government expenditure and local government expenditure shows where the real problem is. Central Government's expenditure on its own account has risen since 1979 by 127 per cent. In the same period, and on the same basis, local government expenditure has risen by 103 per cent. The rise in central Government expenditure on its own account is therefore at least 25 per cent. higher than that of local government. Which is out of control? Would the Secretary of State like to comment?
  Central to this legislation, as with all such Conservative legislation, is the Government taking more and more powers to themselves. For example, they are taking more powers over the city of Birmingham which has a budget in excess of £500 million, or Leeds, where the budget is more than £300 million, or Manchester, where it is almost £300 million, or Newcastle upon Tyne, where it is about £155 million. Who in this House really has the knowledge, understanding and detailed information to be taking more and more powers and control over businesses of this size?
  We can imagine the reaction if private enterprise was being interferred with in this way. We can imagine the reaction if Governments in other countries were doing so. We can imagine the reaction of the Mayors of Hamburg, Milan, Toronto or Los Angeles to all this centralist nonsense. We can imagine what would have happened had President Mitterrand said something like that when Mr. Chirac was the Mayor of Paris. His response, if repeatable at all, would have been something like "Va t'en!"
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Merde!
  Dr. Cunningham: Indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, even though as a PPS he is supposed to be silent, for directing that comment to his right hon. Friend.
  Ministers are asking the House and their own civil servants to continue second-guessing the decisions of thousands of elected councillors of all the political parties and of thousands of local government administrators who have the information, knowledge and understanding of the problems and sensitivities of delivering effective local services.
  This Bill is also about controlling publicity as well as about enforced competitive tendering and undermining good employment. I suggest that it should more aptly be called the Shutting up of Opposition, Undermining of Good Employment and Enforcement of Unfair Competition Bill, because that is how we judge its principal provisions.
  Part IV attempts further to gag local government before much of the national debate on major aspects of the Government's legislative programme has even really begun. Who has argued that the 1986 legislation on these aspects of publicity and local government is not working? Where is the evidence to support that contention? What is to become of the right hon. Gentleman's own draft code of practice on these matters, which is currently undergoing discussion and debate? The latest draft of that code of practice states:
  "The principles set out below recognise the political nature of local government. They have taken account of the fact that some local authority publicity will deal with issues that are controversial because of particular local circumstances, or because of a difference of view between political parties locally or nationally. The principles do not prohibit the publication of information on politically sensitive or controversial issues, nor stifle public debate."
  That is in the right hon. Gentleman's own draft code of practice. What will happen to that draft code? Is it to be agreed or abandoned'? Will he continue discussing it on that basis with the local authorities? Will he say what he intends to do? Of course he will not, because he is already preparing to rat on that promise, just as he has ratted on so many other promises to local government over the years.
  Local government, to be genuinely local, needs freedom to voice the concerns of the community it is elected to serve and, where necessary, to voice its criticisms of central Government policies that adversely affect its area, its communities and its population. That is what local government should have the right to do in any plural democratic society. The Labour Opposition stand by that right, but apparently Conservative Members no longer do so. The legislation contains a contemptible set of proposals and we denounce them.
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up the right to express political opinion, which of course remains for councillors on all occasions, and the denial of the use of ratepayers' money for overt political purposes, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government have already legislated on the overt use of local authority money for party political purposes. For my part, I support his view on that absolutely and unequivocally. But he now knows that this Bill contains clauses that go much further. That is what we object to, and that is what we shall go on objecting to.
  90
  Clause 26 is aimed at restoring the two clauses of the Local Government Act 1986 that were removed by the House of Lords. Those clauses dealt with the definition of party political publicity and the legal status of the recommended code of practice on local authority publicity by which local authorities are supposed to abide. That is the point now at issue and that is the point that the Secretary of State singularly failed to respond to in his intervention and about which we object most strenuously.
  In connection with the powers set out in clause 26(2) on page 26, I ask him who will censor the performance of local authorities in the matter. Who will be the judge? How will those powers be enforced? Will local authorities and individual councillors have the right of reply to some of the torrent of personal abuse and vilification heaped on them dishonestly by the Tory Government's friends in the mass media? Will they have the right to reply to some of the garbage we see in The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express so regularly in support of the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party? It does not seem so.
  The Secretary of State has called again today on local authorities to go for greater efficiency. In the past he has called for them to abandon national wage agreements—the practice established more than 50 years ago —although he is very reticent to say much about it in public. The Secretary of State for Education introduced a Bill not just to abolish the Burnham procedures but to eliminate the ability of local education authorities to negotiate at all with teachers about pay and conditions. The fair wages legislation has been abolished. This centralist authoritarian tendency of the Government continues to erode people's democratic freedoms and rights and to undermine good employment practices. That, too, is one of the aims that are at the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to the House today. The Labour party will strenuously oppose such proposals.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon Gentleman is obsessed about centralism and the fact that central Government is taking over powers from local government. Could he tell the House, by number, which clauses are transferring power from local government to central Government rather than from local government to the people who work and operate with the local area?
  Dr. Cunningham: I say to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that, even with his renowned lack of ability and understanding, he is quite capable of working that out for himself.
  Labour Governments created the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Hon. Members: Name him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very unseemly behaviour, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) knows it. Dr. Cunningham.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North has been here for a good many years. I expect him to help the Chair by setting a good example to new hon. Members of the House. Dr. Cunningham.
  Dr. Cunningham: Labour Governments created the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that it is time to take the next logical step and legislate for contract compliance. Such legislation should be central to any Government's policies to reduce unemployment, to regenerate the inner cities, to attack the scandalous housing crisis we face, to promote racial equality, to strengthen the impact of equal opportunities legislation, to improve employment prospects for people with disabilities, to improve Britain's abysmal lack of effective training, to achieve better conditions of employment, to produce better value for money in public spending and to improve health and safety, especially in building and construction.
  Those are 10 powerful and positive arguments for contract compliance, and there are others. Apparently Tories, some people in the CBI and the private sector generally, present the issue as damaging to British business, as some awful Left-wing radical idea which can only harm our economy. It is a typical Conservative, even reactionary, response to the challenge of necessary, indeed long overdue, change. But Ministers ought to know, as we know, that in the United States of America—the home of the market economy and free enterprise—80 per cent. of all jobs in manufacturing and 83 per cent. of all jobs in transportation, public utilities and communications are now governed by contract compliance legislation. It is because of that legislation and because of the force of law that progress has been made in ending the inequalities between people in black and ethnic communities and women and white males in a whole range of employment issues across the nation.
  The United States Congress and successive Presidents have long recognised the fundamental, social and economic force of such proposals, and Britain must do so too. There is nothing new in the principle of contractual conditions in Britain. They have existed for a long time in many forms. Craft guilds and professional bodies apply them to individuals. For several centuries Governments have applied conditions to contracts specifying broad matters of policy not directly related to the cost of goods or services.
  More recently, observance of the Race Relations Act 1976 has been a required contractual condition, although no one ever seems, so far as I can tell, to have lost a contract because of that required compliance. However, I suspect that is because' of lack of monitoring of the compliance, not because of the conduct of employment practices. We could even say that the fiasco that went on over weeks in Australia about Mr. Wright was a form of contract compliance. At least that is what the Government were trying to enforce in his case.
  Local government is the target of much abuse, but contract compliance is a positive and innovative development in the best traditions of British local government, again in the forefront of social and economic progress and, I remind Government Members, of companies such as Marks and Spencer. That is the reality staring hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the face. They will not face up to the facts at home or abroad.
  Within the public sector, it is commonplace to find routine systems for checking the bona fides of companies that want to sell things. In the past those systems have generally concerned themselves only with a firm's financial good standing or technical competence to perform a
  92
  particular contract, although if one's firm got involved with defence contracts, the security services might make extremely searching inquiries into the more personal aspects of the lives of the firm's senior executives and of the lives of other employees in the company. The same is true in the civil nuclear power industry. The Government are no different from any other Government in that it might also intervene to specify in some detail the precise quality control systems that firms must follow in respect of defence contracts as well as a variety of other matters that could affect the final quality of the end product.
  We say in support of contract compliance simply that questions of equal opportunities for women, for ethnic minorities and for people with disabilities, issues affecting health and safety, the elimination of lump labour and various other matters connected with the construction industry, better training, trade union rights and low pay, rank at least equal in importance to a firm's financial good standing or its technical competence or its acceptability to the security services. It is madness for a national Government to claim, as the Government do, that they are upholding the law when it effectively subverts the law by providing substantial financial resources to companies and organisations that they know perfectly well are breaking those laws.
  It is hypocritical for the Government to say that they are taking major new initiatives for the inner cities and then setting aside any attempt to legislate effective contract compliance. It is no longer acceptable for the Government to fund the Health and Safety Executive, the Campaign for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and a range of inner-city and other initiatives aimed at eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity while channelling vastly greater sums of money to companies and organisations that are perpetuating and possibly exacerbating the very problems that those other programmes are supposed to be tackling.
  I have a few questions for the Minister who is to reply. On 29 October last year the Home Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
  "we are not contemplating legislation which would prevent a local authority from taking action in accordance with this duty so as to encourage the provision of equal opportunity for ethnic minorities in employment."
  The "duty" referred to was that contained in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. More recently the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an interview in a programme called "Witness: On the Margin" on Thames Television on 1 July said:
  "Mr. Ridley and I are totally committed to the policy of using local labour and getting development to generate more local employment."
  However, the Minister for Local Government spoke at a press briefing which was reported in The Independent on 27 June 1987. It said:
  "Outlining the conditions on contract compliance and private tendering yesterday, Mr. Howard promised that no legislation to enforce local quotas of workers would be introduced."
  Which is right? Who is in charge of the policy and the initiatives?
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): They are both right.
  Dr. Cunningham: Who is telling the truth? I invite the Minister to answer, because they cannot both be right. The Minister is saying that no such legislation will be enacted

  93
  but other members of the Cabinet are saying something very different. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be candid with the House and tell us exactly what the Government's intentions are. I will willingly give way to him.
  Mr. Howard: Both are correct. There will be no legislation to enforce quotas in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but that does not mean that steps cannot be taken to encourage the use of local labour. If the hon. Gentleman had done my right hon. and learned Friend the courtesy of listening to his speech he would have known that on the urban programme 84 per cent. of those employed were local to the inner city.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Minister, in the same way as some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, wants to will the end but he will not provide the means. All the lessons—[Interruption.] Without legislation, the objectives cannot possibly be achieved. Legislation is a prerequisite and anybody who has looked at the propositions knows that that is the case.
  No one would defend inefficiency, poor services or the waste of precious public resources. However, enforced privatisation and enforced competitive tendering do not deal with that. That causes unemployment. It exploits low-paid people, often from ethnic communities. It exploits women, lowers standards and generates public squalor, as we have seen not only in some local authority areas but in the Health Service. Low-paid workers know what happens to them and their standard of living when there is competitive tendering. They are in no doubt about the value of Labour's power at local level. It is Labour control of the local authority employers' side that has ensured that people on low wages have had some fairness of treatment that the Government seek to deny them.
  Why do the Government not publish the responses to their Green Paper on competitive tendering? Why cannot the evidence be put before the House? It is interesting to reflect that all local authority associations, regardless of political control, remain totally opposed to it. Where is the evidence for the savings that the Government claim? What is the basis of comparison? There is no valid comparison of costs and efficiency between, for example, the private sector in the building and construction industry and local authority direct labour organisations. What is the rate of return required in the private sector? I would be grateful to know if the Minister can tell us that in his reply. The profits quoted by the private sector are based on turnover rather than on capital employed, which is the basis he is enforcing on local government.
  In spite of what the Secretary of State had to say, the Government are interested in cheapness for its own sake. The effects of tendering were considered by the Select Committee on Social Services in its report of 1985. That report questioned the value of tendering even in the Government's own terms. It said:
  "This whole exercise, which has now been under way for around four years, has involved a considerable amount of management time and effort; has caused disruption and discontent, not exclusively among NHS staff directly employed in these services; and to date has not brought home the bacon."
  Invariably it is the case that cost cutting is done at the expense of wages and conditions. It is not done by cutting out waste or by being more efficient.
  On the matter of competition, the market is dominated by two major multinational holding companies, BET and
  94
  the Hawley group. In many respects there is no competition at all. That is the reality. In the most recent edition of the Local Government Chronicle it said:
  "More than two thirds of the number of councils reporting privatisation said they had done the opposite and brought services previously contracted out back in house. Of these 27, there were 13 Labour controlled, seven Conservative and two Alliance."
  Local authorities themselves are coming to recognise the fallacy that is at the heart of what the Government have to say on these matters. The road to greater and necessary efficiency in local government is by strengthening democratically elected local authorities, not by undermining them, by giving local communities more rights and information and not denying it to them, by improving quality tests, and by requiring councils to publish a report on the performance of their statutory duties. The reality in this Bill, as in almost every other piece of local government legislation introduced by the Government, is that more ministerial control is the Government's principal concern. There is more nit-picking bureaucracy, which is inefficient in the extreme. We have nothing but contempt for this legislation and the manner of its introduction and we shall certainly oppose it at every stage.
  8.29 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: So far there has been the barest mention of one aspect of the Bill that I want to discuss in more detail. I refer to clause 32, which aims to abolish the dog licence.
  I believe that that decision is wrong, and I deeply regret the decision of the Government to go ahead with it, despite all the efforts that have been made by a vast number of organisations to persuade them that they should not do so. I accept that the present amount of 374½p is ludicrous. We are all aware that that sum does not even cover the cost of collection and therefore the amount available to local authorities is minute. However, I believe that the Government have drawn the wrong conclusion by believing that the dog licence should be phased out altogether.
  In this country we face many problems with dogs. The problems have been with us for many years, and I believe that the situation is likely to get worse rather than better. Animal welfare organisations spend a great deal of time seeking to deal with strays, as, of course, do the police. Thousands of dogs are destroyed each year, and before that unfortunate event occurs many attempts are made to find a new home for the dogs. In some cases those attempts are successful, but in many cases it proves impossible. In addition, uncontrolled dogs cause endless trouble. I am sure that most Members have received complaints from constituents about dog fouling. It can be an extremely serious matter for many people, but is just one aspect of the problem. Another extremely serious problem is that of animals, especially dogs, causing road accidents. Goodness knows how many people are injured, or even killed, in accidents in which a dog is in part responsible.
  There is also the problem of livestock worrying. The National Farmers Union calculated that, last year, no fewer than 10,000 animals, probably mostly sheep, were either killed or maimed. Such attacks cause untold suffering to the animals, quite apart from the appalling financial effects for the farmers.

  95
  All in all, it is a great mistake that the Government have not used the opportunity to put the dog licence fee up to a realistic level so that it could be used to fund schemes for dog wardens and generally to improve the control of dogs.
  I have a particular love for dogs and it saddens me when I go round, as I often do, to animal homes and see countless animals being brought in off the streets, unwanted, unloved and probably with an extremely short life in front of them. Furthermore, we know that there is the possibility of rabies coming across the Channel at some stage. I am well aware that drastic emergency measures exist, but how much better it would be if we had dogs under control. That would lessen the need for emergency measures. Such measures would probably include the wholesale slaughter of animals and widespread panic if rabies entered the country, as it seems likely to do at some stage.
  We are also aware that many animals are bred by irresponsible people and by dog breeders, if one can call them that. If one used the licence on a differential basis so that dogs that had been neutered or spayed would be liable to a much lower licence fee, that would go a long way to reducing the number of dogs that are bred, but unwanted. If we do away with the licence, there is no way in which that could happen.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that during the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on the Environment studied the question of dog licences. We recommended to the Government —they have not responded, but perhaps the general election intervened — that, although the national licence should be abolished, powers should be given to local authorities to levy their own licences and fund such services as the hon. Lady has described. The hon. Lady is quite right when she says that there is a terrible problem. In my constituency people come to me and say that when they go out of their garden gate it is quite often like entering a safari park.
  Miss Fookes: I am not in the least surprised that no substantive answer has been given to the report of the Environment Committee—election or no election. Over the past 12 years I have been seeking to obtain proper answers from Governments of both complexions. Both have failed dismally to give any answer until now, and in my view the Government have given the wrong answer, so we are no better off than we were before.
  I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to think again about this matter. If they are unwilling to have the cost of dog licences borne nationally, perhaps there is a case, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), for licences to be issued on a local basis. Personally, I would much prefer a uniform national system, which at least has the merit of familiarity.
  I believe that many people would agree to an increased licence in return for the various benefits that could he adduced. There is no reason why there should not he exemptions for working animals or block licences for those who go in for breeding in a big way, or even for packs of hounds, much though I dislike packs of hounds when used for their primary purpose.
  I believe that the Government's policy is short-sighted and that we shall pay dearly for it because of an increase in the number of dogs that are out of control. It is ironic
  96
  that the Conservative Government introduced a scheme in Northern Ireland very much along the lines that I have suggested. After a few years of operation, that scheme appears to be working extremely well. Sheep worrying was a great problem in Northern Ireland, but it has been considerably reduced. I had hoped that such a scheme in Northern Ireland would act as a forerunner for a more general scheme for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  With all the power at my command I urge the Ministers to look again at the laws relating to the control of dogs. It cannot be right that we have about 24 different Acts that seek to control dogs, yet we are doing nothing about dog licences. Unless I have some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister when he winds up the debate tonight, I shall reluctantly be compelled to cast my vote against the Bill on that one issue alone.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I am pleased to be here representing the constituency of Tottenham and I am also pleased to follow my predecessor, Norman Atkinson, as Member of Parliament. Norman served the constituency well for more than 20 years and I shall be pleased if I am able to equal his fine record of service to Tottenham's citizens. I wish to add my voice to the thousands of constituents in thanking Norman for his work on behalf of the people of Tottenham. We wish him well in the future.
  For myself, as for Norman, local government and the needs of inner cities are of prime importance when representing a constituency such as Tottenham. Tottenham has almost 20 per cent. unemployment and almost half our citizens are from the black and minority ethnic communities. Such are the major characteristics of life in Britain today. Therefore, I was pleased to see that this Government, somewhat belatedly, had come to recognise the need for the inner cities and for their regeneration. What a wonderful opportunity this first Local Government Bill of the new Parliament would have been to address those problems. However, once again, they have got it wrong, I believe deliberately.
  The Bill before us, in common with the 14 previous Bills on local government introduced since 1979, provides the wrong answers to the wrong questions about local government, its priorities and needs. The solutions the Bill provides are privatisation of local government services, an end to contract compliance and a reduced role for local government publicity. That is a recipe for more local government domination by lawyers and the courts and less by those professional officers who provide the necessary services for our people. Last week, The Guardian showed that even among Tory local authorities privatisation was unpopular. It reported that, these days, more councils are cancelling contracts to outside firms rather than extending them.
  Ask the residents of London's east end what the Government's solution to inner-city needs means to them. It means the yuppification of docklands, putting two-bedroomed flats at £250,000, beyond the wildest dreams of local people. Yet living cheek by jowl with that is the unrestrained Thatcherite land of Spitalfields, with sweatshops, atrocious housing and dire poverty, so graphically brought to life last week by Prince Charles' visit. Nestling beside both is Rupert Murdoch's Wapping, the subject of our previous debate, and that other face of Thatcherism— Murdoch's press—which simultaneously

  97
  welcomes yuppies and condemns Prince Charles for drawing attention to the poverty. No wonder the Government back Murdoch's bid to take over the British press without restriction or inquiry.
  To this Government, the solution to local government and inner-city problems is to increase freedom, but their definition of freedom is freedom of choice for those who have the money to opt out, and the freedom of the private sector employers to exploit low-paid workers. That is not the answer. We with experience in inner-city local government see no merit whatsoever in worsening services and driving down the wages and working conditions of ordinary people so that they become a new servant class to an influx of yuppies. Public services in our inner cities need to be improved under democratic control, not impoverished and handed over to outside profiteers and carpet-baggers, as the Bill proposes.
  The improvement that is necessary costs money, and the Government must find it. We in the Labour party do not want the freedom that the Government propose for local authorities and inner cities because it is a licence for the few to exploit and impoverish. We are interested in real freedom for everybody, a type of freedom that liberates people from the yoke of poverty and the chains of racism that infect our inner cities. The fight against institutionalised and personal racism in this country must be at the top of the agenda for anyone who seeks to address inner-city problems.
  However, in the Bill the issue of racism is an afterthought. The fact that the Bill allows section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to be included in contract compliance proposals is a feeble gesture in the fight against racism because the Race Relations Act itself is feeble and in need of major reform.
  Furthermore, in the same Bill, the Government propose to withdraw the power of local authorities to refuse to give contracts to firms that have trading links with South Africa. That gives the lie to any pretence by the Government that they are concerned about eliminating racism. It is further evidence of the Government's intention to prop up the racist regime in South Africa.
  Let us return to the United Kingdom, where black unemployment runs at two or three times the rate of white unemployment in inner-city areas such as Tottenham. Such discrimination cannot be allowed to continue. It should be the role of Government to stop it by taking strong and positive action to combat racism in employment and other areas. The proposals in the Bill are inadequate, and we shall oppose them vigorously in the later stages of its passage.
  It is clear that the Bill represents a continuation of the neglect that the Government have shown towards the disadvantaged, which has resulted in urban violence. That is a tragedy, because unless the political system can offer some prospects, particularly to our young people and our young black people, they will find other means of expressing their frustration. As an alternative approach, let me refer to one estate in my constituency, Broadwater Farm. It is an example of what local government can do in an inner-city estate.
  What has Haringey council done? We have embarked on skill surveys and on the economic regeneration of the estate through our economic development unit. We have provided jobs in an estate where there is 40 per cent. unemployment and where up to 80 per cent. of the black youth are unemployed. We have gone out of our way to
  98
  recruit local people to work on projects and in running essential council services. We have done that by inserting a clause into contracts for work on the estate, which states that local people must be employed wherever possible.
  The architecture on the estate has major drawbacks, so we have employed architects to work with the community, taking on board the people's aspirations for how the estate should be developed. We have improved the provision of public and community facilities by encouraging the participation of all concerned, including the police, in an open forum rather than imposing the ideas of so-called experts on that community.
  What has been the outcome? There have been no more disturbances. The community spirit is high and people are confident. There is no graffiti on the estate. The local police chiefs publicly praise the co-operation that they get from the local community in improving relations.
  Despite the chronic levels of economic deprivation, crime levels on the estate are at an all-time low and the police tell us that they are the lowest in Tottenham. Even the Department of the Environment uses the estate as a model of what community development can mean in practice, by bringing in visitors to the estate from home and abroad on a weekly basis. That approach is light years away from the cheapskate. mean-minded and corner-cutting solutions that the Bill offers the inner cities. That approach meets the needs of the inhabitants, not the needs of the fly-by-night profiteers.
  In contrast to the measures proposed in the Bill, our approach in Haringey involves the community in controlling developments in the area and having the power of veto over those developments. By working with the community, we have been able to develop together in partnership and in confidence. The alternative suggested in the Bill and in the Government's other proposal for the inner cities is to take power away from the people, to put it in the hands of faceless Whitehall bureaucrats and Tory politicians who have to pick up a map to find where inner-city areas are.
  I believe that we are sitting on a powder keg in the inner cities. The Bill and future Government legislation could be the spark that ignites it. I do not want to come back to the House in a year's time and say, "I told you so." If that happens—I am trying to ensure that it does not—it will be the responsibility of this Government.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I compliment the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on his confident speech and knowledge of local government.
  I believe that few, if any, hon. Members have had the pleasure and honour of addressing it and knowing that their constituency has remained unchanged in name and in boundary since the election of our first Member of Parliament in 1293. There was a gap in the sending of Members to the House from 1295 to 1583, when the boroughs decided that they could not afford the cost of a Member of Parliament. In 1584, however, they made up that gap by electing no fewer than six Members to the House. I am delighted to be able to say, as the hon. Member in this Parliament who represents the largest constituency in the country, with just under 100,000 electors, that that is the sort of productivity that we in the Conservative party like to see, although we are usually looking for a much shorter time scale.

  99
  In 1690 one of my predecessors occupied your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in a rather inglorious way. He had the unique distinction of moving a vote of confidence in himself and was absent when the vote was taken—an absence subsequently explained in his letter of resignation as having been brought on by a severe attack of the colic. The reason why he moved a vote of confidence in himself was that he was accused of taking a bribe. I am sure that, in the usual charitable fashion of the House, when the matter of an hon. Member who had fallen from grace came before it, the attack of colic was referred to the Catering Committee.
  A number of distinguished hon. Members have represented the Isle of Wight — Sir Arthur Wellesley, afterwards the Duke of Wellington; Lord Palmerston; the right hon. George Canning; and William Lamb, afterwards Lord Melbourne. No fewer than four Prime Ministers started their political careers on the Isle of Wight. I am not for a moment suggesting that that position will be vacant in this House. Unlike some hon. Members, I am certain that it is adequately filled for this Parliament and for many Parliaments to come.
  I noticed that Sir Peter Macdonald, my predecessor but two, mentioned in his maiden speech that he came from a dockyard constituency. I was delighted this morning to visit one of the shipyards of which he spoke and to see the completion of £1 million-worth of orders going to Korea, no less. I noticed that my predecessor but one, Mark Woodnutt, reminded the House in his maiden speech of the reputation for natural beauty that the island possesses, known as it is as the garden isle. I also see that he reminded the House of our county council's motto, which is that all this beauty is of God. I am happy to report to the House that, in a changing and shifting world, 27 years on, the island seems even more beautiful today.
  So to my predecessor, Stephen Ross. He enjoyed that rare compliment in politics, the respect of both sides of the House. He had an undeniable reputation for hard work in the constituency and in the House and, as we never tire of telling people, the Isle of Wight is a slightly different place. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I paid him that tribute in the constituency during the course of the election as well.
  Of course, we have our problems as a constituency. As far as I can discover, we are the only reasonably heavily populated island in the United Kingdom that receives no assistance with our ferry costs or with locating industry and commerce on the island. Despite that, we have an enviable and undoubted reputation for innovation and invention. We have companies selling laser technology to West Germany, and we have Westland Aerospace and Plessey, both of which produce outstanding products. It has been estimated that, including ferry time and waiting time, a round trip for a commercial vehicle to London — 178 miles from the island — is equivalent to a mainland journey of 448 miles. That shows the difficulty of the increased costs of operating on an island.
  Typically, and topically, we have a lot of innovation, and in view of the news of Richard Branson's weekend attempt with a balloon, I am delighted to tell the House that we are currently in the process of completing the manufacture of a gondola for delivery to Australia for a
  100
  high altitude balloon attempt to travel round the world in 12 days. The mould of the gondola comes from a mould for a septic tank.
  In 1956 my family company was asked by the local authority to become involved in the provision of a crematorium service. That was long before the days of privatisation. Since then we have been involved on no fewer than three occasions in winning a tender for the privatisation of that service in local government. With the small exception of indexation, which no commercial company can afford to provide outside of the public purse, in every case the staff that we took over received a pay rise, better pay and conditions and better pension rights than they had had in local government service. It is time that we nailed the nonsense that private enterprise is not responsible enough to empty our dustbins, clean our streets, service our vehicles and cut the grass. It is about time that we had this legislation, and a great deal more, to allow those services to be provided at a cost that the nation can afford.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I wish to congratulate one hon. Member from either side on their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) was right to pay tribute to his predecessor. I know, and he knows that I know, that constituencies such as his need a lot of representing. The inner cities of Britain have not done well in recent years and have done worse in the past eight years. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will fight as hard as any to ensure that all the people of Tottenham get a better deal —if that is possible under this Government—and they will be able to see that he puts them first. I welcome him to the House.
  I am slightly less able to welcome the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for obvious reasons—he took back the seat from Liberal hands. That is no personal criticism. He, too, was right to pay tribute to his predecessor, who was a friend of mine and of local government. If Stephen Ross had been here, he would not have been supporting the Bill. He would have been saying that local government should be left to get on with its own business without Government interference. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will represent that island conscientiously and assiduously, and I have no doubt that he will try to do so.
  As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, the island has the largest electorate of any constituency in the United Kingdom and its representative probably receives more letters from prisoners than that of any other constituency. If one is in prison one certainly writes many letters if one can, because there is not much else one can do. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt make sure that the island is not forgotten and, unlike other outlying parts of the country, receives a better deal from the Government. It has not fared well, either, under his party's hierarchy.
  Mr. Tony Banks: As the hon. Gentleman is obviously in a nostalgic mood, will he tell us what Michael Meadowcroft would have said if he had been here? Has the hon. Member retaken his local government portfolio?
  Mr. Hughes: I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest. Yes, I have retaken the portfolio on

  101
  local government matters and I am happy to have done so. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the more people that we can get into the army opposing the Government in the battle of the inner cities and against local government, the better it will be. I look forward to a sturdy alliance with the hon. Gentleman on this matter, as we have had previously on many such matters.
  My last welcome is to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the new Minister for Local Government. We are glad to see him. He has a reputation as a doughty fighter and I hope that by the time he ends his term of office, he will have successfully fought to correct some of the Department's failings. It certainly needs enlightenment and correction.
  There were rightly many points of order earlier. We should not he legislating for Scotland, England and Wales in one Bill. It is improper, unsuitable and inappropriate. The Bill does not pay due respect to the differences between countries and until we devolve power to local government and to Wales and Scotland, the people of those countries will not be properly governed centrally, nationally or locally.
  As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, it is typical that the first Bill of a new Parliament should be an attack on democracy. The Bill is yet another attack on local government. I have been reflecting on the difference between the Government's biased view of local government and their view of the private sector. They put out a White Paper about the private sector entitled "Lifting the Burden", but they put more obligations on local government and undermine the theory and practice that local people elect councillors to act for them locally, untrammelled, where possible, by central control.
  Some of us believe in local government, even when it makes mistakes and gets things wrong. We shall fight for local government and the sooner that the Government realise that they are undermining people in their own party as well as others and are discouraging people from going into local government by taking away its powers, the sooner they will begin to get things right.
  The evidence is so clear. Not only Opposition parties oppose the Bill. The Association of District Councils, which is led by a Conservative majority, opposes the legislation and there is all-party opposition among people who know to the removal of yet more local government powers.
  If the Government applied their own criterion of quality control—they say that they are intervening to achieve a better quality of service in local government—we would not have had the poor quality of argument and the pathetic quality of presentation that we had from the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. That combination is demeaning to local government. When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned clause 26, which deals with local authority publicity, only in passing, without reference to the fact that it is a major attack on local councils, he did not do his office any service.
  Part I of the Bill contains the long-expected proposals to compel local authorities to put a number of services out to tender. The Secretary of State made it clear that his argument was fallacious when he said that, following the consultative paper of 1985, the majority of councils had not done what the Government are now to compel them to do. The reason is that those councils had chosen not to do that. Many of those are Conservative councils and yet
  102
  the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said. "We don't believe in coercion." This Government are the most coercive ever to wear the Conservative tag.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. The Government coerce people all the time and they have no national mandate to do so.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman referred to me. Will he give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No. I will not give way.
  It is about time that the Government realised that local authorities should be free to decide for themselves how they can provide services most effectively and efficiently. As a Liberal, I reject blinkered, ideological commitment to provision either by the municipalist establishment or by the private sector for profit. Local authorities are democratically accountable, though imperfectly so, and if private sector provisions were substantially more effective and less expensive for local authorities—and, therefore, for local voters—many of the councils that have no ideological opposition to private sector provision would have found that to be the case. Local voters would also be crying out for it. That has not happened. All the local authority associations, including the Tory-controlled Association of District Councils, are clearly opposed to this centralist, authoritarian anti-local government set of provisions. The Association of District Councils says that these measures
  "will mean increased central bureaucracy and a reduced, rather than increased, likelihood of achieving greater efficiency and value for money."
  The Government question the accountability of local authorities and the efficiency and effectiveness of the services that they provide. It is right to ask questions about those things, but the Government respond by imposing from the centre methods of working that increase the accountability of local authorities, not to their local electors and communities, but to the Secretary of State. When the Government say accountability they mean accountability to the Conservative party in Whitehall. That is not acceptable to many local councils.
  The Government know that there is an easy solution, but year after year they run away from it. They could introduce local proportional representation. They need not even think of it nationally, but if they introduced it locally there would be none of the partisan solutions that the Government complain about so much.
  I have a final point about the substantive part of the Bill. Although the Government say that it is not intended to bring about the privatisation of local authority services but only to increase competition, no one has any doubt that the motivation of many Conservative Members is to privatise. That is in the mistaken belief that the services for the profit of private employers are inherently better than the services provided by local authorities directly employing people.
  As the hon. Member for Copeland said, the proposals in the Bill will not bring competition. They will not bring competition between a large number of firms in a fairly free market for contracts. They will provide opportunities for a small number of huge multinationals to extend their activities into further areas, making redundant in the process many highly trained and proficient local council

  103
  employees. There are, substantially, two companies that get all the work and that is not sharing the responsibilities and the rewards.
  Part II of the Bill deals with contract compliance. Not only does it go entirely in the wrong direction, but it also breaks the word of the Secretary of State. In his press release of 21 October he said:
  "A special provision will be made to allow the promotion of employment prospects of local labour in the inner cities."
  If the Government were interested in employment in inner-city communities such as mine, they would allow local people to have first option on inner city jobs and homes. There is no point in the Government putting in money that is then creamed off by outside developers, often against the interests of the people who most need Government initiatives.
  Part IV of the Bill deals, among other things, with publicity. The hon. Member for Copeland understated how bad part IV is, because the Government have not just reinserted what in the last Parliament the House of Lords removed, but have gone further and said that anything that is a matter for political controversy and which might have the effect of influencing a party's political position will be outlawed. Presumably that means that my local authority of Southwark, for example, which is of a different political colour from mine and from that of the Government, cannot print anything to influence me to argue or vote against the Bill. That is entirely unacceptable and does not stand up to any objective assessment. We could do good things in this Bill.
  Dr. Cunningham: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, because, if anything, I understated the provisions in clause 4. Does he recognise, as we do, that not only local authorities also but the national associations of local authorities will be impeded? Over many decades, under Governments of all political persuasions, those associations have had the right to draw to the attention of Parliament and the country matters of political controversy. They would be inhibited in that activity by this legislation.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. The sort of submissions that he and I received before today's debate from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others may well not be permitted. That means that the representative groupings of authorities will be subject to a Government veto and a Government gag. That is centralist, silencing Toryism. It is totally unacceptable and contrary to all that local government means. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has just said to me, it is the sort of Stalinism that drove one member of the Cabinet to the Back Benches.
  We could have had provisions that enforced reports by local administration commissioners. We could have had provisions that allowed public land to be held for local use at a lower than market price. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said, we could have had provisions to allow local authorities to charge for dog licences and that would have enabled them to do something about the pests that dogs often are. But instead, the Government have just steamrollered on in the fashion to which we are all so sadly accustomed.
  104
  If the Government think that they will win votes by provisions such as this, they are wrong, and the evidence confirms that. I hope that if they do not learn the lessons of recent history, the other place will, yet again, take them to task. This central Conservative Government are showing, within two weeks of the new Parliament, that they are no friends of local government, of whatever colour, anywhere in Britain. That is the surest sign of an undemocratic central Government.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who spoke eloquently. He referred, rightly and generously, to the record of service of his predecessor, Mr. Stephen Ross. We shall miss him. In his stead, we will gain. My hon. Friend's modesty forbade his mentioning that he has considerable local government experience. We await with pleasure his contribution to local government debates. He also omitted to mention the he won his Isle of Wight county council seat from a Liberal in 1986. For reasons that one quite understands, he did not say that the Medina borough council in his constituency, heretofore controlled by the Liberal party, is now Conservative-controlled. The general election eclipsed the local elections, but that fact should be placed on record.
  We have heard much about local accountability. The Bill's provisions will enhance and strengthen local accountability, not diminish it. How can Labour Members shed crocodile tears about local accountability when only 25 or 30 per cent. of the electorate vote in local elections, and when the majority of the money provided for local authorities comes from industry and commerce, which has no voice, and no vote or sanction over the way in which the local authority spends its money? Some of the Bill's provisions will enhance the strength of that voice.
  In a glossy publication costing 75p, produced by the Labour party some six or nine months ago and entitled "Investing in People", the first paragraph read thus:
  "Britain's most precious resource is its people. Given the right skills, the right equipment and the right opportunities, they will transform Britain into a country which is efficient and competitive."
  The Bill will help to ensure that local government becomes more efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs and wishes of the local community, the ratepayers, their customers and the local work force.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has left the Chamber, but he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with a reference to section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. I am opposed in principle to the use of contract compliance by local authorities to promote equal opportunity polices. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are, I am sure, fully committed to equal opportunities for employment, irrespective of sex, race, colour and creed. However, contract compliance should not become accepted as the appropriate instrument for the promotion of equality, for two reasons. First, local authorities have a duty to their ratepayers to obtain value for money and should not award contracts on anything other than fair competitive considerations. Purely and simply, they should be awarded on commercial criteria. The enforcement of the law on equal opportunities has been entrusted by the House to the Commission for Racial Equality.
  Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heddle: I shall finish my point and then give way.
  The responsibility for the enforcement of the law on equal opportunities has been devolved by the House to the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is not a matter to be interfered with or usurped by local authorities for purely partisan and party political purposes.
  Mr. McKelvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission has been in operation for about 12 years, yet in that time it has succeeded in increasing equality in women's wages from 72 per cent. to 74 per cent.—only 2 percentage points in 12 years?
  Mr. Heddle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it adds nothing to the quality of the debate. It did not answer my point about which I thought he was intervening — that the House has devolved powers to the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure that the will of the House and the people is carried out.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is what local authorities are doing.
  Mr. Heddle: As I have said, local authorities have a duty to carry out the wishes of the ratepayers and their electors. They do not have a duty to interpret under their own terms the will and power of the House.
  Contract compliance places an unacceptable administrative burden on employers. When it existed, the Greater London council's form for contractors contained 10 pages of questions on equal opportunities. The Inner London education authority, which has taken over the GLC's mantle on contract compliance, is proposing to issue a set of guidance notes nearly 60 pages long, concerned solely with equal opportunities for use in conjunction with its contract compliance activities. How can any responsible and prudent employer bother to wade through a plethora of red tape to comply with irrelevent questions when he has better things to do creating wealth and jobs in the private sector?
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the GLC's contract compliance models were based almost entirely on the American example?
  Mr. Heddle: I am aware of that, but that adds nothing to the quality of the debate. We are talking about United Kingdom legislation devolving certain responsibilities and powers to local authorities to provide services for ratepayers. As a former chairman of the GLC, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows that the relationship between the state, senate and local administration in the United States is completely different from the procedure here.
  Such non-commercial considerations, produced entirely for overtly political reasons, are a bar to jobs and to creating local employment. Many hon. Members will be aware of councils refusing to employ contractors because they have worked on cruise missile sites or in connection with South Africa, or because directors of those companies happened to be freemasons and other wholly irrelevant considerations to do with the composition of a contractor's work force or the terms upon which it is employed. At best, non-commercial considerations increase bureaucracy and red tape and hamper economic growth. They also increase contractor's costs, and especially employment costs. As such, they destroy jobs. That trend is particularly acute in low-paid jobs, or where
  106
  there is a high turnover of labour, because the cost of contract compliance is disproportionately high. At worst, some councils seek to subvert the national policy properly passed by the House.
  When I introduced a ten-minute Bill before the dissolution of Parliament, entitled the Local Government (Supply of Goods and Services) Bill, I cited the examples of Peterborough and Greenwich, which banned firms for working at cruise missiles sites. Other councils have acted similarly in London, and these include Brent, Haringey, Islington and Southwark. The electorate has already pronounced on what it thinks of such posturing and on the non-nuclear policies of those local authorities. It is not local government's place to seek to determine foreign or defence policies. It is elected to provide services for the people. I am glad that the Bill makes that clear. It comes not a moment too soon and will be a source of great relief to ratepayers and business men, who are faced with horrendous rate rises of the sort that have been introduced in Ealing and Waltham Forest. These increases have been imposed by lethal Left Labour-controlled local authorities.
  Many of my constituents work in the construction industry and they have been especially hard hit. I know that they are grateful for the speed with which the Bill has been introduced. I wish it godspeed in this place and in another to be sure that it appears on the statute book before too long.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Alastair Darling: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. Before I address the subject matter of the debate, I wish to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Alex Fletcher, who represented the constituency for four years after the redrawing of the boundaries in 1983. Before that he had represented Edinburgh, North for some years. When I had dealings with him he was entirely courteous and during the election campaign there was no rancour. I am happy to tell the House that the campaign was conducted entirely on the issues, which is perhaps why I have the pleasure of being able to address the House this evening.
  Before I address myself to the Bill I take the opportunity of paying tribute to George Willis, who represented Edinburgh, North and who sadly died during the general election campaign.
  It is appropriate that in my first speech in this place I should talk about a local government Bill that affects Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall allude briefly to the position of Scotland and of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not separatists, who form the majority of Scottish Opposition Members. If we are to be part of the United Kingdom, the position of those of us in Scotland must be considered and recognised. I consider that it is bad practice to attempt to legislate by what are essentially English provisions and to foist those on Scotland without giving them separate consideration, which they so richly deserve, from a Scottish point of view.
  There is a feeling abroad in Scotland that the Government do not care. That feeling will be exacerbated or will be fired if we are to see more legislation that applies to Scotland tacked onto the back of English legislation. The powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are perhaps greater than those of any other Secretary of State

  107
  and that makes the case all the more for giving Scotland and Scottish legislation separate consideration. If the Government are so proud of their record, let us hear those who speak for it. Let them proclaim the advantages that they say have come to Scotland. There is a junior Scottish Minister on the Treasury Front Bench and perhaps we shall have the opportunity during the debate of hearing what he has to say about the Bill.
  This is an unusual local government Bill, because it deals with Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland normally has separate legislation and Scottish legislation usually follows in about a year after the legislation has been introduced for the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the position until the introduction of the community charge legislation, or the legislation that imposes a poll tax on Scotland. In that instance Scotland was treated, for once, as an experiment. The poll tax has been tried out in Scotland as an experiment to see whether it will work and to see what the response is before it is tried in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  In a perverse sort of way it is possible that some good may come from Scotland being used in this way. Conservative Members know how greatly their forces were diminished north of the border and I believe that the poll tax contributed possibly more than anything else to their rejection at the ballot box just one month ago. The much criticised and much talked about yuppies, if there be such creatures, turned out overwhelmingly to support Labour Members.
  In Edinburgh, Central, as in the rest of the country, we have a sense of fairness and decency and of what is right and what is wrong. We believe that if a local authority is elected it should be left to get on with the job without interference from central Government. The hallmark of this Government is that they have interfered more than any other Administration in the way in which local authorities conduct their business. More than that, we value local services and we are willing to pay for a job well done. We do not want cheap and shoddy services. Instead, we want repairs that last and services that people take a pride in delivering and that others appreciate when they receive them. Cost cutting does not make for greater efficiency, and privatisation leads to cost cutting, which means in the long term that local authorities and the public sector must pick up the pieces.
  Part I of the Bill is clearly designed to squeeze direct labour organisations, although in many parts of the country they are extremely efficient and win a large share of the work that has to be put out to tender. Local authority services can be efficient, because the people who provide those services take pride in doing so. They know that they are providing a service on which local people rely.
  The Transport Act 1985 did more than anything else to undermine the provision of one local authority service-buses—by putting transport affairs into private hands. In the Lothian region, we had one of the best bus services in the country; now the ratepayers are paying £2 million more to subsidise a less efficient bus service. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will no doubt have some sympathy with that. When I was chairman of Lothian region transportation
  108
  committee, he wrote to me again and again, more than any other Member of Parliament, asking whether I could do anything to restore services in his constituency.
  We must maintain and enhance DLOs, because they have to deal with emergencies and pick up the pieces when the private sector cannot meet the need. If the legislation is passed, DLOs will be weakened, jobs will be lost and it will cost us, the ratepayers and those who live locally more in the long term.
  Part II of the Bill is what I might term the morality part. It seeks to strike at those local authorities that choose not to do business with certain firms. I cannot see what is wrong with deciding that we do not want to do business with a firm that conducts itself in a way that we find reprehensible. I cannot see what is wrong in deciding that I do not wish to trade with a firm that mistreats its work force by not paying them properly, or by discriminating against certain sections on grounds of race, creed or colour. I should have thought that such an attitude would be lauded by all hon. Members. However, it appears that the Government intend to strike against it.
  I consider this a matter of decency. Where is the local authorities' right to choose? Coming from a Government who support the right to choose and freedom of choice, this part of the Bill is ill founded. It strikes at the very right of local authorities to make choices, not just on cost but on matters of straightforward decency.
  I find part III of the Bill particularly difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) paid tribute to the magnificent vistas that can apparently be seen in his constituency by anyone who visits it. I invite any Conservative Member who wishes to come to Edinburgh. Indeed, I will invite the Scottish Front Bench, and will gladly pay for the two taxis that will be required to take them round the city. The Georgian facades and the historic and beautiful royal mile belie the fact that 20 per cent. of the constituents are unemployed, many of them young people. We have young bands of nomads with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Instead of paying money to private landlords to build accommodation, we need controls over the sort of accommodation that is provided, proper supervision and proper funding. When we consider that the public purse pays private landlords some £9 million a year in Edinburgh, we realise that the money would be better spent by local authorities to provide properly supervised accommodation to suit the needs of young people—to give them a sense of pride in their accommodation, and a chance to make something of their unfortunate lives.
  Much has been said about the part of the Bill that strikes at publicity. I will say only that it seems very bad practice that the Government intend to suppress dissent to the extent of saying that communications from local authorities, perhaps to Members of Parliament, are to be struck at if they are critical of the Government. Part IV demonstrates that no one can attack the Government without fear of retribution through the courts. This Government have spent a large amount of money, both directly and indirectly, on privatisation and advertisements. We were told that businesses that had been created by the state were shackled by the state, but when they were to be privatised they became, suddenly, a model of efficiency, and we were told that they ought to be purchased when the opportunity arose. Who paid for that? The taxpayers paid for it. If the Government can spend

  109
  public money on advancing what they believe to be right, democratically elected local authorities ought to have the freedom to do exactly the same.
  The Bill is one of the worst examples of local authority repression. Scotland will oppose it, just as it will be opposed throughout the country. Scotland will not be pushed beyond the pale. The legislation is bad for Scotland, just as it is bad for all parts of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members who represent Scotland will not pull down the shutters. We shall advance our arguments for fairness, justice and decency.
  The Government say that the economic recovery is taking a long time to come north. Similarly, Labour's argument for fairness, justice and decency is taking longer than I should like, but in the end I believe that our view will prevail. One can trample on decency and scorn consensus only for so long. This Bill illustrates what a heavy-handed, centralist approach this Government have adopted. That is why the Opposition will oppose it root and branch.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important debate.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) on his eloquence. I do not agree with his views, but he made an impressive maiden speech. I have to declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of a company in the service sector. I thank the previous member of Parliament for Welwyn Hatfield, Mr. Christopher Murphy, who served the constituency so well. He was a first-class constituency member. All the people in Welwyn Hatfield thank him for his efforts on their behalf. He contributed to making Welwyn Hatfield a constituency of which we can all be proud.
  Welwyn is a garden city which began life 50 years ago, and 95 per cent. of its people are in work. Recently, BAe won from TNT an order for 72 jets. The air weapons division of BAe is also in my constituency. During the last year 150 one-man businesses have been started up. That demonstrates the entrepreneurial flair of the people of Welwyn Hatfield. Pharmaceutical industries, the Crown paint company and many other industries have come to Welwyn Hatfield. Those industries, and the fact that the people of Welwyn Hatfield were determined to make the city into something of which they could be proud, have led to high employment and high investment. With 3,000 sq ft of business space now under construction, there will soon be 100 per cent. employment in Hatfield.
  There is both private housing and local government development in Welwyn Hatfield. A third of our council housing is now owner-occupied. We can be proud of that record. We have had problems over our schools, and we are discussing with the Minister the proposed closure of two schools, the Bishops Hatfield girls' school and the Wheathampstead secondary school. We have also had problems with our main hospital, the Queen Elizabeth II hospital, but by making savings and by competitiveness we have produced the money that is necessary to keep the hospital fully open. We have not gone back to the Government, or to the regional health authority or to the district health authority and asked for money. That is not the style of the people of Welwyn Hatfield.
  The Local Government Bill deals with local government services. The work force benefits from privatisation,
  110
  because it results in new equipment and investment in the utensils used by the work force—the clothes, the dustcarts, the lorries and the canteens, not to mention the pensions and the wages. All are improved under privatisation.
  Privatisation is the answer to the problems of the work force. Through that competitiveness and freedom the work force responds, and when it does, the customers—in this case the ratepayers—receive a far better service because the work force has won back its pride. Consequently, it does the job better. When given the tools, the work force will do its job better and the ratepayers appreciate the improved services. They then appreciate what the work force is doing. As a result of such improvement, those who live in the areas that have been privatised look to the work force and the local companies to increase the services, thereby increasing jobs.
  The local authority can do as it will with savings. It can improve other services and attract new investment and jobs. The failure to achieve savings is at the root of our problem. For too long the work force has been dominated by half a dozen shop stewards and bureaucratic officers who will not look at tenders fairly or release the work force. The more privatisation, the more jobs and savings there will be.
  I warn the Government and the House that the administrators and bureaucracy will try to stop privatisation. We should free the work force so that it can do its job properly. Under privatisation, the work force becomes the most important part of the organisation—not the least important part, as it has been for years. The poor old dustman is suddenly the most important person. That is the answer. If we give the work force the opportunity, it will give us the service. Of that I am convinced.
  I, along with all other new Conservative Members, will endeavour to maintain the traditions, protocol, honour and distinction of the House. When I leave the House, I hope that those traditions will be safeguarded by the hon. Members who remain.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: In his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (M r. Evans) pointed out that he represents a garden city in a prosperous part of southern England. We in Wales are always jealous of it. I was particularly jealous of all the new industries about which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and only wish that some of them would come to us.
  There was also the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). He represents the capital city of Scotland, and in that sense has an important responsibility. He demonstrated his extensive local government experience, which is always useful in this place. My hon. Friend was certainly fluent and forthright, and I feel sure that we shall hear a good deal more from him.
  Numerous Welsh Members complained that the proposals in the Queen's Speech were irrelevant to the needs of Wales. The Local Government Bill is positively detrimental to the best interests of Wales. Part I will give the Secretary of State powers to compel our local authorities to invite tenders from private contractors to carry out defined activities—refuse collection, street cleansing, cleaning buildings, catering services, school meals and meals on wheels, vehicle repair, maintenance

  111
  and ground maintenance. As has been said, too, the list can be extended by order and at the discretion of the Minister.
  In recent years, Wales has experienced a rundown of its traditional industries—coal and steel. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the process and we are now suffering from chronic unemployment. Alongside this, Wales has developed a strong dependence on the public sector. Our Welsh authorities have been under severe pressure from central Government, with all manner of financial restraint. They have had great difficulty in maintaining local services up to anything like the standards that they know to be necessary. Despite all those difficulties and all those pressures, they have acted responsibly throughout. When they read and digest the proposals contained in the Bill their reaction must be: "What have we done to deserve this?"
  No Welsh councils, including Tory-controlled councils, have opted for privatisation of services. They had a choice and they made their decision. So why should it now be made compulsory and their own considered judgment be trampled upon? If such proposals were of benefit to the people of Wales, they would have been implemented long ago. The Ridley-Walker jackboot that is an essential feature of the Bill is completely unnecessary in Wales. It should be a basic, elementary, democratic condition that local authorities should be free to make the final decision on how their services are provided. They should be made accountable to their local electorates for the extent, quality and cost of those services.
  Judging by the record to date, privatisation will lead to worse standards of service together with a decline in jobs, pay and conditions, and compensation. The track record of private companies in local government and in the National Health Service is a catalogue of disasters. There are several hundred well publicised examples, and I will quote just one or two. ISS Service Systems failed to meet the cleaning contract for the Birmingham school and had to pay Birmingham £150,000 compensation in September 1984. The five-year contract to Initial Service Cleaners Ltd. for pest control awarded by Shepway district council had to be terminated after only a few months. Henley magistrates fined Pritchards for overloading offences in a south Oxfordshire refuse contract. Gloucester returned the cattle market cleaning contract to direct labour after failure of Initial Cleansing Services in 1982.
  I could go on, but it would be merely a recital of the declining standards. There can be little doubt that if those proposals become law, the cowboys will move in and the power of local authorities to do anything about it will be severely reduced. Low tenders will be merely a sprat to catch a mackerel because once the market has been cornered, the price goes up. Profit, not service, will be the principal standard of judgment and local authorities will have to bear the redundancy costs of reducing the size of their direct labour force. In addition, there will be the start-up costs for setting up new departments to deal with tendering, overseeing contractors and drawing up specifications. Such developments could be costly, with only the possibility of a cheaper, let alone better, service.
  Aneurin Bevan once asked why we should look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. Experience tells us that privatisation invariably ends with the ratepayer paying more for poorer services. Privatisation has a
  112
  chequered history in local government. Early in the century private contractors for services to the public were plentiful and standards of service were poor and corrupt practices were a legendary feature. Eventually, decisions were taken to make those services a part of municipal government. Therefore, we have been through it all before.
  In the private sector of industry, despite all the marketing drives, the majority of United Kingdom companies continue to use directly employed staff for cleaning, catering and maintenance. That tendency is most marked among larger companies which are more comparable in size to the average local authority.
  The Government claim that competition in the market place will ensure higher standards and services that are cheaper to run. They turn a blind eye to the monopolistic trends that are already developing. Following mergers, the council services market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, is being effectively divided between two contractors, Hawley and BET. So much for competition. Councils will lose democratic control over local services and service standards are bound to decline. Matters such as equal opportunities, training and health and safety will take a back seat. Councils will be banned from imposing noncommercial conditions; by that I mean decent pay and conditions for working people. They will not be able to crack down on labour-only sub-contractors or ban companies with South African links. All those are important social considerations about which local authorities should be able to hold a view.
  I have dealt essentially with part I of the Bill but I feel equally critical of clause 26, which is yet another Government attempt to suppress local authority publicity on matters of public controversy. It is a thoroughly undemocratic proposal and will be a means of suppressing sincerely held opinions that should be vented.
  The Government have the audacity to say that local people should look after the interests of the local community but they are putting forward proposals that could spell the end of local democracy. Overall, the Government's proposals mean that central Government will control about 80 per cent. of local government income. Those moves towards centralisation are essentially a Stalinist concept. That is the way in which the Government function as was movingly revealed over the weekend by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). The centralisation tendency is to be deprecated in every way. Democracy thrives on diversification of decision making.
  In the recent general election, Conservative candidates in Wales managed to survive in only eight out of 38 constituencies. A decade ago, many leading figures in local government in Wales were opposed to devolution, but the same people are now calling for a Welsh Assembly. The proposals in the Bill are completely unnecessary for Wales. We do not want them and we do not need them. Why should they be forced upon us?
  9.50 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I am delighted to be the first on the Conservative Benches to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and to congratulate him on his maiden speech, which lived up to the expectations of those of us who have known him for some time. My hon. Friend could not have selected a better debate in which to make his

  113
  speech, as he represents one of the best examples of enterprise and experience of which this Bill is all about. We all join in my hon. Friend's tribute to Christopher Murphy, who in addition to being such an active Member of this House was also an active representative for this country at the Council of Europe.
  Unfortunately, no proper tribute has been paid from the Conservative Benches to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on his maiden speech. I am sorry that he is not present in the Chamber just now, but I am pleased to congratulate him on his speech.
  I shared in the tribute that the hon. Member for Tottenham paid to his predecessor, who was my namesake. He was also the Labour party treasurer. Indeed. I once received in my post the paying-in book of the Labour party. The stubs made extremely interesting reading until I realised it was meant for Norman and not for me. I promised that I would not divulge anything that I had read.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward this Bill. I know that he accepts that it is long overdue. Indeed, hon. Friends and I have long campaigned for it. I believe that if we had introduced this Bill, together with the community charge, during our first term in office, we would have avoided all the time-wasting in this place and all the aggravation with local authorities over rate capping, holdbacks, penalties, limitations, surcharges, clawbacks and all the other contortions in the rate support grant system in the attempts to control excessive local government expenditure.
  If such legislation had been introduced earlier I believe that we could have avoided some of the problems now faced in our inner cities. Indeed, the Labour party might wish to speculate on whether the winter of discontent would have taken place if local services had been contracted out.
  I am amazed that there should be any opposition to this Bill and its proposals. The sheer common sense—
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: No; plenty of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues wish to speak tonight and I would not wish his intervention to be at their expense.
  The sheer common sense of the proposals— putting public and municipal services to the test of competition just as a check that both ratepayers and consumers are getting value for money—must be evident to anyone. When one considers the record of those councils, all Conservative, that have had the guts to pioneer this policy, the case becomes overwhelming. We have seen that competitive tendering works. It saves, and it benefits not only the consumer but those who carry out those services when taken into the private sector.
  We could have no better proof than the experience of Southend which, in 1981, was the first local authority to put refuse collection, together with street cleaning and public lavatory maintenance, out to private tender. That policy saved £500,000 a year, which is about a 2p in the pound rate. The winning tender purchased most of the waste disposal vehicles, employed most of the collectors, gave a good deal to those who opted to leave and left the council with a profit on the deal. The service is better and more efficient than it was before, with a happier and more contented work force. My hon. Friend the Member for
  114
  Welwyn Hatfield was able to tell the House that, because it is his work force. As a former resident of Southend and a former member of the county borough council there, I can bear out exactly what my hon. Friend told the House.
  Others have followed Southend's lead. At least 140 councils have contracted out nearly 60 different services, saving over £22 million a year, but that is nothing compared with the potential savings, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. As the Audit Commission has estimated, over £500 million could be saved if all the councils followed the privatising practices of the best. With such savings, we could all enjoy better services, lower rates and probably both. It is a scandal that the majority of local authorities, including, regrettably, Conservative authorities, continue to ignore the benefits and refuse to apply the competitive test.
  The reasons of all four of the local authority associations for opposing the Bill do not stand up to analysis. They complain about the compulsion element. That is pathetic. They are "compelled" to do what is obviously common sense, which is just to check whether they are getting value for money. They still have doubts about whether it will work. That is pathetic. They just need to look at the record of the Conservative-controlled councils that have had the guts to do it, and at the report of the Audit Commission.
  The associations complain about the limitations of the market. Of course there will be limitations. They have been maintaining a monopoly of services for so long that there will be few companies in some of those services with that experience, but, given time, private enterprise will deliver. The real reason for the opposition is, of course, that the test of competition strikes at the heart of local empire-building and bureaucracy, and the vested interest of the trade unions, which regard local councils—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: —more as a provider of jobs than as a provider of services to the public—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: Some of those councils will do their best—
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Atkinson: Those councils will do their best to ensure that the Bill will not be effectively implemented. That is the reason why clause 7 is so necessary, to prevent the methods that have already been used to sabotage the privatisation of direct labour organisations and the privatisation of some of the non-medical services of local health authorities, such as putting out tenders all at once so that the private market cannot cope—
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Atkinson: —such as producing tender documents full of unnecessary conditions, breaking down jobs into small units to escape putting them out to tender and ignoring the advice of the district auditors and the ombudsman.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, not an intervention.
  Mr. Rogers: No, Mr. Speaker. Some days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) drew to your attention the fact that if hon. Members were involved in debates in which they might have a pecuniary interest, they should declare that interest over and above what is contained in the Register of Members' Interests. I notice that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) states in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" that he has a special interest in NHS and local government privatisation. The Register of Members' Interests says that he is parliamentary adviser for Good Relations Ltd. and Grayling Ltd. I understand that those companies are specifically interested in these matters. In view of what is contained in those different books, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the House his interest in privatisation.
  Mr. Atkinson: I have no special interest to declare, and I am no longer retained by the two companies to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  My disappointment with the Bill is that it restricts the services to go out to tender to six manual services, which are listed in the Bill. Other services are already available on the free market, such as architectural services, refuse disposal, printing, local authority transport, public relations, and, especially today, computer services, where there should be no problem of definition for the purposes of legislation. They could be included in the Bill.
  I appreciate that the Bill provides for additional services to be included by order. All these are services that can be put to the competitive test today and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider including them in the Bill Committee. I hope, too, that he will not ignore the scope that exists for some of the larger services for which local authorities are responsible, and to which my right hon. Friend has referred—the fire fighting services, libraries and aspects of social services such as community care—to be put out to tender as happens in other countries. I look forward to some confirmation that we are studying the experience of other countries in these areas.
  I welcome clause 32, which abolishes dog licences. They have been a nonsense for too long. A choice had to be made: either the licence was to be a source of revenue—a tax on dogs, which would outrage practically every other person in the country—or it was to finance an effective means of controlling dog nuisance, which the licence scheme was never meant to do; or it could be abolished, which was exactly right. However, my right hon. Friend cannot ignore the problems of dog control that exist, not least in areas such as my constituency.
  There is nothing so off-putting for visitors as parks, recreational areas and beaches which are littered with dog dirt. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment had in mind during the last Friday's debate on tourism, when he spoke of seeking a spotless Britain. Responsibility for the control of dogs must be that of the owners. Now that the licensing system has been abolished, I hope that my right hon. Friend, together with the Home Office, will continue to give sympathetic consideration to those local authorities that will now undoubtedly come forward with their own byelaws, powers and orders to control dogs. I look forward to
  116
  hearing what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has to say about local authorities introducing their own licensing schemes for that purpose.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I begin with a word of tribute to all those who worked so hard in recent months and weeks to return a Labour Member of Parliament for Leeds, West. As is customary, I acknowledge the work of my predecessors, Charles Pannell, Joe Dean and, most recently, the Liberal Member Michael Meadowcroft. Michael Meadowcroft was well known for his local activism and used every opportunity to have a go at the Labour party. In his own maiden speech he cited Rebecca West's comment that
  "to be wiped out by the Liberal party is a more inglorious end than to be run over by a hearse".
  In the light of the recent result in Leeds, West and the current national debate, perhaps the remark that immediately preceded that statement seems uncannily apposite:
  "At its best the Liberal party is a jelly fish. Sometimes the milk of human kindness which flows through it (instead of blood), gets heated and then it flops about and tries to do good. This warm—milk—enthusiasm soon evaporates and it lies inert."
  On a more personal note, Michael Meadowcroft, as some hon. Members will know, played the jazz clarinet and rather fancied himself as the Benny Goodman of the House in the tea shop across the road. I wish him well in his life outside the House.
  My earlier predecessor, Joe Dean, had a reputation for addressing himself in the House to the problems of the large northern cities and local government issues, and had a particular concern for providing decent homes for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Those concerns are still central to the agenda of the people of Leeds, West and I intend to try to match his dilligence in pursuing them in the House.
  Last week I called in at the Bramley jobcentre in the heart of Leeds, West to see what was on offer. In the window there were six jobs on offer. All were part-time or temporary, and all were low-paid. There were two posts for part-time cleaners, one offering the derisory sum of £2·20 per hour, the other an office cleaning job-offering £2 an hour. A temporary cleaner's job offered £2·28 an hour and there was a vacancy for bar staff and one for a part-time canvasser, which offered commission only.
  Therefore, it is not that there are no jobs available. Inside the centre there were cards for cleaners, bar staff, counter and sales assistants and even a few in the traditional manufacturing and industrial sectors —engineering and textiles — which in the past have provided the majority of work opportunities in my constituency. However, the only jobs on offer are low-paid — £2·80 an hour for an experienced lathe setter and £2·95 for an experienced trained miller. The only jobs advertised in the clothing industry are piecework jobs.
  The Bramley jobcentre provides a microcosm of what is going on in our economy. The structural shift is not simply from employment to unemployment or from manufacturing to the service sector. It is in the direction of the development of a part-time, temporary and low-paid economy as the only alternative to work in the traditional manufacturing industries.
  Conservative Members have the nerve to talk about freeing the workers. In my constituency it seems that the

  117
  workers are being freed into poverty, and that is the sort of freedom that sets language on its head. The intentional creation of a low-wage economy, fuelled by the undermining of the social security system and the suppression of the public service sector, is breeding hopelessness and resentment among the potential work force that I represent.
  I respectfully invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who referred in a speech to the CBI during the general election campaign to "the exhilarating 80s," to speak at the Bramley jobcentre about the booming economy. His words will return with a hollow ring.
  During the debate on the Loyal Address the righ hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said that the economy was hitting a
  "glorious summer in the home counties"—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 68.]
  and developing into a "long-delayed spring" in the midlands. The myth of a creeping economic boom, moving up the country, cuts no ice in northern cities and towns.
  One of the most disturbing passages in the Queen's Speech refers to legislation being introduced to enable benefits to be withheld from those who refuse a place on the youth training scheme. There are 35 YTS vacancies for young people in Bramley, with well over 2,000 youngsters chasing them. Nearly half the teenagers in the north cannot find a job after YTS. The Government have accepted that taking up benefits is the worst start in life that a youngster can have, but after a brief spell on the YTS that is all that our young people have to return to, with a consequent further reduction in their income.
  Penalising the young for not taking up places, forcing them to leave their families, but not allowing them to stay where they are forced to go, and the new poll tax proposals form a compound that will breed pessimism and resentment within families. Young people should be encouraged to develop as the future of our society and not he kept down and treated as though they were a burden and a problem to us. Our young people are not alone in feeling rejected. More than 200,000 people in Leeds are effectively locked into the inner city, prevented by poverty from moving out. The majority of the unemployed, the elderly living alone and people from ethnic minority groups live in inner cities and in the worst housing, both public and private. They face a vicious downward spiral of poverty and feel increasingly marginalised and written off by Government policies. They will not warm to the Secretary of State for the Environment's efforts to undermine the potential for employment in the service sector of local authorities.
  The Social Security Act 1986, which was passed by the House on the day of the royal wedding, reduced housing benefits. When compounded with the introduction of the poll tax, it will bite hard in the inner cities, yet the Government seem determined to press on with the poll tax, regardless of critical opposition. Indeed, if clause 26 goes through, local authorities will be prevented from spelling out the impact of the poll tax on the areas that they represent. I emphasise that even according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy calculations the domestic ratepayers of Leeds city council would face an increase of approximately £20 million a year as a result of the community charge.
  We have yet to hear about the administration of the community charge. Last week The Daily Telegraph carried the headline:
  118
  "Big brother checks will trap poll tax dodgers."
  The story said:
  "Those who use any local service from education to taking out a library hook will be cross-checked automatically against the Town Hall's list of poll tax payers. So will those who ask for help with council housing or apply for any locally administered grant aid schemes. It will apply to 18 year olds signing on for evening classes and pensioners attending council run day centres. Poll tax evasion will carry penalties including fines, property confiscation and in extremes imprisonment."
  What is this but the pricing of people out of their right to vote? In future only those who can pay will be able to afford to register their vote. It is hard not to draw the inference that the true purpose of the proposal is narrowly political. It is a measure targeted at the Labour vote. Is this what the Prime Minister really means when she says that she has to get into the inner cities, and when she declares that she wants them the next time? Is she really out to get us? Is the real future role proposed for local government simply a punitive one?
  Already we have seen the shift to local government of the administration of housing benefit, hut councils not been given adequate back-up facilities. We have seen a reduction in the tax contribution for the rate support grant from 60 to 40 per cent. and an insistence on an increased rate contribution of exactly that proportion.
  What we are witnessing is the inability of local authorities adequately to respond to local needs in employment, housing and resources. Teaspoonfuls of urban aid to local authorities are being offered as palliatives, while the Treasury has imposed for the last eight years a tight grip on the windpipe of the main programme of spending on housing, social services and education. Leeds alone needs about £70 million to improve and repair housing in both the public and the private sector and to tackle the backlog of defects in system-built homes in which many people are now trapped because they are blighted by the mortgage lenders, yet the city council's housing investment programme has had imposed on it incredible reductions over eight years.
  Local authorities are now to be reduced to adopting a punitive role of poll tax collection, and that is coupled with the determination to dismantle local authorities by way of an obsessive privatisation drive. Although the Secretary of State spoke of increasing efficiency, in practice the proposals in the Bill will push forward a low-wage economy. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), it will mean wage cuts for already low-paid workers. It will mean a deterioration in conditions of employment and the weakening of statutory employment rights. It will mean that there will be no provision for equal opportunities policies and no provision to ensure that contractors in inner city areas employ local labour.
  On Thames Television on 1 July the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment were totally committed to the policy of using local labour and of getting development to generate more local employment. The 1986 Treasury report said:
  "Most of the savings from contracting out arise because contractors offer poorer conditions of employment."
  As Lord Stockton, then Mr. Harold Macmillan, said in 1946:

  119
  "It was the Treasury … who were always scraping to see whether they could obtain some small advantage by placing their contracts at some slightly lower price with second or third rate contractors."
  Have the Government learnt nothing in the past 40 years? The Widdicombe report said that John Stuart Mill saw the principal value of local self-government as raising the political capabilities of the people. We on this side of the House believe that there is a real danger in the proposals of the Bill that locally elected government will be reduced to local administration directed from the centre. That will mean that people are even further cut off from political engagement. The only outcome will be deepening political cyncism and a further unacceptable build-up of power at the centre.
  Restrictions on the publicity functions of local councils strike at the heart of the founding intentions of local government. If clause 26 were enacted, it would be an instrument of most serious attack on our democratic system. The definition of political controversy opens the door to widespread suppression. A proper prohibition of party political publicity would be supportable, and section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 already sets this out. But are the Government seriously proposing that local authority publicity designed to promote racial equality is to be curtailed because it could be identified as opposed to the policies of the National Front?
  In Leeds, even Conservative councillors argue that people should be encouraged to take up their full welfare benefit entitlement, but under clause 26 such publicity would be outlawed. The Government have already gone much further in their plans to restrict local government publicity than was proposed, even in the recommendations of the inquiry conducted by David Widdicombe.
  Surely local councils must be left to exercise their own judgment about the information and publicity that they issue for the benefit of the communities that they serve, without unnecessary and democratic restraints being imposed by the Government. All that we are asking is that the same rules apply to local government as apply to central Government.
  One of the first letters that I received as a Member of Parliament was from a major advertising company based in my constituency. It did not criticise the rate level of the local council as a great burden but urged me to do all that I could to argue against the unified business rate, on the ground that it would have to pay three times as much and would end up going out of business. It is not only the domestic ratepayers who oppose the poll tax. Criticism is building up from all quarters. I urge the Government to heed that criticism and not force through legislation on this, as they forced through legislation on social security, without spelling out in detail who will pay the price or taking into account the most universal criticisms.
  In the heart of my constituency is the ruin of a monastery, Kirkstall abbey, one of the earliest communities in west Leeds. That community lived according to the rule of St. Benedict, the first word of which is, "Listen". The message from my constituency, as from other inner city constituencies, from many in the north, from many areas represented by democratically elected Labour councils and from those communities that now make up "Poor Britain" is the strongest possible plea to the Government to listen attentively to what we have to
  120
  say inside and outside the House before proceeding. The Government must allow themselves to be persuaded by the evidence and the arguments and to act for justice for all the people in Britain. We appeal to the Government not to tread roughshod over the people with legislation that will breed resentment. Outside the House, like elsewhere in the world among downtrodden communities, the Opposition have a moral duty to join popular campaigns for the defiance of unjust laws when Governments choose to use their large majorities to push through Parliament such measures regardless.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on coping so admirably with the ordeal that now faces me.
  I start my maiden speech with the customary words of thanks to my predecessor, not because tradition demands that I do so but because it is richly deserved. Sir Humphrey Atkins was a Member of this place for 30 years, during which time he represented two separate constituencies. Over the past year I have seen at first hand how hard he worked for all local people. Sir Humphrey Atkins also served his party with great distinction, particularly as Chief Whip. He also served the nation with much skill and great integrity inside and outside Cabinet.
  Rather than recite career details that we all know well, may I just single out one part of Sir Humphrey's distinguished career—his period as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I single that part of his career out not just for the work that he performed but for the personal sacrifice that such service demands. As I have discovered in the year that I spent as a prospective candidate, all Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland pay a terrible price for the rest of their lives for serving the nation and this place so well. Sir Humphrey Atkins had a distinguished career in this place. His many friends from all political parties wish him and his wife well and hope that he can have a new career in another place.
  I am glad that tradition goes on to say that I must talk about my constituency because Spelthorne is not a name on everyone's lips. As this is only the fourth maiden speech from the hon. Member for Spelthorne in 60 years, the whereabouts of Spelthorne is not widely known in this House. To say that it is in Surrey does not help much, as most of us prefer to believe that it is still in Middlesex. However, it includes part of Heathrow airport and all of Stanwell, Staines, Ashford, Laleham, Shepperton and Sunbury on Thames. Everyone will therefore have a mental picture of the constituency, complete with sound effects.
  However, that is as far as I want to take tradition tonight. Instead of enthusing about Spelthorne's many attractions, I want to draw the attention of the House to some of Spelthorne's less attractive aspects, such as the Perry Oakes sewerage works. That is not a pleasant place, but we want to keep it, because its replacement would be Heathrow's terminal five, which none of us wants. Another of the less attractive parts covers the gravel pits with their heavy lorries. They are not particularly photogenic, but they are preferable to the houses that would swallow up the last of the open spaces that are left. The remand centre at Ashford is not a pretty place, but it is far better than the proposed new prison that the powers that be want to foist upon us, which I believe should be sited somewhere else.

  121
  It is not a coincidence that I make this maiden speech during a debate on local government. I have spent the past 11 years involved in local affairs. My experience in local government has taught me that the Bill deserves the wholehearted support of us all. If it has a fault, it is that the schedule listing those services for competitive tendering confines those services to a list of six. Will the Secretary of State tell us why not 16? Why not 26, or indeed all the services?
  I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the possibility of extra services being added to the list. When the time comes, I urge him to give special thought and priority to the administrative and financial services at the heart of local government, such as the payment of salaries and wages, internal audit and legal and estate management services. The direct services to the public and the manual workers in local government have been the subject of review after review. I contend that it is now high time that that bureaucracy was sorted out. If that is sorted out, dramatic improvements will follow. The local authority that I represented until last May tackled that central problem and in doing so managed to switch 10 per cent. of the general rate fund expenditure away from paper-pushing to real services to local people at no extra cost to anyone.
  Predictably, this Bill has come under fierce attack from vested interests, empire-builders and the inefficient. The same old claims are being trotted out. Some claim that it is undemocratic, others claim that services will be worse. Those and all the other claims are utter nonsense. The Bill
  122
  is not an attack upon local democracy. Councillors will still decide what services they need. The Bill will simply insist that those services are provided efficiently. The Bill is not an attack upon the level of services. Surely council staff can write detailed tender documents if they turn their minds to it. If they cannot, it is the councils that are to blame for the services that are suffered by the electorate and not the Government. I am not the least impressed by those who trot out lists of private enterprise failures, because they are seeking to suggest that the public sector never makes a mistake, which is nonsense.
  Above all else, the Bill is not about privatisation. It is directed to competitive tendering, and provided that the in-house work force is efficient and enthusiastic, its knowledge and ability could mean that it wins every contract. If it does not, it does not deserve the work.
  If this were not my maiden speech, I would wish to say a great deal more about local government but tonight I shall content myself with congratulating the Government on their past achievements and on the progress that they have made in sorting out local government. I give my support to all parts of the Bill and encourage the Government to make the earliest possible progress with the community charge and the other proposals that they have further to sort out local government.
  I count it as a great privilege to be here. I am honoured to succeed Sir Humphrey Atkins and I look forward to doing my best for many years to come to repay the trust placed in me by the electors of Spelthorne.
  10.27 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his first speech in this place. He started by showing that he intends to be an independent minded Member, and that is always welcomed by Opposition Members. However, I watched the face of the Government Chief Whip visibly draw when he realised that as well. Eventually the all-pervading influence of the Government Whips spread its way backwards from the Government Front Bench and the hon. Gentleman became orthodox, which means that we know the sort of contributions that we shall be hearing from him in future.
  In an impressive first speech my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) demonstrated that he knows his constituency extremely well. I know that Leeds, West will be well served by its new Member. My hon. Friend mentioned his predecessor, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft. It must be said by Opposition Members that he was an amiable Member. He had many talents, some of which were far more controversial and newsworthy than others. I am naturally more than delighted to see Michael Meadowcroft replaced by my hon. Friend, but I am sure that all of us would wish our former colleague well. We know that he probably will do well because if all else fails he can do some busking outside Leeds town hall to earn an honest copper.
  Before turning to the Bill, I wish to add my congratulations to the many that will be coming to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on what was a superb maiden speech. I say in all sincerity that my hon. Friend will make many distinctive and distinguished speeches in this place. He is the authentic and authoritative voice that we knew he would be. I welcome him to the House as warmly as I welcome any of my hon. Friends.
  There were many vital reasons why we wanted to defeat the Tory party at the general election. We wished to heal the social divisions and deal with economic injustices. Another factor is that had we won the general election we would not have had to endure the almost weekly local government Bills that we have come to know, but not love, since 1979.
  Environment Ministers come and go and the present Secretary of State comes quickly and goes quickly. It is fair to say that he has now returned to the Chamber. I have been told that he leaves the Chamber for a quick drag of his fag. He must be the only one of us who smokes 16 ft fags. He has been out of the Chamber for a long time and consequently has missed speeches that might have taught him a little. As I have said, Environment Ministers come and go rather like presidents of banana republics, but central Government have become obsessed with local government matters.
  I listened carefully to the Gracious Speech. It was, as ever, graciously delivered; but the legislative programme enunciated in it was full of bile and venom, mostly directed at local government. As you can imagine Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am no imperialist. However, I understand that there was a time when the speech at the opening of Parliament actually meant something, not only to the country but to the rest of the world. That is clearly no longer the case. Under this Conservative Government,
  124
  Britain is steadily being reduced to the status of a street-corner shop, and the content of the Gracious Speech has become as relevant to the rest of the world as the menu in the Members' Dining Room.
  Of all the economic and social problems facing the country that we could be discussing tonight, what do the Government give us? They give us another Local Government Bill. There is no doubt about it: Opposition Members are now convinced that the Government are deliberately bent on destroying local democracy. That obsession with local democracy and local government originates in the paranoia of the Prime Minister. To her, all opposition, whether inside or outside her party, amounts to treachery and must be eliminated. In her fevered mind, as she sits in her bunker in No. 10 Downing street, the right hon. Lady manages to lump Labour councils and trade unions together with international terrorism. It is clear to us that the Government do not believe in local democracy, in civil rights or in free speech if any of those are used to express opposition to their increasingly Fascist leanings.
  I was proud to be a member of a local authority—the Greater London Council—for 17 years, until the Government ungraciously abolished it. Local councils, under the most difficult circumstances, have done their best to defend services, and in return for their efforts they are being taken apart piece by piece.
  What, today, is the point of being an elected councillor in this totalitarian country—attacked by central Government, vilified by the right-wing press, abused by much of the electorate and dictated to by civil servants? What a dismal prospect faces a newly-elected local councillor. We shall probably reach a point at which many of my local government colleagues will contemplate mass withdrawal from local office, so that the people can see who is really to blame for the ever-accumulating problems in local government.
  This morning two of my hon. Friends from Newham and I had our usual weekly meeting with Newham's council leaders and senior officers. Our meeting was about cuts: cuts in education, cuts in building, cuts in maintenance and cuts in repairs. We talked about homelessness, which is growing faster in Newham than in any other part of the country. We now have 420 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, much of which is not even located in the borough; we have 650 people in temporary accommodation; 33,000 people are on supplementary benefit; and 47,000 of our houses in the borough are in urgent need of repair. We are now selling more council homes than we are able to build.
  I ask Ministers and other Conservative Members to come to boroughs such as Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, and see the scale of the problems—problems that are being exacerbated by central Government policies.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House a little longer, I might have sat down at that point. But if he prefers dinners to speeches, he should sit there with a little more patience and burp his way through a few more speeches before he tries to intervene.
  We need homes in the inner cities, we need jobs and we need hope. But all that we get from the Government are divisive Local Government Bills, cheap gimmicks and common abuse from Ministers. What will this Bill do to

  125
  solve any of the problems of the London borough of Newham, or any of the problems of the inner cities in London or elsewhere?
  Conservative Members talk of putting services out to tender. We have heard many wild and exaggerated claims from the Front and Back Benches about efficiency and cost savings, yet figures cannot be produced to substantiate those claims. We know what privatisation and putting services out to tender will mean. It will mean that some of the lowest-paid workers in council activity will find their wages and conditions squeezed even more as rapacious contractors come in many of whom give money to the Conservative party and are advised by Conservative Members. That is a form of political corruption that the Government have brought to the House. Privatisation is about ideology. It is nothing to do with efficiency. If people think that it is to do with efficiency, they should look at the recent survey of people's views about the service provided by British Telecom after privatisation. The great majority say that services are now less efficient.
  The last part of the Bill concerns amendment of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It is a continuation of the Government's relentless attack on direct labour organisations. Has the Secretary of State any idea how many times direct labour organisations have had to step in when private contractors have gone bust or because the standard of service were not high enough? Local authorities have had to bale out hundreds of firms which have proved incapable of dealing with the problems that they were prepared to take on when they made their first tender.
  In the southern part of the borough of Newham, Ronan Point and the Taylor Woodrow Anglian tower blocks are now being taken down, thus adding to the borough's already great housing problems. They were built by a private company which gave generously to the Conservative party. Jerry-built tower blocks, that is what we got from a private contractor, yet the Secretary of State could in a mumbling shambles of a speech, before he cleared off for an early fag, suggest that we will get more efficient building from private contractors. That is nonsense. Only on the most narrow definition is it economically efficient.
  The Bill has nothing to do with local government efficiency and need. It is all about the Government's pernicious ideology. It is about dismantling local democracy and handing responsibility for local services over to appointed business men and friends of the Conservative party, who are unelected by the local community and unaccountable to it. It is about commercial favours to spivs and racketeers such as dominate today's Conservative party. It is cheap and nasty. It is thoroughly typical of the Government and their Ministers.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I shall return to that shadow cabinet election speech in a moment.
  It gives me great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and to be the first on this side of the House to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Sir Humphrey Atkins, and I wish him as illustrious a career in the House. He referred to some of the less attractive parts of his constituency— a sewage
  126
  works, gravel pits and a remand home—and made it plain that he has his own views about the future of them and his constituency.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend's experience as leader of a west country local authority will be of great value to the House. I have personal reasons for saying how genuinely pleased I am to see him here at last. I know how hard he has fought to be here and how much he has sacrificed on the way, but I hope that he will be happy here for many years.
  I wished to speak only to clause 32, but having heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who declined to give way to me, mention me, I feel compelled to comment on the substantive part of the Bill. The hon. Members for Copeland and for Southwark and Bermondsey have failed to grasp the difference between genuine coercion and the coercion that they claim this Bill embodies. Equal rights, good race relations and equality for homosexuals will be brought about not by coercion but by education. The hon. Members are unable to grasp the difference between coercion and a legislative framework that is designed to promote free enterprise and genuine competitive tendering.
  I have an interest to declare. When I lived in London I lived in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. When I stay in London, I still live in Fulham. When I lived in London, Hammersmith and Fulham were under Conservative control and the rates were modest. Under Socialist control the rates in that borough have gone through the roof. That is probably why the Opposition lost the seat that they had taken at the by-election and why the Conservative party represents Fulham again. It is highly likely that the seat of Brent, East—won by such a narrow margin—and the Newham seats will soon go the same way.
  Clause 32 was referred to earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). It seems almost churlish to refer to what some may consider to be a trivial item in a Bill that otherwise deserves support. However, for many people dog licences are not a trivial matter. I am privileged to have been reelected to represent the people of Thanet, North. It is a pleasant seaside constituency, with many miles of beaches and seaside lawns. It is a source of genuine concern to my constituents and to the many holidaymakers who are attracted to Thanet that those beaches and lawns are fouled by dog dirt.
  I also have in my constituency a fair amount of agricultural land. Opposition Members may make light of this, but one only has to speak to shepherds whose flocks have been savaged by wild dogs to realise that they take it very seriously. [Interruption.] There is a shepherd in my constituency to whom that has happened fairly recently. The man was distraught. Those on both sides of the House who seek to make light of this ought to think of the misery that is caused to families, particularly to children, when an animal is lost.
  A registration scheme is needed. In this throw-away clause at the end of the Bill, we are missing an opportunity for reform. Instead of abolishing the dog licence fee we should increase it. We should introduce not a local government regulation—yet another quango mish-mash—but a national, computerised dogs register, to be paid for by an increase in the dog licence fee. A national dog

  127
  warden scheme would also prevent the kind of abuse and misuse of animals that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and I wish to be terminated.
  I shall not vote against the Bill; there is far too much in it that is good for me—[Interruption]—but I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to look again in Committee at this clause and to seize the opportunity that it presents for reform.
  10.45 pm
  Ms. Joan Walley: The discretion referred to by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), is a discretion that we on the Labour Benches would like to see given to all local authorities.
  In my first speech to the House, I must express my pride at representing the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North. I am proud because it is the area that I come from, and because it has consistently returned Labour MPs.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, John Forrester, who worked in the House for 21 years. I and my constituents wish him well. I also pay tribute to the previous Member, Harriet Slater, who was one of the first women Labour Whips. She was concerned about many issues that are dear to my heart and which I shall be taking up in this Parliament.
  The people of Stoke-on-Trent, North are the finest in the country. Furthermore, they make the finest pottery in the world. They deserve the best local government. That is why it gives me particular pleasure to speak on this Bill.
  I invite hon. Members to look at what has happened to people in my constituency over the past eight years. Thousands of jobs in the pottery industry have been lost. Only last week I heard that more than 2,000 jobs had been reported to the Staffordshire Development Association as having gone. My constituency needs investment, yet that is precisely what it is not getting from this Government. My constituents want jobs. In parts of Stoke-on-Trent, North as many as 70 per cent. of the people are unemployed. As well as jobs and investment, people there want a healthy, safe and clean environment. They are looking to Staffordshire county council, Stoke-on-Trent city council and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council to provide that environment and the staff to do that work and to monitor the way in which the work is done.
  They are looking to local government workers to do a good job, but I submit that the provisions in this Bill will not provide that. Competitive tendering will mean more low-paid workers, more workers who are not concerned about the job they do, and more workers who are unable to do a good job. That is not what we want.
  The constituency has many housing problems. Money is needed so that many older terraced dwellings can be properly modernised, yet that money has not been made available by central Government to the local authority. Endless numbers of elderly people want to move into bungalows, but again the necessary money has been denied to local councils by the Government.
  In the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the coal board promised elderly miners that they would he looked after, yet their homes have either been sold off or starved of the money needed to bring them up to standard. In other homes in which people have become the victims of absentee landlords, much-needed repairs are not being done.
  128
  The North Staffordshire district health authority is one of the most under-funded in one of the most under-funded regions of the country—the West Midlands regional health authority. Even according to the Government's own statistics we need more money.
  Furthermore, inside the Health Service I have seen at first hand the results of competitive tendering. I have seen nurses taking over shifts in the moring unable to sort out who should have done the previous night's work. The reason is simply that so much stress and strain is put on the low-paid workers in the Health Service. I certainly do not want to see that kind of system applied in local authorities on refuse collection and street cleaning. I am afraid that if the Bill goes through, that is what is in store for us.
  The most important thing is that this legislation, concerned as it is with local government, is just one more example of how local democracy is being undermined. Local councillors are elected by local people to do the job that local people know needs doing, and local councillors can do it best. The Government should enable those local councils' elected members to go ahead and do that job. They must he given the resources with which to do it. If they are not allowed to function I shall be unable to do my job properly in the House. So many people need proper services, and my fear is that the local councils will be unable to provide them. People want a say in what services will he provided. This legislation will not give it to them. With all the other local government legislation, the Bill will constitute one more step backwards.
  Health and safety should be given priority. I want to see that people arc able to live in a healthy, safe and clean environment. I only wish that in my first speech I was taking part in a debate on a Bill which was to provide that kind of service for local people. However, we are not.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your attention will no doubt have been drawn to the fact that the Bill involves a good deal of privatisation proposals. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to and defines a number of activities. You are probably aware that a number of Tory members have been lining their pockets in the past through parliamentary adviserships to various companies which undertake the sort of defined activities set out in clause 2 of the Bill.
  Erskine May on page 436 says:
  "So far as voting in the House or a committee is concerned, and for this purpose only, the recording of an interest in the Register of Members' interests is by itself regarded as sufficient disclosure since the House on 12 June 1975 resolved:
  'That, for the purposes of the Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974 in relation to disclosures of interests in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, any interests disclosed in the copy of the Register of Members' interests shall he regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any division in the House or in any of its Committees'."
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that Register of Members' interests is not compiled and that, therefore, the resolution cannot be adhered to. There are members who have been on the earlier Register who have been taking money from agencies involved in the sort of activities that have been provided by private organisations under clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, as Erskine May cannot possibly be followed, I ask you to make it clear to those greedy Tories who are lining their pockets and who have no doubt fixed up various parliamentary adviserships

  129
  —some are continuing their old parliamentary adviserships, their parliamentary salaries not, apparently, being sufficient for them to live on—that if they have got any of those parliamentary adviserships they should not vote because, if they do vote in the Division, they will be in breach of the rules of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Until the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) came to his last point he accurately described the position. There will, of course, be a Register of Members' Interests, which will be produced in due course—I should imagine very soon—but the hon. Gentleman also made the point that it is customary for any hon. Member who has an interest to declare to do so when he addresses the House. So there are, as it were, the two safeguards there. The hon. Gentleman dealt with the point about voting early on in his point of order. There is no bar to an hon. Member exercising his vote in the House.
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair earlier when the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) was mentioned. The Register of Members' Interests showed that he was a parliamentary representative for a company called Grayling Ltd. and another called Good Relations Ltd. His description in Dads, Parliamentary Companion which I assume is the one he submitted, says that he had a special interest in NHS and local government privatisation. We have reached a point in the debate where it is obvious, since my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised the matter, that there are some Tory Members speaking who have obvious pecuniary interests in the legislation. We ought to have a ruling as to whether the Conservative Members who are directors of companies such as office cleaning services and others involved in privatisation have a moral obligation to declare their interests and perhaps whether they have the right to vote at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Every hon. Member is entitled to exercise his vote in the way in which he thinks appropriate. However, I repeat that it is customary for hon. Members who have an interest to declare it when they speak. That is a well-established convention in the House which I think is well known on both sides of the House.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will listen to the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that time is moving on. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, including some who wish to make their maiden speeches. I sense that the House does not want to be too long before it comes to a conclusion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that it was custom and practice for hon. Members to declare to the House prior to speaking that they have an interest. During the course of the debate how many hon. Members have made such a declaration? If they have spoken and have not declared their interest, would you say that they should not vote insofar as they are in default of what you described as "practice".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That must be for the discretion of the hon. Members concerned.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I emphasised the question of voting. The
  130
  resolution of the House makes it clear that for the purpose of voting, an entry into the Register of business interests is sufficient. The point, which no doubt you were about to answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that since there is no Register, there can be no adequacy of declaration to satisfy the resolution of 22 May 1974, a resolution duly passed and accepted by hon. Members. Therefore, it falls upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to declare that those who have any pecuniary interest in this, since they cannot declare their interest in the Register, and have not spoken—as my hon. Friend the member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, nobody has made a declaration tonight, anyway—cannot vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not correct. We are all honourable Members in the House and any hon. Member who is called to speak should declare any interest during the course of his speech. In due course there will be a Register of Members' Interests which will be on public display. It has never been the practice in the House that an hon. Member who has a interest to declare is barred from voting. Every hon. Member is perfectly entitled to vote at the conclusion of the debate. That is the long arid well-established practice in the House.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could reconsider your ruling, because it is in the recollection of this House that, in 1981, when we were debating the Lloyd's Bill, Mr. Speaker advised right hon. and hon. Members who were members of Lloyd's—approximately 50— that it would be inadvisable for them to vote on the passage of the Bill because they had a direct and pecuniary interest in the matter of Lloyd's.
  I imagine that the Clerk is saying that the Lloyd's Bill was a private Bill. However, if it is true that the interests of non-underwriting members of Lloyd's was sufficient to disbar them from voting in the Lloyd's Bill, is it not equally true, because of the direct and pecuniary interests of Members of this House who are paid consultants and advisers to firms such as BET, Pritchards or Hawley, which plainly stand to gain—as do the hon. Members involved— from the passage of the Bill, that they too must be advised that they should not vote, in accordance with the rules of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The distinction to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is between a private Bill and a public Bill. The Lloyd's Bill was a private Bill. There are different rules and customs with regard to private Bills. What we are dealing with this evening is a public Bill and I merely repeat that the well-established practice of this House is that every hon. Member is entitled to exercise his vote on a public Bill.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the integrity of the House in question tonight? If hon. Members on the Conservative Benches vote later tonight on a measure from which they will gain financially, is that not unacceptable both to the standards of this House and public opinion outside?
  Arising from the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the absence of a Register—it has yet to come about, but we have all been asked to supply details—I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reconsider what you have just said. I

  131
  strongly believe that it is the integrity of Parliament that is at stake and in a new Parliament I believe that it is most unacceptable that hon. Members should vote for a measure from which they will clearly gain financially.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we were to follow the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) I do not believe that there would be many hon. Members voting on anything in this place. I merely repeat the ruling that I have given and which is well-established in this House. We are now getting repetitive and I am anxious that we get on with the debate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would be most interested to read the paragraph that has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). That paragraph implies that the House has been at fault in failing to produce a Register at the beginning of this Parliament. It is not necessarily the case that hon. Members involved, who may wish to vote and who have interests to declare, have made any error. It may be that they have complied with our rules in every way. It may be that the Select Committee on Members' Interests in failing to meet and in failing to approve a Register has inadvertently prevented hon. Members who wish to vote from having the right to vote tonight.
  This is a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should look into. It may be that our rules are wrong and not that hon. Members are wrong. Hon. Members may well be correct. Perhaps you should suspend the House for 15 minutes to examine this important matter. It is an important matter because the ruling that you are making is an important one insofar as you are overriding a resolution of the House — the resolution that was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South on page 437 of "Erskine May".
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will accept. We are extremely confused as to how we can proceed, especially when we are faced with the evidence of the previous Register of Members' Interests. For example, in the Register of Members' Interests, the list of directorships under the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) is as follows:

  "Westminster (Communications) Ltd.

  Care Services Group

  Rigidized Metals Ltd.

  Harvard Securities Group P.L.C.

  Harvard Securities P.L.C.

  Ceema Group and companies

  Tele-Stage Associates Ltd."

  Under the heading "Employment or Office" are listed:

  "Consultant:

  3M (UK) Ltd.

  Shepherd (Construction) Ltd.

  McCarthy & Stone Ltd.

  Alcrafield Ltd.

  Marples International Ltd."

  Almost every one of those companies has a direct interest in local government privatisation. If we then go to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and his directorships—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order? I do not want to have the Register of Members' Interests read out.
  Mr. Rogers: I am saying that even when a Register of Members' Interests is not extant, on the previous declaration of Members' interests there are hon. Members who will vote who are contravening the rules of the House. They have a direct financial interest in local government privatisation. That is not only immoral but we suggest that it is illegal and improper according to the rules of the House.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To facilitate progress, may I make a suggestion that I hope will be acceptable to the Chair? We have a genuine problem, that when the Register was created, the House inadvertently created a vacuum for the period during which the Register does not exist. I accept that the matter has not been addressed properly before. We all recognise that we want to make progress in the debate, and hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches. Rather than getting involved in the current circular discussion, will you or Mr. Speaker give us a ruling in, say, half an hour on how to deal with the situation in the interim because there is a gap in our procedures?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his helpful comments. I will, of course, discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker, particularly the point that he made that there is not at the moment a Register of Members' Interests. In the practical nature of things, it takes some time for it to be compiled. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the convention about declaring interests and voting is long established. It existed long before the Register of Members' Interests. This evening we are following normal practice and customs in the House.
  I am not prepared to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request to ask Mr. Speaker to come and give a ruling in half an hour, but I am prepared to say to him and the House that I shall discuss with Mr. Speaker the proceedings that have been taking place during the past quarter of an hour or so.
  Mr. Williams: I am grateful, and I hope that my hon. Friends will allow a little time for consideration. The basic question is whether the resolution of the House superseded or supplemented the original procedures of the House. It is on that that we need a ruling. We should be grateful if we could have it before the crucial vote at midnight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I need to do is repeat the ruling that I have given on several occasions. Every hon. Member is entitled to vote on a public Bill. Tonight we are dealing with a public Bill.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: In spite of that interlude, the House should not lose sight of the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). It is hard to believe that I am following a maiden speech, because the hon. Lady spoke with such fluency, knowledge and understanding of the problems in her constituency that I felt that she had been in the House for a long time. I wish her all the best in the House. She is a worthy successor to her predecessor.
  I very much welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming, but it is the better for finally arriving in the House. I have an interest to declare — the interest of my constituents as ratepayers. My constituents, as ratepayers,

  133
  have paid unnecessarily high rates because, in the absence of legislation, services that could have been put out to competitive tender by local authorities have not been so dealt with. It is this legislation that will enable my constituents and those of every hon. Member to have, in the future, services provided at a lower cost.
  I speak with a certain amount of knowledge on this matter because my mother is the leader of the Arun district council. She has been able successfully to privatise not only street cleaning but refuse collection in her area, thus saving ratepayers and the Arun district council an annual sum of more than £300,000. When she and her colleagues submitted themselves for re-election a few weeks ago at the district council elections, 51 members of a council of some 56 members were Conservatives and the rest were opposition members. That is living proof that competitive tendering can deliver value for money to the ratepayer, who benefits and votes Conservative as a result.
  The Bill will offer every prospect of improvements to all ratepayers in the United Kingdom. They will, as a result of it, receive services at much lower cost. There are enough examples of district councils voluntarily introducing an element of competitive tendering into their services over the past few years. Nearly every local authority that has done that has been able to deliver to its ratepayers and the residents of its boroughs services at a lower cost, but of the same, or higher, standards than existed before. I welcome every aspect of the Bill.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: It is normally the custom to mention one's predecessor. Unfortunately, in view of the repercussions from the general election, I shall not in the meantime follow that custom tonight.
  The Bill advances various buzz words among its objectives which betray its purely political intentions. It seeks to introduce what it calls "competitive tendering". It seeks to stop what the Government call
  "party politics on the rates."
  The Bill wants to make direct labour organisations, in its own words, "competitive" and to
  "improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities".
  I can agree with some of those objectives, but they are not necessarily delivered by the Bill. They are sought by the Government in a manner that will diminish local government powers and reduce the standing, status and staff of local authorities. Whatever these short-term measures may mean, the long-term proposals are quite obvious—a reduction in staff, status and standing of local government in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
  The great irony for the Scots is that, in trying to protect our institutions, we find that this measure for Scotland is being tacked on to the end of an English piece of legislation. We know why. It is because there are too few Tories properly to man the Scottish Committees.
  The Government have no mandate for these measures. Indeed, the opposite is true. They were specifically rejected by the Scottish electorate. I hope, therefore, that this is not the start of a trend in Scottish legislation, because it is not good enough. I hope that the powers that be in the House will take on board the strength of feeling in Scotland about the practice of tacking on Scottish legislation to English Bills, rather than properly considering them in the context of Scotland.
  134
  We have Scottish local government institutions, we have a separate judicial system and now, apparently, we have a separate political system. Scottish legislation needs to be given proper scrutiny by Scots Members. in its proper context.
  The Bill contains massive problems in its details. Competitive tendering is in it, not because of "efficiency", but as part of a general attack on local authorities. This is another step along the Government's path to reducing the power of local government. Central Government already control capital spending. The Government have taken on extra powers over revenue, to which they are now adding extra powers that are steps down the road to centralisation.
  The accusation of inefficiency in local government, which is implied throughout the Bill, is an insult to local government and to local authority professionalism and its traditions of public service and accountability. It is a great cheek for the Government to tell others that they should increase their efficiency. The system at Westminister separates budgets from spending, passes Bills that are not linked with the Government's overall income and has no way of monitoring its current spending.
  Parliament must be one of the most inefficient organisations known to mankind. How can an organisation that cannot even register its own Members without something resembling a rugby scrum and provides those Members with working conditions that would be regarded as a disgrace by junior management in any self-respecting company accuse local authorities of being inefficient arid force on them tendering arrangements that they would not otherwise introduce'?
  The COSLA critique points out that local government produces good value for money and that local authority budgeting gets within plus or minus 1 per cent. of its targets. No Government have ever achieved that. Conservative Governments looking for efficiency have regularly produced budget overshoots of tens of billions of pounds. It is not local government, but central Government that is financially inefficient.
  After 11 years of constant cuts in revenue, local authorities have had to be more efficient. They cannot afford to miss tendering opportunities. Therefore, I disagree strongly with the assumption that local government cannot put its own house in order and must be forced to follow the supposed improvements in the Bill.
  I am opposed to institutionalised graffiti. I have never seen sense in one political grouping putting up signs at public expense, merely to find that, in the normality of politics, it is replaced by another group that puts up different signs which people find equally offensive. However, decisions on such matters should be made locally by locally elected councillors and the local electorate, not by central Government sledgehammer methods such as those proposed in the Bill. What difference is there between local government slogans and taxpayers' money being spent on partisan party politics such as council house sales, privatisation or other issues? The local electorate, and not a politically biased Secretary of State, should decide such matters.
  The measures in the Bill against direct labour organisations show the Government's true intent. Of course, there are examples of grossly inefficient DLOs, but there are many other examples of the effective use of permanent local authority staff in providing continuity of work and quality of standards. In their desire to reduce the

  135
  local government work force the Government are unnecessarily throwing away the dependability of a local government system, merely to satisfy a political theory. That is entirely wrong, and will be seen to be wrong.
  By abolishing the dog licence the Government have abdicated their responsibility in a matter that is a serious problem for local authorities in terms of health and the environment. Only a long-term system involving dog wardens and dog pounds, allied to a properly priced licence, with safeguards for owners of guide dogs and for pensioners and the unemployed, will solve the problem. Someone has to take responsibility, but instead of grasping the nettle or instead of lumbering local authorities, the Government merely abdicate all responsibility.
  It is equally typical of central Government consistently to starve local authorities of housing support grant and financial assistance for housing. They then ask local authorities to spread what little they have left even further into the private sector. Central Government again appear to be giving new powers, but not the new money that is required to meet the new responsibilities. That is one of the banes of local authority work that I have had to face for the past three years in my own local authority. If the Government wish local authorities to do extra work, they should give them the resources to do it.
  On the plus side, I welcome the extension of the powers of the ombudsman. It is a small part of the jigsaw that will eventually lead us to give our omnbudsman the same kind of powers as ombudsmen expect and use in Scandanavia, New Zealand and even in Quebec. It is a small step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be on the road to a proper system of administrative justice in Britain. However, I am afraid that that is a long way off.
  Alarmingly, the Bill contains a clause that gives open-ended powers to the Secretary of State, and those powers presage further encroachment on the local government system. Parliament dictates local authority powers, and this Government are forever eroding what little autonomy remains with local authorities. I should like to see a different approach, one that gives maximum self-determination to local authorities. It should be an approach that clearly defines their powers and adequately funds them, allowing them to provide adequate services for their ratepayers.
  Local authorities are a crucial part of our democratic system, and that is especially true in what is becoming a faceless age of centralisation. The Bill does not help at all. It contains some good elements, but, on balance, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote against it. I shall be joined in my opposition by my hon. Members in Plaid Cymru, who are equally concerned about the implications of this measure for Wales.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. James Marshall.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. James Marshall: I gather from those cheers that hon. Members are getting restless about coming to a decision. I can assure the House that I shall not detain it too long. After an absence of four years I am again pleased to represent the constituents of Leicester, South. As the House will remember, I have in the past extolled the virtures of Leicester, South, which is a
  136
  microcosm of Britain. In the city of Leicester we have the social, economic and political divisions that are to be found throughout the country.
  In my constituency there is a large inner city area with massive social and economic deprivation, while in the suburbs there is private affluence. I assure the House and warn the Government that throughout the life of this Parliament I shall judge the Government's policies and actions in terms of how they will affect my constituents. Before moving on, I should like to comment on my predecessor, Mr. Derek Spencer. I understand that he was diligent in handling constituents' problems and was held in some esteem by his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I can only say that I wish him well in the career that he will pursue.
  Unfortunately, one of the legacies that Mr. Spencer has left in the House and in the city of Leicester is the pernicious image that he and Mr. Peter Bruinvels, the former Member for Leicester, East, fostered—that Leicester city council is extremely silly. He has done a great disservice to the city of Leicester, and all the people who live there. It is a curious distortion of the political process that a city council that seeks to protect its services, enhance both its private and public housing and encourage local enterprise should be labelled extremist. Both those individuals were assisted on many occasions by glib comments and remarks from Ministers. I hope that we do not have a recurrence of such behaviour.
  I know that The Sun, the Daily Mirror and The Mail would love to see Mr. Bruinvels return here, but as the electorate of Leicester, East showed in the election that they had had enough of him, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) now represents that constituency. Mr. Bruinvels may be back, but he will not be back to represent the city of Leicester.
  Unfortunately, local authorities like Leicester have to face every day the human consequences of the Government's social and economic policies. I find it abhorrent that in clause 26, the Government seek to gag local authorities by denying them the right to criticise the central Government actions and policies that bring about human disasters and miseries.
  The Bill represents a further attack on the independence of local government. I have said before that there is a difficult relationship between central and local government. There will always be tensions in such a relationship, but one does not resolve the problem or remove the tension by gagging one of the parties to the debate, as clause 26 seeks to do. It will reduce the rights of local authorities to voice opposition and put forward the views of those whom they represent.
  Increasingly, in their contacts with local authorities the Government appear to be telling them that they must accept Government policy or lose the right to dissent. Clause 26 imposes restrictions on local authorities that are not placed on other public or private bodies. They will continue to have the right to comment on controversial issues while the new legislation will deny that right to local authorities or to national associations of local authorities. It represents a unique repression of local councils.
  I ask the Minister three specific questions, on which I should like answers. Clause 26 includes subjective judgments. My first question is, who is to decide what is the likely effect of publicity? Secondly, who is to determine what is a question of political controversy? Thirdly, who

  137
  will define a campaign? We already have strict controls against party political publicity, so why do we need those extra restrictions?
  It appears to me that the Government are seeking to repress democratic debate by preventing local authorities from acting as the local voice of the people and denying them the right to express local issues and views in opposition to those views put forward by central Government. That represents a further step down the road towards the tyranny of the centre over local democracy. I for one shall vote vigorously in opposition to the Bill.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak as the new hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I believe that it is customary in maiden speeches to mention one's predecessor. My predecessor was Richard Hickmet. Although we had fundamental differences in policy, he carried out his duties as an hon. Member conscientiously, and I wish him well in his continuing career as a barrister.
  The constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe has been through traumatic changes in recent years with the reduction of its original base of steel workers. There has been a reduction from 20,000 steel workers eight years ago to about 7,500 today. The fact that I am standing here at all is a tribute to all those who campaigned so hard in the Labour party and to our success in attracting support from the voters who are reasonably well off home owners with high aspirations for themselves and their families. They rejected the appeal to narrow self-interest and instead voted for decency, justice, caring for our community, the quality of life and good local services. That is why I am particularly grateful to speak in a debate on local government and the services that it provides.
  I have a local government background. I believe that local government is the very grassroots of democracy and local accountability. I serve two councils in my constituency — the Labour-controlled council of Scunthorpe and the Conservative-controlled council of Glanford. I may have differences with those councils, but I support their right to make decisions on the basis of local democracy and choice; decisions that affect their people, based on the priorities as the councils consider them and how they will affect their people.
  My constituents want efficiency and value for money from their services. However, there is nothing efficient about undercutting council services and simply sacking the work force, re-employing fewer of them on lower wages and under poorer conditions and using the whip hand of high unemployment to force those workers down.
  Already a very good refuse collection in the borough has been undermined because it has had to be reformed to get it ready to compete. That has led to complaints and a deterioration in service. Scunthorpe has traditionally always provided a high level of services, community and leisure centres, and has one of the highest percentages of urban areas of parklands and playing fields. That must be paid for. We do not get anything for nothing. However, it is significant that Scunthorpe has had a higher success rate in attracting new industry to the borough than has its neighbouring Conservative-controlled council, even though they both have the same kind of grants and facilities to attract industry. It is also significant that local
  138
  councils are seen as more important in many ways than central Government in helping industries to set up and in providing the services that industries need.
  The Bill goes farther than simply attacking the jobs and conditions of those working in local government. In clause 26 it attacks the basic freedoms of local councils to campaign on behalf of their people. An example would be Humberside county council which led the campaign against the dumping of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste at South Killingholme. That campaign could well have been ruled illegal under clause 26.
  In terms of local accountability, Scunthorpe holds elections every year and puts its policies to the test. What tests has local authority privatisation have? There had been spectacular failures, and industries such as British Telecom have been shown in a report published today to have reduced the quality of services. Service to people has deteriorated since privatisation.
  As a former teacher, I know only too well the excellent work of council employees such as school cleaners and dinner staff, most of whom are women and are on low pay. Such jobs are particularly at risk, and it is women who will suffer especially if the jobs are contracted out.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State said that core services such as teaching will not be contracted out, but it seems that some schools will be allowed to contract themselves out. Education was an issue at the general election, because parents want stability and an end to unrest. The Government's interference with local authorities has already threatened teachers' jobs in my constituency through their insistence on using falling rolls as a way of saving money rather than reducing class sizes. The Government have talked of improving education standards and seeking co-operation with teachers. Overruling local authority agreements with teachers and denying their basic human rights in negotiations will be as successful in obtaining their co-operation as soaking someone's house in petrol and then asking him to pass the matches.
  Another example of privatisation is bus deregulation. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, but he may remember, if and when he reads the report of my speech, that I met him some years ago to argue about deregulation. I did not think much of his ideas then, and I do not think much of them now. Time has demonstrated that everything that we warned about deregulation was right. In my constituency, Lincolnshire Road Car has been placed in an impossible position. Jobs are being lost and wages are being cut. Fares have not been cut and services have not been improved.
  I am glad that the privatisation of steel did not feature in the Gracious Speech. Scunthorpe's steel workers have already suffered from back-door privatisation. There has been contracting out of many production and maintenance jobs and this has threatened job security, conditions and pensions. Scunthorpe's steel workers have broken all production, quality and productivity records and they deserve a better reward than the insecurity of privatisation.
  Steel influences the local council in my consituency to such an extent that even the reflection of the furnaces on the night clouds is incorporated in the council's moto, which is
  "The heavens reflect our labours."
  I want that glow in the sky to continue to raise my spirits as I travel home to Scunthorpe. I want the glow to remain,

  139
  as I want the steel jobs to remain. I want the steel workers and their families, along with every other constituent, to enjoy the excellent local services that are provided by Scunthorpe. I do not want to see services slashed and the jobs and wages of those who serve in their communities slashed with them.
  11.37 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: In this debate we have heard maiden speeches from 10 hon. Members; one from the Scottish Nationalist party, three from the Conservative party and six from the official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on their maiden speeches. I can do that with a spirit of more than usual generosity, as in each instance the seat was not taken from the Labour party. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on his maiden speech, in which he spoke with some eloquence about the inability of the Government and the House to organise their own affairs. That led the hon. Gentleman to wonder why the Government are so willing to lecture others on their organisations.
  We heard an eloquent and powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), in which he explained his experience as a councillor and a good leader of the London borough of Haringey. My hon. Friend is concerned that the Government's inner city policies, which have a great deal more tinsel than reality about them, are leading to more deprivation of the people who live in the inner cities, and will continue to do so.
  We heard an articulate, witty and forensic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), in which he explained his opposition to having an omnibus Bill that seeks to foist on the Scottish system of local government provisions that are wholly alien to its traditions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) paid an eloquent tribute to the former Labour Member, Joe Dean as he was then, and to the former Liberal Member, Michael Meadowcroft. He showed great generosity in paying tribute to Michael Meadowcroft, whom we all remember, and to the work that he did in this place. Labour Members have a special pleasure in welcoming my hon. Friend, because his was the only victory in England where we took a seat from the Liberal party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made a powerful speech about the importance of local government in the provision of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, and about the central importance of local government in the operation of democracy.
  Opposition Members welcome back to the House my good and hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), whose presence was as sorely missed in the last Parliament as the absence of Mr. Peter Bruinvels will be celebrated in this one, on both sides of the House. [Hon. Members: "Oh."]— I think that hon. Members doth protest too much.
  We heard a fine maiden speech—all the finer for its brevity—from my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who as someone else remarked to me, made a not only generous but very charitable reference to his predecessor, Mr. Richard
  140
  Hickmet, whom many of us remember. However, he also spoke powerfully in support of the right of councils of both persuasions to make their own decisions about how their own local communities should be run.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said in his opening speech, there is always a Local Government Bill under the present Administration. The last Local Government Bill 1987 only completed its passage through the House on the last day of the last Parliament. This Bill was published within a day of the opening of the new Parliament, and has its Second Reading today, the first available day in this Parliament. For those of us on both Front and Back Benches who have been dealing with local government legislation these last four years, the norm is to be stuck upstairs in Committee with Environment Ministers; the exception is to be able to devote some time to one's constituents and the world outside local Government.
  I see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary smiling. The only consolation for my hon. Friends and myself is that in four years we have seen off two Secretaries of State, two Ministers of State and innumerable Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. We congratulate the new Minister for Local Government on his elevation and appointment. He is, it has been said, the only man reckless enough to wager his ambition upon the passage of the poll tax legislation. The Secretary of State should beware the smile on the face of his Minister: it was, after all, the last Minister of State but one—the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—who ended up with his master's job.
  This is the 44th Local Government Bill from a Government who, in ancient times—I speak of 1970 or thereabouts—were committed to such dangerous, not to say revolutionary, propositions as trust in the people, rolling back the frontiers of the state and transferring power from Whitehall and Westminster to local communities and their town and county halls. But, in each of those 44 Bills, the Government have removed themselves from what were once key tenets of Conservative philosophy. In their place is not a philosophy, but a collection of crude, short-sighted prejudices by which it is asserted that Parliament is sovereign in the country, the Conservative party is dominant in Parliament and No. 10 and the Whips control the Conservative party, and that therefore No. 10 and the Whips should control the country. Nowhere is that attitude more obvious—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central pointed out — than in the Government's approach to dissent.
  Dissent is at the core of democracy: it is about the right to do and say things differently from those who hold power. Yet the Government's approach and reaction to dissent is to see it not as an occasion for celebration but as a threat, and then to seek to crush it. Even from within the Cabinet — as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland reminded us—we are now told by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that the Prime Minister's approach is to run a Stalinist regime. What, above all, characterised Joseph Stalin's approach was the crushing of dissent and the centralisation of power, which is a necessary consequence of that approach.
  Mr. David Ashby: This is over the top.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman had better direct that remark to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North,

  141
  who said that he looks forward to the time when we no longer have a Stalinist regime. That was in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, so it must be true.
  The Bill is all of a piece with the Stalinism of which the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North spoke yesterday. It tries to say that there is only one way—the Prime Minister's way—in which the efficient delivery of local government services can be achieved. That is by what is laughingly called competition, but which is in practice the forced transfer of public services to just two multinational corporations which happen to have a number of Conservative Members in tow and which have made substantial contributions to the Conservative party or its front organisations.
  We are told that the Government are about the restoration of Victorian values. These, however, are not the values of Conservatives such as Disraeli, Lord Shaftesbury or even Lord Salisbury. They are the Benthamite values of the Gradgrind of "Hard Times" and those early Victorians who believed that any regulation of factory organisation or any imposition of statutory improvement of conditions of labour were bound to damage enterprise and undermine the moral fibre of the nation.
  In part II, we see the Government taking extraordinary powers at the request, this time, of their paymasters in the building and construction industry, to exclude from contractual conditions anything which is euphemistically described as non-commercial. It was in 1891, under the Government formed by Lord Salisbury, when the Conservative party — the old, traditional Conservative party—first decided that it should lay down regulations concerning fair wages among contractors who contracted with the public sector. What was the argument advanced at that time? I shall quote the Treasury Bench of Lord Salisbury's Government, which said
  "It is the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, to insert such conditions as may prevent the abuse arising from subletting"—
  subcontracting today—
  "and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."
  That is the stance that the Conservative party took 96 years ago. In 1945, the Conservative party joined hands with the Labour Government in strengthening the fair wages resolution to ensure that fair wages and trade union rights were recognised wherever public sector contracts were let. Now we have, in clause 17, a Government who sweep aside the respective histories of the Labour party and the Conservative party.
  The lump—the abuse of labour only subcontracting—to which even the Heath Government of the early 1970's took exception, is now protected by subsection 5(b). Most astonishing of all, local authorities are now to be expressly prohibited by law from providing minimum conditions of employment and the fair wages that, 96 years ago, the Government formed by a hardly revolutionary Lord Salisbury tried to provide through their fair wages resolution.
  Local authorities are prohibited even from laying down provisos about the training of people employed by private firms. Because of part I, such firms will take increasing responsibility for providing local authority services. Local authorities will be unable to insist on minimum levels of
  142
  training for the staff of private firms who are providing a catering service, when knowledge of and adherence to the public health regulations is critical.
  There was extensive discussion in Committee of the contract compliance provisions in the Bill that was passed at the end of the last Parliament. I spelt out the Labour party's approach, and the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) accepted that there was some common ground between us. He referred to the Race Relations Act 1976 and also said:
  "Health and safety legislation is also part of the law of the land, as is equal opportunities legislation. That legislation is applicable throughout the country and it is expected that local authorities will enforce it." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 April 1987, c. 242.]
  I ask his successor, the new Minister for Local Government, to say where provision is made in this Bill for the enforcement by local authorities of the health and safety legislation. And where is provision made for the enforcement of the equal opportunities legislation? Is it not a fact that since the departure of the right hon. Member for Brent, North the Government have watered down even further their adherence to even the minimum level of contract compliance?
  I press the Minister again on the well publicised difference of opinion between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State. In his elegant fashion, the Minister suggested that there was no disagreement between the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. Why is it, then, that the press officers of the Department of Employment have been briefing us so heavily against the Secretary of State for the Environment, and vice versa?
  In a television programme on 1 July, Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby said that if firms came to the inner cities the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should guarantee that a certain proportion of the jobs went to the people who live in the inner cities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was very keen upon doing that. In his own inimitable fashion, he was saying, yes. If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is very keen that firms coming into the inner cities should both provide jobs for those who live there and give a guarantee that jobs will be provided for them, how will the Minister of State achieve that if, according to the Bill, it is not possible for a local authority to insist that the guarantee should be written into the contract between a local authority and an outside firm? I offer to the Minister yet another opportunity to explain how this Bill can be squared with what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He does not take the opportunity that I offer to him, so we know now that he has had second thoughts and that what the Secretary of State for the Environment says and what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says is not a seamless robe.
  How on earth can the Minister justify this Government's opposition to contract compliance when even the Reagan Government in the United States has used contract compliance to ensure equal opportunities in race relations and equal opportunities for women? The Republican federal contract compliance programme applies to 300,000 companies and 41 million employees. So unacceptable is all this that the Government have been unable to find support for their actions, even among Conservative local government. That is apparent from the words of the Conservative-dominated Association of

  143
  District Councils. Indeed, the latest survey in the Local Government Chronicle shows that Conservative authorities are voting with their feet when it comes to privatisation, with a sharp fall in the number of authorities contracting out services and a rise in the number of authorities that have abandoned that practice.
  We do not deny that local authorities may be able to achieve some savings by privatisation, but we object to the means by which they will do so. The only way in which to do so is by cutting the wages of those who are already very poorly paid indeed.
  It was the Conservative Gillingham borough council which in the latest edition of the Local Government Chronicle set its face against any further privatisation and said that it would not consider any further privatisation
  "unless the Government so dictates".
  Dictate is indeed the word. No longer are this Government even willing to trust the experience of their own supporters in local government and to accept their dissenting voice that there are better ways of delivering efficiency than through enforced privatisation.
  Eighteen months and two Ministers of State ago we went through in great detail the restrictions then proposed on local authority publicity. The Government went too far on that occasion and were defeated in the Lords. Even so, that Bill as enacted contained far reaching restrictions on local government publicity—ones that local government has observed. Not once to the best of my recollection since the enactment of that Bill has any Minister been able to point to what he would describe as an abuse of that legislation. The Secretary of State certainly failed to do so.
  All hon. Members should weigh the words of clause 26, which states:
  "In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall be had to … whether the material … promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another".
  I venture to suggest that there is not another Western nation—unless by definition we include Pinochet's Chile or the current regime in South Korea—that would even contemplate such a provision, let alone put it into law.
  But there is a bigger question of the goose and gander variety. As dissent has been closed down in local government, there has been a vast expansion of central Government expenditure on publicity. Just before the election scarcely a day went past before there was yet another publication of another "glossy" on education, defence, "Action for Jobs", or the reform of social security. There was one aspect of Conservative propaganda after another, all of which was paid for by the British taxpayer. There were leaflets, posters and carefully timed advertisements, and all were on questions of political controversy that was identifiable as a view of one political party and not of another.
  I therefore ask the Minister two questions. Does he remotely suggest that the Government's expenditure on all that publicity is consistent with the prohibition in clause 26, and is he willing to practise what he preaches? Will he accept amendments to ensure that these provisions have the same force on Ministers as they have on local authorities?
  This Bill is not about competition, the efficient delivery of services or the encouragement of enterprise. It is about the arrogance of power. So lacking in the art of persuasion
  144 s
  are these Ministers that they cannot even persuade their own colleagues in local government of the wisdom of what they propose. Instead of appreciating the moral in this rejection—that perhaps the propositions they make are so wrong-headed that even their own supporters cannot subscribe to them—they blithely believe that the whole world is out of step but themselves. To comfort themselves in that belief, to ensure that the world is only as they think it is, in true Stalinist fashion they seek to silence all dissent about their proposals. this is a bad Bill from a bad Government. We shall oppose it in the Lobby tonight.
  12 midnight
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): It is a privilege to wind up in the first debate on the Second Reading of a Bill that we have debated in the Parliament. We have heard a notable number of maiden speeches, and I congratulate the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Gentleman the retread for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), all of whom made distinguished speeches and all of whom paid tribute to their predecessors. As for the speech of the other retread, the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), all that was notable about his speech was the fact that he was unable to bring himself to say a word about his predecessor. I relish the opportunity to make good that omission. Peter Fraser was a Member of the House who was regarded with a great deal of affection on both sides of the House. We miss him greatly.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh rose—
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman had his chance to say what he should have said and he conspicuously failed to use it at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not persist if the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Howard: I turn to the speeches of my hon. Friends—
  Mr. Welsh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I would be happy to explain to the Minister why I did not do that. There is no personal animosity whatsoever, nor should there be. He will find in due course what the repercussions were from that election campaign—it was through the courts of law.
  Mr. Howard: It is a bit late now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I turn to the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) made a distinguished maiden speech in which he drew on the experiences in his past which are relevant to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), in a mature, powerful speech, similarly drew on the knowledge which he has of those matters which are at the heart of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) tellingly drew on his experience in local government to give the House the benefit of the wisdom and knowledge that he brings to our deliberations on those matters.
  This has been a debate which has told us a great deal about the attitudes of the two sides of the House to some very fundamental questions about the nature of local

  145
  government. Not surprisingly, the debate has concentrated on parts I and II of the Bill. From this side of the House we have had a series of speeches supporting some very simple propositions. The first was that local government exists not to serve the interests of sectional trade unionists, but to serve the interests of the people for whom it provides services. The second was that these services, in common with other services in other areas of economic life, will be provided more efficiently if they are subjected to competition. The third was that the people who will benefit from the more efficient provision of those services are the very people whose interests local government exists to serve.
  Those propositions should not be controversial. Indeed, I have deliberately, in setting out the first and most fundamental, used the identical language used by Councillor Margaret Hodge, the Leader of Islington borough council, as reported in the Local Government Chronicle of 3 July. She is reported as saying:
  "A clear message has got to go out from us, which is—the reason we are there is not to service the interests of sectional trade unionists, but to serve the interests of the people for whom we provide services."
  It is a message that has yet to reach the Opposition Benches. Speaker after speaker from those benches has risen to defend sectional interests, vested interests. For all we heard of them from the Opposition Benches, the people for whom the services are provided might as well not exist.
  It should come as no surprise that the words of councillor Hodge have not reached her colleagues on the Opposition Benches. She can hardly be said to practice what she preaches. Islington council's spending record is so appalling that its rate has had to be capped each year since the Rates Act 1984 came into force.
  Mr. Straw: Since the Minister is talking about sectional interests, does he defend the interests of a number of Conservative Members in BET and the Hawley group, and the fact that those two groups, sectional interests if ever there were any, are to dominate the privatisation of cleaning and other services?
  Mr. Howard: Generalised slurs of that sort deserve to be treated with the utmost contempt. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make specific allegations against specific hon. Members, he should do that in the proper way and those specific Members will respond. To engage in that sort of blanket character assassination, although it is the sort of behaviour we have come to expect from the Opposition Members, deserves to be treated with the utmost contempt.
  I want to return to the subject of the debate; the record of the councillors whose conduct will be controlled by the legislation currently before the House.
  Islington, like so many Socialist-controlled councils, has used creative accounting devices to put off the evil day when its ratepayers have to bear the costs of its profligacy. Mrs. Hodge fully understood the risk that she was taking. She was reported last year as having written to her Labour colleagues
  "This is a high risk strategy, because not only does it depend on a change of Government, but it also depends on a commitment by the Labour Front Bench to bail us out when they return to power".
  She now knows how high that risk was.
  Her council had rent arrears of £6·2 million and rate arrears of £11·4 million. Both figures are well above the average for its class. In November last year it owned 227
  146
  vacant dwellings—5·8 per cent. of its total stock. In those circumstances it invested £250,000 from its employees' pension fund in the ill-fated News on Sunday. Once again, ratepayers will have to pick up the costs of that investment.
  The council has also made sure that its building maintenance direct labour organisation is protected from fair competition. In 1984–85 it put all its housing maintenance work out to tender as a single contract with conditions which were so onerous that no private contractors bothered to tender. Since then it has introduced a ban on contracts with companies with South African links. Both those practices will be stopped by this Bill.
  Councillor Hodge may have belatedly recognised in her words this weekend the truth about the essential purpose of local government. However, the actions of Islington council fall a very long way short of matching her words. However, it is precisely her message, that local authorities are there to serve the interests of the people for whom they provied services, that lies at the heart of the Bill. It is the people for whom the services are provided who will benefit if those services are provided efficiently and economically. It is the people for whom the services are provided who will lose and suffer if they are not.
  We have had many examples during the course of the debate of savings which have been achieved from the competitive tendering process. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Wandsworth's savings now running at £6 million each year. There are many other examples. The London borough of Merton has reported annual savings approaching £2·5 million on the services that it has contracted out. Independent bodies are in no doubt of the savings available. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the London Business School said in an article last year that where local authorities had exposed their refuse collection operations to competition, costs had been reduced by between 17 and 22 per cent. The authors said that applying this to those authorities which had not so far done this would mean savings of a further £80 million in England and Wales as a whole.
  The Audit Commission in its recent paper on competitiveness and contracting out concluded that lack of sufficient effective competition was costing authorities some £510 million in forgone value improvements on just three services—house maintenance, refuse collection and vehicle maintenance. It even went so far as to say:
  "On average DLOs are more expensive to ratepayers than private suppliers. That is, most DLOs are not cost-competitive."
  It is the people who gain from such savings. It is the people who are able to take advantage of the extra services that those savings can be used to provide or the lowering of rates to which such savings can lead.
  In this debate my right hon. and hon. Friends have once again shown themselves to be the champions of the people; the Labour party has once again shown itself to be the champion of narrow, sectional interests.
  Mr. Maxton: I cannot see how the Minister can possibly talk for the people of Scotland. At local government level, regional and district level and at national level the people of Scotland have clearly rejected the Minister and his Government. Therefore nothing in this Bill should have anything to do with Scotland because the Scottish people do not want it.
  Mr. Howard: The people of Scotland will benefit from the provisions of this Bill in exactly the same way as the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. We shall not allow the actions of Opposition Members to prevent us from bringing the benefits of our policies to the people of Scotland in this legislation as in so many other respects.
  I shall now deal with some points that were raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked about the draft code of practice on publicity arrangements and asked what the Government's intentions were on the code of practice. There is nothing sinister about it. The period of consultation in relation to that code of practice expired on 3 July. We shall consider the responses to that code of practice. On the face of it we see no reason to change the draft simply because of its change of status as proposed in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also asked, as did the hon. Member for Leicester, South who would be the judge of those provisions and how they will be enforced. They will be enforced in the way in which we believe all provisions of this nature should be enforced, through the courts. The judges will be the courts and the courts will determine what interpretation should be applied to those provisions.
  I must deal with one particular matter which, although it was not mentioned by any of the Opposition, was mentioned by three of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Foulkes) expressed her reservations about the abolition of the dog licence. She was joined in that by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). It is an important matter about which many people feel strongly and it is something with which I must deal.
  I hope that I can at least go some way towards allaying the reservations of my hon. Friends. I assure them that the abolition of the licence will not, in any way, affect the legislation to control dogs. There are powers available to local authorities to deal with the problem of dog fouling, to ban dogs from certain beaches or parks or to require dogs to be kept on a lead. Local authorities are also able to employ dog wardens. The local authorities in Scotland and some in England and Wales have powers similar to those of the police to deal with strays.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Drake, raised the particular problem of livestock worrying. That is of great concern to farmers and I assure my hon. Friend that the legislation to deal with that problem will remain. Powers to deal with dogs that are not under control or which attack people are also unchanged. I hope that those assurances will go some way to allay the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends.
  We have heard a good deal during the debate about the relationship between central Government and local government. In his speech, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) went back to 1891, to put some thoughts to us. I should like to remind the House of some much more recent observations by the hon. Member himself. In one of the last debates on these matters in the previous Parliament—the debate on the Second Reading of the Bills's predecessor on 3 March — the hon. Gentleman, with his customary ingenuity, put forward a novel constitutional doctrine, the doctrine of the most recent mandate. He reminded the House that
  "all the local councils in this country have a mandate that is far more recent than that of the Government."
  148
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the accountability that was available through the ballot box, adding rather boldly:
  "The Labour party is not afraid of that test, although the Government may be." —[Official Report, 3 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 781.]
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: As a fellow countryman from Llanelli, may I ask the Minister to address himself to whether, in view of the election result, the Government have a mandate to impose policies on the nations of Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Howard: The Government have a mandate for their policies for the United Kingdom as a whole. We shall carry out that mandate with relish because we know of the benefits that it will bring to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
  I return to the constitutional doctrines of the hon. Member for Blackburn. It is characteristic of his ingenuity that no sooner does he invent those novel doctrines than he abandons them. We have not heard anything this evening from the hon. Gentleman about the doctrine of the most recent mandate. I wonder why.
  It is a fact that the passages in the Bill that have been the subject of the most vociferous attack from the Opposition were spelled out clearly in our manifesto for the general election. They were placed fairly and squarely before the people, and we shall do what we told the people we would do.
  I must admit that I came to the House today with a certain amount of anticipation. Over the weekend the world was led to believe by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), with whom I had so many enjoyable tussles during the Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill, that the Labour party was to be dragged kicking and screaming into the first half of the 20th century. In future, he said, the Labour party would make the popular appeal of policy a prime consideration, not an afterthought. Indeed, we understand that the Leader of the Opposition himself has been giving vent to similar thoughts today. I had expected to see signs of that during today's debate. After all, if the Labour party was minded to take the hon. Gentleman's advice, what better occasion could there be than the Bill?
  We know about the popularity of the policies enshrined in the Bill not only from the result of the general election but from a more precisely targeted source, some opinion poll research carried out by the National and Local Government Officers Association. To the great discomfort of NALGO, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on the Address last Wednesday, its research showed that:
  "Researchers find such strong feelings that privatisation is an extremely good idea that they advised that, though it is an issue of great importance to NALGO, it should probably be avoided in the campaign to defend public services." —[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 539.]
  Sadly, the advice of the hon. Member for Dagenham has fallen on stony ground. His party has learnt nothing from its defeat. The debate has shown that it is the same old Labour party with the same old shibboleths and the same old Socialism. I warn Opposition Members that the way they are going, at the next election it will be the same old result.
  It is perfectly clear that Labour will continue to oppose the popular policies that the Government will bring forward. It will continue to defend sectional vested

  149
  interests while we promote the interests of the people. The Bill does nothing for the sectional interests to whom councillor Margaret Hodge referred in her weekend statement. It does much for the people whom local authorities exist to serve. It is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 212.

  Division No. 7]

  [12.20 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Forman, Nigel

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Allason, Rupert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Amos, Alan

  Gorst, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gow, Ian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Ashby, David

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Atkins, Robert

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Atkinson, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Grist, Ian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Ground, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Grylls, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Benyon, W.

  Hannam, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Harris, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hayes, Jerry

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Heddle, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hill, James

  Bowis, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Holt, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Michael

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Irvine, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Irving, Charles

  Butler, Chris

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Janman, Timothy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jessel, Toby

  Carttiss, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Durant, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  150

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  Latham, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mates, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miller, Hal

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moate, Roger

  Thorne, Neil

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Tredinnick, David

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Paice, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Watts, John

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wheeler, John

  Pawsey, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilshire, David

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Raffan, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Renton, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  151

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Allen, Graham

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Anderson, Donald

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Graham, Thomas

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Battle, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Beith, A. J.

  Henderson, Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Holland, Stuart

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Home Robertson, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hood, James

  Blair, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Howells, Geraint

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ingram, Adam

  Buchan, Norman

  Janner, Greville

  Buckley, George

  John, Brynmor

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lambie, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lamond, James

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clay, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Clelland, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livsey, Richard

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Tom

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Ian

  Cryer, Bob

  Macdonald, Calum

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McFall, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Darling, Alastair

  McLeish, Henry

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McWilliam, John

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

  Madden, Max

  Dewar, Donald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dixon, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunnachie, James

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martlew, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Meale, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Flannery, Martin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Morley, Elliott

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Mullin, Chris

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Murphy, Paul

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Nellist, Dave

  George, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  O'Brien, William

  152

  O'Neill, Martin

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Parry, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Pike, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Prescott, John

  Stott, Roger

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Randall, Stuart

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Redmond, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wall, Pat

  Reid, John

  Wallace, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Worthington, Anthony

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Dewar.]
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 243.

  Division No. 8]

  [12.30 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coleman, Donald

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Battle, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Margaret

  Darling, Alastair

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dixon, Don

  Blair, Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunnachie, James

  Boyes, Roland

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buchan, Norman

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buckley, George

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foster, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Clay, Bob

  George, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cohen, Harry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  153

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Morley, Elliott

  Gould, Bryan

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  O'Brien, William

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Douglas

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Holland, Stuart

  Pike, Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, James

  Prescott, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howells, Geraint

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Reid, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Ingram, Adam

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George

  John, Brynmor

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lambie, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lamond, James

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leighton, Ron

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Short, Clare

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Livsey, Richard

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerald

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  McCartney, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McFall, John

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Turner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Wall, Pat

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wallace, James

  McWilliam, John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michael, Alun

  Worthington, Anthony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wray, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Allason, Rupert

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amos, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Benyon, W.

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  154

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Jack, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Janman, Timothy

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jessel, Toby

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Knapman, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Knox, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Lang, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Latham, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Lilley, Peter

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Burns, Simon

  Lord, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Butcher, John

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Butler, Chris

  McCrindle, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Maclean, David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Madel, David

  Conway, Derek

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Mans, Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maples, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Marland, Paul

  Durant, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Hal

  Gow, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Ground, Patrick

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Grylls, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mudd, David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Needham, Richard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Neubert, Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Heddle, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hill, James

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

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

  Raffan, Keith

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Redwood, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irvine, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  155

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rost, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tredinnick, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Ward, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wheeler, John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Summerson, Hugo

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thome, Neil

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills)

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

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of that Act;

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

  12.42 am
  Mr. Donald Dewar: There was a brief exchange at the beginning of the Second Reading debate which I am sure that the Minister witnessed, during which a number of points were raised about the handling of this legislation as far as it related to Scotland. It would be improper for me to rehearse those arguments now and I refer to them only in passing. However, there is undoubtedly a strong feeling in the House—as I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that this is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the different local traditions that we have in Scotland with its different local government structure.
  I will not spend any time discussing the difficulties involved in our picking our way through this legislation. That will be a matter for the Committee. I hope that there will be a strong Scottish input on that Committee and I look forward to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) leading his no doubt small task force in that stage of the Bill's proceedings.
  I have for the Minister one or two questions, although I realise that a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. First, the Money Resolution refers to
  "any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of that Act".
  Perhaps my question reveals my inexperience in this kind of debate. However, does the "Secretary of State" referred to in the resolution include other Secretaries of State, including the Secretaries of States for Scotland and for Wales? I cannot see any definition of Secretary of State in the Bill. Such a definition may not be necessary. However, no doubt the Minister will deal with that question— I would normally have said with his courteous manner, but perhaps tonight that description is strained—when he replies.
  Secondly, I want to ask about the financial implications of part I for Scotland. The Minister knows that there is a reference in the financial effects of the Bill to the fact that the Government expect some increase in costs largely because of redundancy payments. Clearly the Government will have split those between Scotland and England and will have some idea of the likely redundancy impact in Scotland and the financial impact that will flow from that. I want the Minister to say a word or two more about that especially as, in the introductory memoranda dealing with the effect on public service manpower, there is a reference to the fact that the provision of services is to be transferred leading to substantial reductions in public service manpower.
  Presumably the advice of Scottish Office Ministers has been taken on how the substantial reduction that is anticipated—that is the number of people who will be sacked as a result of the Bill reaching the statute book —will be split between England and Scotland. The Government will remember that, despite the best efforts of

  157
  the Government in Scotland, very little privatisation took place in the Health Service because the health boards revolted against the proposition. I suspect that there will be stern resistance in Scotland to the provisions that are set out in the Bill, but I want to know what the Government's financial calculations are in Scottish terms.
  Clause 23 refers to privately let housing accommodation. I ask the Minister to tell us what that accommodation is likely to be in Scotland. It is something that will have an effect on the financial implications of the Bill. The financial memorandum states:
  "The costs a financial support under Clause 23 are expected to be offset by a reduced call on expenditure on local authority housing."
  There is a different local authority housing structure in Scotland from that in England, there being a substantial public sector. I should like to know how the Minister calculates the effects of clause 23 in Scottish terms, bearing in mind that housing accommodation and leases, for example, which are defined in subsection (6) for England, are not defined in Scottish terms. It seems that the financial implications are difficult to calculate in Scotland. I hope that we shall hear something about that.
  Public service manpower implications are interesting, as are the comments in part III, where there is a reference to local authorities using their power under clause 23, which may result in a small increase in their manpower. It seems that this may lead to a small increase also in the manpower of the Department of the Environment and that of the Welsh Office. There is an interesting exclusion which I presume is not an accident. The implication is that there will be no increase in Scottish Office manpower, and I take it that the Government do not expect clause 23 to have much impact in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the fact that there is no reference to the Scottish Office in the relevant section of the financial and explanatory memorandum and explain why it has been omitted. I should like to know whether I am right in assuming that the clause will not have much impact in Scotland. This is a matter of importance.
  The memorandum states that the effect of clause 27
  "may be to increase expenditure".
  Clause 27 refers to schedule 3 and only paragraphs 11 to 17 of the schedule apply to Scotland. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the implications for Scotland. Is an increase in expenditure expected in Scotland as well?
  Clause 29 refers to schedule 5, and only paragraph 12 refers to Scotland. That paragraph refers in turn to schedule 3 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. Will the Minister give an assurance that that covers the Scottish position, is parallel to the English provision and that the financial implications that are referred to in the financial memorandum can be taken to apply to Scotland as well as England? As this part of the Bill is dealing with the United Kingdom structure, presumably the Minister has considered the Scottish position in some detail and will be able to help on the issue that that I have raised.
  I move on to clause 32, and in passing I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who took her opposition to the logical extreme of joining the Opposition in the Division. She did so because of her objection to the clause. The Minister may be aware that there was a spirited debate not so long ago during the passage of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 when dog licences were debated seriously. At that stage the Government — I think that the Minister, the hon.
  158
  Member for Edinburgh, West was a member of the Committee — resisted strongly the abolition of dog licences and the increase of the licence fee and re-enacted the status quo. It is clear that minds have been altered as a result of the pressure that has been brought to bear by the Department of the Environment.
  May I ask him about the financial savings that are expected in Scotland? I start by referring him again to the section in the explanatory and financial memorandum on the Bill's effect on public service manpower, which states:
  "Clause 32 will yield small manpower savings for London borough, district and island councils, as they will no longer be required to keep registers of licence holders."
  Is it anticipated that that will apply in Scotland? It is slightly ambiguous. It might refer to London boroughs, and then to district and island councils in other parts of the country, including Scotland. But it is not clear to me, and, as it has finance implications, perhaps the Minister will clear up the ambiguity.
  I think that that point is particularly important, because at the top of that page of the explanatory and financial memorandum there is another reference to the abolition of dog licences and its likely reduction of central Government expenditure. The last, triumphant sentence of that section—on the financial effects of the Bill—states:
  "In England and Wales, London borough and district councils will cease to receive the duty on dog licences."
  That is a specific reference to what is happening in England and Wales, and, in particular, to London borough and district councils in England and Wales. As Scotland has been specifically excluded from that reference, presumably at the behest of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—and presumably the exclusion is intended to have some significance— I assume that we can infer that the same financial effect will not apply in Scotland.
  It is important that we clear the matter up and know exactly why Scotland has been omitted, and whether I am right in my deduction. If I am right, it is very puzzling, and needs an explanation in the terms of the Act; if I am wrong, it seems careless and—if I may say so—slighting to exclude Scotland from the calculations. I hope that the Minister will deal with my question adequately and in some detail.
  There are many other points to be made. However, I am very conscious of the pressure of time. The debate can last for only 45 minutes, and many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I am also conscious of the fact that we must give the Minister time to reply, and to deal with specific Scottish points. I hope that he will not think them nitpicking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad to have the approbation and support of Conservative Members. It gives me some consolation, because I do not always receive such a service.
  All I can say in my plea in mitigation is that a debate of this kind is very narrow in its terms, and that I have tried rigorously to keep within the rules of the House. That has inevitably meant picking up fairly detailed points from the explanatory and financial memorandum, and from the related manpower implication statement in the preamble to the Bill. It seems to me, however, that at least the two omissions of any reference to Scotland must have some significance. I feel that the other detailed points that I have raised about clauses 23, 27 and 29 should certainly be tidied up by the Minister, and I hope that he will do exactly that when his hon. Friend comes back with the answer.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech this morning—although I did not realise that I would be making it this morning.
  I understand that we are now on the money resolution debate following the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the procedures are rather different from those that I am used to. It has already been mentioned in the House that many of the new Members of Parliament had an apprenticeship in local government, and I am no exception to that rule, having served 15 years as a councillor. I was a member of Cumbria county council for 13 years, and had the privilege of being its chairman for two years.
  Serving in local government before coming to the House is nothing new. My predecessor Ron Lewis, to whom I should now like to pay tribute, had a very distinguished career in local government in Derbyshire before being elected as Member of Parliament for Carlisle in 1964. From the outset, Ron Lewis had one ambition: to serve the people of Carlisle well. In that, he excelled — so much so that the constituency, which had a reputation for being marginal, returned him on no fewer than seven separate occasions. On the last occasion, in 1983, there is no doubt that it was only through the personal vote for Ron Lewis that Labour held the seat. That was a personal tribute to him, and he will deservedly enter the record books as the longest-serving Member for Carlisle.
  Ron Lewis was much more than a fine constituency Member of Parliament. He is always a gentleman in the finest sense of the word. His sincerity, Socialism and trade union beliefs come from his deep and sincere belief in Christianity. When he spoke in the House, he was listened to. When he took up a cause on behalf of his constituents, he did so with tremendous vigour and skill. I remember him in the early 1970s and the effort that he made to save the State Brewery in Carlisle—ironically the first of the privatisations — despite the fact that he was a strict teetotaller and a leading member of the temperance movement, a cause for which I do not seem to have met many supporters in the House. I am sure that the House will miss him and join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement.
  I should like to express my appreciation of the help and advice that Ron Lewis gave me during the recent election campaign. Mine was a tough election, because Carlisle was the most marginal Labour-held seat in the country. It was the number one target Tory seat. Despite that, we came out with a 1,200 per cent. increase in our majority. I mention that to remind Conservative Members that they did worse than in 1983—in some areas they did a great deal worse.
  I should like to get my constituency's geographical position correct. It is a fine city in the north of England, nine miles south of the Scottish border. I say that as there may be some confusion among hon. Members about the appointment of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), my neighbour, as a Scottish Whip. I am assured that that is to do with the Government's poor showing in Scotland and nothing to do with a plan to move the border south. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member on his appointment.
  160
  I am filled with pride at Carlisle and its people, because they are friendly, hard working and compassionate, and I am privileged to serve them. I am proud of the effort being made by councils, especially the Labour-controlled city council, to improve Carlisle. I get angry at the Bill, because there is nothing in it which will encourage and strengthen local government and local democracy. It also is designed to reduce even further the influence of local people over their own lives.
  The Government should be complimenting Carlisle city council which, in the past decade, has transformed the city. It is now the most improved city in Britain. One has only to see the international award-winning Lane's shopping centre, the much acclaimed Sands centre and the many improvements in leisure facilities, of which the new running track is only the latest example, to appreciate the improvement.
  Last week, the city council passed a resolution announcing plans for a major new museum complex to rival that in York. It will show the colourful heritage of Carlisle to its full advantage. We have done much else. We have improved our old council estates and still have the second lowest rents in the country. We have a peace garden and are a nuclear-free zone—and proud of it. Rates bear comparison with those found anywhere else. For six years, we held the rate in the city and reduced it by 2p last year. All this has been achieved in spite of the Government, not because of them. I am proud to pay tribute to local government as I know it.
  The Bill would massively increase contracting out. Do the Government intend to do to our good refuse collection services what they have already done to domestic services in our hospitals? Staff morale there has been reduced. Cleaning standards have been lowered to such an extent that there has been a 120 per cent. labour turnover, and absence due to sickness accounts for 20 per cent. of the staff. That is what privatisation of the hospital services has done. Any fool can reduce costs by cutting wages, but it takes a clever man to improve productivity and still look after his employees.
  Instead of pushing through this worthless Bill the Government should help councils such as mine to rid the cities of the despair of unemployment, which stands at 14 per cent. in Carlisle. Many of the young people of Carlisle have not worked since they left school three or four years ago, and they are unlikely ever to get work. There is despair over the decline of once great industries—for example, over Cavans and Sheldons, once the greatest crane manufacturers in the world. It was recently closed by NEI so that it could sell the land, probably for use as yet another superstore.
  There is despair in my constituency over the railways. Only 10 years ago that industry employed over 4,000 in my city. Today it employs only 1,000, and there are more redundancies to come. That is without the possible closure of the Carlisle to Settle railway line. We hope that there will soon be a favourable announcement by the Minister about the Carlisle to Settle railway line, but I have my doubts.
  I despair about the decline of the health and education services and about the ever-increasing levels of crime in Cumbria, including Carlisle. Recently the chief constable called Carlisle the crime capital of the county. Old people are still struggling to exist on meagre pensions. There is despair about the poll tax. A recent independent survey

  161
  suggests that the people in my constituency will pay 41 per cent. more than they are paying now. Many of them will be unable to pay.
  The Bill will only make matters worse. I do not plead for compassion from the Government Benches. Even after so short a time as a Member of Parliament, I realise that that is in short supply. Carlisle will survive, and even prosper, despite the Tory Government, but would it not be better if they helped councils to tackle the regeneration of our cities instead of hindering them?
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In normal circumstances the House should not be kept up until 1 o'clock, but these are not normal circumstances. We are discussing the mechanics of the poll tax. The Minister has been landed with a brief that cannot be implemented. I refer to clause 26, which relates to what local authorities can and cannot do.
  On 28 June the ad hoc chairman of the Scottish finance directors, David Chynowith, was interviewed for the BBC's "World at One" programme. He was asked about the mechanics of the poll tax and he said:
  "Well, the main difficulties at the moment are trying to analyse the various systems which we'll need to set up before 1989 … we've only got until April 1989 to get everything up and running, and the first major job of course is that the assessor has to set up the community charge register and once he's done that, we've then got to sort out the means of collection from the very many more people that we'll have to collect from as compared to the domestic charge rate."
  Clough then asked:
  "Now what about this business of setting up the community charge register because…that isn't exactly the same"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can help me by pointing to that part of clause 26 to which he is addressing himself. I see nothing in clause 26 that remotely relates to what he is saying to the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am giving an example of clause 26 that raises the question whether material that relates, or can be construed as relating, to the benefit of a political party and an opposite point of view can be put. I am asking the question in some detail about whether an interview of the kind that took place last Sunday is or is not in order. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this occasion I am bang in order and am giving a concrete, specific example.
  Clough said:
  "Now what about this business of setting up the community charge register because that isn't exactly the same as…the electoral register,"
  to which the director of finance replied:
  "No indeed it isn't and it's a running register as compared with the electoral register which is set on one day in the year. It has to be kept up-to-date continuously and must at all times record all the people who are aged over 18 who are staying in this area".
  Clough said:
  "Well that's to say that it's got to be updated pretty well monthly, has it, because you have to collect in 12 monthly instalments".
  The director of finance replied:
  "That's correct. It has to be updated continuously, yes and so each month it must be correct for…each of the residents in the area".
  Will local authorities be allowed to say precisely what the costs of collection are?
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill's financial and explanatory memorandum does not mention clause 26. As this is a debate on a money resolution, is the hon. Gentleman riot out of order by confining his speech to a clause that is riot in it?
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the point of order before the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) continues. In the light of the firm way in which the hon. Gentleman said that he was on good ground, I was looking carefully to see how his remarks related to the money resolution, and I found great difficulty in doing so.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just dealt with it.
  Mr. Hanley: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal courtesy in the House, when following a maiden speech, to pay at least some form of tribute to the hon. Member who made it?
  Mr. Dalyell: The one thing that I would not like to do is to trespass on the time of the House and fail to congratulate my hon. Friend—indeed my personal friend — the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for whom I have spoken in Carlisle. It was a great pleasure, and I know the high regard in which he is held by his constituency party and the people who elected him.
  I do not want to trespass on time, but Ministers had better take cognisance of what the directors of finance—who have the immediacy of the problem—are doing. Does the House realise that there are 90 separate issues on which there could be statutory instruments for the implementation of the poll tax? The Minister may shake his head, but that is the view of the careful accountant who has to do the work. We Scots have the immediacy of the problem.
  As I discovered when speaking in marginal constituencies in England, it is a remote problem here, because it has not yet arrived, but it has come to us, and our officials know what it is all about. Already they have had to grapple with the problem. In fact, in a relatively small region, 70 or 80 people will have to be full-time canvassers. Who will pay for them?
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I followed closely what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said about the money resolution, and I clearly understood everything that he said. He explained clearly the relationship between the Bill and the financial arrangements as they affect Scotland. I thought that his questions required answering. I am having great difficulty in the context of the Bill, in understanding or following what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is saying. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is important, on money matters, that we get it right.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I share the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell: I shall—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he ought not to be on his feet when I am on

  163
  mine. I hope that he will either address his remarks to the financial effects of the Bill or resume his seat. Can he do so?
  Mr. Dalyell: Very briefly, there is not much point taking part in the debate other than to warn the Government of the mire that they are getting into. It is easy to be frivolous about it, but we will see who is in difficulty in nine months' time—the Government or us.
  1.11 am
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in congratulating my hon. Friend for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who made an excellent maiden speech. He spoke with conviction as well as knowledge and experience of local government. I trust that those Conservative Members who, rightly, are so keen to join us in our congratulations will also join us in listening to what my hon. Friend had to say, because he spoke for local government and, like the rest of us, he is deeply worried about the trends that are indicated in the Bill, and is deeply worried, as are we who speak for Scotland. Ron Lewis would have been extremely proud to have heard my hon. Friend's maiden speech. We recall Ron Lewis's charm and commitment and sheer honesty with great affection and we wish him and my hon. Friend well in the future.
  Earlier on this evening a number of us raised points of order on the importance of the Bill to Scotland and about the absurd way it has been presented to the House in the hope that it will be acceptable to Parliament. notwithstanding that there has not even been minimal consultation with local authorities in Scotland. So far as I am aware there has been none. It is an insult to the House that, as we discuss this money resolution, which has considerable implications for local government, including the regions, districts and the islands in Scotland, we have not even heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), honoured us with his presence, but so far as I know he has not said a word this evening. The other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), joined us towards the end. I do not think that anybody on the Labour side is complaining that he has not said anything, either. Nevertheless, it is a totally unsatisfactory way to conduct Scottish affairs. It is a completely unsatisfactory way to approach Scottish local government. It does not represent the wishes of the people of Scotland and it indicates that, if the Government are attempting to work with and negotiate with COSLA—for the benefit of the Minister, that is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—they will find that what they and the Secretary of State, who has disappeared, have done tonight, is to do a great deal of harm to the relationship between the House and local government, especially between the House and Scottish local authorities.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I point out to my hon. Friend that not all Government Members would appear to be hostile to what he is saying. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) had this to say the other day:
  "It would be no bad thing, just a gesture…to ask the Procedure Committee when it is established to take a
  164
  comprehensive view of how we manage Scottish affairs in the House both in terms of general business and of legislation."—[Official Report, 30 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 398.]
  Would my hon. Friend agree that that is a sensible statement coming from the Government side of the House?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I am glad that he made that point.
  We are being asked to accept the Government's ill-thought out proposals, which, as I have said, show no evidence of consultation, which are certainly not before us at the request of the local authorities, or the electors or ratepayers that they represent and will not be in the interests of our people. The Government are telling us that their views on compulsory tendering will be helpful to local government but they have not produced the evidence. The people that I know in local government would utterly oppose any suggestion that it will be helpful in the provision of services.
  The Government have prattled on about information. They use all the machinery available to them, whether it be in the Ministry of Defence or the Scottish Office, to promote their views. It is appalling that they should try to restrict elected local authorities as they attempt to explain to their own ratepayers the policies that they are attempting to pursue.
  We are told in the measure about the restrictions on direct labour. In the recent elections I heard absolutely nothing from anybody about compulsory tendering or the provision of information or about the end of contract compliance. I certainly heard a great deal of criticism of direct labour authorities and in most cases that was not the fault of those departments of the councils. It arose because those departments are being starved of resources.
  Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What does this have to do with the money resolution? I cannot see that it is in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is just about in order.
  Mr. Clarke: I would not have expected the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to have understood anything about local government, far less Scottish issues. Therefore, I am not surprised at his bewilderment. I understand that his predecessor, Sir William van Straubenzee was banished to the Scottish Grand Committee because his name rhymed with Mackenzie. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful he might meet the same fate. However, it will not stop me from speaking for the people of Monklands, West and the people of Scotland. I had no request from electors for the sort of policies that the money resolution would allow the Government to pursue were it introduced. Because of that I am opposed to it.
  I say to the Minister and the House that as the Bill is debated it will become more and more clear that it is an absolute irrelevance in terms of the services that people want to see. I have concentrated on Scotland, but I know perfectly well that my hon. Friends from other parts of the United Kingdom feel just as strongly. I worry about Scotland because already the Secretary of State and his very small band of Members are showing a disgraceful arrogance about the views of the Scottish people.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not going to be very helpful to us in explaining his views. He does not meet hon. Members when there are major

  165
  closures in their constituencies. If he takes part in a debate he does not really address himself, as I do, to the real issues and to matters of order. Therefore, for an indication of what he really thinks I had to refer to the famous election diarist, Mr. Brian Meek who, writing in the Glasgow Herald, told us something of the Secretary of State's real thinking during those dreadful moments in the campaign when opinion polls after opinion poll showed that the Conservative party was not going to do too well in Scotland. After another opinion poll had appeared and the Secretary of State was quite distressed Mr. Meek wrote:
  "The full implication is now sinking in"—
  I must point out that memories are rather short.
  "I try to be cheerful and mouth all the right things about how this hardly tallies with the sort of reception we have been receiving."
  As we reach his home he replies a little wearily
  "You are a professional. You know there is something wrong."
  Of course, Mr. Meek is a professional. Those who advise local government in Scotland on financial and other matters are also professionals and not one of them would agree with the Government's approach. I hope that even this Government, dominated as they are by the arrogance of intellect and the brutality of power, will think again because this Bill is not in the interests of local government and not in the interests of the people of this country.
  1.20 am
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this money resolution. I believe that it is right and proper in this United Kingdom Parliament that we should have Bills that cover England, Wales and Scotland and those Bills should be linked together because it is efficient to do so and it is best use of the resources that we have available. [Interruption.] It is, and I make no apology for that. The Opposition may well find that amusing, but the Opposition may find it difficult to man all the Committees on English business. There is no question but that when it comes to matters affecting the greater London area they may also find themselves in some difficulty.
  Bills should be linked because it is a sensible and efficient use of our resources. We are setting an example to local government by showing clearly that we are making the best use of the resources and time that we have in this House. It shows that issues will be debated properly and that there will be Scots voices heard. Scots will deal with money matters as they are affected by the Bill.
  It is clear that the financial aspects of the Bill will be studied carefully as will all the clauses that will be affected by the financial implications of the Bill. We shall see that we get value both in the way we run things in this House and in our use of taxpayers' funds. We shall also ensure that the funds of local authorities will be used wisely and sensibly.
  There are other advantages for Scotland in the money resolution in that we shall be able to link the way we do things in Scotland more closely with the way things are done in England. That must be good for both England and for Scotland. We Scots are often happy to tell everyone how well we do things and how efficient we are. Therefore, there must be considerable value to Scotland from the money resolution. The same can be said of other Bills which have had similar money resolutions — for example, the Trade Union Bills. In the Committees discussing those Bills there has always been a statutory
  166
  Scot and I have been the statutory Scot on most of them. I was present because of the way that such matters affected Scotland. It is only right that, with regard to the Local Government Bill, there should be a Scottish voice speaking on financial matters.
  I listened to the voices on the Opposition Benches, some of which I could not follow very clearly because I could not see how they related to the various clauses in the Bill. Although I enjoyed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) who spoke extremely well, and who had a lot of interesting and worthwhile things to say about his constituency, I found it difficult to relate it to the money resolution. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Carlisle made a valuable contribution. Now, I shall sit down to give the Front Bench the opportunity to reply.
  1.23 am
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr Martlew) on his unusual—
  Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refrained from rising in the hope that I might be able to hear a maiden speech from the Treasury Bench from my constituent, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), but if we are to hear another English Minister I am not particularly interested.
  Mr. Howard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle on his unusual achievement of making his maiden speech on the money resolution of this important Bill. We listened to him with great care and interest. We remember his predecessor with affection and we wish the hon. Gentleman well in the House.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) went through the large number of detailed points that he raised in his characteristically languid fashion. Therefore, it may be that I did not quite make an adequate note of absolutely all of them as he went through them. However, I shall do my best to reply to them. in the time that is now available.
  The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members approach the matter on the basis of a fundamental misapprehension. They seem to be suggesting that the approach that we have adopted on the Bill as it affects Scotland is in some way novel, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is the most direct precedent in point—the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which applied competition to local authority building and maintenance direct labour organisations. It is in a real sense the precursor of the Bill, and it applied to all three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. Of course, we accept now, as we did then, that the system of law differs between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other, but the principles on which the Bill is based, just as the principles on which the 1980 Act was based, apply equally in each country, so to suggest that there is anything remotely novel about the approach that we have adopted in this legislation—
  It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,

  167
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of that Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  1.28 am
  Mr. Graham Allen: In my speech, I hope to illustrate much that is inadequate in our parliamentary system. I could not have wished for a more appropriate example than this Adjournment debate. This debate on reforming Parliament to make it more effective in holding Ministers to account begins at the ridiculous hour of 1.30 in the morning, with what is now a handful of insomniac Members of Parliament staying on, while at the other end of the day hon. Members wishing to start work before 9 in the morning cannot even get a cup of coffee.
  I thank the Minister for being here this evening. I do not necessarily believe that it is the best preparation for a day's work in a busy Government Department to be here at 1.30 am. Nor is it a good thing for any hon. Member—myself included—to discuss matters of this sort with a heavy day coming tomorrow. Key decisions will be made tomorrow, and the public would be perfectly justified in asking whether we are all the better for having been up at this hour discussing this, or any other business.
  In addition, several hon. Members will start their work tomorrow, without even the comfort and privilege of an office in the House, almost a month after the election. In my experience, no trade unionist would put up with such conditions; no local authority or councillor would put up with making decisions in such a framework; and certainly no constituency organisation of either party would be prepared to make decisions in such conditions and under such constraints. It is no way to run a business, and no way to run a country or to hold to account those who run it.
  I make no apology for trading on my naivety as a parliamentary new boy—or, perhaps, my objectivity as an outsider—and say that, if we have a parliamentary democracy, parliament is not pulling its weight. Ordinary people in my constituency are staggered when I tell them about the way in which Parliament operates. They expect and deserve better. Even as a rubber stamp, Parliament is stamping so lightly as to be almost illegible. If we care for the ideal of Parliamentary democracy, the Government—this one or the next—one must at some point do the unthinkable in politics and repatriate some power and authority to Parliament. The only alternative—an even wilder flight of fancy—is that hon. Members themselves should wrench back the ability effectively to hold Government to account.
  If I cannot secure the Government's consent to change tonight, at the very least I hope that my parliamentary party will commit itself to a package of reforms that it will enact before the seduction of Government overpowers its will to rebuild our democracy. Philosophically, that is crucial to my party. Crudely, if we are not revolutionary socialists, we must be parliamentary socialists. Hence the need to ensure that Parliament—our chosen means of social transition—is capable of performing the tasks that we wish to set it. By almost any practical test, the Government escape effective scrutiny by our elected representatives. If that is to be remedied, four key areas must be dramatically reshaped as a priority. They are:

  169
  hon. Member's facilities; Parliament's procedures; public expenditure accountability; and investigative Committees. I shall touch briefly on—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the question of the services provided by the House for hon. Members is not a matter for the Minister to answer tonight, nor is it the subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate. I suggest that the last two points that he mentioned might be more appropriate to the debate.
  Mr. Allen: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall only refer to hon. Members' facilities as they affect their ability to hold Ministers to account. As a new hon. Member, I am staggered by the inadequacy of the facilities and resources that are available to enable them to carry out that task. At the best of times, the scrutiny of Government is a David and Goliath job—yet it is only one of the tasks that we are expected to perform.
  In my experience in local government and trade unions, facilities and staffing were never lavish, but they always measured up to the job that the public or members expected to be done. Congressional casts of thousands are not necessary, but hon. Members should feel no embarrassment at continuing to demand adequate facilities and staffing, both in Parliament and in their constituencies, as of right rather than as half-baked gentlemen's allowances. We should turn the shame back on the Government and their machine which, despite holding all the high cards of secrecy and delay, still exposes its lack of confidence by seeking to debilitate the hon. Members who take their job seriously enough to do it full time.
  Parliamentary procedures are even more of a self-inflicted wound. The fear that has gripped the majority of the electorate in this decade—we might not have much, but it is all that we have—afflicts hon. Members, too. They prefer to retain individual perks and practices rather than risk a strong Parliament.
  Government goes on while the democratically elected Members are safe in the parliamentary playpen, with early-day motions that are never debated, potential laws that are safe from timetabled examination, a daily agenda which is neither discussed by a party caucus nor understandable to the layman, and parliamentary bingo, with questions to Ministers and hon. Member's rights to promote laws as the prizes. Sublime and ridiculous are the hours of work and the holidays which deny the freedom to speak to those whose very duty is to speak up for others.
  My hope is that either the hardened cons—if I may use that word — will organise a breakout from the parliamentary pen, or that hon. Members, fed on a diet of frustration and perhaps a new party discipline, will outgrow the current procedural toys. Nowhere is that more necessary than in the control of public expenditure. Parliament's analysis of the £160 billion of Government spending that is carried out in its name is obscure, complicated and ineffective—a watchdog that yelps at its own flea bites as the burglar passes by with, some might say, the family silver. Essentially, the reporting and debating cycle needs to be unified, the points of parliamentary decision and intervention clarified, and the objectives of any given expenditure formulated and subjected to performance review. To do that, with or
  170
  without the prompting of the National Audit Office, is surely as essential for parties, in framing their priorities, as it is for hon. Members in keeping their self-respect.
  Once, financial accountability was an unfashionable subject, certainly in my party, but we have learnt that without an understanding of where the money comes from and where it goes our political objectives disconnect from implementation and become mere slogans. The priorities of parliamentary Socialism will be met only by a Parliament and Government that examine, free and redirect finance. In real terms, that means more hospitals or teachers, more homes and carers. I was fortunate as a local government officer to be involved in pioneering the execution of that principle at the Greater London council and, in a more limited sense, within the trade union movement.
  Improved financial scrutiny would be an aid to Parliament and, just as significantly, to the elected part of government— the hon. Members who form the Government but who often lack a working grip on the spending programmes of their Departments. Ninety per cent. of those Department's programmes roll on untouched by, and unknown to, Ministers. The more motivated radical and experienced the Government, the higher is the degree of real financial control exercised, but even this Government, who have lessons to teach my party on all three counts, still rate only as a minority shareholder in the control of departmental expenditure. By de-blinkering MPs and enabling them to examine spending, Ministers would be next for liberation. Parliamentary scrutiny would rightly extend to the unaccountable and the unelected, the ultimate quarry being the senior civil servants who really run the spending machines. That target is a long way down the road, but only at that point will real political control over spending be achieved.
  The final key weakness that I wish to highlight relates to the investigatory Committees of the House. The Select Committees could be the engines for change in the struggle for accountable government. Cynics might say that that is why the Committees are unlikely to be allowed to meet for another three or four months. To be effective, they must be free of Government and shadow Government influence and interference. They need to have a life of their own, an independence that can he guaranteed only by their direct election by hon. Members. They need to be empowered to order the attendance of Ministers and civil servants and to have a review or cooling-off period during which Government Bills could be examined for perhaps one month before they went to a Committee of the whole House.
  Clearly, many other areas could be mentioned and, while I and my party remain committed to the abolition of the House of Lords, it needs to be made clear that our key priority for review must be the effective working of the Commons. A reconstructed and effective Commons would render irrelevant the question of the abolition of the Lords. I have had to skate quickly over some of the issues of Government accountability to Parliament. However, I hope that more considered representations from new Members, Back Benchers and the Procedure Committee will be treated in such a way that the tenure of the Leader of the House will be seen as a period of reform rather than containment.
  The electorate currently regard parliamentary democracy with such apathy that 25 percent. do not register or do not vote. Most of the rest view Parliament with a large

  171
  degree of cynicism, reinforced by the low-fibre diet of Prime Minister's Question Time. Disillusioned individuals ineffectually represented in a Parliament inadequate to challenge Government, will lead to people pursuing their challenge and finding their voice elsewhere. There is much of which to be proud in our representative democracy, but its continued ossification at parliamentary level may exact a terrible price. With care, we could build a bridge between parliamentary practice and constitutional theory that could reinvigorate our democracy, make for a stronger Parliament and better Government and, in my view and, I hope, in the view of my hon. Friends, lay the foundations for a democratic Socialist society.
  1.43 am
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate so early in his parliamentary career. I suppose I ought to congratulate him too on holding the debate so late at night. I am not sure whether this constitutes a record, but it is certainly an impressive and bold achievement on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He has expressed some very clear views even though he has been in the House only two or three weeks. That does not mean that they should not be treated seriously. However, I should be interested to meet the hon. Gentleman again in a year. I shall not invite him to have another Adjournment debate in the middle of the night, but perhaps we could meet and compare notes and see whether he still retains the strong views that he has expressed.
  I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the choice of subject. No one can deny that ministerial accountability to the House is a singularly important issue and that it is healthy that it should be debated regularly. I should tell the House that in the dying months of the last Parliament much parliamentary time was given to this issue. I welcome that. The hon. Gentleman identified a number of facets of this topic and they formed the main thrust of his contribution. I shall reply to some of his points, but if he feels that I have not done justice to all of them I shall write him a letter, with a more extensive reply. He will appreciate that some of the points cover the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I can give brief answers on his behalf.
  The principle that Ministers are accountable to Parliament is fundamental to our system of parliamentary democracy and I am happy to have this opportunity to restate, in the early weeks of the new Parliament, the Government's unambiguous commitment to upholding this principle.
  This is a matter on which our policy is plain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) explained to the House during a debate on 29 October last year, two basic principles govern the relationship between the Executive and Parliament:
  "The first of these is that each Minister is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of his Department and for the actions carried out by his Department in pursuit of Government policies or in the discharge of responsibilities laid upon him as a Minister. He has the duty to explain in Parliament the extent of his powers and duties and to give an account to Parliament of what is done by him in his capacity as a Minister … The second principle is that civil servants,
  172
  in turn, are responsible to their Ministers for their actions and conduct."—[Official Report, 29 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 410–11.]
  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, these key principles of the relationship between Ministers and Parliament and the duties and responsibilities of civil servants to Ministers then became the subject of several Select Committee inquiries. These culminated in the reports by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Liaison Committee in December last year. The Government's response to these reports was published in February this year. This dialogue centred on the accountability and answerability of Ministers and civil servants in relation to Select Committees, but in the process of considering this relationship it was necessary to clarify the basic principles of accountability which underpin our Select Committee system.
  The Government's reply, Cm. 78 to which I have just referred, opened by saying:
  "the Government recognises and welcomes the common ground which exists between it and the Committees on the basic principles underlying accountability…With these basic principles agreed, the Government is confident that understandings can be established which will enable the work of Select Committees to be carried on in a way which conforms with those principles and meets the needs both of Parliament and of Government".
  This has been the subject of considerable exchanges between the Government and Parliament over the past few months, and the opening of the new Parliament is a good opportunity to restate that position.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about public expenditure, which is a singularly important aspect of accountability. This is a matter primarily for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that there have been several developments in this sector in recent years which have helped improve Parliament's ability to scrutinise and examine public expenditure more effectively. For example, the preamble to the National Audit Act 1983 makes it clear that the purpose of establishing the National Audit Office and changing the status of the Comptroller and Auditor General to make him an Officer of the House was expressly to strengthen parliamentary control and supervision of expenditure of public money. The work of those bodies in support of the Public Accounts Committee has certainly enabled the House to perform this function more effectively.
  Other changes which I believe have strengthened parliamentary accountability in this sector include the improvements to the public expenditure White Paper and the Supply Estimates. These have improved the read-across from the plans set out in the White Paper to the detailed request for supply in the Estimates. Public expenditure is now presented in terms of who plans it, what it is spent on, and by whom.
  We should not forget, too, that Select Committees are able to examine departmental expenditure and many take advantage of this opportunity to a greater or lesser extent. It is, of course, for the Liaison Committee to recommend any specific Estimates to the House for debate following the deliberations of the Departmental Select Committees, and three days are set aside in each Session for this purpose. In addition, Government Departments make much more financial information available now, both to Select Committees, and more generally. All of this enables the House to examine Government expenditure much more rigorously than in the past.
  Mr. Allen: As a newcomer to the House, it appears to me that the Government are not exactly drawn kicking and screaming to change, but they express reluctance and must be heavily pressed on the Procedure Committee or through some other organ of the House. Would it not be helpful for the Government to take the initiative, particularly on the public expenditure reviews and the various documents that come before the House, so that the process could he clarified before the House begins to scream, rather than after?
  Mr. Luce: That is a matter for continuous dialogue between the Government and the Parliament of the day. The hon. Member may recall that after the general election in 1979 the Government were very responsive to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure about the establishment of full blown Departmental Select Committees—if I may describe them as "full blown". I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure then and I held very strong views about the role of Select Committees. I shall come to that point and respond to his other points about Select Committees.
  This system has now been in operation for eight years and we must now, I think, cease to call it the "new" Select Committee system. I recall what an earlier Leader of the House, Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas, said in the 1979 debate on the motion to set up our current Select Committee system:
  "It has been increasingly felt that the twentieth century Parliament is not effectively supervising the Executive, and that while the power and effectiveness of Whitehall has grown, that of Westminster has diminished.
  174
  The proposals that the Government are placing before the House are intended to redress the balance of power to enable the House of Commons to do more effectively the job it has been elected to do."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979; Vol. 967, c. 36.]
  I believe that that has indeed been the case. That is a clear sign of the Government's willingness to make changes where that is the clear desire of the House and where that has been clearly and constructively expressed. The quotation from the former Leader of the House is the best possible example of that and shows that the Government have a very open mind on the issue and that we attach great importance to it.
  Both civil servants and Ministers now see appearance before a Select Committee as a basic part of their duties. Select Committees in their turn have proved effective in discharging the role that Parliament has assigned to them of inquiry into the expenditure by the Administration and the policies of Government Departments. Of course, as I have already said, there are opportunities from time to time to debate the Select Committee reports.
  I have tried to answer at least the main points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North in his important speech. I share his concern that we should ensure that the House of Commons is able to fulfil its role as effectively as possible. I am sure that the House will continue to listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will change his mind on some of these issues as time passes. If I have not replied fully to all his points, I shall answer more fully by letter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner City Task Forces
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what account the inner city task forces take of the level of political profile of groups seeking financial support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The aim of our inner cities Initiative is to improve employment and enterprise in the inner cities. If projects meet that aim, and as long as it is clear they have no ulterior political purpose, it is likely they will receive help. The political opinions of people putting forward projects are of no concern to us when we evaluate projects, but we have no intention of financing political campaigning of any kind.

  Inner City Areas (Business)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new initiatives he intends to take to encourage the establishment and survival of business in inner city areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government are continuing to develop the measures outlined before the election, including my Department's inner cities initiative, for targeting assistance more effectively on the problems of the inner city. I shall ensure that my Department's programmes take proper account of the need to encourage the establishment and revitalisation of businesses in the inner city areas.

  European Trade Mark Office
  Mr. Mills
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what future plans he has for his action group set up to promote the United Kingdom's bid for the proposed European Community trade mark office;

  (2) what action he has taken to support the United Kingdom's bid for the proposed European Community trade mark office.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department is continuing the active role it has taken in support of the United Kingdom bid. Future arrangements for the action group may need to take account of any new developments in Brussels and will be considered in the near future.

  Mr. Mills
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has allocated funds to support the United Kingdom's bid for the proposed European trade mark office.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Prime Minister told the House on 2 July that the Government are backing their bid with generous financial support. This would, of course, be subject to parliamentary approval, which would be sought at an appropriate time.

  Rover Group (Istel)
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Rover group to complete the sale of Istel.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Rover group announced on 10 June that it had concluded the sale of 75 per cent. of Istel to a consortium comprising management, employees and institutional investors for £26·25 million. The Rover group is retaining a 25 per cent. shareholding in the company.

  Following the completion of the sale of Istel, and not withstanding Rover group's minority shareholding, the Government will accept no further responsibility for ensuring the obligations of the company are met.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Prime Minister if, further to her statement to the House of 1 July, she will state if the financial proposals placed before the Heads of Government meeting of the European Economic Community were there in the Commission Document 87, COM. 101; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Commission proposals on Community financing in documents COM(87) 100 and 101 have formed the basis for discussion in the Council of Ministers since February. These proposals remain on the table, but the present state of discussion is reflected in the presidency conclusions of the European Council, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Prime Minister (1) if she will list her official visits abroad, with countries visited and appropriate dates since 10 July 1986;

  (2) if she will give the reason for each of her official visits abroad since 10 July 1986;

  (3) if she will give details of her official engagements on a daily basis on all overseas trips which she has undertaken since May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Country visited

  Reason for visit

  1986

  11–13 July

  Canada

  Opened British week at Expo' 86. Talks with Mr. Mulroney.

  11–12 September

  Norway

  Talks with Norwegian Government.

  16–17 September

  Germany

  Anglo-German bilaterals.

  Visit to British forces.

  14–15 November

  United States of America

  Talks with President Reagan.

  21 November

  France

  Anglo-French bilaterals.

  8–9 December

  France

  Report to the European Parliament on the outcome of the European Council in London.

  1987

  7 March

  Belgium

  Zeebrugge ferry disaster.

  23 March

  France

  Talks with President Mitterrand.

  Germany

  Talks with Chancellor Kohl.

  28 March–1 April

  Soviet Union

  Talks with Soviet leaders.

  8–9 June

  Italy

  Economic summit.

  29–30 June

  Belgium

  European Council.

  More detailed information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Blowpipe Missiles (Member's Questions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister why, in the light of her substantive answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 29 June, Official Report, column 29, about the alleged presence and source of Blowpipe missiles in Nicaragua, she made the statement in her reply of 2 July to an identically worded question from the hon. Member about Afghanistan, that it was not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to comment on matters of this kind.

  The Prime Minister
  The British public well understand the differences between the situation in Nicaragua and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. In central America, it is our declared policy that the use of force is not the way to solve the problems of the region. In the exceptional circumstances of that case, we thought it right to make clear that, in line with our policy, exports of defence equipment were not, as had been alleged, taking place. This was an exception to our well-established policy of not commenting on matters of this kind.

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if, in calculating increases in pensions paid under sections 26 and 29 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, any acount is taken of differences between the increased salary payable under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972 and the actual salary paid to the office holder.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Salary payable to Prime Minister

  Salary drawn by Prime Minister

  Reduced Parliamentary salary

  Total salary entitlement

  Total salary actually drawn

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1 July 1979

  22,000

  22,000

  5,265

  27,265

  27,265

  1 July 1980

  33,000

  22,000

  6,930

  39,930

  28,930

  1 July 1981

  36,725

  27,825

  8,130

  44,855

  35,955

  1 July 1982

  38,200

  28,950

  8,460

  46,660

  37,410

  1 July 1983

  38,987

  29,367

  9,543

  48,530

  38,910

  1 July 1984

  40,424

  30,304

  10,626

  51,050

  40,930

  1 July 1985

  41,891

  31,271

  11,709

  53,600

  42,980

  1 July 1986

  43,328

  32,208

  12,792

  56,120

  45,000

  1 July 1987

  44,775

  33,145

  13,875

  58,650

  47,020

  Non-Government Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Prime Minister if she will give the total amount of grants made to tax receiving independent non-government organisations in 1986–87 and the likely amount in 1987–88.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 July 1987, c. 144]: Such organisations would cover all bodies which are in the receipt of any tax rebates or exemptions, including nearly all commercial organisations, but would exclude some voluntary sector bodies. Information on grants made to these organisations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Prime Minister what are the criteria used in awarding grants to tax receiving independent non-government organisations; and if she is satisfied that the taxpayer gets value for money.
  4
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Salary
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list for 1 July each year from 1979 to 1987 (i) the annual salary payable to the Prime Minister under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972 and (ii) the annual salary actually paid to the Prime Minister; and if she will estimate the new pension currently payable under the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 to anyone relinquishing the office of Prime Minister after 1 January 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  The first column in the table sets out the annual salary payable to the Prime Minister under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. The second column sets out the annual salary actually paid to the Prime Minister. In addition to a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1972, the Prime Minister receives the reduced parliamentary salary payable to all Ministers and other office holders in the House of Commons. This is set out in the third column. The fourth column sets out the total salary the Prime Minister is entitled to from both sources. The fifth column sets out the total salary actually paid to the Prime Minister.

  The pension payable to anyone relinquishing the office of Prime Minister after 1 January 1987 is currently £16,791 per year.

  Following is the table:

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 July, c. 144]: Grants awarded by Government Departments to independent organisations are made according to criteria which depend on the nature of the grant.

  For instance, grants to voluntary organisations by the Home Office Voluntary Services Unit are subject to criteria agreed administratively, and these organisations must normally be working at a national level. Grants made under the urban programme by the Department of the Environment are governed by statutory authority, providing that urban aid be directed to particular geographic areas, that the projects meet the current objectives of the urban programme, and that they have the support of the local authority, which has to bear 25 per cent. of the cost. Grants made by the Manpower Services Commission for the provision of training are subject to criteria laying down the nature of the training and the numbers involved.

  All Departments are aware of the requirement to ensure value for money.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Christian churches in Northern Ireland concerning the proposed alteration to public house licensing laws.

  Mr. Needham
  Copies of the proposals for draft orders, together with their explanatory documents, were sent to all the main churches in Northern Ireland. Written comments were received from a number of them, but of the main bodies only the Presbyterian Church asked for a meeting, which I held with it on 15 December 1986.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with political parties in Northern Ireland concerning the proposed alteration to pub licensing laws.

  Mr. Needham
  The views of the main political parties were sought in 1984 when the Government published their consultative document on Sunday opening and the range of premises permitted to sell intoxicating liquor. In March 1985 the Northern Ireland Assembly reported to the Government on that document. When the proposals for the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order and the draft Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order were published in October 1986 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the heads of the main political parties inviting their comments on the proposals. Only the Social Democratic and Labour party responded.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Attorney-General what information he has on the delays in the issue of legal aid certificates which are taking place in Area 1, London; and what steps he is taking to eliminate those delays.

  The Attorney-General
  The average time taken in Area 1 from application to issue of a certificate—in non-contributory cases—or the issue of an offer—in contributory cases—was 118·6 days for the financial year 1986–87 as compared with 139·9 days for 1985–86. I understand that the legal aid administration of the Law Society has recently implemented a number of changes designed further to reduce the delays, as a result of a review by independent consultants of working methods in Area 1.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General (1) how many posts there were for each of the Crown Prosecution Service areas in the London areas and throughout England and Wales as at 30 May 1987 for (a) professional and (b) non-professional personnel;

  (2) how many persons were in post in each Crown Prosecution Service area as at 30 May 1987 in (a) professional and (b) non-professional posts.

  (3) how many posts there were for the Crown Prosecution Service areas in the London area and throughout England and Wales as at 30 May 1986 for (a) professional and (b) non-professional personnel;
  6
  (4) how many persons were in post in each Crown Prosecution Service area as at 30 May 1986 for (a) professional and (b) non-professional posts;

  (5) how many persons are in posts as (a) chief crown prosecutors, (b) branch prosecutors, (c) senior crown prosecutors and (d) crown prosecutors, indicating how many are male; and female;

  (6) whether he proposes to take any steps to bring into line the pay of those who transferred into the Crown Prosecution Service from the county prosecution service, as senior crown prosecutors and those recruited as senior crown prosecutor or promoted to senior crown prosecutor from within the service;

  (7) how many staff who resigned from the Crown Prosecution Service were (a) chief crown prosecutors, (b) branch prosecutors and (c) senior crown prosecutors and (d) crown prosecutors, between 1 April 1986 and 30 March 1987;

  (8) what representations he has received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and chief constables elsewhere with regard to the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement;

  (9) what steps he intends to take to attract further recruits into the Crown Prosecution Service in order to fill the vacant posts, particularly in London and the home counties;

  (10) how many persons have been seconded to other areas to meet or assist in the shortfall of staff in London and elsewhere in the Month of May 1987; and what has been the average cost of secondment per person in the payment of expenses.

  The Attorney-General
  I will reply to the hon. Member when the information has been obtained.

  Solicitors and Barristers (Training Courses)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what training courses he proposes to introduce in advocacy for inservice training for (a) solicitors who have just been admitted, (b) barristers who have completed no pupilage and (c) barristers who have completed no more than six months training.

  The Attorney-General
  I will reply to the hon. Member when the information has been obtained.

  Committed Papers
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what qualifications will be required of those persons not professionally qualified in law whom he proposes to employ to prepare and vet committal papers.

  The Attorney-General
  I will reply to the hon. Member when the information has been obtained.

  Magistrates' Courts (Agents)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what is the average weekly cost of appointment of agents in the magistrates' courts in each of the London areas and throughout England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  I will reply to the hon. Member when the information has been obtained.

  Case Papers
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take to ensure that case papers for agents, solicitors or barristers are provided, at the latest, the night before the hearings.

  The Attorney-General
  I will reply to the hon. Member when the information has been obtained.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers of YTS-employed status trainees; and if he will make a statement outlining the procedure by which employers are made aware of the scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  It is estimated that around one in ten of YTS trainees have employment status. Employers are made aware of the scheme in a number of ways: the Manpower Services Commission makes information and literature available to employers; individual managing agents may approach employers to be involved as work experience providers; and local and national employer organisations encourage their members to take part in YTS.

  Remploy
  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment in each year since 1979 what has been Remploy's (a) turnover, (b) profitability, (c) grant from Government and (d) grant per employee from Government.

  Mr. Lee
  Remploy's turnover in each year since 1979 was as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  29·9

  1979–80

  33·1

  1980–81

  39·0

  1981–82

  41·7

  1982–83

  49·4

  1983–84

  55·6

  1984–85

  62·7

  1985–86

  70·8

  1986–87

  177·6

  1 Provisional.

  Total average employees by product group

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Head Ofice

  214

  191

  195

  207

  166

  150

  Furniture and Medical

  2,876

  3,627

  3,587

  3,398

  3,370

  3,196

  Leather and Textiles

  3,436

  3,668

  3,594

  3,735

  3,763

  3,624

  Packaging and Assembly

  4,331

  3,639

  3,751

  4,023

  3,969

  4,047

  Total Employees

  10,857

  11,125

  11,127

  11,363

  11,268

  11,017

  of which Section 2 disabled

  8,448

  8,742

  8,730

  8,915

  8,900

  8,944

  Information is not available by product group prior to 1982.

  8
  Remploy does not make a profit, but the excess of expenditure over income generated through sales for each year was as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  22·6

  1979–80

  27·2

  1980–81

  34·9

  1981–82

  42·2

  1982–83

  43·4

  1983–84

  46·3

  1984–85

  49·3

  1985–86

  53·0

  1986–87

  150·9

  1 Provisional

  The level of revenue subvention from Government for each year was as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  22·6

  1979–80

  27·2

  1980–81

  35·2

  1981–82

  39·2

  1982–83

  42·4

  1983–84

  44·6

  1984–85

  47·8

  1985–86

  48·5

  1986–87

  147·9

  1 Provisional.

  Dividing the total revenue subvention by the average number of disabled employees in each year, gives the following results:

  £

  1978–79

  2,800

  1979–80

  3,311

  1980–81

  4,304

  1981–82

  4,640

  1982–83

  4,850

  1983–84

  5,109

  1984–85

  5,362

  1985–86

  5,449

  1986–87

  15,356

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed by Remploy in each year since 1979, and in what product areas.

  Mr. Lee
  The average number of people employed by Remploy by product group in each year since 1982 was as follows:

  Jobcentre Recruitment
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what methods he is considering for the improvement of jobcentre recruitment.

  Mr. Lee
  We are constantly looking for ways of improving jobcentre recruitment services. Existing methods are varied according to local managerial judgment of labour market conditions, availability of resources and the wishes of employers. Jobcentres have been remarkably successful with this, as with other parts of their services and last year placed almost 2 million people in jobs.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will consider proposals that jobcentres should accept curricula vitae as part of their recruitment methods.

  Mr. Lee
  As the hon. Member may know, long-term unemployed people in job clubs are trained to prepare CVs and encouraged to use them as part of their job search activity.

  So far as the job broking activities of jobcentres are concerned, it is unlikely that greater usage of CVs would increase recruitment to employer's vacancies. Very few employers using jobcentres for recruitment ask for CVs, often requiring a speedy response and preferring to gain such information on job application forms or when interviewing candidates. Most jobcentre vacancies are successfully filled by self-service methods which do not lend themselves to the use of CVs.

  Tourism (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Miss Fookes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to tourism to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Lee
  To date I have not received any such application, but I would welcome such a request in the future.

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the strength of the Wages inspectorate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the number of actions taken by the Wages inspectorate against illegal activities by employers in accordance with the rules.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1986 two employers were successfully prosecuted for offences under wages council legislation.

  So far in 1987, four employers have been successfully prosecuted and a further three cases are expected to be heard shortly.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the People's
  10
  Republic of China has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve any dispute over implementation or interpretation of the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the United Kingdom has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve any dispute over implementation or interpretation of the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The People's Republic of China has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the United Kingdom's acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is subject to reciprocity. Nevertheless, both Governments have made it clear that they are firmly committed to the full and faithful implementation of the joint declaration in the interests of maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We intend to honour the agreement to the full and are confident that the Chinese Government intend likewise.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what judicial procedures will be used after 1 July 1997 to resolve any dispute between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China over implementation or interpretation of the joint agreement on the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no provision in the joint declaration for the judicial resolution of disputes. It would be for us and the Chinese Government to seek to resolve any differences of view by whatever methods seemed appropriate at the time. There is close co-operation between our two Governments and we are fully satisfied with the progress that has been made in the implementation of the joint declaration.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas for emigration from Hong Kong have been issued in the past five years; if he will list the totals by country of destination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Hong Kong people are free to come and go as they wish. Exit visas are not required and travellers are not questioned on the purpose of their journey. In these circumstances, statistics on the numbers emigrating are not available. However, we estimate that on average about 20,000 people have emigrated in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following his consultations, he will state whether the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, after 30 June 1997,, maintain rights to amend the basic law of the special administrative region of Hong Kong and to review the constitutionality of the local laws of the special administrative region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Chinese constitution, the power to amend the basic law, like other Chinese statutes, rests with the National People's Congress. However, the joint declaration provides that the basic policies set out in that agreement—which will be stipulated in the basic law—will regain unchanged for 50 years from 1 July 1997. In accordance with the terms of the joint declaration, laws
  11
  enacted by the Legislature of the Special Administrative Region which are in accordance with the basic law and legal procedures will be regarded as valid.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the statement by Sir Sze-Yuen Chung, a senior member of the Hong Kong Executive Council, concerning the totality of the control which will be exercised over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China after 30 June 1997, and concerning the degree of local control over political affairs, represents Her Majesty's Government's policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Sir Sze-Yuen Chung has made clear that in his statement he was putting forward his personal views. Our general position is made clear from our signature of the Sino-British joint declaration. This provides inter alia that from 1 July 1997 the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which will be the responsibilities of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.

  Human Rights Conventions (China)
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the following United Nations human rights international instruments have been signed and ratified by the People's Republic of China: (a) the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, (b) the international covenant on civil and political rights, (c) the convention relating to the status of refugees, (d) the convention relating to the status of stateless persons and (e) the convention on the political rights of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The People's Republic of China has not signed and ratified or acceded to(a), (b), (d) or (e). It acceded to both the convention and the protocol relating to the status of refugees on 24 September 1982 (c).

  Cultural Relations
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on cultural relations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 1 July, at columns 476 and 477.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the peaceful reunification of Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the hon. Member was informed by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Mid Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 14 April 1986, at columns 244 and 245, our policy to support progress towards reunification by means of direct dialogue between the Koreans.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to commence diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement.
  12
  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to open diplomatic relations with North Korea.

  AIDS
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional funds are being made available to the International Planned Parenthood Federation for work in AIDS-related campaigns; and for what precise purpose such funds are intended.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are providing an additional £1·6 million over three years to enable the federation to develop information and counselling services on AIDS for its health workers and clients.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds are being made available to CAFOD for work in AIDS-related campaigns; and for what precise purpose such funds are intended.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have made no grants to CAFOD for AIDS-related campaigns or projects. We believe the best way to tackle the AIDS problem is to work within national AIDS programmes, and we are encouraging other donors and voluntary agencies to do the same. These programmes are being developed with the assistance of the World Health Organisation's special programme on AIDS, to which we have so far contributed £3·25 million.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the basis of any AIDS campaign run by voluntary organisations overseas, using British Government funds, is that chastity before marriage and fidelity within it should be promoted as being more likely to tackle the spread of AIDS than promiscuous sexual behaviour protected by condoms.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We believe assistance in this field, including that from voluntary organisations, should be provided within the framework of national AIDS programmes. The responsibility for developing these, which will include appropriate measures to prevent sexual transmission of the desease, rests with national Governments.

  European Trade Mark Office
  Mr. Mills
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in the foreign affairs deliberations of the Council of Ministers on London as the location for the proposed European Trade Mark Office.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Commission has yet to make a recommendation on the location of the Community Trade Mark Office and the issue has not therefore been discussed in the Council. My right honourable and learned Friend and I have, in discussions with other EC member states, sought support for London as the best site.

  South Africa (Trade Unionists)
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on 1 July, he will state which nine trade unionists' cases were raised by Her

  13
  Majesty's Government's ambassador in Pretoria on 19 December 1986; and what was the outcome of those discussions.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The nine trades unionists are Mr. Moses Mayekiso, Mr. Denis Dickinson, Mr. Peter Seabela, Ms. Patricia Dlungwana, Mr. George Hlabizulu, Mr. Alexander Kgagodi, Mr. Joseph Timane, Mr. Madla Cele, Mr. Philip Majara.

  The South African Government were left in no doubt of the Twelve's strong concern in the matter of their detention.

  St. Helena (Television Programmes)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider the possibility of transmitting BBC1 and BBC2 television by satellite to St. Helena.

  Mr. Eggar
  St. Helena has no television service and the islanders would require special facilities to receive television programmes broadcast by satellite. We are aware of the potential opportunities offered by satellite broadcasting, but the question of Government involvement raises fundamental policy issues.

TRANSPORT

  Women's Needs
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. Channon
  Women have special needs relating to their use of public transport services and various road safety issues. These reflect factors such as more restricted access to private cars and greater fears for personal safety. These matters are given due weight in the formulation of policy on these issues, and in the monitoring of developments such as bus deregulation. The Department consults organisations representing the interests of women when this is appropriate although in general the policy is to consult organisations representing all those concerned with particular issues.

  Equal opportunities training, including that designed to increase awareness of the needs of women, is included in all the Department's main management training courses.

  M66 (Inspector's Report)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the timetable for receipt and publication of the inspector's report on the M66 from Denton to Middleton; and when he will expect construction to start if the inspector recommends construction.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspector's report is expected shortly. I shall make an announcement after I have considered it. The scheme is included in the national trunk road programme for a start of work in the period April 1989 to March 1991.

  BR (Punctuality)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he collects from British Rail about its punctuality performance, region by region.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. But I receive quarterly information now by sector.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what reasons have been supplied to him by British Rail for the trends in punctuality over the last six months (a) nationally and (b) in the London Midland Region.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  British Rail has been making efforts to improve its performance, on which it will be reporting in its annual report, as I asked the chairman last October. I am glad to say that punctuality has improved over the last six months. I do not monitor punctuality regionally.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the punctuality performance of railways in other European Economic Community countries in comparison with that of British Rail.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. Comparisons with foreign rail services are of limited use because circumstances vary from country to country.

  BR (Accident Record)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about British Rail's accident record over the last six months (a) nationally and (b) in the London Midland Region.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Section 6 of the Regulations of Railways Act 1871 and orders made under it—currently the Railways (Notice of Accident) Order 1986, SI 1986 No. 2187—requires statutory railway authorities to report specified accidents and dangerous occurrences to the Department. In the case of British Rail these are made as individual reports or on monthly bulk returns depending on the nature and severity of the accident or incident. In each case the region of BR is identified. All the reports and returns are collated, analysed by the Railway Inspectorate and any adverse trends are thereby identified. The accident statistics, together with an analysis and commentary, are included in the Railway Inspectorate's annual report, published for each calendar year by HMSO. Based on the reports received so far, the accident record during the past six months, both of BR and of London Midland region, appears relatively satisfactory and in line with the improved overall safety performance achieved in recent years.

  British Rail (Derelict Land)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount of derelict land in the ownership of British Rail; and what was the equivalent figure for 1979.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The amount of vacant and under-utilised land owned by British Rail at 31 March 1987 was 1,246 sites, totalling 9,404 acres. The equivalent figure at the end pf 1979 was 2,823 sites, totalling 18,333 acres.

  Motorway Bridges (Graffiti)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to remove graffiti from motorway bridges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The removal of graffiti from trunk road bridges is left to the judgment of the local highway authorities acting as the Department's agents. The mormal practice is to remove obscene or racist graffiti quickly. To save money and lane closures, the treatment of the remainder is undertaken as soon as possible within the routine maintenance works programme.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for road safety of graffiti on motorway bridges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no evidence that graffiti on a motorway bridge poses a problem for road safety. The danger is for those placing the graffiti.

  Federation of Professional Railway Staff
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss recognition of the Federation of Professional Railway Staff.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. This is a management matter for the Railways Board.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about excessive charges by duty-free shops at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No one has made representations to us in the last two years.

  Shipping Disasters (Inquiries)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch on 29 June, Official Report, column 236, to which inquiries he was referring when he stated that in relation to previous public inquiries into matters analogous with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, a policy of not bringing criminal charges had been applied.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend was referring to formal investigations ordered under section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. But the same policy is applied in relation to all such inquiries, as evidenced in the Government's response to recommendation 22 of the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry 1966, Cmnd. 3121.

  Watermead Country Park
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give reasons why his Department is resisting proposals for alternative access to Watermead country park from the A46 rather than through Alderton Close, Rushey Mead, Leicester.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A46 in Leicester is a heavily used dual carriageway road. Introducing a new access or intensifying the use of an existing access to this type of road is to be avoided on safety grounds.

  Our advice was sought informally about the proposed alternative access to the Watermead country park because
  16
  here the A46 is a trunk road and we are the highway authority. Our advice has been confined to this access as the A46 at Alderton close is no longer a trunk road. Here it is a principal road and Leicestershire county council is the highway authority. Nevertheless, the traffic and road safety implications would still need to be considered.

  We understand that a planning application is to be formally submitted at which time when we have seen the details we would hope to discuss with Leicestershire county council and the planning authority how the access to the park should be best accommodated along this section of the A46.

  A46-A47
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to defer implementing Leicestershire county council's proposals for the extension of the A46-A47 until full public consultation has taken place; and if he will authorise a further public inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Implementation of the proposals for the A46-A47 link is a matter for Leicestershire county council as highway authority. The council has recently stated there will be public consultation on the detailed proposals.

  Pembury and Sidcup Bypasses
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the opening dates for the A21 Pembury bypass and the A20 new Sidcup bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Both of these new bypasses are due to be completed next spring. I understand that the contractor for the A20 Sidcup bypass hopes to finish early, to allow opening by the end of this year.

  M20 (Hollingbourne-Ashford)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received the report of the inspector into the inquiry into the Hollingbourne-Ashford section of the M20 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspector's report was received in February. I hope to make an announcement soon.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sites that have been and are currently under consideration as suitable for service facilities on the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are not yet ready to announce proposals for a site for an MSA on this road. We hope to be able to do so later in the year when indicating the proposed alignment of the road.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the draft line order for the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to publish the draft line order in September.

  Burntwood Bypass
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received from Walsall metropolitan borough council with respect to the proposed Burntwood bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department has been discussing road proposals in this area with both Walsall and Staffordshire councils. Any decision to build a Burntwood bypass is essentially one for these authorities to make. This Department is considering how best such a scheme could link to the proposed Birmingham northern relief road.

  Brownhills (Traffic Surveys)
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if any recent traffic surveys have been carried out in the Brownhills area by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The last full surveys in Brownhills were taken in 1985. Automatic traffic counts are in regular use along the A5 between Weeford and M6.

  Motorcycle Helmets
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the availability of motorcycle helmet visors complying with the new regulations on abrasion resistance; and if, to avoid insurance complications for motorcyclists unable to comply with the new regulations, he will waive temporarily the new requirements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will answer this question shortly.

  South Wales—Heathrow (Rail Link)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if. when considering the study of a new rail link from central London to Heathrow, he will look at the question of providing a direct rail link from south Wales to Heathrow on the journey to Paddington.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It would be for British Rail to bring forward the case for such an investment. If it could be justified commercially, I would he happy to approve it.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill for adequate facilities to ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of people with disabilities travelling on trains through the proposed Channel tunnel.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Eurotunnel's original submission to the Governments showed that they realised the need to make provision on their shuttle services for people with disabilities. They are now working closely with representatives of disabled people's organisations to establish their requirements and see how they can best be met; British Rail has a firm commitment to providing for the needs of passengers with disabilities on all their major services; and the safety authority will need to be satisfied by the arrangements proposed.

  Provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill is therefore unnecessary.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. MacDonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans Her Majesty's Government have to arrest the annual decline in the registered tonnage of the British merchant fleet.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government's interest is twofold: first, to ensure adequate merchant shipping resources to meet the country's need in emergency or war. Plans for this include new measures aimed at encouraging the retention of British seafarers on British-owned vessels.

  Second, to help the competitive position of the United Kingdom merchant shipping fleet, a number of important initiatives have been taken at the level of the EEC and on a wider international basis, aimed at providing improved access to trading opportunities.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Afforestation
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what return to the nation is expected for new afforestation proposals made by the Forestry Commission; and if he will publish any guidelines on this subject which have been issued by his Department to the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Major
  The overall financial targets set for the Forestry Commission are to achieve an overall return, in real terms, of 3 per cent. on its forest estate and 5 per cent. on its commercial recreation investment. It also has objectives in the fields of rural employment, recreation and the environment. The commission's performance over the period from 1982 to 1987 will be reviewed later in the year when the accounts for 1986–87 are completed and performance targets for the next three years will then be set.

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the lowest rates of income tax for Italy, Japan, West Germany, the United States of America and France.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The lowest nominal rates of national income tax for the countries concerned are:

  per cent.

  Italy

  12·0

  Japan

  10·5

  West Germany

  22·0

  United States of America

  11·0

  France

  5·0

  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the immediate revenue cost of abolishing the 60 per cent. tax band, thus making the maximum rate of tax 50 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the immediate revenue cost of abolishing the 60 per cent. and 50 per cent. tax bands, thus making the maximum rate 40 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.
  19
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to seek to reduce rates of income tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As we said in our election manifesto, our aim is to cut income tax still further and reduce the basic rate to 25p in the pound as soon as we prudently can.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increase in tax collected if mortgage interest relief was restricted to the basic rate of income tax only.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue yield in a full year, at 1987–88 levels, from restricting relief to the basic rate is estimated at £340 million. This makes no allowance for the effect of any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Mr. Speed
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received in the past 12 months about the more favourable tax treatment of mortgages for unmarried people living together rather than that given to married couples; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received about 200 representations on the subject in the past 12 months. Replies have referred to last year's Green Paper on the reform of personal taxation, which suggested that one possibility would be to apply mortgage interest relief to the residence so that two or more people borrowing to buy a house would share the relief limit between them, whether they were married or unmarried.

  Exchequer Income
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the estimated total yield of (a) income tax, (b) value-added tax, (c) all other taxes, (d) all Customs and Excise duties and (e) all miscellaneous income to the Exchequer, other than borrowing, (f) public sector borrowing and (g) rates in each year from 1979–80 to 1987–88, estimated.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  General Election (Costs)
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total cost to public funds of the recent General Election.

  Mr. Lawson
  £27 million.

  VAT
  Mr. Gardiner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take steps to ease the cash flow problems caused for many companies whose value added tax refunds are held up by the Civil Service strike; and whether he will allow them to use their monthly pay-as-you-earn payment to the Inland Revenue to make good the shortfall.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 July 1987, c. 177]: The Customs and Excise computer system is
  20
  working again and repayments of value added tax are now being made, together with the addition of repayment supplement—5 per cent. of the tax to be repaid—where appropriate. It will take some days for the backlog to be cleared.

  In considering a request for deferral of tax payments, Inland Revenue collectors of tax have general discretion to take account of temporary financial difficulties which a business faces.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Unions (Meetings)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he next intends to meet the Civil Service unions.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the Civil Service trade unions, but I meet them informally from time to time. Matters of mutual interest are discussed.

THE ARTS

  Women's Needs
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister for the Arts what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what he has done to indentify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. Luce
  I am delighted that women play a strong and active part in every field of artistic activity. I should like to see more women appointed to the trustee and similar governing bodies of the organisations for which I am responsible and am pleased to receive suggestions for suitable candidates.

  British Museum (Shoreditch)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Minister for the Arts what requests the British museum has received from (a) Ghana and (b) Papua New Guinea for the return of tribal art treasures stored in Shoreditch; what reply was sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The British museum received requests from Ghana in 1974 and 1975 about the return of material in its collections; it was explained at the time that the museum was prevented by Act of Parliament from disposing of its holdings.

  The museum has received no request from Papua New Guinea for the return of any material.

  Ethnographic material not on general display in the British museum is available for inspection and study.

  Library Authorities
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Minister for the Arts what he is doing to assist library authorities in developing management costing systems.

  Mr. Luce
  I am very glad to announce the publication today, as No. 17 in the Library information series, of "A
  21
  Costing System for Public Libraries". This report sets out the basis of a costing system that will, I believe, be of real value to librarians and the authorities they serve.

  Nowadays the public sector has to show that it uses the taxpayer's and ratepayer's money efficiently and effectively, so good cost information is essential. I hope that the report will engage the commitment of the library service to a sustained and systematic process of reviewing and improving its management techniques and thus its service delivery. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Electricity Council about privatisation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have had preliminary discussions with the chairman of the Electricity Council on a wide range of issues, including privatisation. The Government will be undertaking a great deal of preparatory work, in consultation with the industry and others, before bringing forward its proposals for privatisation.

WALES

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions he has visited Wales since his appointment.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since my appointment I have each week visited Wales, I have had many meetings with my officials to obtain a full and detailed briefing on all matters affecting Wales, I have met a number of Welsh local authority leaders and I have had a number of meetings with Welsh MP's and I have arranged a substantial number of future meetings and visits.

  Roads
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for investment and improvement of the road system in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government's programme for improvement of the road network in Wales is set out in "Roads in Wales 1985".

  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what road improvements are now included in the preparation pool.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The concept of a preparation pool of schemes was discontinued some time ago. The Government's programme for road improvements is set out in "Roads in Wales 1985".

  Rhondda Valley
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit the Rhondda valley.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I hope to find a suitable opportunity to visit the Rhondda and many other places in the months ahead.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had proposing the designation of the whole of' Ynys Môn as marginal agricultural land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There have been 321 representations from individual farmers against exclusion of their own land from the less-favoured area. Representations have also been received from the farming unions.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give his estimate of the number of people in full time employment in Wales in 1987, to the latest available date, compared with 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Data for male employment do not distinguish between full and part-time workers. The total of full-time and part-time male and full-time female employees in December 1986, the latest available, is estimated to have been 678,000; the corresponding estimate for December 1979 was 865,000. Between June 1979 and June 1986 self employment in Wales increased. by 30,000 to 154,000. Since December 1986 unemployment in Wales has fallen by nearly 11,000.

  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of notified vacancies in Wales, in south Glamorgan and in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan at the latest convenient date; how those compare with the figures for a year previously.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of vacancies notified to jobcentres and careers offices in Wales and south Glamorgan on 8 May 1987 and 2 May 1986 are given in the following table. This information is not available on a constituency basis.

  Jobcentres

  Careers Offices

  Total

  8 May 1987

  Wales

  13,017

  336

  13,353

  South Glamorgan

  1,662

  87

  1,749

  2 May 1986

  Wales

  11,925

  129

  12,054

  South Glamorgan

  1,728

  41

  1,769

  Cynon Valley
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what resources he will make available to deal with the housing and health situation in the Cynon valley.

  Mr. Grist
  The Cynon valley will continue to receive its fair share of available public resources in relation to its needs.

  Railways
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail communications in south Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My predecessor met the chairman of British Rail on 25 November 1986. 1 have at present no specific plans to do so.

  Delyn Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will support Delyn borough council's application to extend the Delyn enterprise zone.

  Mr. Grist
  Decisions on applications submitted by local authorities, including Delyn borough council, to adjust boundaries or create new zones, will not be taken until1consultants' report on the performance to date of enterprise zones, just received, has been considered.

  1 PA Cambridge Economic Consultants.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Rowlands
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the future development of the Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh water authority, I understand it will be publishing within the next two weeks its annual plan, which outlines future developments.

  Industrial Regeneration
  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether any of the actions to be taken to meet the needs of the inner cities in England will be devoted to areas in Wales such as the industrial valleys and areas where the old major industries have declined.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I intend to give priority to measures aimed at speeding up the regeneration of those areas in Wales suffering from urban decline, including the south Wales valleys. In doing so I shall have regard to the particular circumstances of Wales and I shall examine all available mechanisms to ensure that they are deployed and co-ordinated to the best possible effect.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of village primary schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Where proposals for the closure of rural primary schools come before my right hon. Friend they are decided on the merits of the individual case, taking account of all the information available. The effects of the proposals upon the quality of education are a prime consideration.

  "Housing for Senior Management"
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will withdraw Circular 30/68: "Housing for Senior Management".

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Council House Sales
  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many council dwellings had been sold to tenants, up to the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 48,477 council dwellings have been sold to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy scheme since its introduction in October 1980, up to 31 March 1987.

  In addition, 2,211 council dwellings were sold under voluntary agreements during the same period.

  Alcoholism
  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what reports he has received concerning the level of alcoholism in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Earlier this year the Health Education Advisory Committee for Wales published its report "Dealing with Alcohol Problems in Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This report proposes a comprehensive health promotion strategy to tackle the problem. The Welsh Health Promotion Authority is considering the report and I look forward to receiving their recommendations.

  Farming (Diversification)
  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are his conclusions regarding the scope for diversification of farming in Wales; and what particular measures he has in mind.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 9 February a number of new policy initiatives were announced designed to encourage alternative uses of farm land, increase diversity on farms and in the rural economy generally, and enhance environmental protection. They include a scheme to encourage the development of farm woodlands, further designations of environmentally sensitive areas and the introduction of a scheme offering new grants towards on-farm diversification.

  Specific proposals for the farm woodland and diversification schemes have been the subject of consultation documents. Both have been generally welcomed in Wales. While it is too early to assess the likely take-up I am sure that these two schemes, and the further proposed designations of environmentally sensitive areas announced by my predecessor on 15 May, will be of benefit to Welsh farmers wishing to diversify.

  Historic Monuments
  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion of (a) the full-time and (b) the part-time employees of Cadw are Welsh-speaking;

  (2) how many of the (a) full-time and (b) part-time employees of Cadw deal directly with the public in their work; and what proportion of these are Welsh-speaking;

  (3) how many people are at present employed by Cadw and, of those, how many are employed on (a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The position relating to staff working for Cadw as at 1 July is:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  197

  18

  Those who:

  —speak Welsh

  51

  —

  —deal with the public1

  21

  16

  —deal with the public and speak Welsh

  11

  —

  1 These figures relate to custodians but other staff have varying degrees of contact with the public.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many housing units are operated or owned by housing associations opeating in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1987, registered housing associations operating in Wales held 19,000 dwellings in their housing stock.

  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are at present housed by each of the housing associations operating in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to which of those housing associations operating in Wales are based (a) in Wales and (b) outside Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Of 115 registered housing associations operating in Wales 94 are based in Wales and 21 outside Wales. Following is a list:

  (a) Housing associations operating in Wales—based in Wales

  Abbeyfield (Abergavenny)

  Abbeyfield (Aberystwyth)

  Abbeyfield (Abergele)

  Abbeyfield (Anglesey)

  Abbeyfield (Bangor)

  Abbeyfield (Barry)

  Abbeyfield (Bridgend)

  Abbeyfield (Caerphilly)

  Abbeyfield (Cardiff)

  Abbeyfield (Colwyn Bay)

  Abbeyfield (Dolgellau)

  Abbeyfield (Llandudno)

  Abbeyfield (Llangollen)

  Abbeyfield (Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr)

  Abbeyfield (Mountain Ash)

  Abbeyfield (Mold)

  Abbeyfield (Monmouth)

  Abbeyfield (Newport)

  Abbeyfield (Penarth)

  Abbeyfield (Prestatyn)

  Abbeyfield (Rhondda)

  Abbeyfield (Ruthin)

  Abbeyfield (Rhyll)

  Abbeyfield (St. Asaph)

  Abbeyfield (Swansea)

  Abbeyfield (Usk)

  Abbeyfield (Wrexham)

  Adamsdown Housing Association

  Almshouse Charity of Letitia Cornwallis

  Baneswell Housing Association

  Bangor Diocesan Housing Association

  Bath Lee Co-ownership Housing Society

  Beaumaris Housing Association

  Bro Myrddin Housing Association

  Caerleon Co-ownership Housing Society

  Cardiff Housing Co-operative

  Carmel Housing Association

  City of Cardiff Old Peoples Welfare Committee

  Charles Jones Almshouses

  Clwyd Alyn Housing Association

  Corlan Housing Association

  Cymdeithas Tai Brenig

  Cymdeithas Tai Efengylaidd Cymru

  Cymdeithas Tai Clwyd

  Cymdeithas Tai Meirionydd Nant Conwy

  Cymdeithas Tai Dyffryn Teifi

  Cymdeithas Tai Eryri

  Cymdeithas Tai Pumlumon

  Cymmer Corrwg Housing Co-operative

  Cynon Taf Housing Association

  Eastern Valley Housing Association

  Ellen Glyn Almshouses

  Family Care Housing Association

  26

  Family Housing Association (South Wales)

  Family Housing Association (Swansea)

  Gilbertscliffe Co-ownership Housing Society

  Grove Lodge Co-ownership Housing Society

  Gwalia Housing Society

  Gwalia (Rest Bay) Co-ownership Housing Society

  Gwent Homes Housing Association

  Hafod Housing Association

  Henry Burtons Almshouses

  Lovett Homes

  Llewellyn Almshouses

  Methyr Tydfil Housing Association

  Mid Wales Housing Association

  Monmouth and Llandaff Housing Association

  Moors Community Housing Association

  Newydd Housing Association

  North Wales Housing Association

  Pembrokeshire Housing Association

  Polish Housing Association

  Pontypridd and District Housing Association

  Rachel Herbert Almshouse Charity

  Rhondda Housing Association

  Rhydaman Housing Society

  Ruabon Almshouse Charity

  Ruthin Hospital Charity

  Secondary Housing Association for Wales

  Second Cathays Housing Society

  Slocombe Cottages for the Aged and Infirm

  Soroptimist (Carmarthen)

  Soroptimist (Cardiff)

  Soroptimist (Tenby)

  South Wales Federated Housing Association

  St. Davids Diocesan Housing Association

  Swansea Housing Association

  Swansea Hillside Housing Association

  Taff Housing Association

  Tirion Housing Association

  Wales and West Housing Association

  Wrexham and District Housing Society

  Western Permanent Housing Society

  Roger Williams and Queen Victoria Almshouses

  (b) Housing Associations operating in Wales—based outside Wales

  Royal British Legion Housing Association

  Baptist Housing Association

  United Reform Church Housing Association

  Elim Housing Association

  Northern Counties Housing Association

  Johnnie Johnson Housing Association

  Habinteg Housing Association

  Hanover Housing Association

  Carinthia Housing Association

  Licensed Victuallers Housing Association

  Stonham Housing Association

  Muir Group Housing Association

  Piorhead Housing Association

  John Groom Housing Association

  Airways Housing Association

  Douglas Haig Memorial Housing Association

  YMCA Housing Association

  YWCA Housing Association

  North British Housing Association

  Richmond Fellowship Housing Association

  United Kingdom Housing Trust

  New Era Housing Association

  Teacher Training
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 1 July, he will place a copy of the joint UGC/WAB working group report on initial teacher training at Cartrefle college in the Library.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Women
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about the action taken in relation to women's needs by the Department of my right hon. and learned Friend was published in April 1987 in the review of the Nairobi forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Government Departments, including that of my right hon. and learned friend, consult and are consulted by organisations representative of the interests of Scottish women, for example, in correspondence and through participation in seminars. In line with other Government Departments, the Scottish Office gives training to its staff on equal opportunity matters, including the importance of guarding against prejudicial assumptions about the skills and expectations of women on promotion or recruitment boards and in assessing staff performance.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of unemployment in Glasgow, Pollok expressed as a percentage of the total population available for work under each of the following headings (a) full-time male, (b) part-time male, (c) full-time female, (d) part-time female and (e) young people between the age of 16 and 21 years; and what steps he is taking to reduce these figures.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to relate unemployment figures to claimants' employment status in their last jobs, and percentage rates are not calculated for localities smaller than travel-to-work areas. The information requested is not therefore available.

  However, the numbers of male and female unemployed claimants in the Glasgow Pollok parliamentary constituency, together with the numbers and rates for Glasgow TTWA, on 14 May, the latest date for which information is available, were as shown below.

  Glasgow Pollok parliamentary constituency

  Glasgow travel-to-work area

  Percentage

  Males

  5,619

  79,572

  22·2

  Females

  1,677

  29,310

  10·9

  Total

  7,296

  108,882

  17·3

  In addition, on 9 April, the latest date for which age breakdowns are available, the number of unemployed claimants aged 19 and under, and aged 20–24, in the Glasgow Pollok parliamentary constituency totalled 1,278 and 1,686 respectively.

  This information is available in the Library.

  The key to achieving reductions in the level of unemployment lies in the Government's policy of keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise, restoring competitiveness to industry and establishing a strong private
  28
  sector, thereby encouraging the creation of more jobs. The full range of the Government's employment, enterprise and training measures is also available to assist the unemployed. While the situation in Scotland remains far from satisfactory, the fall in the unemployment figures in recent months and the high level of vacancies are very encouraging.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken by electoral registration officers to ensure that all people qualified to be electors are included on the electoral register; what staff and resources are provided for this purpose; and how often a full canvass is conducted for the purposes of updating the register.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A full canvass is conducted each year in the weeks leading up to the qualifying date of 10 October to update the electoral register. All reasonable steps are taken by means of door-to-door canvass or delivery of form A to each household to ensure that all those who are qualified to be electors are included on the electoral register. The onus rests on each householder, or person owning or occupying the premises, to provide the information required by the registration officer.

  The staff and resources for this purpose are determined and provided by regional and islands area councils which appoint the registration officers.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official poll cards were returned to returning officers by the Post Office in each Scottish constituency of the recent general election either because of errors in the electoral register or because the electors had moved away.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Lothian and Borders Police Force
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the level of establishment of the Lothian and Borders police force;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to make an increase in establishment of the Lothian and Borders police force.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The present authorised police establishment of Lothian and Borders police is 2,393 and at 31 March the actual strength (taking into account secondments to central service posts or to the Scottish crime squad) was 2,434. In terms of section 3 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, any proposal to increase the authorised establishments is in the first instance a matter for the Lothian and Borders police board.

  Charities (Community Charge)
  Mr. David Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to give a discount from collective community charges to charities at a level no less than the existing rate relief.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It would be inappropriate to carry over into the community charge system provided for in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987
  29
  precise equivalents of the reliefs available under the domestic rating system. The Act therefore makes no special arrangements for charities in the community charge system. The present structure of reliefs, including those for charities, will continue to apply to non-domestic rates.

  I have, however, made it clear that people who are solely or mainly resident in hospitals, nursing homes, residential care homes and certain hostels will be exempt from personal community charge liability, and this will apply to many establishments run by charities. They will remain subject to non-domestic rates, with reliefs as appropriate.

  Sales of Local Authority dwellings to sitting tenants

  District

  Sales to Sitting Tenants

  Total Sales

  Sales as a percentage of stock at 30 September 1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  SCOTLAND

  10,904

  12,711

  11,860

  10,948

  10,036

  56,459

  6·33

  Borders

  273

  358

  466

  329

  210

  1,636

  10·45

  Berwickshire

  44

  65

  93

  52

  75

  329

  11·59

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  80

  140

  191

  143

  99

  653

  13·27

  Roxburgh

  101

  97

  142

  107

  21

  468

  7·51

  Tweedale

  48

  56

  40

  27

  15

  186

  11·19

  Central

  577

  1,074

  1,141

  823

  681

  4,296

  7·63

  Clackmannan

  90

  168

  121

  102

  95

  576

  6·02

  Falkirk

  431

  728

  691

  510

  342

  2,702

  8·07

  Stirling

  56-

  178

  329

  211

  244

  1,018

  7·67

  Dumfries and Galloway

  513

  463

  381

  420

  452

  2,229

  10·69

  Annandale and Eskdale

  171

  103

  96

  102

  99

  571

  11·08

  Nithsdale

  180

  170

  143

  163

  215

  871

  10·25

  Stewartry

  81

  49

  46

  54

  59

  289

  11·54

  Wigtown

  81

  141

  96

  101

  79

  498

  10·63

  Fife

  1,375

  1,785

  1,714

  1,236

  1,024

  7,134

  12·44

  Dunfermline

  612

  834

  701

  385

  330

  2,862

  12·44

  Kirkcaldy

  461

  567

  742

  627

  487

  2,884

  10·97

  North East Fife

  302

  384

  271

  224

  207

  1,388

  17·28

  Grampian

  1,124

  1,730

  1,711

  1,508

  1,100

  7,173

  9·83

  Aberdeen

  492

  761

  676

  602

  325

  2,856

  7·26

  Banff and Buchan

  166

  322

  399

  357

  301

  1,545

  11·96

  Gordon

  237

  274

  276

  149

  144

  1,080

  17·70

  Kincardine and Deeside

  73

  90

  71

  96

  61

  391

  11·10

  Moray

  156

  283

  289

  304

  269

  1,301

  11·75

  Highland

  552

  506

  361

  408

  390

  2,217

  8·56

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  29

  28

  21

  16

  44

  138

  12·42

  Caithness

  104

  103

  42

  83

  60

  392

  9·26

  Inverness

  232

  176

  103

  137

  97

  745

  10·36

  Lochaber

  50

  47

  52

  52

  65

  266

  7·66

  Nairn

  27

  31

  35

  29

  16

  138

  11·84

  Ross and Cromarty

  70

  86

  77

  60

  78

  371

  5·94

  Skye and Lochalsh

  6

  10

  18

  14

  25

  73

  9·71

  Sutherland

  34

  25

  13

  17

  5

  94

  5·48

  Lothian

  1,772

  1,753

  2,113

  1,610

  1,356

  8,604

  8·04

  East Lothian

  387

  341

  436

  279

  248

  1,691

  10·39

  Edinburgh

  801

  733

  933

  850

  710

  4,087

  7·36

  Midlothian

  411

  421

  430

  239

  176

  1,677

  12·71

  West Lothian

  173

  258

  254

  242

  222

  1,149

  5·22

  Strathclyde

  3,460

  3,784

  2,848

  3,526

  3,864

  17,482

  3·81

  Argyll and Bute

  105

  126

  141

  142

  130

  644

  7·59

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  23

  53

  49

  25

  35

  185

  10·14

  Clydebank

  77

  91

  83

  72

  138

  461

  3·88

  Clydesdale

  22

  40

  50

  88

  55

  255

  2·63

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  23

  36

  38

  49

  72

  218

  4·94

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  38

  67

  69

  52

  98

  324

  3·13

  Cunninghame

  130

  172

  217

  191

  176

  886

  3·82

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of council homes sold to their tenants in each Scottish local authority area in each of the last five years; and what percentage this represents of the total council house stock in each area.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  31

  District

  Sales to Sitting Tenants

  Total Sales

  Sales as a percentage of stock at 30 September 1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Dumbarton

  124

  62

  113

  76

  121

  496

  3·77

  East Kilbride

  31

  22

  23

  33

  28

  137

  8·58

  Eastwood

  22

  42

  26

  35

  42

  167

  8·64

  Glasgow

  1,245

  1,330

  589

  827

  826

  4,817

  2·78

  Hamilton

  189

  236

  127

  169

  249

  970

  4·21

  Inverclyde

  95

  182

  104

  293

  224

  898

  4·55

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  76

  169

  181

  199

  231

  856

  4·72

  Kyle and Carrick

  148

  258

  306

  354

  400

  1,466

  801

  Monklands

  122

  101

  71

  122

  190

  606

  2·12

  Motherwell

  193

  172

  188

  213

  290

  1,056

  2·63

  Renfrew

  624

  466

  385

  411

  416

  2,302

  5·84

  Strathkelvin

  173

  159

  88

  175

  143

  738

  6·74

  Tayside

  1,108

  1,083

  1,043

  991

  862

  5,087

  7·16

  Angus

  388

  305

  372

  324

  259

  1,648

  11·34

  Dundee

  236

  222

  323

  411

  366

  1,558

  3·87

  Perth and Kinross

  484

  556

  348

  256

  237

  1,881

  11·52

  Orkney Islands

  21

  20

  7

  21

  22

  91

  6·38

  Shetland Islands

  65

  69

  26

  28

  28

  216

  8·17

  Western Isles

  64

  86

  49

  48

  47

  294

  12·03

  Nurses
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of nurses who have left the National Health Service in Scotland for reasons other than retirement in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not held centrally.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of homeless families and individuals in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Information held centrally relates to applications under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and is shown in the table below.

  Year ended 31 March

  Total Applications

  Accepted by-local authorities as homeless

  Accepted by local authorities as potentially homeless

  1979

  16,030

  7,490

  4,053

  1980

  15,460

  7,440

  2,770

  1981

  14,868

  7,025

  2,443

  1982

  15,955

  8,270

  1,988

  1983

  16,539

  8,664

  2,080

  1984

  15,516

  8,086

  2,301

  1985

  20,312

  9,826

  3,454

  1986

  23,315

  10,867

  4,561

  Earnings
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the Scottish average weekly wage for (a) full-time male employees, (b) part-time male employees (c) full-time female employees and (d) part-time female employees in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms based on 1987–88 prices for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The following information has been derived from the new earnings survey, conducted by the Department of Employment in April each year.
  32

  Average gross weekly earnings of adult employees in Scotland whose earnings were not affected by absence

  (£/week)

  Full-lime males1

  Full-time females2

  Part-time females2 3

  (i) Cash terms

  1979

  101·2

  60·4

  27·6

  1980

  123·1

  74·7

  35·1

  1981

  140·0

  87·1

  37·9

  1982

  154·5

  95·0

  41·1

  1983

  167·5

  104·0

  45·5

  1984

  181·5

  110·4

  47·3

  1985

  192·5

  118·4

  51·2

  1986

  204·2

  129·3

  53·9

  (ii) At April 1986 prices4

  1979

  182·0

  108·6

  49·6

  1980

  181·9

  110·4

  51·9

  1981

  191·1

  118·9

  51·7

  1982

  186·2

  114·5

  49·5

  1983

  194·1

  120·5

  52·7

  1984

  200·0

  121·6

  52·1

  1985

  198·4

  122·0

  52·8

  1986

  204·2

  129·3

  53·9

  1 aged 21 years and over.

  2 aged 18 years and over.

  3 figures for 1984 onwards estimated from data for those on adult rates.

  4 the constant price estimates have been made using the Retail Prices Index.

  Owing to the size of sample used in the survey, figures for part-time males are not available, and all figures are subject to variability.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of Scotland if he will give the total number of recorded crimes for Scotland in each year since 1979 classified by category.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Statistics on crimes recorded by the police in Scotland are published annually in the Scottish Home and Health Department Statistical bulletin "Recorded
  33
  Crime in Scotland". Bulletins No. 2/1985, 2/1986 and 4/1987 which are available in the Library contain the information requested.

  HIDB (Grants)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total value of grants made by the Highlands and Islands Development Board to companies or projects in Scotland in each year since 1979 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms on 1978–88 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure on grants to businesses by the Highlands and Islands Development Board under its section 8 scheme is shown in the table. The board under the same scheme also makes loans on concessionary terms and takes equity shares in businesses. Under other schemes the board makes grants to research, business advisory, marketing, training and social development projects but information in the form requested on the total value of these grants is not readily available.

  Year

  Cash

  At 1987–88 prices1

  £000s

  £000s

  1979–80

  4,582

  7,969

  1980–81

  6,428

  9,431

  1981–82

  7,031

  9,391

  1982–83

  8,717

  10,869

  1983–84

  11,933

  14,237

  1984–85

  12,109

  13,849

  1985–86

  12,694

  13,665

  1986–87

  13,586

  14,203

  1 Calculated using the gross domestic product deflator taken from the Treasury "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1987–88".

  SDA (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the total numbers of applications for grant aid made to the Scottish Development Agency in each year since 1979 and the number and percentage of these which were accepted in each year;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the total value of grants made by the Scottish Development Agency to companies or projects in Scotland in each year since 1979 in (a)cash terms and (b) real terms on 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of closures of factories or businesses in Scotland which have involved more than 50 redundancies in each year since 1979; and if he will give the total number of jobs lost in each of these years as a result of these closures.

  Mr. Malcolm Rifkind
  The table shows the number of closures confirmed to the Manpower Services Commission as due to occur in Scotland, involving more than 50 redundancies in each year since 1979, and the number of workers involved.
  34

  Closures involving more than fifty redundancies in Scotland from January 1979 to June 1987

  Total number of redundant workers involved in these closures

  Year

  Number of closures

  Number of workers

  1979

  24

  3,882

  1980

  84

  12,499

  1981

  66

  13,564

  1982

  60

  7,581

  1983

  61

  8,289

  1984

  38

  3,784

  1985

  39

  5,566

  1986

  37

  5,503

  19871

  16

  1,905

  425

  64,573

  Notes:

  1 To June.

  (1) Workers not made redundant but transferred to other company plants when their own plant closed are not included in the table.

  (2) The 1987 figures are provisional and include only those closures which have been confirmed as due to occur up to June 1987 and where all the redundancies have taken place by that date

  Forestry Commission (Planting Proposals)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Forestry Commission consults the Nature Conservancy Council about its planting operations or planting proposals within Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will list those Forestry Commission planting proposals which have been forwarded to the Nature Conservancy Council for comment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission has consulted the Nature Conservancy Council about its planting programme in Caithness and Sutherland. The properties concerned are listed below.

  Invershin

  Dyke

  Achormlarie

  Tannach Hill

  Cnoc a' Mhoid

  Sallachy

  Stroupster

  Forestry Grants Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those forestry grants scheme applications received by the Forestry Commission for land in Caithness and Sutherland which have been forwarded to the Nature Conservancy Council for comment; and if he will indicate the outcome where appropriate with each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 17 February 1987, when the Forestry Commission undertook to consult the Nature Conservancy Council on all planting proposals in Caithness and Sutherland, forestry grant scheme applications relating to the following properties have been forwarded to the Council for comment:—

  Yellow Moss*

  Lairg Estate

  Newport, Berriedale

  North Burn*

  Loubcroy*

  Ben Bhraggie

  Skitten

  Strathy East

  Cnoc na Main*

  Braelangwell

  Torrish

  35

  Cnoc Bacach

  Limekiln/Whitewell*

  Eriboll

  Kirkton Farm*

  Sciberscross*

  Glencalvie

  Glencalvie (Native pine)

  Achany

  Dhonnadh

  Jubilee Wood

  The Nature Conservancy Council has lodged objections to the planting proposed in the cases marked with an asterisk. In the remaining cases—with the exception of Dhonnadh and Jubilee wood on which their comments are still awaited—the council has signified its agreement to the proposals made.

  Druim Carn na Muc (Afforestation)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the natural hazards, windthrow risk and soil capability for afforestation of that land at Druim Carn na Muc in Caithness which is owned by the Forestry Commission; and if he will state the estimated internal rate of return that would accrue from a plantation on this land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no special natural hazards which would affect forestry on this site. The windthrow risk is assessed as class 5, which is typical for many parts of Scotland; the soil is a nutrient-rich peat, which would give a good average yield class of timber; and the estimated internal rate of return to the Forestry Commission is between 2 per cent. and 2·5 per cent.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional advice will he give to community charge registration officers as to the sale of names and addresses of people contained in the community charge register, when the sale of the names and addresses takes place without the consent or knowledge of the data subject.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering what notice should be given to persons registered as liable to pay the community charges of the availability for sale of the publicly available part of the register, as provided for by section 20(4) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Prisons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional revenue resources have been allocated for the administration of the new extension to Her Majesty's prison, Shotts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Approximately £2,800,000 for 1987–88.

  Ayr Bypass
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to prevent the proposed Ayr motorway bypass from being constructed in Glasgow, Pollock; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to Strathclyde regional council's section of the proposed A77 Ayr road route. My right hon.36
  and learned Friend is at present considering objections which have been lodged against the proposals, and he will decide shortly whether to arrange for a public local inquiry to be held.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Michael J.Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Guinness plc to discuss the implications for the Scottish economy and, in particular, for employment in the Port Dundas area of the Glasgow, Springburn constituency, of the future development of the company.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met the chairman of Guinness on a number of occasions and will do so again if we judge a meeting to be appropriate. We fully recognise that the future success of the company will be beneficial to the Scottish economy in general and to the prosperity of the hon. Member's constituency in particular.

  McKinnon's Knitwear
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has had on the current ownership of Mackinnon's Knitwear at Coatbridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand that the Mackinnon's Knitwear Company at Coatbridge is currently still owned by Dawson International plc. However, I believe that the Coblecrook dyeing works at Alva has been sold by Dawson International plc to Mr. David Hodgson of David Hodgson Ltd. also in Alva. Approximately 107 of the 160 jobs at Coblecrook will be preserved.

  Lead Plumbing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of properties in Scotland with lead plumbing; and what proportion of the total this represents.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is not held centrally.

  Ferry Service (Tenders)
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the difference in cost between the lowest tender for the new Caledonian MacBrayne ferry to serve South Uist, Barra, Coll and Tiree and the successful tender from the Appledore Ferguson yard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of tenders submitted are confidential, for commercial reasons.

  Western Isles (Road Equivalent Tariff)
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the extra cost of introducing a road equivalent tariff to the Western Isles; by how much it would reduce fares for commercial and private users; and when he now expects to introduce road equivalent tariff.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available. There are no plans to introduce a road equivalent tariff, for the reasons given by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in his statement to the House on 21 February 1984 at column 697–698.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state those features of the curriculum proposed for city technology colleges which will differ from or be additional to his proposed core curriculum for the comparable age group in other secondary schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  City technology colleges will be independent schools outside the scope of statutory provisions for the national curriculum but they will be required as a condition of grant to implement the substances of the national curriculum. The time allocated to the foundation subjects will also enable city technology colleges to develop distinctive characteristics and they will be expected to use this opportunity to give special emphasis to the teaching of science and technology.

  Ravensbourne College of Art and Design
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the charging by Ravensbourne college of art and design of mandatory levies of up to £150 per course to pay the cost of equipment for students taking B/TEC HND courses in communications engineering and design; and what is his policy with regard to such levies.

  Mr. Dunn
  None. The charging of such levies is a matter for determination by the individual institution.

  Conservative Central Office (Correspondence)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Private Office composed and typed replies to letters received regarding ministerial business on Conservative Central Office headed paper during the general election; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Replies on Conservative Central Office headed paper were handled by Central Office or by my political adviser.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Stanbrook
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the real value of the state retirement pension, expressed as a percentage of the value of the pension payable in 1978–79, for each subsequent year.

  Mr. Scott
  The real value of basic retirement pension, expressed as a percentage of its value in November 1978, is as follows for each subsequent year:

  Date of increase

  Real value in November 1987 terms

  Single

  Married couple

  per cent.

  per cent.

  November 1979

  101·8

  101·8

  November 1980

  102·9

  102·9

  November 1981

  100·2

  100·1

  November 1982

  104·6

  104·6

  November 1983

  103·4

  103·5

  November 1984

  103·6

  103·6

  38

  Date of increase

  Real value in November 1987 terms

  Single

  Married couple

  per cent.

  per cent.

  November 1985

  105·1

  105·1

  July 1986

  104·5

  104·5

  April 1987

  102·1

  102·2

  London Hospitals (Infectious Outbreaks)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the effect on London hospitals of the outbreak of the infection of multi-resistant staphylococcus aureus; and what steps are being taken to deal with this problem.

  Mrs. Currie
  Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has spread widely throughout hospitals in London and to a lesser extent elsewhere. In 1986, MRSA was reported by 170 hospitals participating in a national survey. A large proportion of reported cases are in North East Thames RHA where a working party has been looking at the problem and further recommendations are now being considered.

  The effect of an outbreak on a hospital include the isolation of infected patients; restrictions on the transfer of patients between hospitals; possible restrictions on routine admissions and the swabbing of all staff.

  Preventive measures include the maintenace of high standards of hygiene for both patients and staff and the thorough cleaning of infected wards. Infection control nurses have an increasingly vital role to play in the maintenance of hygiene standards and avoidance of cross-infection through effective liaison with all levels of hospital staff, including the organisation of training programmes for health care workers.

  A national survey of M RSA is in continual progress. This survey, conducted jointly by the division of hospital infection of the public health laboratory service and the communicable disease surveillance centre, makes its results available to microbiologists allowing them to know whether patients and staff transferred to their hospitals come from areas where M RSA is prevalent.

  Guidance on the control of multi-resistant staphylococcus aureus is available. The joint public health laboratory services/DHSS hospital infection working group has produced draft guidance on hospital infection in general. This document is presently out for consultation.

  A copy of a fact sheet on MRSA was placed in the Library on 28 April 1987.

  Local Office (Newham)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent changes there have been in the service offered to the public at the Woodgrange Park road, Newham office of his Department; how many hours (a)a day and (b) a week the office is currently open; what alternative arrangements have been made for claimants.; and if he will make resources available for the restoration of a full service.

  Mr. Portillo
  From the beginning of the year, public opening hours at Woodgrange Park office have been reduced intermittently from the normal 9.30 to 3.30 pm. From 10–20 June callers to the office were seen by appointment only, with an effective system to identify and admit instances of special need. These restrictions in the
  39
  service were caused by trained staff vacancies and industrial action by some staff. Since then with the assistance of additional staff from regional reserve resources, normal opening hours have been maintained. The exception to this was 25 and 26 June when the office was again closed as part of a national campaign of industrial action. The regional reserve staff currently working at this office will be retained until an additional 24 permanent posts, recently added to the office's complement, are recruited and trained.

  Conceptions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date he expects the figures for 1985 relating to the number of conceptions in England and Wales by age of the mother to be made available.

  Mrs. Currie
  No date has yet been set for the publication of these statistics but it is expected that they will be published during August or September.

  Contraceptives (Minors)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if, on the forthcoming publication of the figures for 1985 relating to the number of conceptions in England and Wales by age of the mother, he will review the current policy concerning the prescription of contraceptives to minors without parental consent;

  (2) if, in view of the recent report by Sheffield health authority that the drop in attendances at family planning clinics by children aged under 16 years during the period in 1985 when it was deemed illegal to prescribe contraceptives to minors without parental consent did not lead to any increase in the number of births or abortions in that age group, he will reassess his policy on the prescription contraceptives to minors.

  Mr. Newton
  Policy is kept under review in the light of all the relevant factors and new information which becomes available, including such studies as that conducted in Sheffield.

  Motor Neurone Disease Association
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what grants have been made available by his Department to the Motor Neurone Disease Association since 1983; whether consideration is being given to the long-term funding of research into motor neurone disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1986 the Department awarded the Motor Neurone Disease Association a three-year grant at £10,000 per year under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 in support of its patient care services. In 1984–85 the association was given a grant of £6,000 towards the cost of a computer.

  The main Government-funded agency for the promotion of medical and related biomedical research in this country is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the council is currently carrying out research into this disease and is always prepared to consider further soundly based scientific proposals for funding through its grants scheme in competition with other applications.

  Foreign Visitors (Surgery)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many foreign visitors received non-urgent surgery in hospitals in the United Kingdom in each of the past eight years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration has been given to restricting non-urgent surgery to British patients and imposing full charges on non-British patients who contracted their disease abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information on the nationality of patients treated in National Health Service hospitals in England is not collected centrally. (Information for the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales and Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.)

  It is residence in the United Kingdom, rather than citizenship or nationality, which is the basis of eligibility for free NHS treatment. Under regulations effective since October 1982, anyone not ordinarily resident is liable to charges for hospital treatment unless covered by a reciprocal health care agreement or other specific exemption.

  Hospital Treatment (Fees)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consult insurance companies on lifting the seven-day statutory period for claims for fees for emergency treatment by hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under section 155 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, an emergency treatment fee is payable by the person using the vehicle in respect of each individual given emergency treatment immediately following a road traffic accident. The fee may be claimed by a doctor attending the scene of an accident or by a hospital, and section 156 of the Act requires that it be requested within seven days of the treatment being given.

  The Government intend to introduce legislation to abolish the emergency treatment fee payable to hospitals at the earliest convenient opportunity.

  Pupils (Work Experience)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider introducing help towards travelling costs for school pupils taking part in work experience whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not the purpose of the supplementary benefits scheme to help with educational expenses, including those arising from participation in a work experience scheme. I understand the matter of such expenses is covered in Department of Education and Science circular 7/74 and Welsh Office Circular 135/74 which fall within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales.

  Ethnic Minorities (Languages)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of (a) Asian men and (b) Asian women (i) in Leicester and (ii) in the United Kingdom speak little or no English.
  41
  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that these figures are not available.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many interpreters are available in offices of his Department (a) in Leicester and (b) in the United Kingdom in areas where there is a significant ethnic minority population.

  Mr. Portillo
  DHSS offices do not employ interpreters as such, but most offices with catchment areas containing significant ethnic minority populations do have staff ready to use skills in ethnic minority languages to help claimants who have little or no English and have no one to help them. No record is maintained of numbers who do this. Leicester offices have staff proficient in Asian languages and ready to help in this way.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what leaflets other than the "Which Benefit?" guide are available to ethnic minority claimants seeking to exercise their rights in respect of social security benefits.

  Mr. Portillo
  "Which Benefit?" is the only social security leaflet nationally produced in Asian languages.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to ensure the effective distribution of information concerning benefits translated into ethnic minority languages.

  Mr. Portillo
  The leaflet "Which Benefit?", which describes the whole range of social security benefits is published in six Asian languages. These are Bengali, Chinese, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. It is planned to produce a Turkish version in 1988. There is insufficient demand for other forms or leaflets in these or other minority languages to justify national production.

  On their own initiative a few local and regional offices have produced additional advice and information in ethnic minority languages. Local information officers continuously liaise with ethnic minority communities to supplement this.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to ensure training for appropriate staff of his Department concerning the need for proper explanation to people from ethnic minorities who have language difficulties concerning their rights.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's staff training branch is currently developing a training course to be entitled "Service to the Multi-Racial Community". In addition to focusing the attention of staff on attitudes towards people from ethnic minorities and discussing racism, the course, of two-day's duration, will examine the problems of communication encountered by people of minority backgrounds, especially those of Afro-Caribbean and Asian origin.

  The course which in its development has built on the experience the Department gained from earlier training exercises in this field, will be available in the autumn of 1987. Whilst no language training as such is provided for our staff, financial assistance is readily available under the further education and external training schemes for those staff who wish to further their personal interest or development by learning a modern language, as it is, of course, for a wide range of other subjects.

  Clients with little or no command of English are encouraged to enlist the help of friends, relatives or
  42
  voluntary agencies in pursuing their claims. Many DHSS offices whose catchment areas contain sizeable ethnic minorities do maintain lists of staff willing and able to use second language skills to help claimants in difficulties.

  Departmental Pamphlets
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost of providing pamphlets in: (a) the English language and (b) minority languages to inform actual or prospective applicants for social security benefits of their rights, during the last year for which records are available; and what is the estimated cost in 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1985–86 (the last year for which figures are available) £1,237,469 was spent on production of English language leaflets. £28,531 was spent on reprints of leaflets in six Asian languages. In 1987–88 the budget for social security leaflet production is £5,465,000. It is planned to spend about £120,000 on new editions of minority language leaflets. All figures are for nationally produced leaflets only.

  Breast Milk Substitutes
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what consultations have taken place with the British Medical Association about the advertising of breast milk substitutes; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans are there to bring the United Kingdom voluntary code on breast milk substitutes into line with the World Health Organisation's code, "WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes"; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what are the enforcement responsibilities of the United Kingdom code monitoring committee with regard to breast milk substitutes; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what guidelines exist on advertising of breast milk substitutes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The aim and principles of the World Health Organisation code as far as infant formulae are concerned are secured in the United Kingdom by the Food Manufacturers Federation's code, which includes advertising guidelines, the health Circular HC(83)13 and the FMF monitoring committee. We understand the committee is currently preparing a report for Government and when it is received we shall consider whether changes to the present arrangements are necessary. The relevant BMA committees were consulted before the present arrangements were established.

  Kidney Stones (Treatment)
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will name those district health authorities which have the new machines for treating patients with kidney stones by means of lasers, rather than by use of surgery; and how many machines his Department are planning to purchase in this financial year.

  Mrs. Currie
  The names of district health authorities which use lasers to treat kidney stones are not recorded centrally. A different form of treatment, known as extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, uses shock waves to disperse kidney stones. This service is being developed on
  43
  a regional basis and it is for regional health authorities to plan their purchases of lithotripters. We are, however, aware that within the National Health Service, lithotripters are in use in the West Lambeth and South Manchester health authorities. A machine is being installed in Sheffield.

  Supplementary Benefit (Appeals)
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the backlog in the number of appeals to the local supplementary benefit tribunal serving the Bournemouth area.

  Mr. Scott
  The Bournemouth social security appeal tribunal covers the Department's Bournemouth and Poole local offices. The number of appeals awaiting action at these offices has decreased from 207 on 10 February 1987 to 82 on 30 June 1987.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has made any assessment of how many low-income families in (a) the Leeds, Central constituency and (b) the Leeds metropolitan district council area will be worse off when the new family credit is introduced.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that it is not possible to make estimates on such a localised basis. On the illustrative assumptions in the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd 9690), family credit would be expected to reach about double the number of families now helped by family income supplement, and in all but a few families the amount of family credit payable would be greater than FIS. For the overall effect of the social security changes on the disposable income of working families (on the illustrative assumptions) I refer the hon. Member to tables 12(ii) of the technical annex.

  Mr. P. J. Johnson
  Mr. Terry Fields
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department intends to reply to correspondence from Mr. P. J. Johnson of 40 Gloucester Road, Liverpool 6, a constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen, which was dispatched on 16 January; when his Department intends to reply to correspondence from Mr. P. J. Johnson which was dispatched, by recorded delivery, on 18 May; if he will return documents included in correspondence to Mr. P. J. Johnson; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the application for assistance towards the cost of a four-year evaluation of the conductive education project being established in Birmingham by the National Foundation for Conductive Education was received by his Department; how much financial assistance is being sought; what meetings have been held with the national foundation; when it is anticipated a decision will be reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  the application by Birmingham university for assistance towards the cost of evaluating the four-year conductive education project being established in Birmingham was received in this Department on 2 March 1987. The original provisional estimate amounted to £245,200 with the proviso that this would need to be increased to allow for the increase in academic salaries. A revised estimate of £325,857 was received on 1 July. Officials from the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security had previously met the director of the National Foundation for Conductive Education on 23 January 1987 to discuss the evaluation project. A decision on the application will be made as soon as possible.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many kidney patients on
  46
  average requiring dialysis are now being treated per million of the population; and if he will publish the figures for each of the regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  According to provisional information provided by the European dialysis and transplant association, the number of patients receiving dialysis treatment per million population in each regional health authority on 31 December 1986 was as follows:

  Patients per million population

  Region

  Patients

  Northern

  158·1

  Yorkshire

  116·1

  Trent

  153·4

  East Anglian

  110·5

  North West Thames

  103·8

  North East Thames

  179·7

  South East Thames

  1 105·1

  South West Thames

  Wessex

  66·8

  Oxford

  113·1

  South Western

  124·9

  West Midlands

  117·9

  Mersey

  96·5

  Northern Western

  126·3

  1 Regions have arrangements for shared service.

  These figures should be treated with caution because patients do not always receive dialysis in the region fin which they reside. Patients with a functioning transplant are excluded.

  The statistics imply an average figure for England of 122·4 patients per million population receiving all forms of dialysis on 31 December 1986: the corresponding figure for the whole of the United Kingdom was 1209.

  Patient Costs
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost of treating a patient on the National Health Service; and if he will break the figure down in terms of hospitalisation, drugs, surgery and general medical care.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Women
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the section on agriculture and food in the review of the forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women published recently by the ministerial group on women's issues. This section discusses the position of women in these areas and various ways in which my Department and others are giving help. Consultation takes place in my Department with a wide range of interested bodies
  47
  including women's organisations, and training is given to my staff which, as appropriate, takes account of the position of women.

  Food Exports (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what British food exports have been returned to Britain over the past 12 months as a result of unacceptable levels of radioactivity, listing the quantities and the value of each product; and if he will make it his policy to reduce the maximum acceptable level within the United Kingdom to 600 becquerels a kilo.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women's Needs
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the main needs of women in

  Number of entries on 30 June 1987

  Maximum in last 12 months

  Minimum in last 12 months

  1. Stolen and suspect vehicles

  437,450

  437,450

  381,482

  2. Vehicle Owners

  35,384,795

  38,146,538

  34,612,382

  3. Chassis (Engine numbers)

  711,873

  711,873

  646,343

  4. Fingerprints

  3,751,499

  3,751,499

  3,672,707

  5. Fingerprints scene of crime

  6,930,988

  6,930,988

  6,621,971

  6. Criminal Names

  5,164,206

  5,164,206

  5,126,840

  7. Wanted/missing persons

  99,341

  107,093

  98,008

  8. Disqualified drivers

  326,173

  326,173

  313,498

  9. Convictions

  1,872,045

  1,872,045

  1,239,405

  10. Major Investigations

  376,868

  376,868

  119,646

  11. Crime Pattern Analyses

  13,896

  14,199

  11,904

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to respond to inquiries from right hon. and hon. Members as to whether named constituents are subject to telephone tapping; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Anyone who believes that the interception of his or her telephone communications has been authorised may apply to the Tribunal established under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 for an investigation.

  I shall continue the longstanding policy of successive Governments never to cofirm or deny whether interception has been authorised in any particular case, irrespective of whether interception has been authorised or not.

  Trans-frontier Television and Broadcasting
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest progress achieved in formulating a Council of Europe Convention on trans-frontier television and broadcasting.

  Mr. Renton
  Six meetings have been held in Strasbourg since March to discuss the formulation of the Convention and good progress is being made. The relevant interests in the United Kingdom are currently being consulted on the latest draft text before discussions resume at the beginning of September.
  48
  the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. John Patten
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the current number of entries, and the maximum and minimum number of entries, for each index of the police national computer over the last year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current number of records and the maximum and minimum number of records in the year to 30 June 1987 for each substantive index of the police national computer are as follows:

  Although there are still a number of issues to be resolved, we are hopeful that agreement can be reached on a final text before the end of the year.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mr. Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the timetable of work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I will reply as soon as possible.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made for visas to enter the United Kingdom from the People's Republic of Korea in each of the past eight years; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Renton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a requirement that all foreign visitors should have to give a written undertaking when applying for a visa that they are free from disease; and if he will make a statement.
  49
  Mr. Renton
  No. Entry clearance officers already have the power to refer for medical examination any applicant for entry clearance who:—

  (a) intends to remain in the United Kingdom for more than six months;

  (b) mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for his visit;

  (c) appears not to be in good health; or

  (d) appears to be mentally or physically abnormal

  Entry clearance officers also have discretion, which the immigration rules require them to exercise sparingly, to refer for examination in any other case.

  Isle of Man Free Port
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he was informed by the Isle of Man Government of the proposals by a South African company to operate in the Isle of Man free port site; what observations he made on the proposal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he was consulted by the Isle of Man Government on the proposals by a South African company to develop on the Isle of Man free port site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Isle of Man authorities informed Her Majesty's Government in January 1987 of the possibility of a United Kingdom subsidiary of a South African company operating in the free port. The Isle of Man authorities were informed that there was no reason why the use of the free port by the company concerned for the purpose of its operations would be contrary to United Kingdom policy.

  The Isle of Man authorities have given clear assurances that under no circumstances would any arrangements be entered into which would run counter to United Kingdom policy regarding restrictive measures on trade with South Africa, and we are satisfied that they have established for this purpose appropriate legal and administrative controls over the use of the free port.

  Polish War Veterans
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will waive the naturalisation fee for those Polish war veterans who wish to become British citizens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No: it is reasonable to expect those who wish to become British citizens to pay for the cost of dealing with their applications, and concessions to one group would only increase the costs to others.

  Woodlands Crescent, Knutsford
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to sell its four remaining properties in Woodlands crescent, High Legh, Knutsford, Cheshire; and for how long and why they have been empty.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are at present five empty prison staff quarters in Woodlands crescent, High Legh, Knutsford, Cheshire, two of which are surplus to operational requirements. One of the two properties has been sold, subject to contract, and the other is about to be placed on the market. These surplus properties have remained empty since 1982 but had been retained in the expectation that they would be required for use by staff at 50
  Her Majesty's Youth Custody Centre, Thorn Cross. Of the remaining three properties, which have been empty since May this year, one has been allocated and the other two await allocation to prison staff.

  Captain Simon Hayward
  Mr. Gorst
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any request from the Swedish defence lawyer appointed to represent Captain Simon Hayward to provide evidence only available from official British sources that could assist him in the defence of his client; and if he will give an assurance that any such evidence held by police or other authorities in the United Kingdom and material to proving the innocence of Captain Hayward, in the event of charges being preferred against him, will not be withheld or suppressed.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  We have no record that such a request has yet been received in the Home Office. The release of information held by the police or other authorities in this country is a matter for those authorities to decide. It is normal practice for the police forces of member countries of Interpol to make available to each other evidence which might assist the conduct of a criminal investigation.

  Juries (London Area)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis into allegations that there is a gang in Great Britain, particularly in the London area, which has funding of at least £1,000,000 and which brings illegal pressure to bear on jurors selected to serve on court cases of a serious nature.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the police have no evidence that such a gang exists.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide increased penalties for insider dealing involving mandatory prison sentences for serious offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Clause 42 of the Criminal Justice Bill will raise the maximum penalty for insider dealing from two to seven years' imprisonment. We do not intend to make imprisonment mandatory, however, or otherwise to interfere with the courts' discretion in sentencing, which enables them to take account of all the aggravating or mitigating factors in a particular case.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his best estimate of the average pyment of the poll tax to be levied upon each adult in Nottingham in each of the years (a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c)

  Mr. Howard
  Since the new system will not come into effect until 1990, it is not possible to say what the level of
  51
  the community charge in Nottingham will be when it is introduced. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 29 June, at column 44.

  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what amendments he proposes to introduce following the introduction of the community charge to existing legislation which bases levels of compensation upon gross or rateable values; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Alternative methods of assessing statutory compensation payments which are currently based on rateable or annual value are under consideration. Non-domestic rateable values will of course continue.

  Dog Wardens
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many local authorities employ dog wardens; and how many dog wardens are employed in each case.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not collected by the Department, but I understand that the joint advisory committee on pets in society estimates that some 200 local authorities in Great Britain currently operate dog warden services. No reliable information is available as to how many dog wardens are employed in each case.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend the powers of parish councils, particularly in planning.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Greenwich (Inner Area Programme)
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department received the London borough of Greenwich's bid for the 1987–88 inner area programme; what approvals have so far been given and at what annual cost; what projects remain to be approved and at what annual cost; and when he expects to announce decisions on the remaining projects.

  Mr. Trippier
  The bid was received on 1 December 1986. Subsequently there have been consultations with Greenwich and other Government Departments. Approval has been given to continuing commitments arising from the traditional urban programme and other designated district arrangements at a cost of £799,000 in 1987–88. Decisions are outstanding on 12 projects costing in total £743,000 in 1987–88. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Inner Area Programme
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the inner area programme bids received from each of the inner London boroughs for 1987–88 indicating which have been approved and the date of approval.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is shown in the following table.
  52

  Borough

  Provisional Inner Area Programme Allocation 1 £ million

  Bid Received

  Date of Approval

  £ million

  Greenwich

  1·5

  1·5

  2

  Hackney

  10·8

  13·9

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5·0

  7·9

  2

  Haringey

  2·0

  3·2

  10 April 1987

  Islington

  10·0

  17·6

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·25

  1·2

  29 April 1987

  Lambeth

  12·8

  20·8

  31 March 1987

  Lewisham

  1·5

  1·5

  22 April 1987

  South wark

  1·75

  3·5

  31 March 1987

  Tower Hamlets

  4·5

  9·3

  2

  Wandsworth

  4·5

  6·5

  2

  1 Announced by Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction on 30 January 1987; see Official Report, 30 January.

  2 Approvals have been given to continuing commitments from 1986–87 on these inner area programmes

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he now has for the disposal of nuclear waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on I May, it is now for UK NIREX Ltd. to come forward with proposals for the development of a deep multi-purpose facility for the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been submitted to his Department in each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 in respect of planning applications that have been turned down by the Wokingham district council; and how many planning appeals in each of those years have resulted in the decision of Wokingham district council being overturned.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of planning appeals received from the Wokingham district council area in 1984, 1985 and 1986 is given in the table together with the number of planning appeals that were allowed in each of those years.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Appeals received

  79

  104

  105

  Appeals allowed

  20

  27

  35

  Local Authorities (Rates and Precepts)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list in descending order all English local authorities on the basis of the percentage change in their local rate or precept from 1981–82 to 1987–88, showing in each case the percentage change in current expenditure in the same period;

  (2) if he will list in descending order all English local authorities on the basis of the percentage change in their current expenditure from 1981–82 to 1987–88, showing in each case the percentage change in the local rate or precept in the same period.
  53
  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed the information in the House of Commons Library.

  Tenanted Housing
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list any request for disposals of tenanted housing, other than to sitting tenants, awaiting his consideration for special consent.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The only outstanding applications for consent to dispose of tenanted housing are by Ashford borough council, for disposal of the freehold of two flats, and by the London residuary body, for the disposal of the freehold of eight flats.

  Local Authorities (Grant-related Expenditure)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order, using their 1987–88 budgets, all English local authorities on the basis of the percentage above or below their grant-related expenditure assessments for 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed the information in the House of Commons Library.

  Urban Development Grants
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many projects to date are covered by urban development grants; how much public expenditure is involved in the current financial year; and how much is committed thereby in future years.

  Mr. Ridley
  A total of 242 projects have been approved for urban development grant to date. The total public expenditure on these projects is estimated at £124 million, of which £65 million had been incurred up to the end of 1986–87. Of the remaining £59 million, it is estimated that £25 million will be incurred in the current financial year.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total of non-domestic rates paid to local authorities in Great Britain in each year from 1974–75 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  The informaion is as follows:

  Total rates paid by non-domestic ratepayers in Great Britain

  £ billion

  1974–75

  2·0

  1975–76

  2·6

  1976–77

  2·8

  1977–78

  3·1

  1978–79

  3·4

  1979–80

  4·0

  1980–81

  5·0

  1981–82

  6·1

  1982–83

  6·9

  1983–84

  7·2

  1984–85

  7·6

  1985–86

  8·2

  1986–87

  9·2

  1987–88

  9·8

  Departmental Communications
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish (a) the circulars, (b) the
  54
  circular letters, (c) the statutory instruments and (d) other communications sent to all authorities, or all authorities in a class, by his Department in England in each year from 1 April 1981 to the present date.

  Mr. Ridley
  Copies of statutory instruments and numbered circulars issued by my Department since 1 April 1981 are available in the Library. I shall write to the hon. Member with a list of circular letters issued by my Department, and will arrange for that list to be placed in the Library. Details of other communications to all local authorities could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Development Fund
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the number of applications made to his Department by local authority enterprise boards for grants from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Ridley
  No applications have been received from local authority enterprise boards for European regional development fund grants since 1980. However, under the main fund regulation we have received a total of three applications from enterprise trusts and enterprise agencies.

  Derelict Land
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the metropolitan district council areas (a) the total acreage and (b) the proportion of all land designated as derelict at the latest available date.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is given in the following table. The figures in column(b) are based on information available at 1 April 1982, the date of the last survey of derelict land in England. The figures shown in brackets represent the proportion of derelict land which is considered to justify reclamation.

  A further survey of derelict land is planned for April 1988.

  Metropolitan District Council

  (a) Council area (acres)

  (b) Proportion of land which is derelict

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  34,572

  2·8 (2·7)

  Bury

  24,511

  4·8 (4·8)

  Manchester

  28,720

  2·5 (2·4)

  Oldhara

  34,871

  2·5 (2·3)

  Rochdale

  39,306

  1·4(1·1)

  Salford

  23,942

  4·0 (3·3)

  Stockport

  31,153

  1·0(0·9)

  Tameside

  25,510

  2·5 (2·5)

  Trafford

  26,129

  1·7(1·4)

  Wigan

  51,461

  6·4 (6·4)

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  24,065

  1·6(1·6)

  Liverpool

  27,819

  5·7 (5·7)

  St. Helens

  32,201

  3·5 (n/a)

  Sefton

  36,325

  1·2(1·2)

  Wirral

  38,420

  1·7(1·7)

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  35,373

  2·9 (2·9)

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  27,643

  1·2(1·2)

  North Tyneside

  20,700

  3·2 (3·2)

  South Tyneside

  15,711

  3·0 (3·0)

  55

  Metropolitan District Council

  (a) Council area (acres)

  (b) Proportion of land which is derelict

  Sunderland

  33,962

  3·2 (3·2)

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  90,572

  0·9 (0·8)

  Calderdale

  89,851

  1·0 (0·9)

  Kirkless

  101,294

  1·3(1·2)

  Leeds

  138,911

  1·4(1·1)

  Wakefield

  82,336

  1·8(1·8)

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  80,048

  1·2(1·1)

  Doncaster

  143,698

  0·5 (0·4)

  Rotherham

  69,877

  0·9 (0·8)

  Sheffield

  90,785

  0·5 (0·4)

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  64,822

  0·9 (0·9)

  Coventry

  23,845

  0·9 (0·9)

  Dudley

  24,202

  5·9 (5·99)

  Sandwell

  21,150

  2·8 (2·8)

  Solihull

  44,495

  0·2 (0·2)

  Walsall

  26,266

  4·1(4·0)

  Wolverhampton

  17,000

  3·6 (3·6)

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of derelict land grant made available to individual local authorities for each year since 1979, and where appropriate split these into class A and class B grants.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each authority selected for rate limitations in 1987–88, the percentage increase or decrease in its 1987–88 budgeted total expenditure compared with its original 1986–87 budget.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information, based on 1986–87 expenditure data used for the purposes of the rate limitation report 1986 and the latest 1987–88 budget figures supplied by authorities to my Department, is as follows:

  Percentage

  Basildon

  -0·2

  Brent

  -1·6

  Brighton

  -14·2

  Camden

  + 3·9

  Gateshead

  + 2·3

  Greenwich

  -11·7

  Hackney

  + 6·9

  Haringey

  -7·6

  Hounslow

  -8·0

  Islington

  + 0·2

  Lambeth

  -9·2

  Lewisham

  +4·9

  Middlesbrough

  + 0·4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  -3·8

  Newham

  + 3·4

  North Tyneside

  -0·9

  Sheffield

  -4·6

  Southwark

  -0·4

  Thamesdown

  -4·4

  Tower Hamlets

  +0·6

  Community Charge (Ministers of Religion)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received concerning special provision under the proposed community charge for ministers of religion;

  (2) whether he intends to make special provision under the community charge for ministers of religion.

  Mr. Howard
  I shall answer these questions shortly.

  Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received to meet a deputation from firms, councils and others directly affected by the underground fire burning on Callywhite lane industrial estate in Dronfield, Derbyshire to discuss ways and means by which his Department will assist in overcoming this emergency.

  Mr. Trippier
  In addition to the hon. Member's request to my right hon. Friend to meet a deputation to discuss this matter, we have received similar requests from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Benn) the former hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, Mr. Ellis, industrialists on the estate, solicitors acting for landowners, the North-East Derbyshire district council and the Dronfield town council.

  Churches and Charities (Local Government Finance)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements are envisaged for churches and charities under the proposed reform of local government finance.

  Mr. Howard
  So far as non-domestic properties are concerned the existing exemptions and reliefs from rating will continue broadly unamended. This will apply to properties such as churches and other places of public worship, church halls, sheltered workshops and charity shops. Institutions, such as convent schools, will be apportioned as between non-domestic and domestic parts. Existing reliefs will he availble in respect of the non-domestic parts.

  Those individuals who live in properties owned by churches or charities will be treated in the same way as all other individuals, that is those under 18—or over 18 and in full-time schooling—will not be liable for the community charge, nor will patients resident in hospitals, homes for the elderly and other similar caring institutions. Students will pay 20 per cent. of the community charge. Those on low incomes will be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge. Benefit entitlements will be increased to assist those on the lowest incomes in paying the 20 per cent. contribution.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the likely cost to local authorities of collecting a community charge as opposed to domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 100]: Our preliminary estimate is that the cost of collecting the community charge may be, broadly, up to

  57
  twice the cost of collecting domestic rates. However, much depends on individual local authorities. The introduction of a wholly new system offers the opportunity for a reappraisal of existing practices, with the aim of reducing unit costs—for example, by the wider use of direct

DEFENCE

  Plutonium
  Mr. Benn
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence from where plutonium exported to the United States for military use since May 1979 came; and whether there are any plans for future exports of plutonium for military use under the 1959 amendment of the 1958 UK-US mutual defence agreement on atomic energy.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On the export of plutonium to the United States, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 19 November 1984 at column 25, which quoted several earlier replies, including that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 April 1984 at column 506, which may now he updated to read, "during the past 16 years". On the second part of the right hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 19 February 1985 at columns 406–7.

  Warsaw Pact
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what conventional force categories the Government consider the Warsaw pact to have serious or overwhelming superiority.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to annex A and paragraphs 108 and 109 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" (Cmnd. 101-I).

  Trident Submarines
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has considered equipping the Trident submarines with C4 and D5 warheads should the INF talks be concluded successfully.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The decision made on 11 March 1982, announced at columns 975–7, to purchase the Trident D5 missile rather than the C4 missile remains the basis of the United Kingdom Trident programme and is unrelated to the progress of current negotiations on INF.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the yield of Trident warheads is intended to be greater than that of the modernised Chevaline warheads.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the yield of British nuclear warheads. However, as the essay "The Minimum Deterrent" which appears on pages 39 to 42 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" makes clear, Trident, when introduced into service, will represent no more than a minimum deterrent.

  Cruise Missiles
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether, following the nuclear planning group meeting at Stavanger, he has held further discussions on the possibility of basing air-launched cruise missiles at Fairford, Lakenheath or Upper Heyford or on whether these bases will be used to host planes carrying air-launched cruise missiles;

  (2) whether, following the nuclear planning group meeting at Stavanger, he has held further discussions on the possibility of basing sea-launched cruise missiles at Holy Loch and other United States bases in Britain.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It remains NATO policy to maintain the minimum forces necessary for deterrence. The NATO Alliance continually assesses its nuclear capability and makes whatever adjustments are necessary to maintain deterrence, taking account of arms control proposals and other developments. Various possible adjustments are under consideration within NATO on a confidential basis.

  Chemical Weapons
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, following the United States congressional vole stipulating that at least one ally should store binary chemical weapons before existing stocks are removed, the Government have been approached by the United States to be that ally.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. The position remains as set out in the essay on chemical weapons and arms control in chapter 2 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" (Cmnd. 101).

  Neutron Weapons
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish in the Official Report information on whether British troops have been trained for the use of neutron weapons or have participated in exercises requiring this training.

  Mr. Freeman
  No British units have been trained in the use of enhanced radiation weapons, nor have they participated in exercises requiring this training.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government have revised their view of the necessity for anti-tactical ballistic missile defence in anticipation of a successful conclusion to the INF talks.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The progress of the INF talks will, of course, be taken into account in the evaluation of the threat from tactical ballistic missiles. The current NATO studies, in which the United Kingdom is participating, are. examining the threat from conventional missiles and possible counters to this, and there is no reason to discontinue them.

  Low-flying Training
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to alternatives to low flying over land as methods of training service pilots.
  59
  Mr. Freeman
  The RAF training programme already uses simulators as much as possible. However there are limits to their training value as they cannot simulate all aspects of flying. Low-flying training is therefore necessary to give pilots full experience in realistic conditions, and this generally needs to be over land as there is very limited training value in flying over flat and featureless areas of ocean.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the military value of low-flying exercises over land.

  Mr. Freeman
  Low-flying training and exercises over land are essential to enable the RAF to master the necessary techniques to fulfil its tasks whilst avoiding detection by enemy radar.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for public support for the services of the disturbance from low-flying training exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  We recognise public concern about the disturbance which can be caused by low-flying military aircraft, and do our best to minimise such disturbance, but we do not believe that this issue detracts from the generous public support given to the armed forces.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to warn the public about imminent low-flying exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not practicable to provide advance notice about routine low-level flying, since such training is conducted on a day-to-day basis, as weather and other considerations allow. Advance warning is however given to hon. Members, the Press and organisations such as the National Farmers' Union about major training exercises.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots have been disciplined for breaching low-flying regulations in each year since 1979; and what was the nature of the discipline.

  Mr. Freeman
  Very few complaints reveal irresponsible breaches of the low flying regulations and therefore formal disciplinary action is infrequent. Between 1979 and 1986 there was one case of a pilot being court-martialled, two of pilots being fined and five of pilots being summarily disciplined for offences that fell short of courts-martial. Less severe infringements are dealt with by informal procedures and details are not available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were made with regard to low-flying exercises in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) on 22 April,Official Report column 584. The 1987 figure for complaints about low-flying training to the end of May is 1,418.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will set up an inquiry to evaluate the cost effectiveness of low-flying training exercises in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  To maintain an efficient and cost-effective modern air force, there is no substitute for thorough training, including adequate training for pilots 60
  at low level. Exercises in which forces are co-ordinated, sometimes with other NATO forces, as they could be in any future conflict, are a necessary part of this training. Major low-flying exercises also enable us to test our air defence capability.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will institute a ban on low flying in the national parks pending the results of the inquiry into the most recent accident involving a Jaguar and a Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The regulations governing the low-flying system are kept continuously under review and altered as necessary. When the board of inquiry has reported on the reasons for the accident these will be taken into account in our continuing review of safety procedures.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained pilots have ended their service with the Royal Air Force in the five years following the completion of their training in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of trained pilots who have ended their service with the Royal Air Force in the five years following the completion of their training in each year since 1979 was:

  Number

  FY 79–80

  7

  FY 80–81

  4

  FY 81–82

  4

  FY 82–83

  3

  FY 83–84

  7

  FY 84–85

  7

  FY 85–86

  6

  FY 86–87

  13

  These figures include pilots who left voluntarily, were discharged or died.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many pilots have been lost in each of the last 12 years in military and training aircraft accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual "Statements on Defence Estimates" which include each year information on personnel killed in service aircraft accidents.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many fully trained pilots were employed in each of the services in each of the last 12 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of fully trained pilots employed in each of the services since 1976 are:

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1976

  1

  742

  4,346

  1977

  1

  731

  3,965

  1978

  1

  696

  3,688

  1979

  1

  643

  3,501

  1980

  510

  627

  3,439

  1981

  536

  646

  3,423

  1982

  560

  664

  3,424

  1983

  610

  659

  3,440

  1984

  622

  657

  3,447

  1985

  626

  650

  3,425

  1986

  673

  652

  3,426

  1987

  690

  650

  3,420

  61
  1 Prior to 1980 manpower figures for the RN were not kept in such a way as to enable trained and under training pilots to be identified separately.

  Aircraft (Training Exercises)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list all military aircraft based in the United Kingdom over the last 12 years, including North Atlantic Treaty Organisation aircraft, involved in training exercises over the United Kingdom mainland.

  Mr. Freeman
  During this period, a large number of aircraft have been based in the United Kingdom, including much of the Royal Air Force and many aircraft of our NATO allies. To compile the information requested would involve disproportionate cost and effort.

  Jaguar Aircraft
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest cost of a Jaguar aircraft in each of the specifications being supplied to the services.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No new Jaguars have been delivered to the RAF since 1978 but the cost adjusted to current prices would be between £5·5 million and £6 million depending on variant.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jaguar aircraft have been involved in accidents during the last 12 years; and how many were irreparably damaged and on what dates.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1 June 1975, there have been 135 serious Jaguar accidents. In these, 49 aircraft sustained irreparable damage on the following dates:

  5 February 1976

  2 July 1976

  15 September 1976

  17 September 1976

  14 December 1976

  25 February 1977

  14 June 1977

  29 July 1977

  21 March 1978

  27 April 1978

  25 July 1978

  1 November 1978

  26 March 1979

  22 June 1979

  18 July 1979

  23 November 1979

  10 December 1979

  28 May 1980

  17 July 1980

  12 February 1981

  14 April 1981

  1 June 1981

  17 July 1981

  6 August 1981

  21 October 1981

  18 November 1981

  2 April 1982

  25 May 1982

  11 June 1982

  13 September 1982

  29 September 1982

  7 March 1983

  19 April 1983

  16 June 1983

  22 June 1983

  19 September 1983

  7 February 1984

  12 July 1984

  22 August 1984

  62

  1 April 1985

  9 July 1985

  7 October 1985

  27 November 1986

  17 June 1987

  24 June 1987

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest cost of a Tornado aircraft in each of the specifications being supplied to the services.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest estimated costs at 1986–87 average outturn prices for the two versions of the Tornado are:

  £ million

  Tornado F Mk 2 (air defence variant)

  17·5

  Tornado GR1 (strike)

  18·0

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft have been involved in accidents during the last 12 years; and how many were irreparably damaged and on what dates.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since entering service with the RAF, there have been 37 serious Tornado accidents. In these, 12 aircraft sustained irreparable damage on the following dates:

  27 September 1983

  28 October 1983

  6 February 1984

  12 July 1984

  18 July 1984

  8 November 1984

  12 December 1985

  2 December 1986

  10 December 1986

  30 March 1987

  3 June 1987

  17 June 1987

  Directorate General of Quality Assurance
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what sites are currently being considered for the headquarters of the directorate general of quality assurance; and when he expects the final decision to be announced.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I cannot yet add to my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member on 3 April 1987, which was that the further appraisal of the future accommodation needs of the directorate general of defence quality assurance is still in progress.

  Surface-to-air Missiles (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence why he will not make a statement on the collaboration between the United States of America and Her Majesty's Government in sending surface-to-air missiles to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Successive Administrations have not felt obliged to answer questions of this kind.

  Challenger Tank
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans currently exist to improve the fighting capability of the Challenger tank.
  63
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The capabilities of our tank fleet are kept under constant review. A number of equipment enhancements are currently in hand. A new thermal imaging and observation sight is presently being fitted to all Challenger tanks. New developments now well under way include a new gun, together with its improved ammunition and elevation gearbox, improved computer sighting system and new target acquisition and solid state electronic gun control systems.

  Trident
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 1 July, Official Report, column 114 to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North why he is unwilling to indicate the nature and extent of the penalty clauses operative in the event of cancellation of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are no penalty clauses attached to the Trident programme.

  HMS Onyx
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what official visits have been paid to foreign ports by the diesel submarine HMS Onyx since 1 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  HMS Onyx visited Las Palmas, Spain in March 1987, and is currently visiting Valparaiso, Chile.

  Chile (Navy Vessel Visits)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what visits have been paid by Royal Naval vessels to ports in Chile since 1 January.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Visits have been made by Her Majesty's ships to Chilean ports on the following occasions since 1 January 1987:

  HMS Herald—February 1987

  HMS Minerva, RFA Bayleaf—May

  HMS Onyx—July 1987

  O Class Submarines
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the export of O class submarines to non-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Any such sale would be subject to the normal export licensing procedure. All applications for permission to export defence equipment take full account of political strategic and security interests.

  AV-8B Aircraft
  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the AV-8B aircraft, in the light of the United States House of Representatives Armed Service Committee's decision to withdraw funding for the programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A decision on the future of the AV-8B aircraft is a matter for the United States Government.

  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he or his officials have had with officials of the Department of Defence in the United States of America and with members of the United States Congress
  64
  on the future of United States-United Kingdom collaboration in aircraft production, in the light of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee's decision to end funding of the AV-8B programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and Ministry of Defence officials have had a variety of discussions with the United States Department of Defence and members of the United States Congress about what would be the implications for transAtlantic collaboration in general and for the particular programme of collaboration on the procurement of the AV-8B for the United States Marine Corps and the Harrier GR Mk 5 for the Royal Air Force if a decision were to be taken to end funding of AV-8B production. Congressional consideration of this matter is of course not yet complete.

  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many AV-8B aircraft have been ordered; what are the planned delivery dates; and what contingency plans exist for their disposal in the event of the cancellation of the programme by the United States Congress.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  These are matters for the United States Government; but I understand that orders for 328 AV-8B aircraft (including trainers) are planned, that 86 aircraft have been delivered to date and that the delivery of the remainder should be completed by the mid-1990s.

  Defence Equipment (United States of America)
  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the value of imports of defence equipment from the United States of America for each of the last six years, together with the corresponding figures for United Kingdom defence exports to the United States of America.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has not been the practice of successive Governments to publish detailed figures for our defence trade with individual countries. The annual defence balance of trade ratios agreed with the United States for each of the last six years, United States: United Kingdom are:

  Ratios

  1980–81

  2·0:1

  1981–82

  2·0:1

  1982–83

  1·9:1

  1983–84

  2·1:1

  1984–85

  1·9:1

  1985–86

  1·5:1

  Thorn-EMI Factory, Bulwell
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for and the effects upon the United Kingdom's defence of the closure of the Thorn-EMI factory in Bulwell, Nottingham, a principal supplier of nerve gas detection equipment to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 114]: Subject to the satisfactory fulfilment of their contractual obligations to the Department, closures of sites by defence contractors are entirely a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies themselves. We expect no difficulty in finding alternative sources of

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Cricket: Violence at Matches
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that any action is now necessary to forestall violence at cricket matches.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, yes. The Test and County Cricket Board has proposed a series of useful measures which have been accepted by the authorities responsible for our Test Match grounds.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he accept that the recent incident was most unusual, and does he agree that it would be a setback for the game, with its special character and tempo, if spectators had to be marshalled or segregated? Will the Government do their best nonetheless to discourage the invasion of pitches through misplaced enthusiasm, although there was little reason for such exuberance early today from British supporters at the end of the Test Match?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that was an unfortunate incident and we must try to see that it is prevented in the future. I very much hope that the agreement which was reached at a meeting which was chaired by the Test and County Cricket Board but which included also the police, the Government and indeed the Pakistani Embassy will lead now to an improvement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that was a one-off situation which we are hoping will not be repeated. Can he tell us what consultations have been taking place between the cricket and other authorities in order to pool their experience of these and other matters? Does not the Minister also acknowledge that ready accessibility to alcohol very often has a great deal to do with the violence? The Government perhaps should reflect very much on their plans to extend drinking hours.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards consultation, I feel sure that the Test and County Cricket Board has been in touch with other people in the sporting world and has looked at what other sports have been doing. This is a game with a distinctive character. The parties that I mentioned were at the meeting. Indeed,
454
alcohol was one of the matters that was discussed. It was agreed that alcoho consumption at cricket matches will need to be watched closely and that stewards will deny entry to people with excessive supplies of alcohol.

NHS Waiting Lists
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of patients on National Health Service hospital waiting lists at the latest available date, and whether there is any variation in the size of waiting lists between the North and South of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, on 30th September 1986, there were 681,901 people on hospital in-patient waiting lists in England. The size of the lists varies within and between regions because of factors such as the size of the resident population. Although there is no obvious correlation between geographical position and the size of lists, the House will be interested to note, as I was, that the average list per 1,000 population for the five northern regional health authorities is below the average for the whole of England.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and particularly for the interesting information about geographical distribution, which surprised me as well as him. Does he accept that after eight years of this Government the waiting list figure that he quoted is 73,000 higher than the number just before the end of 1978 and that that is a very disturbing situation? Can he say a little about what the Government are doing to bring down the waiting lists, North and South?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord, may I say that I am aware that he has recently been in hospital. I hope that he has fully recovered, not only from the cause for his admission but also from any effects he might have felt about having come out!
As we discussed last week, the number of patients treated in hospital has risen to an extra 1 million persons a year. As to the question asked by the noble Lord concerning what the Government are doing, we are naturally very concerned. As an emergency measure we have set up a waiting list fund. It is a three-year scheme which has a two-year core of money in the middle. An allocation of £25 million was made for the first year of the two-year period. Various schemes have been approved since February, when the money first became available.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord—this being my first opportunity—on his new post. I should also like to ask the noble Lord why he left out the figures for

455
Wales when he gave the figure of 681,901 people on waiting lists? My information is that there were an additional 35,770 people on the waiting list for Wales. I am surprised that there are no signs of alarm on the Opposition Front Bench over that matter. Next, does the Minister not think that it is absurd that in some districts there are long queues for services involving certain specialties, whereas in other districts there are no queues or very short queues? Can he say what the Government are planning to do to encourage cross-boundary flows?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I did not mention Wales or indeed Scotland because, in the time in which I had to prepare for the Question, I was not able to get the figures from the relevant departments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the error of my ways. So far as his supplementary question is concerned, yes, I am well aware that one of the major problems is the management problem. That concerns, first, the relationship between general practitioners and consultants and, secondly, the information that the general practitioners need as part of their thinking on referral for a particular consultation in terms of knowing where the waiting list for a particular specialty is lowest.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, has the noble Lord been told, as I have, that the difficulty in movement across boundaries is largely a matter of financial bureaucracy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have not had it explained to me in quite those terms. I have established that where there is a will, there is a way. I know of one dermatologist who recently managed to reduce his waiting list time from six months to two weeks.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole question of waiting lists and regions becomes topsy-turvey when one thinks of hospitals such as Guy's, which is brilliant in certain specialties, and whose waiting list covers the whole of southern England? I am aware of that because I used to be governor of that hospital. Most of its patients come from the coastal areas. Therefore, how do we define who is waiting for what, and in what region?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I am advised that Moorfields Hospital, which is another specialist hospital, was at one time actively promoting the admission of patients so that they could carry on with their teaching work.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a slight danger in reading too much into hospital waiting lists? When there was no such thing as a hip replacement operation, there were no waiting lists for hip replacement operations.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the advances in medical science have a bearing on the matter. I shall go further and say that what matters for individual patients is not the size of the list but how long they must wait for treatment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that he owes the House no apology? My Question concerned England, and it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales to answer questions concerning the situation in Wales. I have two supplementary questions. The Minister referred to the number of patients treated. I had understood last week that the Minister was not speaking of the number of patients treated but the number of times people have been admitted to hospital. In addition, can the Minister tell me when the £25 million scheme started and whether it is possible to see any results from that expenditure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the £25 million in the fund to which I referred was first available in February of this year. It is too soon to see any results. So far as the number of patients treated is concerned, I know that the noble Lord has a fixation about the figures being unreliable because of repeat treatments. However, fashions in medicine in some specialties have demanded that in any case. Also, as the noble Lord will know from his weekend's experience, people are not normally in hospital without good reason.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been admitted to hospital six times this year and I am in cracking health, but that I have been registered as being six patients? I am only one man, great though I may be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the noble Lord's health history. But I suspect that the consultant, the general practitioner or whoever referred him in the first place treated the noble Lord, quite rightly, as a patient for each individual incident.
2.50 p.m.

Working Conditions: Statutory Protection
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the part-time, lowly-paid sector of the workforce, and women in particular, have adequate statutory protection in respect of pay and conditions of work.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, statutory protections on matters of pay and health and safety do not normally distinguish between full- and part-time workers, or between men and women. However, where some other protections are concerned some minimum qualification in terms of hours worked is necessary if employers are not to be prevented by excessive regulation from running their businesses effectively and thus creating jobs.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply so far as it goes.

457
Is the Minister really content to leave the protection of vulnerable sectors of the workforce to so-called market forces? Is the Minister aware, for instance, that thousands of full-time workers get only a temporary contract of 12 weeks, and that this can go on indefinitely without them getting a permanent contract? Is he also aware that part-time employers working fewer than 16 hours a week can remain on a temporary contract until they complete five years of service? Does the Minister really think that arrangements of that kind are satisfactory, equitable and just?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that the best protection we can give a worker today is a job, and the cases which the noble Lord has outlined show how restrictive even the existing legislation can be in the eyes of some employers. What we are concerned about is that we continue with a world in which 65 per cent. of those of working age are in paid employment. That is a matter on which to congratulate ourselves and not one for criticism because of lack of protection.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some examples of the restrictions that he would like to see taken away from the safety precautions, etc.?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, because I am not suggesting that I would do that. But what I should not like to do is to go back to a form of repressive regime, the abolition of which I suspect helped to create the 1 million new jobs which we have seen since 1983.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what plans has the Minister for extending employment rights, for instance, including pension rights, to part-time workers? In his original reply the Minister said that there is no differentiation; but I wonder whether he would care to comment on the situation that in many cases in the retail and distributive trades young people are being used as a pool of low-paid, casual and temporary labour. Surely there are categories of workers—and in my Question I mentioned the low paid and women—who are especially vulnerable in today's circumstances. Can the Minister help me on that aspect?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, wages councils exist in many of the industries covered by the distributive trades, and I really would require some evidence of the assertion which the noble Lord makes that there are such pools of low paid or young people acting in the way in which he suggests.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not dealing adequately with my noble friend's Question. Is he aware that my noble friend is referring to a section of the workforce who for various reasons are not being treated properly in relation to their conditions of work or their wages? I would not expect him to give us a final answer now. What he has done is to dismiss my noble friend's question as being of no account. It is a very important question and I would plead with the noble Lord to
458
look at this very carefully, and if necessary to write to my noble friend or to make a statement to the House later.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, may I just say that I do not accept the assertion that there are a number of people who are not being dealt with properly? We have wages councils whose job today in the number of industries they cover is to settle minimum hourly rates of pay, minimum overtime rates and the limit to be charged for accommodation. I hear from time to time from employers about difficulties in engaging people. I should like to have produced before your Lordships' House examples of these assertions that are made. If that is done, then I promise your Lordships that they will be dealt with.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, would the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, not agree that many women, in order to obtain the flexibility that might help them with their domestic commitments, have sacrificed jobs which contained protection, adequate pension rights and maternity rights and have now had to forfeit those? Would the noble Lord look at the conditions under which those women now work, with particular reference to those who do home work?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of all women between the ages of 16 and 59 no fewer than 60 per cent. are in employment in this country. I believe that the only other country in the Community that has more women in employment is Denmark. That surely is a matter for congratulation. If about one-quarter of the women are in part-time employment, that is only because as more and more women go into work, many who are married look for only part-time employment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, agree that apparently the Prince of Wales did not think that all working conditions are satisfactory?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that is a matter which is the subject of this Question, nor is it a matter which we should raise in your Lordships' House.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, the noble Lord has argued in defence of this situation that wages councils exist. Would he not accept that wages councils have been considerably weakened, both in their coverage and in the inspectorate which ensures that wages councils can do an adequate job?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that wages councils today do an adequate job. They get the balance right between conditions which allow jobs to grow in the community and the necessary protections for those in employment. We have seen employment continue to grow. We still have unemployment today at 2,950,000. We shall be doing what we can to see that more jobs grow, not the other way.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied about the enforceability of judgments of the industrial tribunals? There are cases of appalling failure to give effect to judgments of the tribunals in respect of underpaid workers.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am informed that prosecutions in the past have been historically few, and in fact rarely reach double figures under any government. What is important is that we ensure that the effects of the wages councils' orders, in respect of the workers they cover, are known and that we maintain an inspectorate which maintains checks.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what I believe he said. But may I be clear that he would be willing to receive a deputation led by myself of those outside who are convinced that the case I have made is correct and that there is evidence of widespread abuse? If that evidence is assembled, will the noble Lord be happy to receive the deputation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment (who is primarily concerned with this matter) will be happy to receive any delegation that the noble Lord wishes to advance. But I asked for proof or evidence, not for a delegation. There have been many assertions from noble Lords opposite this afternoon making allegations about conditions and terms of employment. This requires some substantiation in some way or other.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the allegations or suggestions made by the Prince of Wales, to which my noble friend referred in her question?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I have not. I am very concerned with inner city matters and I suspect it would be better if this question was not dealt with in this way. It is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

EC: Finance Arrangements
2.59 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what article of the Treaty of Rome or other regulation, directive or decision made thereunder gives authority to the European Commission to cut or withhold amounts payable to individual farmers under the existing regulations in force.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, council Regulation No. 729/70 requires the Commission to make advance payments to national intervention bodies to fund their expenditure on EAGGF guarantee section
460
measures. The Commission's ability to make advances depends, however, on the availability of funds in the budget. In 1987 the budget is likely only to be sufficient to cover expenditure to the end of October. The European Council on 30th June agreed that the system of advances should be adjusted in order to keep expenditure within the budget. The details are still to be resolved, but the impact of the changes is likely to fall on national exchequers rather than having any effect on payments to farmers and traders.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer is the complete contradiction of a report that appeared in the Conservative Party house journal, the Daily Telegraph, some days ago, which indicated that the Commission is considering making cuts? Furthermore is he aware that his Answer is most satisfactory in another way, in that it appears that the only way of effecting cuts in compulsory expenditure on the EAGGF is simply not to agree with the budget? Will he give the House an assurance that his right honourable friend, when he appears at the Economic and Financial Council on the 13th, will firmly dig in his heels and impose in effect cash limits upon this expenditure, thus justifying completely the assurance of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that expenditure will be kept under strict control?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me in any way to be in a position to give any form of assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend. I assure him that discussions are continuing on the Commission's proposals for changes in the Community's finances, including an increase in the Community's resources. Any such increase would require the agreement of all member states. The UK, however, has made it clear that we will consider extra resources only if genuine steps have been taken towards reforming the common agricultural policy.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the identical assurance was given in another place and to this House immediately after the Fountainebleau conference with no result whatever? Budgetary discipline still has not been maintained. Is he further aware that many of us suspect that after the next conference to which he referred the budget will still remain out of control?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that many Members of this House are well aware that the Prime Minister received a tremendously adverse press in the rest of Europe for taking such a strong line on 30th June on reforming the finances of Europe.

Business
3.2 p.m
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill will be adjourned at approximately seven p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment

461
the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 and the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 9th July
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Nathan to be taken before that standing in the name of the Lord Lyell.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th July
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Peston and the Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove set down for 15th July shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, 1 beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Belstead, L.

Birk, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cathcart, E.

Chitnis, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

David, B.

Davidson, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

462

Denham, L.

Diamond, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Gibson, L.

Gisborough, L.

Greenway, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hampton, L.

Havers, L. (L. Chancellor)

Hooper, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Kimball, L.

Kimberley, E.

Kirkhill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

McNair, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Moran, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Nicol, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Rea, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Seear, B.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Underhill, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)

Young, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Cox, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Denham, L.

Hayter, L.

Listowel, E.

463

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Renton, L.

Simon, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

White, B.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Composition of Safety Authority.
—(1) The Chairman of the Safety Authority shall be appointed jointly by the governments of the United Kingdom and France and shall be a person who is independent of those governments.
(2) The members of the Safety Authority to be appointed by the government of the United Kingdom shall include—

(a) the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority;

(b) a member of the Health and Safety Executive;

(c)a mining engineer;

(d)a person having practical knowledge of explosives;

(e)a person having practical knowledge of railway safety matters; and

(f) the Chief Constable of the Kent Police Authority.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which proposes to insert a new clause, perhaps I may first refer to paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report which lists five matters which counsel for the Government urged were not relevant to the Select Committee proceedings.
Paragraph 11 of the Select Committee report states that counsel suggested that two other matters also be excluded, one being the safety of the tunnel system. The Select Committee strongly rejected that submission and the reports of the daily proceedings illustrate the very detailed consideration which the Select Committee gave to the various matters of safety.
The proposed new clause seeks to ensure that the safety authority will have as its UK representatives persons with the relevant experience to deal with the authority's very responsible duties. I think it is agreed in the public mind that the safety of the Channel Tunnel is paramount. Subsection (1) of the new clause proposes that the chairman of the authority shall be appointed jointly by the UK and French
464
Governments and shall be a person independent of those governments.
This proposal is in full accord with the view of the Select Committee as set out in paragraph 130 of its report. The Select Committee emphasised that this suggestion in no way reflects upon the capacity or integrity of the members of the authority at present appointed. The chairmanship of the authority is dealt with in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the booklet containing the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations. The Government seem to be indicating that on his retirement the chief inspecting officer of railways, who is the present chairman of the authority, will then be of independent status. Therefore, whoever it is decided shall eventually be the chairman, the Government seem to accept the principle of independence as set out in subsection (1).
Paragraph 120 of the Select Committee report states that the concession agreement established a safety authority and the Minister confirmed that fact during our Committee considerations last Tuesday. Paragraph 121 of the Select Committee report expressed some unease at these institutional arrangements. Therefore, subsection (2) of the amendment sets out some persons who should be included among the UK members. It is important and generally in line with the view of the Select Committee. I emphasise that the amendment proposes that the UK members should include those on the list set out in the amendment. It is not a exclusive list.
Paragraph 120 of the Select Committee report states that the Chief Fire Officer of Kent and a representative of the Health and Safety Executive are present members of the authority. They are included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment and therefore that will surely meet with the approval of the Government.
The Select Committee states in paragraph 121 that it is convinced that because issues of public order and criminal law will inevitably arise, it is essential that the Chief Constable of Kent should be a full member of the authority. That suggestion is included in paragraph (f) in the amendment. I confess that I am somewhat amazed that, although paragraph 20 of the Government's response accepts that questions of public order and criminal law will arise, nevertheless it also states that they are not issues within the remit of the safety authority and it proposes that the chief constable should be a member of the safety authority working group and not of the safety authority itself, as the Select Committee has urged.
I hope that the Committee will agree with the Select Committee that the chief constable should be a full member of the safety authority. On the safety authority there is already a person with practical knowledge of railway matters; namely, the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. Item (e) must therefore meet with the Government's agreement. It would seem that items (c) and (d) are the only proposed items still to be argued.
During its proceedings the Select Committee heard evidence from Dr. Herbert Eisner, a Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers and a former director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory, Health and Safety Executive. Dr. Eisner drew attention to the

465
parallel between the ventilation regime in the tunnel and that which applies in the mines. That is justification sufficient for such an appointment to be to the safety authority.
The rationale behind the need for an expert on explosives is perhaps more obvious, and I do not believe that there is need to argue the case. A similar amendment was put forward in Committee in the other place, but it did not include the question of the independence of the chairman, or membership of the Chief Constable of Kent on the safety authority. The Government's response on that occasion was disappointing. It was to the effect that the authority could draw on the relevant experience of officers of the department.
I urge that points (c) and (d), mining and explosives, are as important as the other matters covered by members of the authority and that such persons should he full members of the authority. As I have explained, I believe that in general the Government seem to support the principles of the new clause. I hope therefore that they will find it possible to accept it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having brought this amendment before the Committee. I agree with him that it is an extremely important issue. The safety authority has a crucial role to play. We should perhaps remind ourselves of that role. The authority is essentially a technical body, established by the Channel Fixed Link Treaty to advise and assist the Intergovernmental Commission on all matters concerning safety and the construction and operation of the fixed link.
The treaty confers on the safety authority a specific responsibility and powers in relation to safety matters in the tunnel system. It will exist for the duration of the concession period. It will help if we can bear those points in mind when considering the two parts of the amendment.
First, the amendment would require a single, and presumably permanent, chairman of the safety authority to be appointed jointly by the British and French Governments, who would be independent of the two Governments. We must first recognise that the idea of a single, jointly appointed chairman would be contrary to what the British and French Governments have already agreed in the Channel Fixed Link Treaty. In Article 11(14) the treaty provides that the chairmanship of the safety authority shall be held for a period of one year by the head of each delegation alternatively. If we wanted to change that arrangement, we should have to negotiate an amendment to the treaty and the French Government have told us that they see no need for such a change. I hope to convince the Committee that there is no need for such a change and that it would be positively undesirable.
Let us be frank about this. Although it has not been said in so many words, what the Committee fears is that decisions made by the safety authority on technical grounds will be overruled at a higher level for commercial or party political reasons. The fear has been expressed, although not by the noble Lord,
466
Lord Underhill, this afternon, that the Britis delegation might be overruled by the French.
The Government entirely agree that there must be safeguards against that happening and that the chairman and members should not be put into the position of feeling that they had to resign. There are such safeguards. Those which were already in place have been strengthened following discussion of this subject in Select Committee. I should like to list them. Let us first dispose of the fear that the British delegation might be overruled by the French. The safety authority advises and assists the Intergovernmental Commission. It is the commission which takes the decisions and Article 10(5) of the treaty provides that its decisions:
"shall be taken by agreement between the heads of the British and French delegations".
There can thus be no question of our views being overruled by the French.
Because the safety authority only advises and assists the Intergovernmental Commission, fears have been expressed that the commission might overrule the safety authority. In Article 19(4), the treaty provides that the membership of the commission must include at least two members of the safety authority so that it can be sure of making its voice heard. What if it were to be overruled by the commission? The safety authority can then make its voice heard. Under Article 11(7) of the treaty, the authority has an absolute right to talk directly to Ministers. The Select Committee expressed a proper concern that that might not of itself be enough because—let me be frank again—Ministers might be in cahouts with Eurotunnel; and so the Government have now gone further.
I told this place on 28th April that the Government had given an assurance to the Select Committee as follows:
"should the safety authority bring to the attention of the Secretary of State a fundamental disagreement on an important issue of public safety between themselves and the Intergovernmental Commission or should the UK delegation to the safety authority notify a similar disagreement between themselves and their French counterparts, the Secretary of State for Transport will report that fact to Parliament".—(Official Report, 28/4/87; col. 1474.]
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said in the Select Committee that that met his concerns and the noble Lord the Chairman agreed.
I can understand that we may have doubts about the Intergovernmental Commission. I understand that we may have doubts about Ministers. I even suggest that we might have doubts about a single chairman, however independent he was, but I cannot accept that we can doubt the integrity of Parliament as a whole. I repeat my assurance that Parliament would be told. That deals with crises.
I also remind the Committee that as a matter of course Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise all regulations which it is proposed to make governing safety in the tunnel. The safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission will draw up the regulations, but they will have to be laid before Parliament under Clause 11 before they can have the force of law.
It has been suggested that we propose to delegate responsibility for safety in the tunnel to a few civil

467
servants and to let them get on with it. As I hope I have shown, that is not so. We are appointing a group of experts to advise us—a bi-national group, because it is a bi-national project. On each side of the Channel the Governments have appointed as head of their team the person best qualified for the post who has the crucial expertise.
In our case, that is the present Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, he is due to retire later this year. It is proposed to retain him as head of the United Kingdom delegation for the safety authority and to appoint his successor as Chief Inspecting Officer as an additional member of the delegation. That will ensure that he can devote sufficient time to his safety authority functions during the crucial design stage. He is an expert. We are speaking of a man who knows more than anyone else in Britain about ensuring that the railways are safe and who for many years has exercised independent responsibilities in approving new railway construction and equipment and in conducting inquiries. His independence is assured, because his views will be made known to Parliament if any attempt is made to overrule him and his colleagues. I think we have it right.
I turn now to the second limb of the amendment, which seeks to prescribe in the Bill the type of people who must be members of the safety authority. I shall first remind the Committee of the composition of the present United Kingdom delegation. As well as the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, an expert in railway safety, we have nominated the Department of Transport's Chief Highways Engineer, who is a most distinguished civil engineer, a senior representative of the Health and Safety Executive and the Chief Fire Officer of Kent.
In relation to the suggestions contained in the amendment, it would appear that our delegation lacks expertise in mining and explosives and will not benefit from input by the Kent Police Authority. If these important areas were being ignored it would indeed be worrying; but they are not. The safety authority itself must be kept to a manageable size if it is to fulfil its functions efficiently.
But it has always been envisaged that the authority would be the core of a much larger group of experts whose knowledge and experience would be needed. This is why the treaty provides in Article 1(6) that:
"for the purposes of carrying out its functions, the safety authority may invoke the assistance of the authorities of each government or any body or expert of its choice".
Such experts can be invited to attend meetings of the authority itself, but their major input will be to the detailed consideration of technical issues in the authority's five working groups on civil engineering and general equipment, rescue and public safety, rail safety and technology, health and safety at work, and dangerous goods. In this way the safety authority has already arranged for input from the areas of concern which the noble Lord mentions in the amendment.
Knowledge of mining engineering is recognised to be relevant. The member of the Health and Safety Executive therefore will be drawing on expertise from HM Mines and Quarries Inspectorate and from the
468
Explosion and Flame Laboratory at Buxton, both of which form part of the Health and Safety Executive and which are the main experts in this area. Because of this expertise the Health and Safety Executive member is also the UK chairman of the Working Group on Dangerous Goods, which will be considering and ruling on Eurotunnel's proposals for the transport of dangerous substances through the tunnel.
Having mentioned explosives let me dispel one misconception. The safety authority's mandate does not extend to responsibility for the physical security of the tunnel in the sense of prevention of terrorism and the like. The treaty provides in Article 5 for separate arrangements to deal with these matters. These arrangements are being put in place. They are being co-ordinated both between the two governments and with the work of the safety authority. But I hope that Members of the Committee do not expect me to go into detail in public about such matters.
Turning to the matter of the Kent Police the Government accept that they have a crucial part to play. They are already fully involved in discussions between the British and French Governments on matters of public order and law, which of course fall outside the remit of the safety authority. In addition they will need to be involved in the safety authority's consideration of contingency planning and crisis management. In accordance with the undertaking we gave in the Select Committee the Chief Constable of Kent has been invited to nominate a representative to the safety authority working group on rescue and public safety matters. My information is that the police authority regards this as a satisfactory way of making its essential input.
Looking more generally at this limb of the amendment, it seeks, as its proposers explained, to establish certain members of the safety authority on a permanent basis. This is not a sensible approach. It will be necessary to have members of appropriate expertise throughout the construction and operation period, but what is appropriate might change. I assure the Committee that the Government will maintain appropriate expert membership of the British delegation and we shall expect the French Government to do likewise.
I have spoken at some length on this subject because it is very important. It is indeed one of the most important topics that we shall be discussing today. The Government attach the utmost importance to the independence and expertise of the safety authority. However, we believe that the present arrangements provide what is needed. I am sure that there will be a good debate on this amendment, but I hope that I have been at least able to put the Government's view at an early stage.
Lord Morris: I am very grateful to my noble friend for explaining so fully and with such care the reasons why he feels that this amendment should not be agreed to. He stated very clearly that the main effect of the amendment is to fly in the face of a treaty which has already been signed.

469
A practical point about the amendment which slightly worries me is this. It provides that the chairman of the safety authority:
"shall be appointed jointly by the governments of the United Kingdom and France".
Let us say for the sake of argument that this amendment is agreed to and that the French determine that they shall not so appoint. Where will that leave us? If Parliament tries to change a treaty that has already been entered into with another country and tries, through an Act of Parliament, to force the Government of another country to change the terms of that treaty, the likelihood is that that country will say, "No, we shall take no note of your Act of Parliament"—and why indeed should they? I believe for that reason that this amendment is flawed.
With regard to the second part of the amendment, my noble friend explained with great care the reason why he dismisses the practical benefit; namely, on the ground that it is unnecessary. A careful sight of the Bill will make it quite clear that there is ample provision, not only intergovernmentally but by the concessionaires within the Bill, to make and enforce all the arrangements for safety. I believe that future users of the tunnel have nothing whatever to fear with regard to the intention of this Government, or the powers of future governments, to ensure their safety.
Viscount Cross: I have noted what the Minister has just said. Nevertheless I should like to support the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and in the name also of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. At the same time I should like to say a few words about safety.
I have heard the proposed Channel Tunnel compared with the tunnels under the Alps. For instance, the railway tunnel through Mont Blanc is a long one and at a great height of 8,000 or 9,000 feet. The vehicles are carried on open railway cars. They are cooled by the mountain air and become cooler as they pass through the tunnel. I suggest that the Channel Tunnel is very different.
One can imagine a case where a Continental camion or car is driven a long distance across Europe, Scotland, the North of England or anywhere else. It is driven hard and arrives very hot at the loading point. Quite unknown to the driver an axle has overheated. A brake lining has been binding. Most vehicles are well maintained, but the engine could be covered with oil and grease. There could be a small petrol leak of which the driver is unaware. He turns off the ignition and owing to something called latent heat, the temperature of the engine rises and halfway through the tunnel there is suddenly self ignition. Let us pray that that never happens. Let us pray that there are never any bodies, but there would be a lot of charred vehicles and nobody would know what had happened. Because that might happen, I suggest that the passengers could be carried on one train and the vehicles on another. Another suggestion is that there might be what could be described as a cooling down period before the vehicles are loaded on to the train.
Lord Tordoff: Without wishing to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken—who seemed to be
470
making a speech against any vehicles in any circumstances in or out of the tunnel—I feel some reassurance from what the Minister said on the second half of this amendment.
In relation to the appointment of an independent chairman, we on these Benches feel that the Government's position is rather weak. He made reference to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich having given some agreement at some stage. My noble friend offers his apologies for not being in his place to hear what I have to say. He has a prior engagement and will be here later. When I spoke to him this morning he gave me the impression that he would support the first part of the amendment to the hilt and that he had in no way changed his mind about the independence of the chairman.
The date of publication of the report, which was ordered to be printed on 6th May, postdates the date of the conversations to which the noble Lord referred. Therefore presumably by the time of publication the committee had not changed its mind on paragraph 130. I see the chairman of that committee nodding. The committee is of the opinion:
"that many of the concerns expressed in this part of the report might be laid to rest by the appointment of a totally independent Chairman of the Safety Authority".
There are clearly still worries, and understandably so, about the safety element. If the public is to be reassured on the safety of the tunnel (which is surely necessary before the financing of the tunnel is completed), then this is a perfectly simple and straightforward way of giving reassurance. That part of the amendment we support.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: I am sure that neither the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, nor the Minister will be surprised that I wholeheartedly support the first part of this amendment. It would be somewhat eccentric if I did not do so as it covers one of the many recommendations that the Select Committee made and in fact is one of only two that the Government have not embraced.
I shall deal briefly with the second part of the amendment. I do not entirely go long with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the designation of "mining engineer" and "person having practical knowledge of explosives". As the Minister himself said, this is essentially a technical body but I do not believe that it is necessary to write into the Bill which particular technician should be appointed because circumstances might change.
The appointment of an independent chairman seemed to the Select Committee to be of immense advantage not only to allay public anxiety, but to give help to the safety authority itself. As I hope we made clear in our report, this was in no way whatever a reflection on Major Rose. We heard evidence from an enormous number of very impressive witnesses but none more so than Major Rose. I hope that nobody expects that because we made the suggestion it was in the slightest degree a reflection on an admirable public servant. We believe that an independent

471
chairman would be of value because, as the Minister has said, this is a technical body and it is sometimes better for a technical body to have an independent chairman who is not a technician. We believe that we want someone with clout, someone who can pick up a telephone, get straight through to the Secretary of State and, after perhaps inquiring about the prospects on his moor or his river, report to him that there is a problem on which, unless the Minister can deal with it expeditiously, it may be necessary to go public.
It is for that reason and that reason alone that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will press his amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Underhill will, in the interests of meeting what seems to be the wish of many Members of the Committee, wish to have the independence written into the Bill in subsection (1) but will not press the second part of his amendment. If, as I hope, we adopt the amendment, no doubt these words could be taken out at a subsequent stage. As I said at the outset, I have been extremely impressed, as we all have, with the careful way in which the Select Committee went about its business. It would be very wrong if now we were not to take notice of one its important recommendations. I was impressed by what the chairman of that committee has just said to us.
Lord Beloff: I have not heard any Members of the Committee who have spoken on this amendment so far answer what seems to me the very valid point made by my noble friend Lord Morris that subsection (1) of the amendment asks that the French Government amend the treaty. That is asking a great deal of this Government and they would be asking a great deal of the French Government. Presumably these issues were thoroughly canvassed when the treaty was negotiated. One might add that, while the concept of an eminent or cloutworthy person independent of government may be a familiar feature in this country in relation to certain aspects of government, it would be rather unfamiliar to the French Government. I have never met an eminent Frenchman whom I would describe as wholly independent of the French Government. I doubt whether such a person exists. Is it then perhaps intended to suggest to the French Government that a person of another nationality be appointed? He could hardly be an American because with the difference in time his ability to ring up the Secretary of State at the right moment would be very hard to calculate.
No doubt there are eminent Dutchmen, Belgians or persons of some other nationality who might fulfil this role, but it is peculiar because one would be asking someone who is a member of neither country to be available to be in touch with both governments.
There is a curious feeling underlying this amendment that perhaps we would be more concerned about safety than the French. I find it very difficult to understand that. I can see that one may think that a partner government may try to take financial advantage here or there, but there is no reason to believe that the French Government are
472
less concerned about the safety of their citizens than are the British Government. On reflection the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, might think that to start renegotiation of the treaty at this stage for this rather elusive purpose is not worth pursuing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had a good debate on this subject. My noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Beloff have put their fingers on one grave difficulty with this amendment, which is the question of the treaty, which has already been signed. The first paragraphs of Clause 1 state that:
"the construction and operation of a tunnel rail link…[shall be] in accordance with … the Treaty between the United Kingdom of Great Britain … and the French Republic".
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff about the difficulty of perhaps finding an independent Frenchman. Indeed it is difficult to establish who would be defined as independent by this amendment. It could be that my noble friend is right and that neither a British nor a French man would fit the bill.
My noble friend Lord Cross spoke about safety` in general terms and the possibility of fire in the tunnel. What we are talking about here is the composition of the safety authority, but the safety authority has made it absolutely clear that until it is satisfied with the arrangements in the tunnel it will not let the matter go ahead. It is as simple as that.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his disagreement, if I may put it that way, with the second part of the amendment on which he is now perhaps not entirely 100 per cent. certain. When I mentioned that his noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich was satisfied with the assurance I gave in a Written Answer about bringing any dispute up before Parliament, I think I was quoting from the Minutes of Evidence page 703. If he reads that carefully, he will see that it gave some reassurance to the noble Lord.
I have already said how grateful we are to the Select Committee for the enormous amount of work that it did. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, supported the first part of the amendment. He said that his main reason for doing so was that we needed an independent chairman to allay public anxiety, someone who could pick up the telephone to the Secretary of State and say to him that he would go public if his concerns were not met. That is exactly what we have said would happen if there were any dispute between the safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission or between the British and French. The matter would be reported to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State would report it to Parliament. I have given that assurance again this afternoon. It would be taken very seriously. It would come straight out into the open in Parliament if there were any disputes or worries on that score.
I hate to disagree with the Select Committee on this matter. It is probably one of the few areas where we disagree. But what I have outlined in my opening speech this afternoon will work and should allay any anxiety about safety. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for the kind words he said about Major Rose. It is recognised that he is a very great

473
professional in his field. I understand that all members of the Select Committee were impressed with the evidence he gave. He will act in the best interests of the travelling public. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will be satisfied with what has been said this afternoon and will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I should like to say at the outset that I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole Committee, for the Minister's detailed reply on this important subject. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with what he has said but he has given considerable attention to the issue. It is strange that while he applauds the comments made by his noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Beloff, I cannot see any reference to the case in the Government's response to the chairmanship of the safety authority proposal of the Select Committee in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23. They make no mention of that, yet it is put forward today as one of the outstanding reasons why the amendment I have proposed cannot be supported.
I said last Thursday that, although I could not claim to have read every word of the evidence of the Select Committee, I had gone over all the pages and where there was anything important I had read it. I read the sections on safety with considerable attention. There is no doubt about the detailed consideration which the Select Committee gave to it. I agree with what has been said about the expertise and competence of Major Rose. However, it will be noticed that no reference has been made to the competence and expertise of Dr. Herbert Eisner, to whom I referred, a Fellow of the Institute of Mining Engineers and a former director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory of the Health and Safety Executive. No reference has been made to him, as I said in my opening remarks.
In subsection (2) the chief fire officer is already included, and so no one will argue about that. A member of the Health and Safety Executive is already included. Somebody with practical knowledge of railway safety matters is already included. The question of the mining engineer and a person having practical knowledge could if necessary be dealt with by one of the prominent members of the department. That could be covered quite easily and so there should be no argument on that point. Strangely enough there has been no argument about the Chief Constable of the Kent Police Authority being included, a point which I put forward. Therefore, despite what the Minister has said, there would be no disagreement in the Committee on subsection (2).
There is such deep feeling on subsection (1) that if it is necessary to adjust it to meet the position of the chairman—French for one year and then British—that could easily be adapted at Report stage. Despite the assurance the Minister has given, this is a matter at which the public will be looking with great attention. The Select Committee gave the matter much consideration and felt that the chairman, whether appointed for one year or two years, as is provided by the agreement, should be thoroughly independent of the Government. I believe that the public would welcome that. I should like to test the
474
feeling of the Committee. If my amendment is carried the Government can amend subsection (1) at Report stage in order to adjust the position of the annual chairman. This is a question of principle and party politics does not come into it. It is to give the general assurance the public want and to establish a detailed matter of principle which the Select Committee considered was so important that it emphasised it in the report.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer one question. There is a good deal of substance in what he and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Ampthill, the chairman of the Select Committee, said on the amendment. I had considerable sympathy with it. However, knowing the extraordinary amount of hard work that has been put into this, and in the face of what my noble friend has said, how do Members of the Committee supporting the amendment view the fact that, if it were carried, the treaty would have to be renegotiated? Am I not right in thinking that it almost inadvertently becomes a wrecking amendment? I should be grateful to have that explained to me.
Lord Ampthill: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, finally makes his decision on what he is going to do. I am not certain that the Minister has been well advised that a renegotiation of the treaty is called for but that is an impression which I am not in a position to support absolutely. I think he has ample opportunity to investigate that aspect of it between now and Report stage.
Lord Underhill:. That was an important intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, who was chairman of the Select Committee. Despite what the Minister has said, nothing in subsection (1) would require renegotiation except the question of a single chairman. There is provision for there to be a British chairman, who would be chairman for one year, and a French chairman, who would be chairman for another year. That is the only change that would need to be made to subsection (1). It could easily be done at Report stage if it were the view of the Committee to support the amendment. There is nothing in subsection (2) that transgresses against what the Minister has said, because it could be adapted accordingly. The Select Committee felt solidly that it wanted to ensure somewhere in the Bill the complete independence of the chairman. If we agree on this the Government can come back at Report stage and can make any amendment they require to deal with the position of the chairman rotating, one year French and one year British.
Lord Morris: I am convinced that the first part of the amendment flies in the face of a treaty arrangement already made. Can the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explain how a statute of the United Kingdom can compel the French Government to do anything?
Lord Underhill: This is a point in which no one would expect me to get immersed. I am concerned with principles. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is emphatic on this point, but why did not the Government refer to this in their response to the Select Committee? They made no reference to it and yet this is now being put forward as one of the main considerations against the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can answer that question extremely easily. This amendment goes beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee, which acknowledged that there would have to be alternate French and British chairmen. That is why the government response to the Select Committee did not refer to the difficulties which have been raised by my noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: The conclusions in the report are that it is the committee's opinion that there ought to be the appointment of a totally independent chairman of the safety authority; somebody whose name is well known to the public of the United Kingdom or France, since it would alternate between the two countries. But I do not see how that overrules what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. If the Government are saying that this committee has no right to discuss the matter because a treaty obligation has been entered into, why have they been wasting our time and the time of our noble friends on the Select Committee?
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord a question regarding the meaning of "independence" in relation to the treaty? If this person is appointed in the way in which judges are appointed, in that they cannot be removed whatever they do except for gross personal misconduct and so on, it would give independence if that was undertaken in the appointment. Would that be in conflict with the treaty?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am afraid that I cannot answer that point without assistance. What I said was that the Select Committee recognised that there would have to be alternate chairmen between France and Britain. That was something which was recognised. But this amendment goes beyond that. I certainly do not suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, that we were wasting the time of the committee. That is just one point on it, but I have also given a long explanation of why I think the present arrangements are fully satisfactory.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has given his explanation, the chairman of the Select Committee has given his view on the matter, I have given my view and other noble Lords have said that this subsection (1) is important. We ought to see whether the Committee agrees with that principle.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Basnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

McNair, L.

Blyth, L.

Mais, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Munster, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carver, L.

Phillips, B.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Cross, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Denington, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Denning, L.

Scanlon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Ennals, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Galpern, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somers, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hankey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Underhill, L.

Holderness, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erne, E.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alport, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Glanusk, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Birdwood, L.

Havers, L.

Blake, L.

Hesketh, L.

Borthwick, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

De Freyne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

De La Warr, E.

Mancroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

Dowding, L.

Margadale, L.

Dudley, B.

Marley, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

Elibank, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

477

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Slim, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stockton, E.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Porritt, L.

Teviot, L.

Portland, D.

Torrington, V.

Radnor, E.

Trafford, L.

Reay, L.

Tranmire, L.

Redesdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reilly, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renton, L.

Vickers, B.

Rodney, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Romney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Wise, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Ypres, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
Clause 17 [Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority: supplementary]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 60:
Page 15, leave out lines 46 and 47.
Page 15, line 49, leave out ("that') and insert ("the Intergovernmental").
Page 16, line 3, leave out ("made,").
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("the regulations were validly made or (as the case may be) that").
Page 16, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
Page 16, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert —("(4) Evidence of any direction issued by the Intergovernmental").
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("regulations so made or (as the case may be) of").
Page 16, line 26, leave out ("regulations so made or (as the case may be) of)".
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("those regulations or (as the case may be) or).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 52 to 60 inclusive and speak to Amendments Nos. 71, 75 and 79. The Bill, as presently drafted, does not accurately reflect the legal status of regulation of the Intergovernmental Commission. Article 10 of the treaty provides that functions of the commission shall include drawing up or participating in the preparation of regulations applicable to any aspect of the fixed link. The safety authority will assist the commission to draw up any regulations on safety matters. It will then be for the Government to adopt the regulations so drawn up if they wish. The references in the Bill to regulations being made by the commission are misleading. In fact, regulations drawn up by the commission will become law in the United Kingdom only when promulgated by orders under Clause 11. The text of the regulation will be set out in extenso in the order, or in an annex to the order, and Clause 33 provides that the order shall be made by statutory instrument.
Consequently the order and the regulation will be admissible in legal proceedings without further proof and it will not be possible to challenge the validity of the regulation. Accordingly, the references to regulations in Clause 17 are superflous and are deleted by the first group of amendments.
Subsection (8) of Clause 20 and subsection (6) of Clause 22 can also be deleted because any inconsistency between a by-law or road traffic order, on the one hand, and the provisions of an order under Clause 11, on the other hand, will be dealt with in the Clause 11 order. There is therefore no need for a separate power to make orders to deal only with inconsistencies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Operation by the Concessionaires]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved]
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 16, line 44, at end insert—
("(4) No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system unless the Safety Authority is satisfied that adequate provision has been made by the Concessionaires for—

(a) the safe embarkation and carriage on shuttle trains of persons who are disabled; and

(b) safe the evacuation of such persons from those trains in the event of an emergency occurring in the tunnel system.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 seeks to provide for the safe carriage and evacuation of disabled persons from shuttle trains if there is an emergency. Over the years Parliament has taken an enlightened view about providing for the disabled. While the gains have often been slow and modest, gains have been made in areas such as public buildings and public transport. Nowadays there is a greater acceptance in the community that not everyone is wholly fit and able-bodied.
The Eurotunnel has been described as the shuttle element of the fixed link and as a new mode of transport for the 21st century. The Government White Paper described the proposals both as challenging and exciting and as the largest civil engineering project in Europe ever undertaken by the private sector. Therefore would it not be sad if such a massive project proceeded without any due provision for the disabled?
The information so far published has mentioned no special arrangements for dealing with disabled drivers or passengers, especially those needing to use wheelchairs. The disabled drivers and passengers drive on with their wheelchairs stowed in their cars, as is their normal custom. The peculiar problem of the shuttle, for access and evacuation, is space. There is a lack of space between the vehicles, and at the sides of vehicles, which enables doors to be only partially opened. I believe that 45 degrees is the measurement spoken of. I suggest that in those circumstances access will be restricted even for young and able-bodied people.
So far there have been no special proposals for arrangements dealing with disabled drivers or passengers. This is a new scheme; it is not a tried and tested form of transport. In normal conditions it might be possible to erect a wheelchair and evacuate a passenger sitting in it in the one metre clearance on either side of the car. However, if the car door has to be opened more than the suggested 45 degrees it would seriously delay, or more likely block, other passengers seeking to reach exit doors or other

479
wagons, creating even more risk for the disabled person. The exit doors into the tunnel walkway are only 0.6 metres wide. The walkway is only 0.8 metres wide with no guide rails to prevent wheelchairs falling off on to the track in the tunnel. There is no scheme in the world where passengers and petrol vehicles are conveyed together in sealed compartments in tunnels under the sea, at 100 miles an hour.
Fire-fighters, mining and tunnelling engineers are concerned about the unnecessary danger of not segregating people from their vehicles. The evacuation of disabled people would be much more difficult if they were hampered by poor light, or perhaps no lighting, or by smoke, fires and panicking passengers. The most sensible solution would be to provide disabled drivers and passengers with at least separate coaches to sit in during transportation. We are to have a safety commission to sort out the problem, but it seems to me that Parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque before the safety commission has ever been set up. If the provision of the safe evacuation of the able-bodied has not been addressed at this late stage there is a likelihood that the provision for the disabled could be completely overlooked. At a late stage in the development of the scheme we may find that disabled persons are to be prohibited from using the facilities of the tunnel. In my view, that would be unfair discrimination agaist the disabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, travelled down with me this morning, but she is unable to be here until later this afternoon because she is chairing a conference at Queen Elizabeth Hall. However, she has asked me to say that she entirely sympathises with and supports the amendment which we are now discussing. She believes, as do I, that the Bill must recognise the need and afford the necessary protection of the disabled. Quick loading, unloading and profitability cannot take precedence over safety. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support the amendment but it is a little difficult to expect the Channel Tunnel company to cope with disabled people. The reason is that "disability" is an immensely broad word. The noble Baroness pointed out facts about the tunnel which I freely admit filled me with horror, including the width of the passageways, the handrails and so on. However, to ask the concessionaires to continue until they are satisfied that everything has been done is, at this stage, perhaps going a little too fast. I do not want to make comparisons with boats, aeroplanes and so on because I am sure that everyone is aware that they are there. I suggest that later on, unless the amendment is accepted, something similar but of a more experimental nature be brought forward, perhaps suggesting that the Eurotunnel authorities, to use that dreadful expression, use their best endeavours so that little by little we may discover what is and what is not practicable for the disabled. I feel that there must come a point when a person with a certain degree of disability must either decide to go through the tunnel or not to travel at all.
Baroness Macleod of Borve:I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for bringing this subject forward, especially just now. As my noble friend said, disability is not confined to people in wheelchairs. Disability covers those who are blind, and I feel that they might be in great difficulties. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for airing this problem today. I had rather thought that I should be dead before the Chunnel was ready although I should like to have gone through it. On the other hand, if I thought that I should be stuck in the middle somewhere and could not be rescued, I do not think I would even try it. I hope that the Government will accept this idea of finding out whether it is possible for disabled people to be especially looked after under these regulations
Baroness Lane-Fox:Everything that need be said to support this amendment has been said, but I should like to back it up. It is my belief that provision made at an early stage for wheelchairs is very much more economic than leaving it to chance. That has been proved to be so in other ventures. Therefore I believe it would be all to the good if the Government would reconsider this.
Lord Brougham and Vaux:I appreciate the need to look after the disabled—and as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, this does not just mean those who are in wheelchairs—but Eurotunnel has done a lot of work in identifying the needs of disabled people. It has established several user groups both to assist in the design process and as a means of communication with potential users. A representative of the United Kingdom Access Committee for the Disabled has attended the private vehicles user group. This group met on half a dozen occasions during the formulation of the outline design for the system.
The main features of provision for the disabled are. first, that on entering the Eurotunnel system and paying their tolls the disabled users will be requested to identify themselves to the toll-booth operators. This identification will be encoded on the integral ticket which will be used to guide users through the system. The disabled will be allocated to convenient spots in the system so that they can be easily got out if the need arises.
Lord Underhill:I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I was reading through the report of the Select Committee while the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was speaking, and I looked again at Appendix 12, which is a memorandum on safety submitted by Eurotunnel. Strangely enough, I cannot see any reference there to the disabled. There is reference to evacuation and there is another section which deals with passenger evacuation. I am certain it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could elaborate on what has been said and say definitely whether further arrangements have been made between Eurotunnel and the concessionaires for the carriage of disabled people. No one would disagree that efforts should be made to make special provision for disabled passengers. Obviously before any passengers or goods are carried the problem of safe evacuation must be properly considered.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am sure we all agree that it would be desirable that disabled people should be able to take advantage of the tunnel system when it comes into being. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, widened the debate slightly to include segregation. I spoke briefly on that subject and made the point that the safety authority is indeed looking at the question already. The noble Baroness rightly said that your Lordships have always taken a special interest in disabled people. So, too, I would claim, does the Department of Transport, because we have well at heart this cause of safe transport facilities for people with disabilities. That is why this amendment has struck a sympathetic chord.
I hope to be able to convince the Committee, and particularly my noble friends, Lord Radnor, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Macleod, who I very much hope lives long enough to see the completion of this tunnel. I am sure the whole Committee would agree on that in any case. As my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux said, from the outset Eurotunnel has been conscious of the need to ensure proper provision for people with disabilities who will be travelling in vehicles, like all passengers on the shuttle. In their original proposals submitted in October 1985 the concessionaires undertook that:
"having been informed of the presence of physically handicapped persons, the on-train attendant staff on shuttle trains will suitably locate such persons on their train to facilitate their detrainment in the event of emergency".
I hasten to add that the word "detrainment" was not mine. As I understand it, Eurotunnel will invite persons with disabilities to identify themselves at the toll booth and their ticket will be specially marked to enable the train attendants to identify their vehicles so that they can be loaded on the end wagons of each rake— in other words, as near to the doors as possible—from which rapid evacuation of passengers would be possible.
Eurotunnel is working closely with representatives of organisations for disabled people to establish their requirements and see how they can best be met. I have here a copy of a letter from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (Radar) to Eurotunnel, which says:
"The measures you have taken to accommodate disabled passengers are extremely encouraging. I am particularly grateful for your suggestion of a meeting later in the year to examine the proposals in detail and I look forward to attending it".
So not only are they encouraged so far, but discussions are continuing.
On the more general points of segregation, access and so on, the safety authority will of course be looking very carefully at Eurotunnel's proposals for transporting and evacuating disabled passengers. If the authority is not satisfied that safe arrangements are being made for all passengers, there can be no question of the tunnel being opened to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why the Select Committee did not look at this, or at least he said that it was not in the memorandum. The answer is that the representatives of disabled bodies did not petition; in other words, I think they are satisfied with the arrangements that are going to be made.
Lord Underhill: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I was not questioning whether the Select Committee had considered this, but on the safety aspect Appendix 12, the memorandum by Eurotunnel which was submitted to the Select Committee, contained no reference to it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I take the point, but I have said that Eurotunnel is working extremely hard on the matter at the moment. During the assessment of the four rival fixed-link schemes the Government received a number of representations from groups representing disabled travellers. Shortly after the decision was taken in January 1986 to award the concession to the promoters of the Eurotunnel scheme, the Department of Transport made contact with these groups to ensure that they had direct access to the designers of the tunnel system so that their needs could be met. The Government will continue to satisfy themselves that these essential interests are looked after, but, as I said, my understanding is that they are receiving every consideration from Eurotunnel.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having brought this subject forward. I know it is very close to the hearts of many of your Lordships, but I hope the Committee will agree that a great deal is being done at the moment.
Lord Tordoff: If a good deal is already being done that falls within the remit of this amendment, why are the Government not throwing their hats in the air and accepting the amendment immediately? Although the Minister has not yet rejected the amendment, my impression is that he has not been exactly enthusiastic about it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am not enthusiastic about the amendment because, as in all such cases, it is not always possible to put in a Bill—indeed sometimes things can be made too difficult through being put in a Bill—exactly what everybody would like to see happen. It may cause difficulties and involve one in litigation, and so on. I think that what is being done outside the Bill is the better way.
Lord Mulley:Sometimes, listening to the Minister, I wonder why there is a Bill at all, especially when he suggests that if this amendment is incorporated in the Bill someone might take the matter to litigation, or that it may present difficulties to our friends in France. We have a Bill consisting of I do not know how many pages. Surely the development of facilities for disabled persons is a matter of considerable substance and one in which this Chamber has properly taken great interest.
I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on two points. First, it has been said many times during our proceedings that we have to take a view over a period of at least six years and possibly beyond. The representatives of the disabled may have received all kinds of assurances but if there is no legislative provision, how do we know that those promises will be redeemed by other people in other circumstances in the distant future?

483
Secondly, although I cannot project or forecast the trend of events, I think it not unlikely that if the tunnel proves a great success there will be no alternative way for passengers to cross the Channel. One must face up to the possibility that there may not be the alternative of crossing by ferry. It does not seem reasonable that we should ask disabled people who want to visit the north of France to put up with flying first to Paris.
If the Minister agrees with the tenor of the amendment, why cannot he accept it? If, on advice, he finds the wording not 100 per cent. satisfactory, there will be the opportunity to amend it accordingly during the further stages of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she should press the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:I had not intended to speak. But there is a perfectly valid reason why this amendment should not be included in the Bill in its present form. In fact, there are two reasons. First, this type of provision for the disabled in other Transport Acts has been made by way of a code of practice introduced into the Bill to give such effect as is thought right. The second reason concerns the intention about no passengers or goods being carried. Why should goods not be carried if proper provision is not made for disabled persons? I suggest that, in the form in which it is drafted, the whole concept is inappropriate for inclusion in the statute.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:Perhaps I may briefly answer the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. Those are undertakings that have been given by Eurotunnel. It may be some years hence before the tunnel is built. But, as I have said previously, these arrangements are being made right now, and the shuttles are being designed now. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for pointing out one or two difficulties with this amendment. Another problem is that it may not be possible to carry people with all kinds of disability, as is the case on many forms of transport at the moment. If that were so, it may be difficult to put into legal wording a binding obligation when best endeavours are appropriate. That is the situation at the moment. Eurotunnel is making best endeavours. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that my observations are sufficient to reassure her.
Baroness Stedman:I am grateful to the Minister and to other Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment. When drafting amendments from the Opposition Benches it is always unfortunate to be told afterwards that they are defective since one does not have at one's elbow the skill of the parliamentary draftsman. I accept that perhaps my amendment is not plain enough and that the speech in support of it was not clear enough. All kinds of disability are covered; we need to look at the matter.
The Minister has neither rejected nor accepted the amendment. He has made sympathetic noises. We have heard about codes of practice to cover the disabled in relation to other Bills. Is there likely to be
484
a code of practice for the disabled in so far as concerns the operation of the Channel Tunnel? If so, when such code is in being, will it be possible to have further information about co-operation between RADAR and other organisations and about the experience of people with all kinds of disabilities—the walking disabled, people who are blind, deaf or partially sighted and those confined to wheel chairs?
At this stage I should like to think further about the amendment and read what the Minister and other Members of the Committee have said. I shall perhaps come back at Report Stage unless by that time the Minister has become sufficiently sympathetic to have put forward an amendment of his own. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sefton of Garston:I should like to speak on whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill. It deals in the main with the safety aspect of the operation of the tunnel. Last Thursday I had a discussion outside the Chamber in relation to other tunnels in the United Kingdom. The point was made to me about the responsibility of the authority that operated a tunnel to pay compensation to anybody who had been adversely affected by either its operation or construction. I asked the Minister for a reply to that point by today. I understand that this may not be possible; at any rate I certainly have not yet received a reply. I also asked for information as to the obligation on the concessionaires to insure against all risks in the tunnel.
I do not want to act as I did on Thursday and put down a manuscript amendment. I want to give the Minister time to consider this important issue. The Channel Tunnel is probably the largest project that has ever been undertaken by the private sector. It involves more people at one time than anything undertaken and exposes them to some risks. In my view, if we are to have a tunnel, then the project should be organised, built and run by the Government. We should then know that if anything were to go wrong the Government would stand surety for any damage during the construction or operation.
Such surety falls into two main categories. First, there is the question of any person using the tunnel being adversely affected by its operation. That could amount to damage in the region of millions of pounds. The other point is that if something goes wrong in the construction of the tunnel, then, under certain clauses, the Government should pick up the tab for operating it over a period of time. I think that it is right that this Chamber, and Parliament, should know exactly where the law stands on those two points. It will be no good anyone coming along after the event and saying that the responsibility for compensation should fall on Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel will not have any assets unless one can call the tunnel itself an asset and it may well have broken down by then. Eurotunnel certainly will not have any reserves for the first 10 years.

485
I think that somewhere in this Bill there should be imposed on the concessionaires a duty to insure against such risks. I know that during the building operations under our own law there will be a requirement to insure and to pay workmen's compensation and that kind of thing, but I do not know how far it goes. I was tempted to put down a so-called manuscript amendment designating the fact that these concessionaires should carry out two forms of insurance, first, to insure individuals against any risk and, secondly, to insure the Government and to indemnify them against any costs they may incur in picking up the tab, as described in certain clauses.
I shall not move an amendment now, but I understand that the procedure of the House is that I must raise the matter now in order to table an amendment at a later stage, either at Report stage or on Third Reading. If I cannot do so, I should be obliged if someone would tell me. Can the Minister now give me a reply as to whether there is any requirement for that kind of insurance?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I shall not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about his faith in the public versus the private sectors, but I do not think he would expect me to. If he would care to read Annex III to the concession agreement, which is Cmnd. 9769, this sets out the obligations of the concessionaires to take out certain kinds of insurance against the liabilities on the Government.
We also understand that the concessionaires have insurance of the kind to which the noble Lord referred at the beginning. I am obtaining details of these and will write to the noble Lord before the next stage. I hope that is sufficient.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord Somers Lord Somers moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Rabies prevention measures
. The Concessionaires shall not have power to continue their scheduled works after the date on which the United Kingdom portion of any of the tunnels mentioned in section 1(7)(a) of this Act has been linked with the French portion of such tunnels, unless the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is satisfied that adequate protective measures for the prevention of the entry of rabies into the United Kingdom are then in place at all points of disembarkment in the United Kingdom from trains using such tunnels.")
The noble Lord said:The purpose of this amendment is sufficiently obvious to eliminate the need for a lengthy explanation. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that the amendment as it stands is incomplete and I shall explain this later on. I think there cannot be very many people who do not recognise that rabies is an extremely serious disease. Happily, we have eliminated it pretty well from our country but I think its seriousness can be realised if we consider that in India, where there is no control at all, about 20,000 people die each year from this disease alone.
We do not want to run the risk of allowing it to come into our country again and that is why I have put down this amendment, but it is incomplete for this reason. The Bill provides purely for animals which are imported, but one must remember that
486
rabies can be carried by other animals. The fox is one, rats are another and, surprisingly enough, bats can also carry it. The moment the two tunnels join, those animals can get through from one country to another and France is by no means free of rabies. Therefore I propose at the Report stage to move a similar amendment but with the provision that perhaps a small-mesh wire screen should be erected at each end, at any rate during the construction of the tunnel, so that there will not be the risk of those wild animals getting through.
Nonetheless, I feel that the provision for quarantine houses at the points of disembarkment is sufficiently important for us to ask the Government to accept the amendment now and we shall put others later. I think that is all the information I need to give. I beg to move.
Lord Ampthill:Perhaps I might correct my noble friend on two very small points of detail. Curiously enough, in Europe rats do not carry rabies. There has been one instance of a bat having rabies. It came on a ship from South America and arrived in Holland. On those two points I think honestly my noble friend can be reassured.
As far as mesh fences are concerned, if he cares to read either the section of the report which is devoted to it or Appendix 13 to the report, he will discover that mesh fences are being constructed all the way round the terminal in France, buried to a depth of at least 1 metre. There will be grids not only for access to the terminal area but also to the tunnels themselves. Beneath those cattle grids will he mesh fences, as my noble friend mentioned, which will be electrified and therefore will cause the instant demise of any animal which penetrates the tunnel. I honestly believe that this amendment is not necessary.
Baroness Phillips: I should just like to pick up the points made by the noble Lord in relation to the mesh and electrification. I have, as I am sure have other Members of the Committee, been on a platform in the London Underground, Tottenham Court Road to be precise, and quite recently seen two rats very calmly sitting there in the middle of a highly electrified line. We must dispose of the idea that the rat, if it intends to get through, will not do so. I should like to have some reassurance from the noble Lord on where the information is to be found that these animals do not carry rabies. How do we know that? This little island has been the one place which seems to have been immune from rabies in the whole of Europe and there must be a reason.
Lord Ampthill:If I may answer that very small point, the evidence comes in Appendix 13 of our report from Mr. Crowley, who is without question the greatest living expert on this subject.
Lord Holderness: So far as bats are concerned, I was surprised to learn that the construction of the tunnel would not necessarily afford a means of travel particularly acceptable to bats, because they have already been known to fly to Kent from the Pas de Calais over the sea.
Lord Underhill: It will be recalled that at our Second Reading debate on this Bill the two matters to which considerable attention was given were, first, safety and, secondly, rabies. Frankly, I am satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the chairman of the Select Committee, referred to Appendix 13, and, speaking for myself, having very carefully read the Eurotunnel memo, which is Appendix 13, I am satisfied with all the steps which Eurotunnel proposes to take.
The only question I would ask is this. Will the protective netting fences, or whatever we call them, be up during the period of construction or will they wait until the tunnel is completed? It seems to me that one of the points covered by the amendment is the importance of animals getting in during the period of construction.
Lord Tordoff: If I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, the reason why I put my name to this amendment is not that I was worried about bats—especially being a Member of your Lordships' House—but because of the interim period when the tunnel is partly constructed. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has an important point in relation to whether the protective measures would be in place at the right time. That is the point on which we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Beloff: I feel that, as has been pointed out, Appendix 13 and the other measures proposed to be taken by Eurotunnel are an adequate safeguard against animals finding their own way. However, I remain worried about part of the amendment now before us; that is to say, animals carried to a number of different railway destinations. It is probably very difficult to have adequate provision at all the railway stations at which trains may call in the end. A far simpler method of dealing with this severe risk is to say that no live animals may be transported on vehicles or trains travelling through the tunnel.
The risks which emerge from time to time in this country are nearly always from people with a demented devotion to domestic pets, who try to circumvent the existing regulations. They are occasionally punished. To my mind they are never punished sufficently severely. I think that perhaps the Government ought to grasp the nettle and suggest to Eurotunnel that the regulations bar the transport of domestic animals through any vehicle or train using the tunnel. It would be a great saving and the people who would be penalised are very few. We have far too many cats and dogs in the country anyhow.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not certain that everyone might agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff. But he is quite right that the main problem from rabies is due to people smuggling in pets. That risk exists at present whether one comes by sea or by air. I believe that small boats present the greatest danger as regards bringing in animals.
The Government have made abundantly clear on many occasions that they attach the highest priority to ensuring that the fixed link does not increase the risk of rabies entering the United Kingdom. We are very well aware of the public concern about this issue,
488
and I can assure the Committee that nothing will be permitted to jeopardise this country's much prized freedom from rabies. The invitation to the promoters made explicit reference to the need for adequate protective measures, and that aspect of Eurotunnel's proposal was given very careful consideration before it was selected in January 1986.
The Government will impose controls in three important areas. First, the importation of rabies susceptible animals through the Channel Tunnel is dependent upon the Cheriton terminal being authorised by order as an approved port of entry; as yet the concessionaires have not yet applied for approval. Secondly, checks will be carried out by the frontier authorities, in particular Customs, to prevent the illegal importation of animals into this country as is the case at other ports and airports at the present time. Thirdly, stringent requirements will be imposed to prevent wild or stray animals entering or passing through the tunnel. Those are the wire mesh fences to which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and others have referred.
As has been said, protection against rabies was considered at length and thoroughly examined by the Select Committee of this House. Having heard the evidence of Mr. Crowley, described by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, as the greatest living expert on rabies, the committee concluded that the tunnel would not increase the risk of rabies entering the United Kingdom over and above that which exists at present. Mr. Crowley's memorandum outlining the protective measures that the concessionaires consider would need to be taken is set out in full in Appendix 13 to the committee's special report.
The arrangements are now being worked out in detail with the appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture whose approval of the arrangements must he obtained. A senior official of the Ministry has been appointed as a member of the inter-governmental commission to ensure that it gives full attention to this matter. Appropriate protective arrangements must be in place when the first tunnel from England joins up with the tunnel from France. That is the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, were looking for. I can assure the noble Lords and the Committee that they will indeed be in place.
I cannot today describe in detail what measures will be taken by the frontier departments to prevent animals or other contraband being smuggled through the tunnels by workmen during the construction phase; nor can I describe in detail the precise rules and procedures that Eurotunnel's contractors will be required to introduce to ensure that edible waste does not arise in the tunnels. Those details have yet to be worked out but the United Kingdom authorities concerned do not lack the necessary powers under the concession agreement to impose any requirements that they will need to impose. If their powers under existing legislation are insufficient the requirements will be imposed by orders made under Clause 11 of the Bill.
There is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the Government over the need for

489
stringent anti-rabies controls in the fixed link throughout the life of the concession. Nor, I hope, does the noble Lord doubt the Government's determination to ensure that such controls are installed and maintained. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will not allow extraneous considerations such as the cost to Eurotunnel to influence their requirements.
The question for the Committee this afternoon is whether anything would be gained by including this new clause in the Bill. I have to say that nothing at all would be gained. The Government have given firm assurances that the anti-rabies controls for the fixed link will have to satisfy the Ministry of Agriculture in detail. The new clause therefore is superfluous, but I hope that what I have said and the assurances that I have been able to give this afternoon mean that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Somers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the assurances he has given. Before I withdraw the amendment, can the noble Lord tell me whether I am right in thinking that there is sufficient protection during the course of construction of the tunnel? When it is finished there will not be much likelihood of foxes and other animals finding their way through. However, during the construction of the tunnel, there will be a great deal of rough earth and holes where rats could make their homes. It is rather more important at that stage to see that there is adequate protection.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I attempted to cover that point. The important point is that the protection must be in place when the first connection is made and when the first tunnel is joined together.
Lord Somers: I am sorry. I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said the first time. In that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 64:
After the Clause 18 insert the following new clause:
("Restriction on sale or alcohol and tobacco
.—No alcoholic beverages or tobacco products shall be offered for sale in the tunnel system unless arrangements are in force for ensuring that passengers on shuttle trains do not have access to their vehicles during the passage of those trains through that system.").
The noble Lord said: I have some recollection of hearing discussions about arrangements for providing certain refreshments for persons on the shuttle trains. Whether or not duty free facilities will still exist in 1993 or whether, technically there will be a land frontier from the time the tunnel operates which, under existing Community regulations, would rule out the possibility of there being duty free products available, it seems to be wholly undesirable that people should go to or from points of sale on the trains or that the products should be provided beforehand in premises where people are waiting to get on the trains or where they make their exits. Unfortunately, history has shown that much of the trouble on ferries and on trains travelling to football
490
matches on the Continent has arisen because of excessive consumption of alcohol by young people.
Passage will be fairly swift once passengers board the trains although I do not know what the chaos at busy times will be like while one waits to get one's car on the shuttle. We shall have to wait and find that out. As noble Lords argued earlier, it would he desirable in the interests of safety generally and not just on this rather narrow point that there should he segregation of passengers from their vehicles during the passage through the tunnel. We understand that the safety authority will, if it deems fit, look carefully at that particular question.
As the noble Lord said so rightly when discussing the previous amendment, it is one thing to provide by regulations, law, or whatever, that this or that risk shall not be taken but there are always people who ignore it. While I personally have great sympathy with and shall support the amendment to be moved later by my noble friend Lord Ennals concerning the prohibiting of smoking in the tunnel system, I feel that there will be many people who will ignore that. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, in the same manner persons devoted to their pets have tried to smuggle them into this country. That is not only a breach of law but is also a great danger to public health.
Therefore, it is not simply a question of having regulations. It is also a question of making sure that alcoholic beverages and tobacco products are not available, which would make it a bit more difficult for such people. I can of course see at once that persons might smuggle such products if they intended to break the law. Nevertheless, since they will be sitting in their vehicles and on top of a tank of petrol, I believe it would be much better if smoking were not allowed.
In addition, we have the problem of people in caravans. I realise that on our roads at present there are people who sometimes sleep in caravans when they are on the move, although it is against the regulations. I am sure that, similarly, there will be people who decide that they have waited a long time and that they will make a cup of tea while they are crossing the Channel. The consequences of such behaviour could be horrific. If, for whatever reason, segregation is not possible, we should at least try to minimise the dangers of irresponsible actions in defiance of the regulations by making alcohol and tobacco less readily available. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: I do not see what the exception in the amendment hopes to achieve when it states:
"unless arrangements are in force for ensuring that passengers on tunnel trains do not have access to their vehicles during the passage".
It is highly unlikely that they will. But in any case, if they have access to alcohol during the passage, they may not be in a fit state to drive when they get there. That seems to me to be the important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I find this new clause very unreasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, there is no connection between the sale of alcohol or tobacco within the tunnel system—and I remind noble Lords that the tunnel system is defined to include the terminals and everything else—and the

491
question of whether passengers should be segregated from their vehicles. No one wishes drivers to be drunk in charge of vehicles in the tunnel system any more than on the roads. Nor will smoking be permitted within the tunnel itself. However, these matters will be dealt with by the application of regulations or by-laws. I do not think that they warrant an insistence on segregation or a ban on sales.
We have discussed the issue of segregation. But the issue of whether or not passengers should be segregated from their vehicles has been considered in great depth by the Select Committee. It accepted that the safety authority would evaluate the measures proposed to it and would not impose specific solutions to a safety problem. At the present stage the safety authority has made clear its view that there is no reason to believe that it would be inherently unsafe to permit passengers to remain with their vehicles on shuttle trains.
If the safety authority ultimately confirms that passengers can travel with their vehicles, the proposed clause would prevent Eurotunnel from providing duty-free facilities for passengers and even from providing a full refreshment service for passengers and workers at terminals. I am not sure whether this amendment is intended to put Eurotunnel at a competitive disadvantage. However, I can assure noble Lords that it will do so. Nobody doubts that there will be occasions when Eurotunnel will have to deny entry to coach-loads of people who are evidently drunk and a danger to safety. It is hardly surprising that we have not decided exactly how to make provision for that. British Rail, for example, can ban alcohol on particular trains.
Clause 11 of the Bill, to which the House has already agreed, is quite wide enough to allow appropriate powers to be taken and regulations to be imposed. The same applies to those who appear liable to flout the smoking rules. I hope that the House will not agree to the amendment. I think it is a back-door method of denying Eurotunnel the possibility of duty-free sales, which would certainly put it at a competitive disadvantage as regards the ferry companies, concerning which we have already heard quite a lot.
Lord Mulley: Can the Minister confirm that from the point of view of EC regulations, this will be a sea and not a land crossing? As the Minister well knows, when one crosses from one EC country to another by land, there are no duty-free facilities. I am sure that the countries concerned would be happy to provide them if the EC laws permitted. However, they do not. I should have thought that if the tunnel crossing is a land crossing, the question of duty-free facilities would not arise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Whether or not the question of duty-free facilities arises with regard to the tunnel, there are many years to go before the tunnel opens. Whether such duty-free facilities will then exist in Europe, one does not know. However, this amendment would go further and would not allow Eurotunnel to sell alcohol or tobacco in the
492
staff canteen at the inland clearance depot at Ashford. I think that is rather unreasonable.
Lord Mulley: If the Minister thinks it is so unreasonable, I shall not press the amendment. However, when he says that refreshments could not be provided, I take it very ill that when he speaks of allowing workers or anyone else to have refreshment, he seems to believe that one cannot be refreshed without alcohol or being able to smoke. I believe that one can refresh oneself adequately without either of those.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Byelaws of the Concessionaires]:
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 17, line 7, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss Amendments Nos. 66 and 69 together. Clearly, Amendment No. 66 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 69. The effect of the two amendments, as will be seen, is to change what is in the Bill at Clause 19(1), which says:
"The Concessionaires may make byelaws … prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in any such premises, place or vehicle".
If this amendment were to be carried, as I hope it will, it would change the word "will" to "shall" so that there was a prohibition on the act of smoking tobacco in any such premises, place or vehicle. This amendment has nothing to do with the duty-free sales. It is simply a question of how people behave in the tunnel in relation to smoking materials. The smoking material which most concerns me is cigarettes, although I have broadened the amendment to include all types of smoking materials.
In dealing with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mulley, the Minister said that there would be no cigarette smoking in the tunnel itself. I found that a reassuring statement. However, I do not know the basis on which it was made. As things stand now in the Bill, unless I have misunderstood it, the concessionaires may make by-laws but equally they may not make by-laws. If there are some concessionaires who think that they will have the edge on others if they permit smoking, then that may be a particular attraction to the smoking community to travel on the vehicles or in the trains provided by those concessionaires.
The Minister said that Clause 19 was wide enough to permit such a prohibition. It is right that it is wide enough to contain the prohibition. However, it does not contain the prohibition. I want to argue that it should be quite firmly stated here and now in the Bill that there shall be no smoking in any of the areas that I have sought to define in Amendment No. 69. I think the reasons are very clear. First, in terms of safety we have all too much knowledge of fires that have been caused in various situations as a result of smoking, whether it is in all sorts and types of homes or whether it is within hostels in which many people have been killed, because someone has carelessly

493
allowed a cigarette to drop on the floor, to burn into a sofa or what-have-you.
I suppose that our most striking example was the terrible fire at Bradford City Football Club. The evidence there seemed to be that the fire started from cigarettes that were dropped from the seating, though I do not think that that has been proved. However, that seems to be the most likely cause.
The consequences of a fire in the tunnel are absolutely horrendous. If there were a fire, I do not know what would be the method of controlling the air going from one side to the other or what would be the effect in the tunnel of pushing hot air forwards and backwards. However, I suspect that, whether a fire affected vehicles carrying personnel or vehicles carrying freight, it could be far worse than a fire elsewhere. That is why in other parts of the Bill, and in the report of your Lordships' Committee, a great deal of trouble has been taken with safety. But all that this has led to is that the concessionaires may make by-laws.
I think that the nearest comparison to the situation in the tunnel is the London Underground. We are all aware of the beneficial effects of the simple decision that there should be no smoking on the London Underground. The result has been that the trains have been cleaner and more pleasant for people to travel in. One of the most remarkable aspects is that although the decision was not backed by law, it was accepted and has been very largely fulfilled. That is quite remarkable. If something is required then people carry out the requirement.
There is also the health factor, but I assure your Lordships that I shall not go into the health effects both for the smokers and for those who are close to smokers and who are forced to inhale the smoke from other people's cigarettes or pipes. It is a condition known as secondary smoking. However, we now have the situation, which I think will be of great satisfaction to both sides of the Committee, that the very substantial majority of adults do not smoke.
What is most worrying is the number of youngsters, boys and girls still at school and aged 10, 11 or 12, who like smoking. I can well imagine that youngsters starting on their holiday and going on this exciting trip under the Channel to Europe would think it a marvellous opportunity—unless it was against the law—for them to smoke. So I submit that there are very strong arguments indeed for increasing restraints on smoking in trains as elsewhere.
Among those who want to see more restraints are a very significant number of smokers who want to give up smoking but who find it difficult when others are doing so. That is one reason why the banning of smoking on the Underground has been of help to people who smoke and want to give it up. Studies suggest that about one-third of those who smoke genuinely want to give it up, but find it more difficult if there are smokers around them.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel that this is an amendment that he can accept. His brief may say "Accept nothing". That certainly has been the situation so far. This is in no way a party political matter, but it is a matter of common sense which affects the safety and health of our people. If the
494
hopes are that a very large number of people will go through the tunnel, then I believe that if the law says that they may not smoke it will be as successful as it is on the London Underground.
I want to see an obligation on the concessionaires. The important thing is to get this right at the beginning so that the issue does not arise again. I hope that the Minister will not oppose the amendment. I feel certain that if he does and if there is a Division—because I would wish to press the amendment to a vote—there ought to be a free vote so that noble Lords will feel at liberty to vote in the way that motivates them. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is seeking to achieve. However, I wonder whether again he does not go a little too far by including any premises in the tunnel system, because that takes us back to the workers' canteen at Ashford. As regards his suggestion that this is not a party political matter and is therefore a common sense matter, that may apply to his party but it certainly does not apply on these Benches.
Lord Mountevans: Before the Minister replies I wonder whether he could clarify some thoughts for me. It is my understanding that an aircraft belonging to a British company can be 1,200 miles from any source of safety, and yet it is also my understanding that there is no statutory requirement under British law or under any other law for that aircraft to be subject to any ban on smoking. I wonder whether we really should be looking at this now and whether the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is not a little late. He should have considered this matter in many other contexts many years ago. I understand that on trans-Pacific sections one can have 400 people on an aircraft. There is no requirement to segregate smokers from non-smokers. There is only the lightest of requirements to ban smoking when the commander of an aircraft deems it suitable to do so, such as on take-off and landing.
Therefore, I ask myself: why is the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suddenly applying this argument uniquely to the Channel Tunnel operation? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the ban is extremely wide and I think that the noble Lord the Minister dealt with it in answering the previous amendment, when he reminded us of the definition of "system". I believe that I could go through the tunnel, or even considerably further than through the tunnel, without a cigarette, to which I am partial. I believe that the Minister may also have to declare an interest. However, I do not think that this ban is called for or justified. I do not feel it is justified because we are applying safety standards which we do not apply already in far more vulnerable circumstances and also because it would be an invasion of private liberty.
Earl Attlee: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has been gilding the lily. To equate a terrible fire at a football stadium, where the seats were made of wood and where under the seats there was rubbish from many years ago, with a modern concrete and steel tunnel is really ridiculous. The other point which

495
made me smile was the idea that someone travelling on the Underground, and therefore not smoking for half-an-hour, would be helped to give up smoking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and I think that this is tommy-rot. I can go far longer than an hour without smoking, although I might bite my nails, but having gone for one hour will certainly not make me any more likely to give up smoking. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Tordoff that the amendment is drawn far too widely. To stop people who have anything to do with the tunnel from smoking, or even taking alcohol as refreshment, is really stupid. Having said that, I agree for many reasons that it would be very wise to prohibit smoking within the confines of the tunnel, but not for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have great sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. The trouble is that the system is defined in Clause 1(7), which not only refers to the tunnels but the Channel as well. That means you are going to ban smoking in restaurants, picnic areas and in the offices. The best way would be to make regulations under Clause 11, and such a course of action would enable more severe penalties to apply than would be the case if enforced by by-laws. I consider, therefore, that this amendment is unnecessary and that it would not really work.
Baroness Phillips: I should just like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in which he asked, "Why do it now, why not do it before?" That seems a very curious argument. If it is found that something is not entirely satisfactory and cannot immediately be changed there seems to be no reason why it cannot be changed before construction.
It was a pilot who said to me one day that he was not happy with the carriage of alcohol on board an aeroplane. An aeroplane is a contained vehicle, as we know, and alcohol is highly combustible. It seems to me that we should emphasise the safety considerations about tobacco and smoking rather than people being persuaded to give it up, which is really not so important in this context. It is the danger that comes from smoking and cigarettes that is important. One can imagine how horrific an accident could be in an enclosed area like a vehicle going through a tunnel. I think it is certainly no argument to say that because it has not been done before it cannot be done now. No laws would be made at all if we accepted that argument. I feel that is certainly irrelevant and I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mountevans: The noble Baroness supports a party which has on numerous occasions, over many years, tried to bring in laws not on the basis of seeking to change what is established but seeking to influence what is to come. I was a little amused by her reference to alcohol, because this amendment relates to tobacco. If you wish to ban smoking outright then
496
you should do it. To start tinkering with a one-off opportunity like this—the Channel Tunnel—seems to be totally the wrong way of doing it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This is in danger of becoming a debate between smokers and anti-smokers. I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that I am a smoker but I am probably among the one-third of those mentioned who would like to give it up. I do not think that banning me from smoking within the whole of the tunnel system would help me very much to do that.
The Government certainly agree, as we have made clear on many occasions, that the prospect of a fire within the tunnel or on board a shuttle train, is horrendous. The Government would expect Eurotunnel to take every proper precaution, including the prohibition of smoking within areas of any special fire risk. Where I disagree with the noble Lord's amendment as have other noble Lords and as I said on the previous amendment—is that this would actually ban smoking throughout the tunnel system as defined. That would include, as I also said on the last amendment, the workers' canteen at the inland clearance depot at Ashford. We consider that to be unreasonable. If the noble Lord wishes to attack smoking in that way, fair enough, but I do not see that this Bill should be used to ban smoking in such places.
I should make it absolutely clear that Eurotunnel will be expected to bring forward by-laws dealing with smoking and such by-laws will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State for Transport under Clause 20. If the by-laws Eurotunnel propose are not satisfactory, they will be expected to bring forward revised proposals. I also draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, during the passage of the Bill, amendments have been made to Clause 19 to improve the enforcement of by-laws. The maximum fine has been raised to level 4 and there are now specific powers to take direct action to restrain offenders.
Nevertheless, I also emphasise that by-laws are only one weapon, and by no means the most important, in the Government's armoury to implement safety requirements and enforce safe behaviour in the tunnel system. In the first instance it will be for the safety authority to consider the safety measures proposed by Eurotunnel, in particular those relating to measures against fire, and to satisfy themselves that those measures are adequate. If not, the authority would clearly refuse to recommend approval of those proposals. However, it is possible that some aspects would be regarded as being of such importance, and proper for action on a bi-national basis, that the safety authority would recommend the drawing up of regulations by the Intergovernmental Commission. The Secretary of State will then have the responsibility of implementing those regulations in the United Kingdom by an order under Clause 11. By-laws, which directly involve the concessionaires, will undoubtedly have a very important role to play, but they are only part of the story.
In other words, the noble Lord's amendments accurately identify an area of great importance in

497
ensuring the safety of users of the tunnel. But to lay down in this Bill what by-laws should say, first, overlooks the question of precisely where the ban should apply and, secondly, does not take into account the complementary roles foreseen for by-laws on the one hand and Clause 11 orders implementing recommendations of the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority on the other.
A number of points were made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned smoking on aircraft. So far as I know there are no laws to prevent smoking on aircraft, but, of course, smoking is banned from the moment one leaves the terminal building to the time the aircraft has taken off and reached a safe height. That can be at least half an hour in certain cases; in other words, the same length of time as it will take to get through the tunnel itself.
Speaking personally, if I may, it is more effective to ban smoking only when you really need to ban it—such as while an aircraft is taking off or during the passage of a train through a tunnel system—than to have a blanket ban over a much wider area. If a lorry driver is banned from smoking in the cab of his lorry at the inland clearance depot at Ashford, he is going to think twice about obeying that instruction. He might think twice about obeying that instruction when he arrives on board the shuttle. If the ban is limited to the places where it is really necessary I feel there is a much better chance of enforcing it—and I speak as a smoker myself.
If the noble Lord intends to press this matter to a Division I hope that the Committee will not support him, because I believe that the way we are going to deal with it is better than a blanket ban.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to all who have taken part in this discussion and I am glad that the Minister rose when he did. As he rightly said, it was becoming a discussion between the smokers who wanted their rights protected and the non-smokers. That is not at all the way in which 1 think it should be done. I agree with those, including the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the Minister himself, who have said, that I have drawn my amendment too widely. There are a number of situations which would be covered by my amendment which I do not think should be covered. There are more of them than simply workers' canteens. What I want to establish is that it is not just to be left to the concessionaires to decide whether there should be a limitation on smoking, whether it is in the tunnel alone or during some other part of the journey. I believe that this Parliament should decide that. When the Minister was speaking I felt from what he said that it was quite unlikely that the concessionaires would make by-laws to be restrictive in terms of smoking.
I shall in a moment reply to one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, but perhaps it might be helpful if I first indicated what I intend to do at the end of this debate, unless something new happens. I wish to press this amendment with the absolute assurance on my part—no doubt also on the part of the Minister, and I should be very happy to collaborate with him—that
498
on Report we would narrow it down and confine it to what we think is right.
The issue is whether we are satisfied that the concessionaires will make by-laws about any aspect of smoking in any part of the premises, the tunnel and so forth. There will be no problem in getting the requirement right if the amendment is carried. I offer all possible help in ensuring that we have a proposal which will be agreed right across the board in Committee.
I shall touch on three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. He referred first to aircraft. The Minister has dealt with that. As he said, before boarding an aircraft there is an absolute ban upon smoking. I have never seen anyone seek to break that ban. If there were merely a by-law people might take the risk and decide that they wanted a puff before they boarded the aircraft. The instructions are rather like those relating to seat belts. People carry out those instructions. That is an argument I used in another place when finally getting through part of the compulsory seat belt Bill.
The noble Lord's second point was that the proposal is a bit late. Someone else might say that it is a little early. It is the right time. This is the time when the Committee is considering what requirements should be laid down. If I am a little late, when should I have started? I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, when I should have proposed the amendment. I have had no other opportunity to do so, so it is not a bit late. If he means that I should have sought to ban smoking from aircraft and all sorts of other places, well, that may happen in the future. I do not know, but I am not trying to do it on this Bill. I think I am doing it at the right time. The noble Lord said that I was suddenly applying the ban to the tunnel. As I have said, this is my only opportunity. I fear that if the Committee does not accept the amendment now, it may be our last legislative opportunity.
I repeat my assurance that, unless the Minister tells me that on Report he will include something to make a smoking ban compulsory, I shall press the principle of this amendment to a vote. I shall then work with the Minister and others to ensure that the provision is narrowed down to what is reasonable and proper. I stand by my moving of the amendment.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Denington, B.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L,

Beloff, L.

Ennals, L. [Teller.]

Birk, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Galpern, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Hayter, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Heycock, L.

499

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Listowel, E.

Scanlon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

Mais, L.

Stallard, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stedman, B.

Moran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mulley, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Layton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Melville, V.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blake, L.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Brockway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Newall, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Pender, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Carnock, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Portland, D.

Cornwallis, L.

Radnor, E.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Redesdale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Cross, V.

Rodney, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saint Brides, L.

De La Warr, E.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Dundee, E.

Sandford, L.

Elibank, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Erne, E.

Sharples, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Somers, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stockton, E.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Swansea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Teviot, L.

Hardinge of Penhurst, L.

Teynham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vickers, B.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ypres, E.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 17, line 31, at end insert ("; and
(iii) for providing a number of crewmen as shall be approved by the Secretary of State in each shuttle train for the purpose of supervising the matters set out in this section. Such crewmen shall have adequate powers of enforcement of such by-laws as shall be approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: As has been mentioned on the previous amendment, Clause 19 makes provision whereby the concessionaires may make a number of by-laws. If my mathematics are correct there are some nine issues mentioned on which the concessionaires may make by-laws.
I was very encouraged in the memorandum from Eurotunnel, in Appendix 12 dealing with safety, that in paragraph 4.2.5 they envisaged that each shuttle would carry at least six crewmen who, apart from the driver, will patrol the shuttle train to ensure compliance with safety regulations. That seems to be a very commonsense suggestion.
In this amendment we are proposing that this subject ought to be one on which the concessionaires may make by-laws. If the Eurotunnel project has in mind to provide for crewmen we ought to give them the power to make such by-laws. We are not laying down the number; it should be as agreed by the Secretary of State. However, we also say that some powers of enforcement must be given to these crewmen. It is no good saying that crewmen will patrol the shuttle to see that the regulations are being carried out unless they have some powers of enforcement. Again, the amendment does not say what the powers should be, but simply that they should have adequate powers of enforcement and that these should be approved by the Secretary of State. The amendment is therefore giving power to the Secretary of State as regards both the number of crewmen on each shuttle train and the enforcement procedures which we suggest should be laid down. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained his amendment very clearly. I hope that I shall be able to answer the points that he has raised.
I shall deal first with the second point on enforcement. Clause 19 already makes the necessary provision for enforcing by-laws. By-laws made under paragraph (g) would empower a crewman to demand the offender's name and address. This could be followed up by prosecutions in the usual way, including fines of up to £1,000 which is Level 4. Subsection (5)—a measure inserted by the Select Committee—makes provision for on-the-spot physical action to be taken, if that is necessary, to compel compliance and remove a source of danger.
On the number of crewmen appointed for the purpose of enforcing by-laws, I suggest that the amendment is defective. Clause 19 is concerned with the concessionaire's by-laws. One does not use by-laws to impose requirements on the body whose by-laws they are. In strict terms it is at the discretion of the concessionaires what by-laws they should

501
propose. The Secretary of State could not compel concessionaires to make a by-law giving him the right to determine crew numbers.
The power to determine crew numbers lies elsewhere; namely, in the concession agreement. Paragraph 51 of Annex I requires the concessionaires to submit for approval by the Intergovernmental Commission their proposed safety arrangements, including operating rules and emergency procedures. If the commission on the advice of the safety authority decides that the number of crewmen proposed by Eurotunnel is inadequate, it will insist on the necessary increase being made. Eurotunnel would be in breach of the agreement with all that that entails in terms of penalties for default if they fail to comply.
In short, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that the matters he raises in his amendment are adequately covered already and that he will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that other noble Lords will agree with me that this shows the value of putting down amendments. We now have a quite definitive statement from the Minister of measures which I can acknowledge and support.
What the Minister says about the safety authority confirms the need for Amendment No. 51 on the composition of the safety authority to which we may return at the Report stage. However, in view of the Minister's assurances and the helpful reply he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 17, leave out line 39.
The noble Lord said:I beg to move Amendment No. 70. This deletes an inappropriate provision. When the Bill was originally drafted it was uncertain what the relationship between the concessionaires' by-laws and other tunnel system law would be. The effect of the provision as it stands would be that in the event of an inconsistency between a by-law and other legislation, whether existing or future, the by-law would have precedence. However, it is now clear that the Government will not be relying exclusively on by-laws in relation to important matters such as safety.
Before the tunnel opens—and indeed in many respects as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill—the Government will have to consider, in co-operation as necessary with the French Government, through the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority, all aspects of the law applying to the tunnel system and to make such orders as are necessary under Clause 11 of the Bill or under existing legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work Acts. There is therefore no need to interfere with the normal arrangements that by-laws cannot override the general law made by Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20[Confirmation, variation and revocation of byelaws by Secretary of State.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (8)
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 72
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Computability of fire safety procedures and equipment
. The Secretary of State shall make arrangements with his counterpart in the government of France for ensuring that —

(a) the English and French fire safety procedures and equipment within the tunnel system are compatible: and

(b) a standard system is adopted for communication between English and French fire fighters in that system.")

The noble Lord said: It may be argued by some members of the Committee that this provision is such common sense that there is no need for it in the Bill. The Minister is too young to remember the fire service during the war. I was in the fire service for some five years and was one of those who supported the institution of the National Fire Service. Until then there was no common training or procedures, but with the advent of the National Fire Service every single crewman knew exactly what his job was in an emergency and acted accordingly.
We are saying that arrangements must be made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and France to ensure, first, that fire safety procedures and equipment within the tunnel system are compatible and, secondly, that a standard system is adopted for communication between English and French fire fighters. It may be thought that this suggestion is such common sense that it need not be included, but because it is common sense it ought to be in the Bill to make certain that it is done.
I noticed that this was one of six amendments grouped together for discussion in another place in Standing Committee. But reading the Official Report of that debate I can find no reference to this amendment and can see no ministerial comment. I do not make any critical comments of the other place, but that seems quite usual in view of the large number of different subjects that they seem to group for one debate.
This is common sense, it is something we ought to ensure and I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord was kind enough to say that I was too young to remember the fire service in the war. However, my father served in the fire service throughout the war. I do not know whether he was a colleague of the noble Lord. I appreciate his motives in moving the new clause. It makes sense to ensure that safety equipment is compatible throughout the tunnel system and there should be a standard communication system for fire fighting teams, whatever their nationality. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that the new clause is unnecessary.

503
As I explained in relation to the last amendment on the numbers of trained crew, Eurotunnel is required under paragraph 51 of Annex 1 of the concession agreement to submit its proposed safety arrangements for approval by the Intergovernmental Commission. I have no doubt that the safety authority, which will advise the commission on these matters, would not recommend approval of these arrangements if they did not include provision for the matters covered by the new clause. Indeed the Chief Fire Officer of Kent County Council, as a member of the UK delegation to the authority, will be well placed to ensure that the safety arrangements will be completely satisfactory in these respects
The Committee may also be interested to know that we expect the proposed protocol on frontier controls, policing and emergency services to contain provisions covering much of the ground suggested in the new clause. That is entirely appropriate in developing an international framework and it serves to underline the fact that national legislative provision is unnecessary and inappropriate.
I hope with those assurances that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: Once again I am grateful to the Minister for his welcome assurances. I note the importance that he gives to the position of the Chief Fire Officer of the County of Kent on the safety authority. That is one of the points that we emphasised on Amendment No. 1. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Fire services for tunnel system
.—(1) Fire services in respect of the English part of the tunnel system shall be provided exclusively by the Kent Fire Authority.
(2) No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of the Kent Fire Authority has certified that there has been installed in the tunnel system—

(a)a 25 millimetre dual water main

(b)a sprinkler system;

(c)induction systems for foam and inert gas;

(d)general fire fighting equipment; and

(e)facilities and equipment for lifting and removing railway engines and carriages,

sufficient for the purposes of fighting fires in any part of the tunnel system or, as the case may be, for lifting and removing such engines and carriages in the event of derailments in that system.
(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, no passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of the Kent Fire Authority has certified that the facilities for fire fighting in the tunnel system are such that the standard of fire cover to be provided by his Authority will be satisfactory.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment again deals with fire services for the tunnel system. The Minister may again say that these matters will be brought before the safety authority and that therefore we can be satisfied. But the purpose of the amendment is threefold. First, the amendment places the responsibility for providing fire services for the English part of the tunnel system clearly on the Kent Fire Authority. That is not the position as far as I
504
understand it in the present proposals. The present arrangements contained in the Bill allow for Eurotunnel to provide its own fire service but with the ability to call on the Kent Fire Brigade in circumstances where it considers that it cannot handle a particular incident. This puts the onus on Eurotunnel to decide whether an incident has gone beyond it capability to control.
The delay caused by the time taken to make this decision could have serious repercussions in terms of additional injury and even loss of life. Placing the responsibility for handling all fires on the Kent Fire Authority would remove the middle tier of decision-making and at the same time place at the disposal of the tunnel system the full and immediate resources of the county authority. In view of the concentration of traffic in the tunnel which has been forecast and which we hope will be achieved, the new clause would seem to be a prudent strengthening of the emergency procedures.
Secondly, the new clause sets minimum standards for the provision of fire fighting infrastructure and equipment in the tunnel and gives the responsibility for checking its installation once again to the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority. I am advised that the requirements set out in the clause at paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) represent the minimum facilities for this type of proposed development and as such could be included in the Bill without controversy.
Thirdly, the chief fire officer is empowered to insist on a standard of fire cover which is the equivalent of a similar category of installation on land. This again removes some of the onus of responsibility for setting standards from the safety authority. Although the memo from Eurotunnel in Appendix 12, which has been referred to, includes a detailed Section 5.2 on fire, in its report the Select Committee made only a limited reference to it in paragraphs 128 and 129 and mainly concentrated on the question of segregation, which I am not dealing with in this amendment.
A similar amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place, but part of that amendment, which dealt with the times of attendance of appliances, has been left out of the amendment before the Committee now. I consider that those points in the amendment in another place were completely unsatisfactory. I did not regard the reply from the Minister in the other place as satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurances, even if he cannot accept all the points made in subsection (2), that there needs to be more authority given to the Chief Fire Officer of the Kent Fire Authority than is proposed in the Bill, which places a lot of onus on the Eurotunnel officers and not on the Kent Fire Brigade. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:At first glance there are a number of perfectly reasonable features in the amendment, though I am doubtful whether they should appear on the face of the Bill. These are matters for the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, that is one of the many reasons why membership of the authority has to be satisfactory to reassure the public.

505
I should be grateful for help from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on how the discussions are going between the concessionaires and the Kent Fire Service. Inevitably when the committee was sitting these discussions were taking place. It would be helpful if he could give us an indication of the state of play.
The noble Lord may recall that one of the issues which we raised in the committee was the paradoxical position, at first glance, that the safety arrangements at international airports require the presence of full-time dedicated fire fighters, if I may so describe them. What arrangements have now been made among the Kent Fire Service, the concessionaires and the Home Office on this?
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of ensuring the highest standard of preparedness for any fire and rescue emergency in the tunnel system. That means having the right numbers of men, with the right skills and the right equipment, standing by in the right places ready to respond promptly to whatever situations arise.
I agree also that the fixed link presents some unique problems for the fire and rescue services, in particular the sheer length of the underground tunnels. However, the Government do not accept that the organisational arrangements for providing fire and rescue cover need to he wholly different, in terms of basic approach, from those of other large installations involving special technical problems or large numbers of people. I have in mind such obvious examples as airports, oil refineries, chemical works and the London Underground.
In all these places, the first line of defence is provided by staff—including specialist fire-fighting staff—of the organisation concerned, trained to use equipment installed in readiness on the premises. The role of the public fire brigade is to be available and ready to deal with any situation likely to be beyond the capacity of the in-house team. In such an event the county brigade assumes overall command. This system has been shown elsewhere to work well in terms of combining effective cover with an efficient use of resources. The Government believe that this is the right approach also for the fixed link.
The proposition that fire cover in the English part of the tunnel system should be provided exclusively by the Kent fire authority would be inefficient because it would involve replacing Eurotunnel employees—some of whom would combine fire fighting and rescue responsibilities with other duties—with full time local authority firemen. And paradoxically, it would debar Eurotunnel from supplementing the Kent fire authority's resources with additional manpower of its own.
Nevertheless, the role of the Kent fire brigade, if there is a major emergency, will be crucial, and close co-operation will be necessary from the start of the construction of the fixed link on emergency procedures, facilities and training. But such co-operation, as we have already heard, cannot be limited to the English side of the Channel. Fire fighting is a bilateral matter. It is one of the very
506
important responsibilities of the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority. All the arrangements proposed by Eurotunnel for dealing with fire and other emergencies must be approved by the commission, acting on the advice of the safety authority.
The chief fire officer for Kent, as a member of the safety authority, will be in a very good position to ensure that the arrangements are completely satisfactory from the Kent brigade's point of view. I have no doubt that the advice of the chief fire officer on all matters pertaining to fire and rescue services will be given the very greatest weight in the safety authority's deliberations.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, how the Kent fire authority was getting on in discussions with Eurotunnel. I am afraid that I have not heard any more since the Select Committee was sitting but I shall certainly find out and write to him before the next stage of the Bill.
The Government's approach, as I have outlined it, was explained in detail to the Select Committees in both Houses. They were satisfied that it was correct, and I cannot recommend the inclusion in the Bill of the new clause.
Finally, perhaps I may say a few words about the detailed arrangements incorporated in subsection (2). The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, quite rightly, that it was entirely inappropriate to lay down such arbitrarily chosen details as these in the Bill. I looked with some surprise at one measure. Eurotunnel will have to consider the specification of the water supply. Whether it will suggest that two one-inch pipes are sufficient is not for me to say. It will then be for the safety authority to consider those proposals.
I hope that I have managed to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the new clause is not necessary; otherwise I must urge my noble friends to oppose it.
Lord Underhill: There is certainly no intention of asking the Committee to divide on this issue and I readily accept, as the Minister says, that it may have been unfortunate that we put in detail the five points under subsection (2). I agree that these matters ought to be determined by the chief officer of the Kent brigade along with the safety authority.
In his first few words the Minister stressed the importance of having the right number of personnel and the right appliances at the right time. That is the principle behind the amendment. Most of the larger airports have specialist men standing by. Only a short time would elapse before the normal local authority supplementary services could be brought in. It would not take very long. However, it is a different factor if members of the Kent fire brigade are standing by on the English side of the tunnel and there is a serious incident 10 miles into the tunnel. An appliance will not reach there in five minutes. That is why we detailed the latter part of the amendment which was discussed in another place and which referred to the first appliance arriving after five minutes and the second after eight minutes. From my knowledge of fire appliances, that is nonsense.

507
We wanted to ensure that the chief officer of the Kent fire brigade would be the authority and would make the decisions. I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. Part of what the Minister told us will be helpful and I should be grateful if, when he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, he will send a copy of the letter to me. It is important to know precisely how far these discussions are going. If, at any stage, there is difficulty and the Kent chief fire officer feels that things are not moving in the right direction, I hope that the Minister will take the appropriate action.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—not that I disagree in any way with what he has said. I would specifically draw the Minister's attention to page 700 of the minutes of evidence. Not only is there the question of the Kent fire service being represented on the safety authority; one of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services is also an alternate member of the authority, which I think is highly desirable. On the other hand, the Minister will note the cross examination on page 700 of the new Chief Inspector of Fire Services, Mr. Doyle. This related to one very important safety question. A serious incident occurred between Manchester and Yorkshire when a petrol train caught fire. Eighteen months after the request of the chief fire officers' association to have a meeting at the Home Office on this question nothing had happened. I hope that episodes of this kind do not take place again because they do not exactly enhance public confidence in the way in which our fire services are administered. I make no criticism of the new Chief Inspector of Fire Services who has been in his post for a relatively short period. It is however a disquieting episode. The Government produced a report on the matter and most of my colleagues were rather concerned when they read it. No doubt the noble Lord will take that into account when he sends the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I shall indeed.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for that intervention. It was extremely helpful and it illustrates how Parliament must be particularly careful to ensure that it secures the fullest possible information on safety measures at various stages. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, concluded with an important point. The public must be satisfied. If there is one issue on which the public is concerned, it is the safety of the tunnel. That came out clearly during the Second Reading debate. I am grateful for what has been said during today's debate. I shall give serious thought to those remarks and see whether or not we should come back with something at the Report stage. That may be doubtful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 20 insert the following new clause:
("Facilities for evacuation of tunnel system
No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is possible safely to evacuate persons from the tunnel system in the event of a severe fire incident occurring in that system.")
The noble Lord said: I am sure that, in his usual way, the Minister will say that this is an unnecessary addition to the Bill although many people have said in the course of our debates that things can change. On the one hand it is said that many things can happen in the next six years; on the other, until various safety and other considerations are evaluated by the safety authority and the Intergovernmental Commission, we cannot be sure what the final system will be. That indeed is a reasonable point of view. However, as my noble friend Lord Underhill has said on a number of occasions, and particularly clearly in his last speech, there is public concern about safety in the tunnel and about the risks that may arise in the event of a severe fire incident.
Eurotunnel themselves properly and understandably accept that this risk must be there, because in their memorandum they say that one of the advantages of their system is that there are two tunnels and if there is a fire in one tunnel then it will not spread to the other. Therefore, clearly they must accept, as any reasonable person must, that there is a risk.
Since so many things can happen after the Bill leaves this House and so many things will be done without any reference to Parliament, I think it not unreasonable before the tunnel is opened for public business that the Secretary of State, who must ultimately bear the responsibility, should give a certificate to the extent that so far as can reasonably be ascertained there is a safe system of evacuation should a fire incident occur.
Certainly if the Secretary of State at that time refused to say that in his opinion it was safe to use the tunnel, that would be a serious matter. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we now propose, as we do not know what the future will bring, that whoever is Secretary of State at the time has this responsibility before the tunnel opens. I do not know whether the Minister is aware—he probably is—that it is a Treasury practice that on quite minor matters of public expenditure (for example, equipment commissioned for the Armed Forces) they do not pay the final bill unless they have a certificate to say that it is suitable and fit for the purposes for which it has been commissioned and designed.
In the enormous project on which we are now embarking it would not be unreasonable to ask the Government ultimately to accept responsibility for safety. The Minister properly says that he is not giving investment advice, and that the decisions about this and that within the project are commercial decisions for the concessionaries to decide. However, it was the Government (and I do not complain about this) which started the competition from which the present scheme has emerged, and I am sure that the Government will make a great claim for credit if this

509
is a success. Therefore there is an element of responsibility. Because of all the uncertainties—because many things will happen after the Bill leaves Parliament as an Act—it would not be unreasonable to ask the Secretary of State to give a decision of this kind before the system goes into operation. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Once again I shall seek to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that this clause is unnecessary. The concession agreement provides that Eurotunnel shall submit to the Intergovernmental Commission for approval their proposed safety arrangements and emergency procedures. Clearly the Intergovernmental Commission, acting on the advice of the safety authority, would not approve such arrangements unless it was satisfied that adequate evacuation measures were in place.
The advantage of this procedure is that the commission represents both the British and French Governments. It is thus able to ensure that there is consistency of treatment in such important matters as evacuation measures throughout the whole of the tunnel system, while the powers of the Secretary of State in English law would extend only up to the halfway point.
With those brief remarks I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will be able to accept that the arrangements already laid down will in fact provide a better solution than that envisaged in his proposed new clause and be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. I do not know whether he can give us any guidance as to what point in the progress of the tunnel the Intergovernmental Commission will determine, as he suggests they should, that it is safe in every respect. Will this be just at the last moment, or will they come to this decision soon? If they are to wait until just before the tunnel is due to be used, then I would accept that this amendment would not be necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure when the Intergovernmental Commission will give the final word, but the safety authority is already working with Eurotunnel on these matters. In fact it will be an ongoing process. I cannot say exactly when the final word of approval will be given, but obviously plans are being put forward and looked at, and presumably it is an ongoing discussion.
Lord Mulley: I am sure that it would be unreasonable to ask the Minister to give an assurance on behalf of whoever is Secretary of State at that time. However, I hope that it can be recorded so that before the tunnel operates a Statement will be made to both Houses of Parliament—if there are two Houses of Parliament at that time. Having let the Act go through without such a provision, whoever is here at that time will then have the opportunity to discuss the arrangements if it is thought that they are unsatisfactory. With that kind of understanding—I
510
am sure it would be unreasonable to ask for a firm assurance—I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Control of traffic within the tunnel system]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 19, line 47, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Approval of trains]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) Any such approval under this section shall only be given where the rolling stock can adequately convey the appropriate classes of traffic, including in the case of shuttle trains and through international passenger trains, pedal cycles.")
The noble Viscount said: I hope that your Lordships will allow me to pedal off at a slight tangent from the main thrust of the Bill on the subject of cycling. The intention of this amendment is to make provision for bicycles in international trains passing through the tunnel. The scenario that this amendment seeks to prevent is British Rail telling us in 1993 that it cannot carry bicycles because the rolling stock is not designed to carry them.
Some detailed discussions have already taken place with British Rail and this matter was aired in the Select Committee and raised by me at Second Reading when I said that I fully supported the Bill. I shall particularly be focusing here on the attitude of British Rail and the extent to which any undertakings it may give on bicycles are satisfactory.
Perhaps I may briefly say how the present position has been reached. An identical amendment to this was moved at Report stage in another place by Sir George Young. It was withdrawn when the Minister undertook to raise the matter with British Rail. At Second Reading in this House the Minister also told me that the matter was still being taken up with British Rail. I should say that it was at the Report stage in another place that Eurotunnel and the Government were graceful enough to accept an amendment by the cycling fraternity requiring the shuttle to provide space for the carriage of cycles, but that of course is only from one tunnel end to the other.
The Select Committee of your Lordships' House heard evidence upstairs on 30th March from cycling campaigners and counsel for British Rail; and in correspondence since BR has offered various assurances of its intentions. That is what I should like to concentrate on here. First, I should like to make it clear that cyclists are prepared to pay a proper commercial charge for carriage of their cycles even though at present they are carried free on cross-Channel ferries.
I am talking about cyclists in general and I have been advised in particular by two well-established cycling organisations; the LCC, the London Cycling Campaign, and the CTC, the Cyclists' Touring Club. They are responsible organisations which have been monitoring BR's attitude and practice towards cycles over the years. They share the general feeling that BR is not the cyclists' friend; that it regards them as a nuisance and generally an afterthought in any planning process. I believe that it is fair to take into account BR's past record in assessing its present intentions in the matter before us.
The question that this Committee must decide is whether it can rely solely on BR's goodwill and judgment in this issue or whether the Bill should be amended to concentrate the mind of BR. I should like to describe the worrying problems that will arise if BR, in its wisdom, decides not to provide space for cycles on its international through trains. The only way for cyclists to benefit from the tunnel would be either to bicycle to Cheriton Depot or, as the Minister, Mr. David Mitchell, extraordinarily described at the Report stage in another place on 3rd February 1987 (col. 961):
"by catching a train to Folkestone and cycling about half a mile to the Cheriton Depot where they will use the facilities that will be provided by Eurotunnel for the conveyance of cycles through the tunnel".
I understand that by the time the terminal is built that distance will be nearer three or four miles, and that that will be necessary at all times throughout the year, day or night, whatever the weather.
In addition, a cyclist would have to make sure that any connecting train to convey him to Folkestone was permitted to carry cycles. Many journeys would involve a change at London Termini and a ride across London. There are problems and deterrents enough, but they are doubled because they occur again on the other side of the Channel.
I compare that with the recent box advertisements that we have all seen headed:
"Channel Tunnel starts at Manchester",
or Edinburgh or Cardiff. It is stated that there will be 15 million passenger journeys in the first year alone. Will all 15 million passengers be forbidden to bring cycles with them on the direct through routes to places such as Paris and Brussels simply because no space is allowed for them in the design of the rolling stock? I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that there is at the very least a problem to be dealt with.
The cycling lobby has no desire to try to impose on British Rail conditions which would be non-commercial. It is my belief and that of many others that carriage of extra passengers, plus their cycles, would be viable and indeed profitable. We should not be elitist in catering only for motor cars. Admittedly this is a difficult area in which to assess use; and in particular newly generated use, seven years ahead. As the Minister will no doubt tell us, BR is offering to conduct a survey, part of which is now going on, based on present usage and from these results to decide whether bicycle space is warranted.
512
Various bicycle organisations have agreed to and helped participate in part of the survey. Any survey, however limited, is better than none. Unfortunately, some of the key figures will not be available until next year, after the rolling stock has been designed; but, even more, after the passing of this Bill, the only real decision-making process will take place in the backrooms of BR. To me and to many other people, given the basis of the survey, it is extremely difficult to assess what criteria and factors will be used to judge whether the carriage of bicycles will be commercially viable in seven years' time. Also there is no attempt scientifically to assess new areas of demand that would be generated for cyclists. In brief, I am not only sceptical of the results of the survey but also of how they can be usefully interpreted.
If we allow British Rail to meet in the backroom to make this decision, it is bound only loosely by any assurances that it has given. It must also take with it the French and Belgian operators with whom it must agree the design of the rolling stock. I understand that both those operators are keen to make provision for cyclists.
What are the assurances that British Rail has given? At present the department within British rail which has been dealing with the matter seems from correspondence to be extremely solicitous and polite. So much so that it brought to my mind the concerned way in which politicians treat their electorate just before an election. Even a healthy democrat might be curious as to what will happen after the election—or in this case after the Bill is passed. The best assurance that we have had from BR was that given by its counsel at the end of evidence given upstairs on 30th March 1987, when he said:
"if the market research coming forward this summer justifies carriage of cycles, then British Rail are actively keen to do so and will seek to persuade their European partners to include facilities within the specification of the services".
Another assurance was more restrained. It was given in a letter of 16th April from Mr. Orchard of the Department of Transport to a representative of the London Cycling Campaign. It states:
"I do know however that BR have discussed the carriage of cycles with SNCF".
That is the French operator.
"They both feel that as long as a commercial case can be made they will be happy to consider the carriage of bicycles on the through trains".
I should like to underline the words "happy to consider". That is, if the commercial case has been made, we are still only at the stage of the railway operators considering what to do. That is disappointingly weak, especially given my earlier scepticism of any clear message being derivable from the survey in the first place. A few years ago we had the well known example of the Harris Report endorsing the benefit of cycle carriage by British Rail yet being ignored by it even though it commissioned the report. I strongly hope that the Government can encourage British Rail to assist in the predicament and problem of cyclists and to take them more seriously.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of Clause 23 is to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that any

513
trains that use the tunnel system to operate on the British Railway network satisfy all appropriate safety and technical standards. It is not intended to enable the Secretary of State to interfere in decisions by the railway operators in purely commercial matters, such as the types of traffic they will carry.
The Bill is quite rightly almost entirely silent on questions of this kind. Exceptionally Clause 18 requires the concessionaires to provide a service on the shuttle trains for pedal cycles and motorcycles of under 50cc. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, explained how this provision came to be inserted in the Bill in another place where a number of honourable Members felt it was not right that when the tunnel opens cyclists should not be able to use it if they wished to do so in preference to the ferries. In fact Eurotunnel had all along been ready to carry cycles if suitable arrangements could be made for overcoming the danger that could result from mixing motor vehicles and cycles in the terminal area, especially when driving into and out of the trains. By the time that Clause 18 was amended in the way I have described, Eurotunnel had more or less found the solution, and it has also been accepted by the French Government. The insertion in the Bill of a statutory obligation did not, therefore, occasion any difficulty for Eurotunnel.
The noble Viscount's amendment asks in effect why, if Eurotunnel can do it, British Rail should not also be obliged to make provision for pedal cycles? The reason quite simply is that it is not economic for British Rail to provide space for pedal cycles unless it is satisfied that there are sufficient cyclists who would use the service at a commercial fare. I remind the Committee that British Rail's international services are to be run on a strictly commercial basis, with Clause 41 of this Bill ensuring that there is no support from public funds. In these circumstances it would be quite wrong to compel British Rail to act uncommercially by providing expensive space if that would not yield a proper return. There is also the consideration that the international services will depend on co-operation between British Rail and its continental partners-probably using interchangeable rolling stock.
Therefore it will be necessary for British Rail to carry its partners with it in any decision of this kind. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, thought the Continental partners were keen on this, in which case all well and good. He also said that discussions with the cycling organisations had been going on for a long time now and that the position of British Rail had not changed in the last six months.
These matters cannot be decided instantly. As I said, British Rail needs to design its carriages and it has to assess the size of the market. It is all very well for the cyclists to say that they will use the tunnel, but British Rail needs to know how many and how often; otherwise expensive space on the trains will be allocated for the wrong purposes and a great deal of potential revenue will be lost. Nevertheless, British Rail has made it clear that it is ready to examine very seriously what it can do for cyclists.
Firstly, it has undertaken to include the question in its negotiations with Continental railways. Secondly,
514
and most importantly, it is in active discussions with the cycling organisations and has been co-operating closely in market research to assess the likely demand from cyclists. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also mentioned that in his speech.
I am sure that these are the right first steps, and I hope the Committee will agree that it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of these studies by imposing an obligation on British Rail which could well conflict quite directly with the commercial basis of its international services. I am sorry that I have not been able to sound more helpful to the noble Viscount, but this is a matter which must be settled between British Rail and the cyclists on a proper commercial basis.
Lord Underhill: Before the Minister sits down, has he or his department any view on this? We often hear about a road lobby at the department but I doubt very much whether there is a cycling lobby. Have the Government got any view about encouraging British Rail to find a solution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said at the beginning, it is up to British Rail. The Government do quite a lot of work so far as cyclists are concerned in regard to other matters. But particularly in this instance when British Rail is to be required to operate a purely commercial service on this route, it must be up to it to decide whether it is commercially viable to carry cyclists. If it is, well and good; but if it is not, as I said, it could be a matter of having a lot of expensive space on the trains which might or might not be used by cyclists.
Viscount Craigavon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive answer, although I am afraid it has not satisfied me. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having put his name to the amendment, indicating support. I have not tried to get up a huge bicycle lobby in your Lordships' Chamber, partly to save time and partly having regard to the timescale in which this Bill is being discussed.
I am afraid that the cyclists have been caught in a cleft stick by British Rail. If they are asking for detailed statistics of how many and how often cyclists are going to travel on this new and glamorous service in seven years' time, we are not able to supply those figures. If that is a bottom-line argument British Rail is going to use until the end of time and until the day of decision has passed, then we are going to be defeated.
But having said that, I again thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Having given a lot of thought to this subject, I should like to take it back for reconsideration and perhaps return with it at a later stage. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Let me also say before doing so that if I should bring it back at a later stage perhaps the noble Lord in the meantime could read my speech and try to get from British Rail a much clearer and firmer commitment than that quoted already. If that could be done I should be very much happier and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Underhill: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister one question? The clause reads:
"Any train used for conveying passengers or goods through the tunnel system (including any shuttle train) shall be of such a description and conform to such specifications as may for the time being be approved by the Secretary of State".
I wonder whether the Minister can explain where the safety authority comes in. If the specifications of the shuttle train, apart from any others, have to be approved by the Secretary of State, does that imply that the Secretary of State will have a certificate from the safety authority? How is it to work? It could mean that certain decisions are being taken now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is a question to which I am sure I should know the answer, but I am afraid I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mulley:I wonder whether I might also have a copy. In reply to an amendment of mine the Minister said that all this was not necessary because it was provided for. The idea that the Secretary of State should have anything whatever to do with the safety arrangements of the tunnel, which obviously must have a bearing on the specification of the trains, was nonsense. It would all be done by the Intergovernmental Commission. That seems to be something of a contradiction. I am glad to see Clause 23 and I should hate it to be removed. But I should like to know how the two arguments are to be squared.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can give one explanation which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord. The arrangements will be subject to the requirements of the Intergovernmental Commission, but in addition they will have to take account of national requirements, and that is where the Secretary of State comes into it.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Competition, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions with respect to orders under Part III]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 43, leave out ("20(8), 22(5) or (6)") and insert ("22(5)")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 25, line 45, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 47 and insert ("but such an instrument shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment entirely in an exploratory frame of mind, with a view
516
to obtaining clarification. It may seem a little more complicated because of the amendment the noble Lord himself has just moved to remove "20(8), 22(5) or (6)" from the special exemption of Clause 33(3). Clause 32 remains, and while I can understand that there is no need for parliamentary approval for the provisions that apparently have now been taken out, I would have thought it was important that Clause 32 should remain.
The main point of my amendment is to ask why this unusual procedure is being used in the Bill. As the Committee knows, it is normal practice that a statutory instrument shall be made either subject to an affirmative resolution—that is to say, it needs to be approved by a resolution of either House, and preferably both Houses, of Parliament—or to a negative procedure, where after a certain period of time it becomes law unless there is a Motion of one House of Parliament to annul it.
I wonder why this provision about the draft of an instrument is put in instead of the actual instrument itself coming for approval. One of the difficulties in dealing with statutory instruments in either House of Parliament is that they cannot be amended. Is it perhaps intended that the draft needing approval will be open to amendments being moved while it is being discussed prior to its approval?
A very unusual statutory provision is being proposed. I wonder therefore whether I may ask for clarification. Indeed, that is why I am moving this exploratory amendment. Why should we have in this Act the proposal that is now in subsection (3)(b)? Why do we not just follow the normal practice of making all statutory instruments made under powers conferred by the Bill subject to a resolution of one or preferably both Houses of Parliament? I should be most grateful if the Minister would explain. Certainly I do not think it particularly appropriate that no approval should be required for orders made under the competition section of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall attempt to explain, I hope to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. I agree with him that Clause 11 is unusual in terms of its breadth and that some of the orders that we shall need to make will involve important issues of policy and principle. One or two such issues are the conferring of extraterritorial powers for the purposes of juxtaposed frontier controls and the creation of new criminal offences peculiar to the tunnel system. The Government fully accept that orders dealing with major matters of this kind should be subject to the affirmative procedure. In connection with the exercise of powers extraterritorially, I must also emphasise that the order-making power in this clause will only be exercised having regard to the accepted rules of international law concerning jurisdiction.
However, it would be quite wrong to assume that all orders under Clause 11 will be concerned with such important issues. Many orders will be technical and non-controversial, notwithstanding that they may involve in some cases the modification of existing primary legislation. We shall need to modify quite a lot of existing frontier control legislation, which is couched in terms applicable only to seaports

517
and airports, in order to render it applicable to the land frontier created by the fixed link. These orders will simply be making terminological adjustments involving no issues of policy. I submit that it would be a waste of parliamentary time to require such orders to be debated and approved before they came into force.
One can also envisage that some existing regulations under health and safety or animal health legislation may need to be modified in order to bring the fixed link within their scope. Generally, such amending orders will be made under the existing primary legislation in accordance with whatever parliamentary procedure—affirmative, annulment or none at all—that legislation prescribes. However, it may sometimes be appropriate to proceed instead by way of an order under Clause 11. In that event it would be absurd to be committed to the affirmative procedure when a similar order made under existing legislation would be subject only to the annulment procedure.
Orders under Clause 11 which, because of their importance, were dealt with under the affirmative procedure may subsequently need amendment—possibly to correct a small drafting slip or to update a technical detail. I submit that we ought not to commit our successors to putting every such minor amending order through the affirmative procedure.
I am afraid that it is not possible to define in cut-and-dried terms which orders under Clause 11 should be subject to which procedure. In the Government's view it is essential that they have discretion as to the appropriate procedure. This is not an unprecedented situation. We meet it regularly in connection with European Community legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 makes the same provision as in Clause 33(3)(b) for orders or regulations implementing Community measures. The guidelines for deciding which orders or regulations implementing Community measures should be debated in draft by Parliament before they are made are expressed in very broad terms and they were accepted by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Government have considerable discretion as to the choice of procedure, but they exercise that discretion in the light of well established practice and informal soundings through the usual channels. It is our intention to deal with Clause 11 orders in much the same way.
I must repeat the assurance previously given, that all orders under Clause 11 concerned with matters of principle or substantial public interest will be submitted to the affirmative procedure, but I strongly urge the Committee not to tie our successors' hands by imposing a rigid requirement that all Clause 11 orders, regardless of their significance, should be subject to that procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that assurance and will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mulley: I am grateful to the Minister for a very careful and considered reply. While I fully understand and agree that it would be quite wrong for either House of Parliament to be bothered with a large number of purely terminological or technical amendments just to bring the new frontier into line
518
with that of seaports and airports and so on, I cannot see how Parliament's time will be saved if the draft of the instrument has to be approved. I am puzzled about the difference between an order and an instrument containing an order. I am sure that there is a very good reason for it and it would be helpful if the Minister could give it to us. I do not understand that an instrument contains an order. I have always thought of a statutory instrument as being an order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I understand that for the last 10 years at least the affirmative procedure has taken the form of approval in draft. That is how regulations implementing European Community measures are dealt with. That is as far as I can go in explanation at the moment.
Lord Mulley: I was seeking enlightenment. I had a little but I could have done with more. However, in view of that reply I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Nicol: In paragraph 48 of its report, the Select Committee attaches great importance to the environmental quality of the landscape and to the need to secure the highest standards of design and management in executing the entirety of the A.20 improvements. That paragraph ends:
"The objective must be to sustain the quality of landscaping over a substantial period of time ahead".
The Government have now responded to the Select Committee's report. That response completely fails to acknowledge the points made by the committee in respect of both the entirety of the landscape through which the A.20 runs and the need for specific binding agreements with adjacent landowners upon landscaping conditions.
In view of the fact that the Government have failed to give an adequate response to the report, there are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister about the Government's future intentions. First, does the Minister accept the need for long-term agreements, and if so what will be the length of their term? Secondly, will the Minister give an undertaking that long-term binding agreements will be entered into with adjacent landowners by the Department of Transport?
I should like to add that there is another aspect of this matter. On 27th April, when the witness from the Department of Transport was questioned by Mr. Popham, the agent of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, in discussion about the low rate of return on the road, the witness said:
"A particular factor to take into account in this case is that the terrain is difficult and hence the costs tend to be higher than the average road scheme, and the problem of the environmental provisions which have been made by way of a viaduct across Holywell and Roundhill tunnel, which have added to the cost and depressed the rate of return on the scheme".
That seems fine until one looks at the environmental costs of the M.25 Swanley-Sevenoaks section and the

519
A.10-M.11 section of the M.25. Perhaps I may very briefly give the figures. For the A.20, which we are discussing at the moment, the total cost of construction is £55 million. All these figures have been given to me in parliamentary Written Answers, those for the M.25 in February last year and those for the A.20 last week. While the total cost of construction for the A.20 is £55 million, the total cost of environmental works is £4 million. That is 7·27 per cent. In the case of the Swanley-Sevenoaks section, the total cost of construction is £50 million and the total cost of environmental works £7·93 million, which is 15·8 per cent. Finally, for the A.10 M.11 section the total cost of construction is £120 million and the total cost of environmental works £30 million: that is, roughly 25 per cent.
In view of those figures, it is very difficult to understand the remarks made by the Department of Transport witness on 27th April. I wonder if the Minister can give a reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara:I am not able to reply to a point of such detail at this stage without notice. I agree that I gave those figures for environmental improvements to the proposed scheme. I am not sure that I follow the relevance of the different percentages. Presumably, environmental improvements cost more in some places than they do in others. I am afraid I shall have to read what the noble Baroness has said and write to her on this subject.
Baroness Nicol: If I could clear the point, as a percentage of the total expenditure, the figure is relevant.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not quite follow that, but I shall certainly read the noble Baroness's remarks. It seems to me that in some places environmental measures probably cost more than they do in others.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Earl De La Warr Earl De La Warr moved Amendment No. 81:
Before Clause 36 insert the following new clause:
("Road improvements.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a schedule of the trunk roads which he expects will bear a significant increase in vehicular traffic as a consequence of the bringing into operation of the tunnel system.
(2) In respect of each road included in the schedule prepared under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall identify what improvements are required to accommodate the expected increase in vehicular traffic, and shall use his best endeavours to ensure that such improvements are completed before the date of the bringing into operation of the tunnel system.").
The noble Earl said: This looks rather a formidable new clause but I must tell the Committee immediately, as I have already told my noble friend the Minister that I am not pressing it. The object is to ask a number of questions about the network of roads which leads from Folkestone; that is, other than the main artery, the M.20. There is grave concern that many of the improvements which are needed to the roads will not be completed at the
520
normal rate at which we are accustomed to see roads developed. There is good reason for thinking that some improvements might be as late as three to four years. This is worrying many of the local authorities and a large number of other people, particularly those responsible for proper traffic management. I hope that noble Lords will develop that argument as to why it is so important to get on with these roads. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this point was emphasised in the Select Committee's report.
I start with the A.259 which leads west from Folkstone, through Hastings and Brighton and finishes up way down in the west at Honiton. It is the eastern part of the A.259 that I want to talk about. This road, labelled as a trunk road, is not much of a trunk road at the moment; indeed parts of it are little more than Broads as those who know the Pevensey Marsh will, I think, confirm. But the improvements which are planned will in my opinion make this road adequate for many years at a cost of about £50 million.
The bypasses on this road which we are worried about are the Bexhill and west Hastings bypass; the east Hastings bypass which has only just been approved and for which consultants have not been appointed; the Rye bypass which is particularly difficult because the railway line has to be moved; and the projected bypasses at New Romney and, moving towards Hythe and Folkstone, at Dymchurch and St. Mary's Bay. They have only recently been approved and no consultants have been appointed. So these are very, very early days in their progress to becoming bypasses. I would be most grateful if the Government would give the Committee their best estimate of when each is likely to be ready.
I move now to the extension to the A.259 which is very important because of the link to the M.20 some two miles to the north. To take over this little road, the A.259 must come right into Hythe where the buses turn round and then turn north-west and climb up the escarpment until it meets the M.20. That is a very doubtful proposition indeed. I understand that no consultants have been appointed here either, although the Government appear to be intent upon the project. So far as I can see, there are two options. One is to take the little road on its present line which means that a number of houses on the road coming south from the M.20 will have to be demolished for road widening. I ask myself what the Shepway District Council will say about that.
The second alternative is to move a little to the west. This is hard to visualise unless one has seen it. The route would be down the B.2068 and through the Shepway Cross re-entry into the escarpment. There are no other options. All the way above Hythe there is a 250 foot escarpment which is geologically unstable and through which it would be impossible to drive any major works. I ask the Government to give us some special assurances in view of what I have said.
I come now to the A.2070 road which leads from Brenzett-in-the-Marsh north for about ten miles to Ashford where it joins up with the new Ashford south orbital road on which is situated the inland clearing

521
depot for goods vehicles and the new international station. It is potentially quite a good road but requires a great deal of work. It needs bypasses at Ham Street and Kingsnorth and some straightening and widening.
All these improvements which have been proposed by the Kent County Council have been turned down by the Government except for the little bypass at Ham Street. I ask myself why. Why phase an important little road like this, which is, quite obviously, because of the international station and the goods depot, very much part of the infrastructure of the tunnel? Would the Government please explain their attitude? I hope they will be prepared to tell us that they are on the point of approving this work for additional RSG.
I come now to the A.260 which leads from Folkestone northwards to the A.2 for about eleven miles; thereafter, it enables one to go to Canterbury and further north to Whitstable and Herne Bay. Most important of all, it enables one, having gone through Canterbury, to reach the M.2 and thus find an alternative route to London and the North, should there be any problem with the chosen route. It would cost about £10 million. It needs two small bypasses and some straightening and widening and the Government have only agreed to grants for half these improvements. It seems ridiculous not to carry out all these improvements at the same time. So, please would the Government explain why they take this line? When will they let the Kent County Council have the go-ahead? The A.256 is a road which leads from Folkestone via Dover and north to Thanet. Another Member of the Committee is familiar with that road and will address the Committee on the subject.
I should now like to turn to my final point, which is not so close to the tunnel but is connected with the M.20. The M.20 has a left-hand branch, the M.26, which joins it up with the M.25. At the point that the M.26 meets the M.25 it goes over a main arterial road from East London south past Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells to Hastings. That is the A.21.
If one was able to turn off it at that point, going westwards, it would open up a brand new entrance to the South-East of England, but one cannot because there is no turn off. If one was coming from the west going eastwards toward Folkestone, one could turn off and go south on the A.21, because there is a turn off. If one can do that one way why not the other? I ask the Government to have a look at that.
I apologise for the length of my questions but we are talking about some very important parts of local infrastructure in Kent and East Sussex, all of which are intimately concerned with the tunnel. I hope very much that the Government will not tell us that they will spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My name is also put down to this amendment. However, I cannot follow the excellence of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who has explained everything in great detail, done great service to the Committee and also provided a great deal of colour to the local area of Kent and East Sussex.
522
We have had the Second Reading and also the excellent Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst to which my noble friend gave some assurances. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is asking the Government to endorse those and I think that he is absolutely right.
Lord Pender: Before the Minister replies I wish to make two quick points in support of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who put the amendment so cogently, although I think that after a long afternoon the Minister must be looking forward to his dinner. There is great concern that progress by the Department of Transport will not be sufficiently rapid to ensure that road improvements are completed on schedule by 1993. Indeed there have been suggestions that some schemes could run about two years late. I hope that that point will be in the front of the Government's mind.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the special circumstances of the A.256, which before the leaf is on the trees I can see from my bedroom window. The only drawback of living where I do is that the access on to that road is difficult.
The A.256 runs 30 kilometres from Dover to Ramsgate. It forms the third side of a triangle of primary routes in East Kent, which carry up to 10,000 vehicles a day. A good proportion of those are heavy vehicles. Injuries averaged 75 per year, with two fatalities per year over the last three years.
The Eastry bypass is to be much welcomed. Those Members of the Committee who know that village will be aware of the perils that heavy vehicles can bring as they travel through, some none too slowly. The bypass has reached the design stage. The route has been agreed and there is a start date fixed for 1990, perhaps earlier. But the ratepayers pick up the tab.
When the tunnel opens, the A.256 becomes a tunnel-related bypass. Unless there is massive road improvement before that time, which can only be achieved by government help, I dread to think of the congestion, frustration and bereavement in store.
Lord Morris: Despite the fact that I can hear the tummy of my noble friend the Minister rumbling even at this distance, I rise only to support my noble friends Lord Pender and Lord De La Warr. I should like to thank the Select Committee of your Lordships' House for drawing attention to these points in paragraph 22 of its report. It stated in very strong language that a number of the local routes to the tunnel are of a poor standard and need to be improved with great urgency. Select Committee reports do not use adjectives lightly. The report's conclusion is absolutely right there.
I should like to make one further very quick point. It is simply that there is great concern in Kent County Council, and I am certain in Shepway Council as well, not forgetting the Sussex councils involved, about the piecemeal approach to vehicular road traffic improvement. If it is not done as a whole—I recognise the resource implications of these points—one rather gets the effect of driving down a sausage which is very fat in some parts and very thin

523
in other parts. That is absolutely hopeless. One is merely creating a series of bottlenecks. All I ask is whether the Minister could possibly consider very carefully what has been said and above all maintain consultations with the concerned local councils.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: In supporting the amendment it is rather difficult to avoid repeating some of the points that have already been eloquently put, especially by my noble friend Lord De La Warr. Therefore I shall keep my contribution short. I realise that the amendment is concerned with all the roads, and I am only anxious that East Sussex should not be left behind or come out in any way second best. It is an important area, very close to the main development, and the Government have gone a long way to recognise that in their assurances about the A.259 corridor. In particular the recent addition of the eastern Hastings bypass to the programme has been most welcome.
To me the most important part of the amendment is the last sentence of subsection (2). My noble friend Lord De La Warr and other Members of the Committee have touched on this. That subsection asks for an undertaking about the timing of the various agreed road improvements. I am sure that we all recognise the difficulties that must face any government in giving such undertakings, but I am coming to my main point and my reason for intervening in the debate.
I have the paper of the Secretary of State called Policy for Roads in England: 1987 Vol 2. On page 24 in paragraph 12, sub-paragraph 9, reference is made to major works on the M.20 and A.20. It continues:
"Preparation is continuing as quickly as possible to have all three outstanding schemes for this route in place subject to the necessary Parliamentary and statutory procedures by the time the tunnel is planned to open in 1993".
At present local experts in both East Sussex and Kent predict that various essential improvements to the A.259 corridor will not be completed before 1996. Can we not have the same urgency for the A.259 corridor as for the M.20 and the A.20? Cannot the road developments that so acutely affect the towns of Hastings, Bexhill, Eastbourne, Battle etc. be given the same priority as the major developments in Kent? Perhaps the Minister can give some reassurances about that in his reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: It is dreadful for the Minister to have to sit this geography exam just before dinner! However, I hope that he will be able to comment on the possible extension of the A.2.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall attempt to deal with your Lordships' questions in as much detail as possible. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord De La Warr for having notified me in advance of the particular roads he was going to mention. I have a map of them here.
I am of course in complete agreement with my noble friends that trunk roads, which will carry significantly increased traffic as a result of the Channel Tunnel, must have all necessary
524
improvements made to them. In so far as is practical, that should be done before the tunnel is opened. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed, as my noble friend has said it will not be, because I believe that the Government have already taken all reasonable steps.
The three trunk roads which are likely to be most affected by Channel Tunnel traffic are the M.20-A.20, the M2-A.2 and the A.259. Further afield, on the M.25 and beyond, the additional traffic generated by the tunnel will be small by comparison with existing traffic flows and should not, by itself, necessitate improvements being made.
The principal link between London and the Channel Tunnel and ports will be the M.20-A20, and planning has taken place on this basis. The missing link in the M.20 between Maidstone and Ashford is being completed and the A.28 between Folkestone and Dover is being replaced. One of the main reasons for including the improvement of half of the A.20 in the Bill was the need to ensure (subject to statutory procedures) that the road would be open by the time the tunnel opens.
With the improved M.20-A.20 as the principal route, the M.2-A.2 should not need substantial improvement, although the Government have given a formal undertaking that this will be kept under review once the effect of tunnel-related traffic is known. It needs to be borne in mind that even if it was decided now to go ahead with all speed with improvements to the A.2 between Lydden (where the dual carriageway stops) and Dover, the improvement would probably not be ready in time for tunnel opening.
Turning to the A.259-A.261, which is of particular concern to several of my noble friends, the bypass to New Romney was restored last October to the road programme, and in April the Government announced that bypasses to St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch would also be restored in the programme. In addition the Hastings Eastern bypass would go ahead. The A.261 link to the M.20 at Stanford is to be trunked in replacement of the A.259 between Hythe and Folkstone. Consultants are to be appointed by the autumn to investigate and prepare detailed proposals for this road. They will examine all options, both along the line of the existing road and along new routes. We do not wish to rule out any possible option until the work has been done.
It is the aim of the department to complete all improvements, except the Hastings Eastern bypass, by the time the tunnel opens, or for them to be under construction by then. The timing depends on how quickly the detailed preparation and design can be progressed, and on completion of the statutory procedures.
It must be borne in mind that these new roads will pass through environmentally sensitive areas. Consultants were appointed in January to investigate possible routes for the Bexhill-Hastings Western bypass. It is hoped that consultants will be appointed this autumn for the New Romney, St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch bypasses. Consultants for the Hastings Eastern bypass are unlikely to be appointed until 1988.

525
Any delay in the completion of the improvements would be inconvenient. However, estimated traffic flow figures indicate that the road in an unimproved state is unlikely to attract a substantial amount of additional traffic as a result of the Channel Tunnel. Any further improvements to trunk roads are not supported by current traffic forecasts and so could not properly be included in the national roads programme.
Turning to the local roads which my noble friends have mentioned in the debate, although the amendment only refers to trunk roads, I can say that in addition to the improvement to trunk roads, all necessary improvements are to be made to local roads. Kent County Council has identified 13 improvement schemes to local roads which will be needed for Channel Tunnel traffic. Its bid for transport supplementary grant for 1987–88 covered only eight of the schemes. Five of the schemes were given early conditional acceptance. Two of those were improvements to the A.2070 at Ashford, the A.2070 Hamstreet bypass, the A.260 Hawkinge bypass and the A.260 Denton bypass.
Three of the schemes were not accepted. Those were bypasses to Densole on the A.260, to Kingsnorth on the A.2070 and to Whitfield on the A.256. They were not allowed on the grounds that they were not such strong candidates for early conditional acceptance two full years before main works are due to start. Kent County Council has been invited to resubmit them and there need be no delay in the council's anticipated completion dates.
This year Kent County Council is also likely to put forward the remaining five schemes. All of the schemes will be considered sympathetically in line with the Government's assurance that resources for improvements to local roads which are necessary to cope with extra traffic resulting from the Channel Tunnel will be additional to the county's ordinary road programme. I think it is worth pointing out that the Kent schemes accounted for six of the 13 early conditional approvals granted under TSG for this year.
Turning now to the M.26 and the M.21-A.21, it was announced on 13th June 1984 that the provision of east-facing slip roads from the M.26 to the A.225 just east of the M.26-M.25-A.21 junction, known as the Chevening junction, would be abandoned. However, the need was to be kept under review and reassessed after traffic had settled down upon completion of the M.25 Swanley to Sevenoaks section. Since the M.25 section was opened in early 1986, there has been moderate pressure to provide facilities at the M.26-M.25-A.21 Chevening junction to allow traffic to turn off the M.26 westwards on to the A.21 southwards, and vice versa.
In order to establish whether there is a need to provide this facility, a traffic survey was undertaken by Kent County Council on behalf of the department in 1986–87. The results are being prepared by the county council and will be forwarded to the department shortly. If that study identifies a need, then in the usual way a scheme will be considered for adding to the national road programme.
526
I hope that my noble friend will accept that in the main, what he seeks is already being done. The Government have to be even-handed in their national road programme, but they are committed to the provision of the necessary road infrastructure for the Channel Tunnel. They have this very much in mind in reviewing the road programme. I hope that what I have been able to say this afternoon will give some assurance to my noble friends.
Earl De La Warr: I am grateful to my noble friend for the trouble that he has taken over the many questions which I put to him and for the clarity of his answer. Having said that, I must say that it is a little bit like the curate's egg. So far as the A.259 is concerned, I think that what the Minister had to say was encouraging. However, I cannot quite understand what is so difficult about Hastings East, which leaves the bottleneck. I hope that the Government will change their view on that and hurry it up.
As for the A.261, my doubts remain but we must all hope that when the consultants have made their report on how to get up the escarpment without pulling down local houses, the answer will be satisfactory.
As for the three county roads, I can only say that the Minister has confirmed that all the answers concerning the additional TSG grant are in every case still partial and the questions have not been answered. Over the next few years, we shall be pressing the Government hard from all quarters to try to get that matter put to rights.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about the A.21. He may have detected that there was a slightly subjective element about the query. I am glad to hear that he is going to look after that. This has been a useful debate and I believe that there are many local authorities who will be very pleased to have the answers that have been given tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Before I move that the House be resumed, I suggest that we do not come back to the Committee stage before ten past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 2nd April 1987, be approved.

527
This draft order, is based on the Law Reform Committee's recommendations contained in its 24th Report, implemented in relation to England and Wales by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It also amends the law of limitation in respect of libel and slander actions.
There is a general principle that a plaintiff must commence a civil action for damages within a particular period if he is not to be barred from doing so. In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, the general principle is that the limitation period starts to run against the plaintiff from the date of the accrual of his cause of action; that is—in non-legal terms—from the date when he first has the right to bring the action. In negligence cases (apart from personal injury cases) the ordinary limitation period is six years and the cause of action accrues when the negligent act or omission constituting the breach of the duty of care results in damage. In many cases the damage follows quickly upon the negligent act and is perfectly obvious. But there are cases where the resulting damage does not arise until many years after the breach of duty; and there are other cases where the damage is not discoverable until long after the six-year limitation period has expired.
In 1980, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone referred the matter of latent damage to the Law Reform Committee, which considered that the present law was unjust. The six-year period might well elapse before the potential plaintiff could reasonably be aware that he had a right of action. On the other hand, a potential defendant might find himself exposed to a negligence action many years after his breach of duty in cases where the damage was long delayed, so that he might not be in a position either to contest the claim on the basis of his records or to meet it with adequate insurance cover.
The Law Reform Committee made a number of recommendations intended to remedy the potential injustices to plaintiffs and defendants. Article 3 takes account of the committee's principal recommendations. These were, first, that the ordinary limitation period of six years should be subject to an extension which would allow the plaintiff three years from the date of discovery or the date on which he could reasonably have discovered significant damage; and, secondly, that non-injury negligence claims should, in the absence of deliberate concealment on the part of the defendant, be subject to a long stop which would operate to bar them after 15 years from the breach of duty. Article 4 contains two consequential provisions recommended by the Law Reform Committee. The first deals with the situation where the disability (in this case unsoundness of mind) arises after the accrual of the cause of action. The second disapplies the long stop in cases involving deliberate concealment by the defendant.
Article 5 enables persons who acquire property which is subject to latent damage to succeed to the right of action in respect of that damaged property. Although this is achieved by providing successive owners with new causes of action, the same limitation periods are effectively preserved as if the damaged property had not been transferred.
528
I mentioned at the outset that the order makes some changes in respect of limitations in libel and slander actions. Article 6 takes account of changes made in England and Wales in the Administration of Justice Act 1985 by reducing the limitation period in libel from six years to three. And, like the 1985 Act, the order provides for a new extension of one year, for which leave of the High Court is necessary, where certain facts were not known to the plaintiff until after the three-year limitation period had expired. The order before us is a useful, if rather technical, law reform measure which is of considerable benefit. With that explanation, my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is my first pleasurable task to extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to his office in the Northern Ireland department. Those of us who regularly attend to Northern Ireland business in your Lordships' House appreciate the courtesy, patience and help at all times of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and indeed the help which we have always received from his private office. The noble Lord knows that he can draw on a fund of goodwill from your Lordships' House, but he has never to my knowledge taken advantage of his position.
The draft order now before the House is the first Northern Ireland order of this Parliament. It is a short order but it effects important changes in the limitation law as it applies in actions arising out of the tort of negligence. I do not know how the interested organisations have responded to the draft order and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it receives the support of the relevant parties in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained that its provisions follow those of the Latent Damage Act 1986, which in turn was based on the report of the Law Reform Committee, which had considered this complex subject for some four years before it formulated its proposals. In those circumstances I would not seek to venture to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, except to say that we agree in general from this side of the House that it will be a valuable order and we are therefore pleased to support it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I, too, should like to welcome him back to his position on the Government Front Benches and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said. We are very grateful to him for his courtesy and we also congratulate him on his continual cheerfulness in difficult circumstances.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has the advantage of legal knowledge. The order is somewhat technical and I have only one point to raise. I understand that this order is to bring the law

529
in the Province into line with that of the mainland, and paragraph 9F(1) reads:
"An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 9A applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date … on which there occurred any act or omission".
There are further qualifications, but the one question that I should like to put as a layman is: is 15 years not a very long time before which justice must be seen to be done?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I too associate myself with the words of welcome which have been expressed across the Floor of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Since taking up his appointment in the Northern Ireland office I too have found him to be most helpful and courteous in every way.
However, I feel that I must draw his attention to the concern which has been expressed by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland about the whole question of law reform. It has already been stated that these orders are couched in somewhat legalistic terms and only those with a legal background—and we have to be grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in the House tonight—or who have otherwise been fully briefed would he aware of the full implications of these orders.
Only this morning I received a communication from the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland complaining about the whole system of law reform in Northern Ireland. It draws my attention to the fact that the society feels very dissatisfied with the way in which legal changes and law reform are debated in this House. It says quite clearly that totally insufficient attention is given to issues of law reform and, consequently, changes in the law because they are brought to this House through Orders in Council and in the absence of adequate debate and scrutiny. I think anyone looking around the House this evening would not dare to disagree with those sentiments.
It has been explained to me that in 1965 the Law Commission was brought into being to look into the law reform problems of England and Wales. The following year the Scottish Law Reform Society was formed. In Northern Ireland there is no comparable organisation. In the 22 years of its existence since 1966, no Northern Ireland voice has been heard on the Law Commission. There has been no Northern Ireland appointment from the legal profession—and I am certainly not here to defend the legal profession in Northern Ireland—and no Northern Ireland voice has been heard in the deliberations which have taken place in the Law Commission.
It appears that behind these orders, decisions will be taken and advice will be given by senior civil servants in the various Northern Ireland offices. I hope that the representations, which I understand have already been made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Lord Chancellor over a month ago, will be given urgent attention and that the recommendations from the Northern Ireland Office contained in the submissions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be acted upon. It may be that there is nothing offensive in these orders, but that is not clear to someone like
530
myself who has no legal experience and who does not represent a Northern Ireland constituency, as I did in another place at another time.
When such orders come before the other House a Member of Parliament has all the requisite means at his disposal to make the required inquiries. Sometimes he can be inundated with advice from particular sources in Northern Ireland. However, that does not happen in your Lordships' House. We are a backwater in relation to the promulgation and the enforcement of legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify this order, and the other orders are which very much the same, or they will be understood only by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I think I am quite at liberty in saying that the noble Lord himself, outside of the brief which he has obtained from a civil servant would not be entirely aware of all the ramifications of these orders. It is in the interests of this House and this legislation that the justice of these orders should be clearly explained. That would ease the position in Northern Ireland where, as I say, great concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I hope that he will be able, through his honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other House to consider with some urgency the representations which have already been made by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken in reply to my moving of this order have been more than kind about my reappearance in this position, speaking on Northern Ireland. I reply to them and, indeed, to everybody who has been so kind to me in Northern Ireland and in your Lordships' House with two words: "I blush". As your Lordships will be aware, the praise which is directed at me should be directed at those who support and brief me through the long hours of night and day and, indeed, the early morning, too.
It is a great pleasure to serve everybody in Northern Ireland and to do one's best in your Lordships' House having that responsibility for Northern Ireland. I am most grateful for the comments which have been made and pari passu I am delighted that all three noble Lords who have spoken will be able, for the time being at least, to give us the benefit of their wisdom, experience and hard work on Northern Ireland orders—though perhaps not necessarily orders as complicated or as technical as those now before us.
I begin by attempting to reply to at least two comments. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked who had been consulted and what recommendations we had received. The first order was generally welcomed by all those who commented upon it. The Law Society of Northern Ireland was, I am given to understand, content but the Law Society made a plea for an up-to-date print of the Statute of Limitations as amended. We are of the opinion that the best solution to the point which has been made by the Law Society—probably with some justification—would be consolidation. I am able to tell the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, that we are considering such an order. I do not want to commit my noble and learned colleagues and my

531
right honourable and learned colleagues in another place to such consolidation or to when it will take place. We are considering the position and that is what I stress this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the integrated organisations replied. There was no objection to the draft order made by any of the interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, quite rightly, had one query regarding 15 years and he quoted, I think, new Section 9F in Article 3 of the order. However, I am given to understand that 15 years is considered as a longstop period of time barring. The Law Reform Committee considers it a balance between the extension given to plaintiffs and the fact that defendants would have to answer fairly stale claims, as I stressed in my opening remarks. It could be difficult for them to have total recall of what might have been done or the courses of action that might have given rise to a claim for negligence or something of that kind. The Law Reform Committee decided that 15 years was a reasonable period and we also believe this to a fair period.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his comment. He mentioned the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that is the same as or part of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier. I shall reply to him in the same vein as I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked me about law reform in Northern Ireland. That point has been raised by the Law Society with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is being given careful consideration currently by my right honourable friend in consultation with my noble and learned friend.
I should like to try to put at rest the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the Law Society. We are taking those anxieties seriously. We hope, again without time commitment, that we may have some news for them in the future. The noble Lord was most kind about anyone with a knowledge of law replying in your Lordships' House. I am no lawyer; I am a mere chartered accountant. However, 10 years ago I had a fairly solid apprenticeship in the law. I may have recourse to one of the Bills discussed by your Lordships' House 10 years ago when I deal with a later order this evening.
I agree that this order is of benefit to lawyers. That is not to say that we feel any malevolence towards the legal profession. This order covers a complicated subject and your Lordships would probably agree that it should best be left to the experts. I hope that I have given an adequate presentation of the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.
The noble Lord said: The order, which corresponds to the Occupiers' Liabilty Act 1984 in
532
England and Wales, deals with two distinct aspects of the civil liability in Northern Ireland of an occupier to persons on his land or premises. Article 3 is concerned with the duty of an occupier to persons who are not regarded in law as his "visitors". Article 4 concerns the extent to which an occupier of business premises may permit visitors to come on his land or premises on terms which exclude or restrict his liability.
The purpose of Article 3, as far as liability to trespassers is concerned, is to restate on a statutory basis (and I hope clarify) the present common law rules derived from the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in British Railways Board v.Herrington, which involved the liability of an occupier to a child trespasser. The decision was unanimous in favour of the child but contained several different lines of reasoning. As a result my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone asked the Law Commission to consider the matter of liability to trespassers. The Law Commission recommended that the matter should be placed on a statutory footing.
Article 3 again follows the Law Commission's recommendations in applying also to persons who are not the occupier's visitors but who are nevertheless on the land or premises with lawful authority. Persons exercising private rights of way come within this category, as do those exercising rights under access orders and access agreements. This should further clarify the law.
Article 4 is intended to facilitate an occupier of business premises such as farmland to permit visits on his land for recreational or educational purposes. It does this by altering very slightly the boundaries of business liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977—that was my apprenticeship which took place 10 years ago—so as to enable the occupier to permit visits for recreational or educational purposes, such as rock climbing or bird watching, on terms which effectively exclude or restrict his liability for the dangerous state of the premises. But such a restriction or exclusion of liability is circumscribed by Article 4. I have already indicated that the visit must be for recreational or educational purposes.
Secondly those purposes must not fall within the business purposes of the occupier, so that the occupier of the cinema or safari park, for example, will still remain subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as far as his ability to exclude or restrict liability is concerned. Thirdly, an occupier will not be able to avail himself of Article 4 in respect of his liability for dangerous activities on the land. Again, in those circumstances the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 will continue to apply to the business premises in relation to any such purported exclusion or restriction of liability. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 an occupier of business premises cannot effectively exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957; and any such exclusions or restrictions in respect of other loss or damage are subject to a test of reasonableness.
Finally, I refer your Lordships to the one change in the order since it was published as a proposal. It is a

533
drafting change. The second limb of the definition of "road" in Article 3(9) has been expanded slightly. The words "or way" are intended to cover public rights of way which would not ordinarily be considered to be roads as such; public footpaths would come into this category. This amended definition corresponds closely to the expression "highway" in the English 1984 Act.
With that brief run around the order, I hope that I have been able to give some clarification. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to endorse the reservations of my noble friend Lord Fitt about legislation by Order in Council. From these Benches we have been consistently critical of legislation by Orders in Council. It is one of the penalties of direct rule, and it is a matter to which we shall return during the debate on Thursday.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive explanation of the significance of the Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order. His explanation of orders is invariably good and comprehensive. It is a brief order. Its essence is to be found in Articles 3 and 4, which follow the relevant sections of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Article 3, unlike Article 4, follows the law of England, Wales and Scotland. When it was introduced it was supported by the Law Commission and the Royal Commission on civil liability. It seems to me that we can follow that guidance with regard to Northern Ireland.
As the noble Lord has explained, Article 4 deals with a consequence of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and restricts the liability of the landowner towards persons who are permitted on his land for recreation or educational purposes, and as a matter of goodwill. This was an area of law over which there had been much uncertainty and difficulty. An ever-growing body of townspeople wish to share in all the pleasures of the countryside and we hope that this relaxation will encourage farmers to allow people increased access to the countryside.
However, I have this question to ask the Minister on Article 4. The principle contained in Article 4 does not apply in Scotland. When the Occupiers' Liability Bill was before Parliament in 1983 the Minister's Scottish brethren deliberately decided not to introduce this amendment for the law of Scotland. I believe that the Law Society of England and Wales on that occasion had very strong reservations with regard to the principle of Article 4. The Minister will therefore have anticipated my question. Can he tell the House why the Northern Ireland department has decided not to follow the Scottish precedent but to follow the English and Welsh precedent? This would be a very appropriate question for the assembly to pronounce upon, but the assembly is not in being.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what organisations in Northern Ireland were consulted about Article 4. Will he say whether or not reservations of objections were expressed by those
534
organisations? Or were all content to go along with the English and Welsh precedent?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. Again, I am indebted to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for their views. Following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, I am interested in confirmation that the law is being brought into line with that of England and Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said, in some cases the Scots wished to go down a different road. However, I see no reason not to support the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to hint that he might be supporting the law of my nation as opposed to that of England and Wales. I took the precaution of bringing with me the relevant statutes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I note that it is split into two halves. Part II of the Act covers the amendment of law for Scotland. However, I think that no-one in your Lordships' House would wish me to go too far down the road as to why there is Part I and Part II of that happy Act. The Act is split between the law of England and Wales and Scotland.
With regard to the matter before us this evening, Northern Ireland has traditionally followed the same legal principles as England and Wales on the subject of occupiers' liability at common law and in statute form. We see this with the Occupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. This corresponds to the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 in England and Wales. Accordingly we decided to keep the law on the same footing and not to follow the Scottish mode. We believed for perfectly valid reasons that we should keep the occupiers' liability principles on the same line as those of England and Wales. We do not believe that there is any loss of right to members of the public. I shall not go into too much detail this evening about what might have been done or the particular Acts. I mentioned the example of a cinema, or an animal park. The two examples that I gave were visits on to land for educational or recreational purposes which, in my view and that, I believe, of noble Lords, would be an infrequent and irregular occurrence.
It was with this in mind that we drew the business liability definitions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 a little more tightly. However, we think that the amendment to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 should follow the English amendment with regard to occupiers' liability because we wish Northern Ireland occupiers' liability to remain in step with England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had one other query about this aspect of Article 4. That is more complicated than the answers I have been able to give him this evening. Perhaps I may write to him with my traditional brevity.
I am very grateful for the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I hope that I have answered the queries raised by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to speak at the same time to the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987.
The two draft orders—the substantive Northern Ireland order and the consequential amendment order—are both based on the recommendations of the Law Commission's Report No. 122 entitled The Incapacitated Principal. The reason for this title will become evident to your Lordships as I proceed through my explanation of the orders before us. In doing so, both these orders closely correspond to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 which relates to England and Wales.
As the law stands in Northern Ireland, a power of attorney automatically comes to an end if the donor becomes mentally incapable. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, however, that is the time when he (or possibly she, but for the purposes of the order before us this evening I shall continue in the masculine mode) most needs someone to manage his affairs. In such circumstances his relatives can apply to the office of care and protection in the High Court for the appointment of a controller.
However, noble Lords—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Fitt-will be aware that that is a very formal and often expensive and somewhat cumbersome procedure. Accordingly, the Law Commission recommended that the law provide for a special kind of power of attorney known as the enduring power of attorney which would be capable of continuing beyond the donor's mental incapacity. The commission devised a detailed scheme with built-in safeguards for the donor, the attorney, and third parties dealing with the attorney. The scheme, which is closely followed in the substantive order provides a relatively informal means of managing a mentally incapacitated person's affairs without resorting to administration through the High Court. I draw attention at the bottom of page 3 to Article 4. This article sets out the characteristics of an enduring power of attorney. Unlike an ordinary power of attorney, an enduring power will be subject to certain requirements as to form and execution. It will be in a prescribed form, it will have to be executed both by the donor and the attorney and it will have to contain certain explanatory information making it plain to the donor the nature of the power he is creating.
The attorney has a duty under Article 6 to take steps to register the enduring power in the High Court as soon as he has reason to believe that the donor is mentally incapable of managing his affairs or that he is becoming so incapable. The attorney need not wait until the donor is totally incapable, but before applying to the High Court for the registration of the enduring power he must notify certain specified relatives as well as the donor himself, unless the court allows the attorney to dispense with such notices.
536
Schedule 1 on page 14 gives an idea of some of the persons who might need to be notified, but this is not an exclusive list.
Once an enduring power is registered, the affairs of the donor are almost completely in the hands of the attorney, although the court has a supervisory role and may exercise certain functions in relation to the donor's affairs. These functions are set out in Article 10.
Thus far I have dealt mainly with the safeguards which the order provides for the donor, but the House will appreciate that it is important that third parties such as purchasers of the property of the donor should be able to deal with the attorney in good faith, confident in the knowledge that any such transactions would be effective and would not be liable simply to be set aside. Article 11 provides the necessary protection. It also protects the attorney who acts in good faith.
I go on briefly to the technical change in the order, as it was published as a proposal. Article 5(3) as it originally stood was in the same terms as Section 3(3) of the English 1985 Act, in that it enabled the attorney to assume all the donor's trust powers and give a valid receipt for capital money. Such a provision was necessary in English legislation primarily to cater for married co-owners to enable one spouse to act as attorney for the other and to deal effectively with the matrimonial home. This occurs because joint tenancies in England and Wales operate on the basis of statutory trusts for sale. But such a provision is not necessary in the current state of the law of property in Northern Ireland and its width was queried by some of those who commented on the proposals before us. The revised version in the order before us takes account of these comments.
In conclusion, I turn to the Northern Ireland consequential amendment order. The object of this amendment order is to amend Section 7(3) of the English 1985 Act, which provides for the reception of office copies of English registered enduring powers throughout the United Kingdom as evidence of their contents and also of the fact that they have been registered. The consequential amendment order extends this provision to office copies of Northern Ireland registered enduring powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.—(Lord Lyell).
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has once again given the House a comprehensive explanation of the provisions of the order and of its significance. The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 was welcomed in every corner of your Lordships' House when it was introduced in 1985. I am sure that relatives, friends and professional people who have charge of the property and affairs of elderly people in Northern Ireland will similarly welcome this important draft order.
The 1985 Act was not only well received in your Lordships' House, but it has been very well received in England and Wales. It has been extensively used. Clearly the concept of an enduring power of attorney—in other words a power of attorney that will endure in spite of the supervening mental

537
incapacity of the donor of the power—has met a very real need. I welcome the draft order.
The Minister has explained what the order will achieve, but it will have to be read in due course in conjunction with the important regulations which are yet to be issued by the department. I confine myself for a minute or two to the order. I note that it reproduces all the sections of the 1985 Act apart from Section 3(3), which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has referred to, and also Section 2(6). As far as I can see it does not reproduce Section 2(6). The subsection reads:
"Where an instrument differs in an immaterial respect in form or mode of expression from the prescribed form the instrument shall be treated as sufficient in point of form and expression".
That is a valuable saving provision. I may have missed this provision in the draft order, but, unless I have missed it, can the Minister explain why this has been omitted from the draft order? It is extremely important that the power when executed should be in the prescribed form as laid down by the regulations. But the power may not follow the prescribed form in some immaterial respect. In that event would the power be valid in Northern Ireland?
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained the significance of Article 5(3). I was fascinated by his explanation. I am sure that it must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.
The order refers in a number of articles to the regulations to be made by the department. I should mention to the House that experience over the last 18 months has shown that the regulations which were made under the 1985 Act are by now seen to be in need of provision. A number of practical difficulties or uncertainties have been encountered. These have been the subject of two very important articles by Mr. P.D. Lewis, an Assistant Public Trustee, published in the Law Society Gazette. They are well worth reading. Some points have been the subject of a hearing before the Master, but I am not aware of a hearing before a judge of the Court of Protection.
I do not propose to detail the almost two dozen points of uncertainty and difficulty arising out of the regulations, but we want an assurance from the Minister that the regulations to be made by the Northern Ireland Office will incorporate all the lessons that have been learned in England and Wales since the regulations were made under the terms of the 1985 Act. With those few comments, I heartily approve the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, we are again on technical lawyers' ground and I do not propose to argue at length on a subject in which I am not qualified. I wish to raise one matter on which I am not quite clear but which interests me for personal reasons. It relates to Article 5(4). This enables someone who has enduring powers of attorney to look after his own interest if it is in line with what the donor might be expected to do or have done. If the donor is suffering from mental disability, who will, where reasonable, contest any such procedure for him or her? Subject to this point, I support the two orders.
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a number of points. He was kind enough to give me some indication of what might be in his mind on this measure so at least I had some warning. The noble Lord asked about Articles 5(3) and 3(3) in England and Wales. I hope that I covered that first query in my opening remarks.
The noble Lord also said that he was a little worried about the provision corresponding to Section 2(6) of the 1985 Act in England and Wales, which I am given to understand allows for immaterial departures from the prescribed form. I think the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will agree with me that we should leave this definition of immaterial departures et alia to the lawyers. I am advised that this point is already covered in the general provision, which may be in umbrella form, of Section 21 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. This allows for variations in statutory forms.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also inquired about the regulations. We are studying very carefully the form of the regulations, which, naturally, have yet to be made for Northern Ireland. We shall take account of the experience of the measures in England and Wales and indeed of the points made by the noble Lord. He has been merciful and has not raised 24 points with me this evening but I am sure that those 24 points will be known to my office and we shall certainly take notice of them. The noble Lord will be gratified that the order was generally welcomed when we had consultation around Northern Ireland. Two of the main bodies which welcomed the order were the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the General Consumer Society for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, although not a lawyer, courageously ventured into Article 5(4) dealing with the power which enabled the attorney to benefit himself or others without the consent of the donor to the extent that he—the attorney—acts as the donor might have acted or does what the donor might have been expected to do to meet the attorney's or any other person's needs. I hope that that goes some way to assisting the curiosity and concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. However, I give this proviso. Provided the attorney acts within the limits of paragraph (4) as set out in Article 5, he does not need the consent of the court to any action which he may take. Article 5(4) spells out what the attorney might wish to do. The third line of paragraph 4 says,
"(without obtaining any consent) act under the power so as to benefit himself or other persons … to the following extent but no further".
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) would give reasonable grounds for the attorney to act either as the donor would have been expected to act himself or as he, the donor, might have expected his attorney to have acted, given that the donor would have recognised that he would not be able to take action of the type which we are discussing this evening. Article 5(4) gives reasonable grounds to the attorney to act in accordance with the apparent wishes of the donor;

539
and watching over all of his activities there is still the court. That is a fairly long-term hypothesis and goes a good way beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, had in mind.
I hope that I have covered the noble Lord's point. I salute him for his courage in venturing into something of a legal area. If I have not covered it totally tonight, I shall amplify as necessary in writing, with, I hope, clarity and brevity. I trust that I have covered all the queries on the order. I am immensely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the three orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enduring Powers of Attorney (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1987
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th April be approved.—(Lord Lye11.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.8 to 8.10 p.m.]

Channel Tunnel Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions with respect to acquisition of land]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
"(7) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, in assessing the compensation to be paid in respect of any interest in and acquired under this Act, account shall be taken of any increase in the value of that interest which is attributable to the proposed or actual construction of the facilities mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 1(7) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: During the five and a half years in which I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House I have not spoken very often, let alone been brave enough to move an amendment. On the last occasion on which I spoke it was for one minute and seventeen seconds, after which I was bought a drink by a Member of the Government Front Bench on the undertaking that I would persuade my Cross-Bench colleagues to follow my example. I embark therefore with some trepidation and regret that I may detain the Committee slightly longer on this occasion.
This amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 137. I should like to emphasise first that there is no
540
disagreement with the use of compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land for the terminal site of the Channel Tunnel. The terminal cannot be built just anywhere. The amendment seeks to ensure that where land is compulsorily acquired for essential commercial purposes full development value should be paid.
Secondly, I assure the Committee that this is not in any way a local or provincial effort in the South-East to put right what is widely regarded as an injustice, but is an attempt to clarify and I hope to correct the basis of compensation paid where land is acquired by compulsory purchase on behalf of enterprises which are strictly commercial. This is not a matter of interest solely to property owners in the immediate vicinity of the Channel Tunnel terminal; it is of considerable concern to property owners everywhere.
This Government have already returned to the private sector a considerable number of state-owned corporations and are about to return some more. These enterprises when state controlled have been able to use compulsory purchase powers and pay compensation under existing use value terms. It is right that this should continue to be so where the land being acquired is needed for the development of the country's basic infrastructure, road, rail, etc., but I emphasise the word "basic".
Where land is required for the ancillary activities associated with such aspects—for example, duty free shops, motorway services, retail shops or reservoir yacht clubs—such land should be paid for at full development value. Is it equitable that a profit-making enterprise should be subsidised by being able to acquire its commercial site at existing use value? I am told, for instance, that the annual turnover on a duty-free shop may be as high as £4,000 per square foot, as opposed to £1,600 per square foot at Marks and Spencer in Oxford Street.
The Channel Tunnel is, we are told, a private enterprise commercial venture in which no government money is involved, but is not the land purchased by the Government for the terminal being leased to Eurotunnel on favourable terms? Is not this a government subsidy to the operators at the expense of those dispossessed? If for any reason the tunnel is not built, I understand the land will not be offered to the orginal owners at acquisition prices but sold at full development value with planning permission. If that is so, that is an additional reason for full development value to be paid to the original owners. If full development value is not paid, surely in the event of the tunnel not being built the Crichel Down principle should apply.
The Minister will, I am sure, tell the Committee that the owners of land at the Channel Tunnel terminal have all settled. I understand that not all contracts have been exchanged, but even if they have all settled that should not make it impossible to make additional payments if the Committee agrees to make this amendment. It should be borne in mind that many landowners have agreed terms with Eurotunnel under the pressure of having otherwise to deal with the district valuer.
I am sure that the Minister will also tell the Committee that there are precedents for the

541
procedures as laid down in this Bill. Just because there are precedents they need not necessarily be right. I am sure that the Minister will tell the Committee that the Channel Tunnel is a special case, but how many more special cases are there to be in the future? I contend that a multiplicity of special cases makes bad law.
How many more commercial enterprises are to be assisted to purchase at favourable terms before this injustice is corrected? With the Government's programme of privatisation the whole spectrum of the acquisition of property has changed. The private companies thus created will inherit, or have inherited, compulsory purchase powers. Surely it is time to clarify and correct the injustices and anomalies that the change has brought about. The situation today is not comparable to that of 10 years ago. Even if the Minister suggests a review of all the procedures one must ask when and how long it will take, and how many more special cases would have passed along the motorway before it happens.
I once again emphasise that these compensation terms under compulsory purchase are not just a matter of concern to a corner of South-East England. They are of concern not only to those affected by the proposed Channel Tunnel terminal but also to those whose land may be acquired in the future for commercial developments ancillary to new motorways, reservoirs or airport extensions.
There is a substantial matter of principle involved, brought about to a large extent by the Government's policies of privatisation. I am not criticising that policy. As the Government have moved to support and encourage free enterprise surely they must also move to correct the situations that that policy has brought about. The Government have changed the circumstances; they should accept that they have to change the character.
I accept that there may be a need for compulsory purchase powers to apply to a development of this nature even though it is to be carried out by a private company, but I do not accept that where that company uses such powers for development of a purely commercial nature it should benefit from a compensation code which was evolved for schemes of public benefit. A similar amendment was considered at the Committee stage in the other place and defeated only on the casting vote of the chairman of that Committee. It was supported by members of all parties. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support the powerful case move by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, with such strength and lucidity. Clearly there will be injustices here. Owner-occupying farmers, as well as other landowners, will be dispossessed in circumstances in which there will not be a transaction between willing buyer and willing seller because there will be no willing sellers if the land is to be parted with merely at existing use values. The developers, who will be the buyers and whose position is reinforced by an Act of Parliament, will be in a strong position to make killings out of a resale, if that is the right expression. However, the developers will undoubtedly be able to resell the land at development values to people
542
operating hotels, workshops and, on a smaller scale, cafes, newspaper offices and goodness knows what. That presumably will apply even to Government departments, such as the Post Office, and to privatised industries, such as British Telecom, which want to occupy some of the land, and the developers will be able to charge them a proper development value. Therefore I suggest that there is an injustice.
I hope that in replying my noble friend will not say, "Yes, there may be an injustice or there may not, but this is not the moment to change the law". Surely if the law contains, or results in, a manifest injustice which will operate in a particular case, that injustice should not be perpetuated simply because the Government are unable or unwilling to find time to have the law changed on a broader basis in the reasonable future. So often we hear the argument, "No, this may he a good thing but we cannot do it now because we must do it right across the board or not at all", even though it results in or perpetuates an injustice. I hope that on this occasion, as it is manifest that there will be an injustice unless something on the lines of this amendment is accepted, my noble friend will consider the matter sympathetically.
The Marquess of Salisbury: I also wish to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I entirely agree with what the last speaker said. It seems to me that one of the reasons this procedure has been selected, regardless of its impact on individuals, is that it is an easy way of dealing with a complicated problem. It enables the Government to push through the legislation perhaps far quicker than under any other method of arbitration or purchase by agreement. I do not know whether the Government intend to lease the land to operators at concessionary rates, or whether they are to ask the full market value, but in either case it will be achieved at the expense of the original landowner. It may be that because there are few landowners in this case Her Majesty's Government feel that they can ride roughshod over them.
I should like to look back at what happened in previous debates on other town and country planning Bills. I looked at the 1947 Bill, and in your Lordships' House it appears that the then Government suggested that under planning Bills as proposed only a few rich people would be affected, notably Dukes and Earls. In reply to that debate my father noted that Marquesses were not included. However, he pointed out that a great many small landowners would suffer considerable hardship; and that in any event there should be one law for everyone and not one for the rich and one for the poor.
The general principle on which I understood the Conservative Party was to operate with regard to the valuation of land, and which was adopted by the Conservative Party, was enunciated by the then Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Kilmuir. In introducing to your Lordships' House the Second Reading of the 1959 Town and Country Planning Bill he said:
"My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to put compensation for compulsory acquisition of land on a market value basis. The Bill will put right what has come to be very widely felt as an injustice—the two-price system; one for private sales, the other for public or compulsory purchases".

543
It will be recalled that the Franks Committee went out of its way to comment on its dissatisfaction with the procedures relating to land which arises from the basis of compensation. Further in the same speech the late Lord Kilmuir said:
"The new basis of compensation under the Bill is founded on the principle that the owner of land acquired should receive the value which he could expect to get for his land in a private sale in the open market if there were no proposal by any public authority to buy the land".
That seems to be quite clear and whether one is talking about compensation or land values it does not appear that the principle is different.
It seems to me that it does not tally with the proposals in the present Bill, for by using the compulsory purchase procedure Her Majesty's Government have sidestepped the guidelines as laid down by Lord Kilmuir when referring to the process of creating two values for land. We know that the value of this land will escalate enormously once the Bill becomes law. I suggest that the underlying value of the land earmarked for development is clearly higher than the agricultural value, and that private buyers would surely be willing to pay a higher price. In any event, in this case the cost of the acquisition of land is peanuts in relation to the total cost of the scheme. I quote Lord Kilmuir again:
"By and large, purchasers of land will not now pay development value unless they are certain that they will be able to develop the land; and they cannot be certain of this unless planning permission has been given. Development values, therefore, depend on planning permissions".
In this case planning consent will clearly be forthcoming.
Lord Kilmuir went further and said:
"There is obviously a strong sense of grievance if land is bought from an owner at a low price for some public purpose and it is then sold at a substantially higher price for a different purpose".
I do not think that the principle is impaired whether it is for a different purpose or for leasing. As the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has already pointed out, if Her Majesty's Government are relying on precedents, they should rely on good ones. I believe that any likely precedents affecting this case should be classified as bad.
One is dealing with something of a jungle when dealing with planning and valuations. However, I should like to draw your attention to what appears to be a similar state of affairs with a different outcome. We know that when a county draws up a structure plan part of the land in that plan is for one development or another. In that case one can have two fields side by side. One will retain its agricultural value and the other, being sold to developers and having planning consent, will have an enormously enhanced value of perhaps 200 times that of the field next door. But in this case the owner of the land will get the full benefit of the sale whether it is sold to a private developer or to a local authority. There are many other cases, but I shall not detain the Committee any longer.
I should like to make one more quick quotation from Lord Kilmuir. He said:
"We … need to know the answer to the question: 'With what planning permissions could the land be expected to be sold in the open
544
market if it were not wanted by a public authority?"'.—[Official Report, 14/4/59; cols. 578–583.]
For all these reasons, in this case it is surely right to establish what is equitable. What this Bill proposes is not. By adopting the route of compulsory purchase Her Majesty's Government are guilty of a deliberate attempt to prevent the landowners obtaining a reasonable value for their land. This seems to me a grave injustice. The amendment seeks to redress this and I therefore support it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I hope the Committee will support this amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and by my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Renton. I do not want to repeat the points they have made but I hope that the Committee will seize the real difference between compulsory purchase compensation in the public interest for infrastructure, as opposed to compensation for private commercial enterprises as envisaged in this Bill and indeed, as I see it, to be envisaged in future privatisation Bills.
First, I must point out something that Members of the Committee all know and my noble friend Lord Belstead better than anyone. Agriculture at the moment is facing possibly the most difficult period it has faced since the 1920s. We are all at a loss as to how to deal with the problem and concerned that it is resulting in the whole rural economy suffering. One painless way which has been mentioned by many of your Lordships, and not least by Sub-Committee D, is taking land out of agricultural production. Such a policy will not help the rural economy at all unless the proper, true compensation returns to the owner, and under this Bill it will not. It will go to the speculator. It will go to the City yuppie, to the developer—call them what you like—but it will not go to the real owner.
Our amendment would correct such an injustice so detrimental to our rural well-being. I shall give just one small example to illustrate this point. Take the tenant dairy farmer who is evicted (I use the word "evicted" probably incorrectly) under the present code. He is paid a derisory figure, depending on the value of the land. Unless development value is added to this sum it will in no way allow him to start again, not necessarily in farming—far from it—but in some other business. I totally fail to understand why in such a case he is not even given roll-over relief on his dairy quota; but that is another point.
Secondly, I must point out something else which worries me. I call it "fair trading". This was a point made most forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the Second Reading debate on 16th February (at col. 903 of Hansard). How can it be fair in respect of those who set up shops, in the Channel Tunnel area in this case, to pay only agricultural prices for their land, whereas next-door—in Dover maybe—a similar trader would have to pay the market rate? If the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, were here today—I believe he has a shop in Dover—I think he would feel fairly strongly about this.
I believe that this amendment is a precedent for compulsory purchase orders in future privatisations,

545
and it is vital. We are promised more privatisation in the interests of greater efficiency and in returning money and power back to the individual. Fine, but let these compensation terms be reasonable and let them be paid to the individual.
I have been over this compensation course, if I may say so, many times before, not least in connection with the 1981 Act, with my noble friend Lord Caithness, who I see is in the Chamber. I accept that the Government have listened and that they have made some alterations. What is more important, they have given us hope that there is the chance of a more reasonable code. For instance, my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Mitchell, promised to look at this specific point (at cols. 527 and 532 of Hansard) in Committee on 15th January. I ask my noble friend Lord Belstead what is happening.
I just cannot accept the, "Yes, Minister", approach that says, "We have never done anything like this before, Minister. Indeed it is not allowed for in the 1961 compensation code". My noble friend Lord Renton made that point very forcibly a moment ago.
The situation is totally different today. First, this is 1987 and not 1961. In my opinion the Government are, quite correctly, entering upon a massive scheme of privatisation—privatisation for commercial and profitable purposes. I always thought the Government believed that wealth should be held by the individual, and so I ask my noble friend to ensure that the Government practise what they preach. If he cannot accept the amendment this evening, I ask him to come back to your Lordships later with something to show that the Government have at least seized the merit of our argument.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to support this amendment but I do so with considerable trepidation because my involvement is massive. It is necessary for me to go into it in some detail so that the Committee can judge just where I stand and whether I am biased. Then I hope I shall be allowed to continue to talk about the principle of this matter, at least to some extent.
The involvement I have is that of a landowner. 1 own the land on which the portal of the tunnel is to be built, with a part of the terminal. The Committee will know that the tunnel then passes beneath the hill and almost emerges again on my land, where there is a longish section of cut-and-fill tunnel, and I shall obviously be involved with it in some way or another. Further than that, I have personal ownership within the town of Folkestone and I was a party to forming a trust some time ago which now has considerable ownership there. Furthermore, and perhaps contrary to what may be believed, I have not settled with Eurotunnel as yet. I know that in another place it was believed by some people that Eurotunnel had settled with the relatively few landowners in the district. That is not so in my case.
Having said that, perhaps I can encapsulate my comments by saying that my involvement cannot be that far behind that of the Prime Minister, the President of France and the chairman of Eurotunnel
546
himself. But there is a principle here to be thought of very carefully indeed in view, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, of the future privatisation schemes that may come along.
In the past compulsory purchase of land has been well understood. It may on occasions have been resented but it has been well understood, and on the whole I think the law has worked extremely well. The person who owned the land was not allowed to anticipate what was going on in regard to that piece of land but was allowed to argue with the district valuer in terms of what perhaps lay round and about and what the future might hold in the way of perhaps housing development, commercial development or what-have-you. Compulsory purchase was used for the kind of infrastructure that has already been described; namely, hospitals, roads, schools and developments of that kind. It seemed and still seems to me that that is a very proper and right way to go about the matter.
Now we have a different situation on our hands. For many reasons of their own—and obviously for reasons of the treaty and making arrangements with France among other things—the Government have decided that compulsory purchase must be used in this case. So the seller is forced to sell under the rules by which he would have been forced to sell by reason of matters such as infrastructure, which are so important to the community. However, not everybody feels that the tunnel is best for the community; some people believe that the community will survive very well without the tunnel. Most people in the district are against it, whether they live in Folkestone or in Dover.
However, worse still to me is that the land is to be bought at existing use value, which is a very small value, and then leased on to Eurotunnel, which is a commercial concern beholden to its shareholders. Let us make no mistake about it; Eurotunnel exists to make money, and for no other reason whatsoever. Other people in the Government may feel that it is a good thing to have a tunnel but so far as concerns Eurotunnel, it is out to make money for its backers and its shareholders.
So I believe that we are presented with a position in which money is being taken under compulsion from one citizen and put into the purse of another citizen, the first citizen being a landowner, whether large or small, and the second being the shareholder of Eurotunnel. I suggest that that is entirely wrong and unfair and is a very un-English way to go about it. Furthermore it is a very dangerous way. We have touched on what may or may not be precedents in the past but to have this measure as it now stands as a precedent for the future is extremely dangerous.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall speak very briefly on this amendment. It is interesting that we have spent more time on it than we did discussing the safety aspects earlier. I accept the principle of the amendment. I think that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is now sitting as deputy chairman of the committee, about sheer

547
fairness was absolutely reasonable. This is a commercial venture and the land will be taken for purely commercial reasons, or rather it may partly be for social reasons, because of the nature of the tunnel itself, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, the purpose of building the tunnel is for profit. It may turn out to be of convenience to people but that is not why it is being built.
The idea that land should be acquired compulsorily by one group of people from another group of people and then later sold on at a greatly enhanced value seems to be quite wrong, although when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was speaking I had the feeling that I should not be at all surprised to find that there are a few Marquesses and Earls who will have a stake in the Channel Tunnel when it gets going and they may very well have money loosed from one pocket to get it back in another. However, many of the points that have been raised have already been considered by my colleagues in another place when they discussed this Bill.
I find myself in a strange position in supporting the landowners of England in their sale of land, from wherever they originally got it, hoping that they will get a higher development price for it. However, the fairness of the situation indicates that this is the only way. Like my colleagues in another place, I support this amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to put his mind at rest. He is also supporting the tenants. That may make him feel a little happier.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Some of my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Carmichael, have argued forcefully that compulsory purchase compensation as a matter of principle is unjust if it is to be in favour of a commercial undertaking which is then going to benefit from the compulsory acquisition of the land concerned. First of all I should like to make the point that this Bill is applying the compensation code, which so far as I know has been the law of the land for some time. Indeed, it is the law applying to both commerical and non-commercial projects. This amendment seeks to create a unique exception by providing for enhanced compensation for some but not all of the compulsory acquisitions authorised by the Bill. Under the code the valuation by the district valuer with the right of appeal to the land tribunal is based on the market value of land: namely, the price a willing seller would realise on the open market in the absence of the development for which the land is being taken.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury compared this argument about the basis of paying compensation very unfavourably to the comments of the late Lord Kilmuir when he was introducing the 1959 planning Act. I should like to say to my noble friend that the provisions of the 1959 Act are those which are in
548
force now and which are being applied by this present Bill. The 1959 Act corrected the previously unfair compensation provisions by ensuring that compensation ought to be based on the market value of the land being taken reflecting what the owner actually loses.
However, there is a little more to the story than that because the market value of land of course will reflect any existing planning permissions and may reflect an element of hope value, which is the value of the land based on the possibility that planning permission for a certain type of development might in the future be given; alternatively, those affected can apply to the local planning authority for a certificate of appropriate alternative development under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. In effect, such a certificate is a form of hypothetical planning permission, which can have the effect of increasing the value of the land for compensation purposes. So someone who is dispossessed of land by the threat of compulsory purchase is not just left under the law as it stands and the code as we have it with just the existing value. There can be hope value and there is Section 17 concerning alternative development certificates.
I have the feeling that the Committee is very well versed in this matter. Nonetheless I clearly received the message from the Committee that it was felt to be unfair. My noble friend Lord Cornwallis started the debate by saying that it was a question of the general principle. I think that some of the members of the Committee, and in particular my noble friend Lord Radnor, have targeted their remarks on this Bill and said that this basis of compensation is unfair in the case of this particular Bill.
Perhaps I may say in reply that there are many precedents for compulsory purchase powers and for the compensation code applying to works by private developers. The history of compulsory purchase largely begins with the private Bills promoted by railway companies in the last century and the standard provisions in the resulting Acts have developed into the present code. There are more recent precedents of private Bills authorising compulsory purchase by private sector bodies for commercial purposes such as oil terminals and private ports, and compulsory purchase orders have been used by public sector bodies to enable private enterprise developments, notably in town centres. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will forgive me for saying that although I know he has sided with my noble friends on this matter, if he looks back through the precedents he will find that the last kind of example has surely been used on many occasions when there have been new housing developments around the country.
I am simply saying that the arguments for compulsory purchase at standard compensation are there in the law and in the code and they are particularly strong where the project is in the national interest. I would just remind the Committee that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, so far as the national interest is concerned, said that it thought the project would bring immense opportunities for

549
the generation of industrial and commercial development throughout the United Kingdom.
There is, however, a further argument, and it was put with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Both expressed concern that authorities or indeed privatised undertakings under legislation may compulsorily acquire land, and possibly more land than they really need, through compulsory purchase and then develop the land for some non-essential uses, but uses which would be of great benefit to add to the particular businesses. Nothing is certain in this life, I know, but I should like to assure my noble friends that this is by no means likely to happen. Compulsory purchases must always be justified, either at a public inquiry or to Parliament. The Secretary of State would not confirm a compulsory purchase order if there were not a reasonable prospect of the purpose for which the land was being taken being achieved in the foreseeable future. As to whether that purpose is a desirable purpose, one must, of course, have a look at the particular case at the particular time.
So perhaps I may finally come to the particular case. Once again my noble friends have suggested to the Committee that there is an injustice here. In making its case, this amendment is seeking to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial parts of the tunnel project. The actual tunnel does not fall within the scope of the amendments, being seen by your Lordships who are moving the amendments as part of the public infrastructure, but the terminals do fall within the scope of these amendments. But what public benefit is a tunnel without the means of getting into it? Without the old Dover colliery site, commercial, the non-commercial tunnel could not anyway have been built at all. Moreover, there would surely be unfairness to those landowners who would not benefit from this amendment; compensation should surely reflect the losses which landowners incur, not the totally different value which the development may impart to the land.
So in answer to this amendment, I am, I think, seeking to say two things. First of all, with respect, I do not think that the ways in which these amendments are drawn are themselves very fair, for the reasons which I have just given in those last few remarks. Secondly, if my noble friend Lord Renton will forgive me for saying so, I feel constrained to say that I do not think it is desirable to seek amendments of general principle to a Bill of this kind which is dealing with one specific project.
Nonetheless, my noble friend Lord Radnor made a plea that there is a principle here which ought to be considered with great care. The farthest I can go this evening is to say that I have heard the case which has been put forward by my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Cornwallis and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and I assure the Committee that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friends to what has been said in this Committee. I also give an assurance that the Government will take note of the views which have been expressed in this Committee on compensation policy as a whole.
550
However, I am afraid I cannot go further than that on this occasion. I am sure that your Lordships will accept—and I hope you do so—that this really is not the moment to consider amendments to the general law. It is on that final ground that I hope the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Cornwallis: First, I thank the Minister for that summing up and reply. I note with great interest the remarks which he makes with regard to the general principle. I think the problem with which all of us are faced is that when it comes to trying to bring forward a general principle in any Bill it is never the right Bill in which to bring it forward. If we are not very careful, we shall go from Bill to Bill with the principle unresolved and unstated. It is difficult to resolve the situation in those circumstances.
Those with whom I consulted before moving the amendment were quite clear in advising me that this was not the way to bring this particular principle forward. But what other way do we have of bringing the principle forward? So I hope that if I have understood the Minister correctly, he will use his best endeavours to bring what we believe to be a movement of the goalposts by the Government to the notice of the Minister concerned and that we may―hopefully perhaps before the Report stage of the Bill—have some further message from him on how this can be looked at.
The Minister mentioned Section 17 in his remarks. We are well aware of the uses of Section 17 but it is hardly applicable when the land concerned has been known to be the terminal of the Channel Tunnel for something close upon 100 years. I do not think that anybody in those circumstances could ever have applied for a Section 17 certificate.
Many of the other examples which the Minister cited have been carried out by public corporations and not by private enterprise. I would remind the Minister that when the main railways were put forward, of course there was no development value and no planning. Even today, if you wish to develop the docks or something of that sort, I believe you will have to put forward a Private Bill. Within that Private Bill it is necessary to spell out in complete detail the activities that the enterprise will indulge in and everything must be proved by the committee concerned.
The Channel Tunnel terminal is a catch-all. Nobody explains which piece of land will be needed for what, or what it will be needed for in detail, so I do not believe, the circumstances concerned are entirely the same. Nonetheless, in view of the Minister's attitude to the amendment, with the hope that we may hear more from him before the next stage of the Bill and reserving the right perhaps to bring it forward at the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Extension of Railways Board's powers in connection with through services]:
9 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 28, line 38, leave out ("requisite") and insert ("expedient")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 83 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108. These are technical amendments to clarify and confirm the powers of the British Railways Board to operate abroad and to enter into contracts with foreign operators and the concessionaires. I think they are more or less self-explanatory but if not I shall be happy to give a more detailed explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("and there shall be added at the end—
"(g) to do anything which appears to the Board to be expedient for the purposes of or in connection with the provision by the Board or railway services outside Great Britain."
(2)It is within the power of the Railways Board to enter into a contract with any person operating railways services through the tunnel system for the passage of any train of any such person over or along any railway of the Board; and this section gives any person with whom the Board have entered into such a contract authority to use any railway of the board in accordance with that contract in so far as such authority is not given by any other enactment.
(3)The assumption by the Railways Board, under any contract with the Concessionaires under which the Board are permitted to use the tunnel system, of any obligations with respect to the exercise of any of their powers, shall not be regarded (if it would be so regarded apart from this provision) as incompatible with the proper exercise of those or any other of their powers.).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. I spoke to this amendment when I dealt with Amendment No. 83.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Inland customs clearance facilities
—(1) The Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a)the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b);the Railways Board; and

(c)such other persons as he considers to be relevant; with a view to determining whether it would be desirable for there to be established a network of inland customs clearance facilities for the purpose of enabling certain goods entering and leaving the United Kingdom by means of the tunnel system to be afforded customs clearance otherwise than in the county of Kent.

(2) In determining that question the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability—

(a) of facilitating the prompt delivery of goods to their ultimate destinations; and

(b) of promoting economic growth and employment opportunities throughout the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report containing the results of his determination under this section not later than 1st August 1988.").
The noble Lord said: Throughout our consideration of the Bill we have emphasised that we
552
must make it offer the utmost value for the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation exercise with the commissioners of Customs and Excise, British Rail and other relevant persons to determine whether it would be desirable for there to be established a network of inland customs clearance facilities to enable certain goods being conveyed by means of the tunnel system to be afforded customs clearance at places other than the proposed clearance depot at Ashford, Kent.
The new clause is based upon an amendment proposed in a Standing Committee in another place, where it was rejected by only one vote. At that stage the Government's reasons for urging its rejection were not at all convincing and, moreover, it is important to ascertain today if we can from the Minister what progress, if any, has been made by British Rail in carrying out its own review of the need for a pattern of inland clearance depots.
It is particularly important to ensure that the various regions of the United Kingdom are able to derive the maximum possible benefit from any trading opportunities provided by the tunnel. In particular, unless there is an efficient transport infrastructure for moving components and raw materials to assembling and manufacturing points, British industry will increasingly find itself at a disadvantage compared with France and certain other EC countries.
The establishment of a network of inland customs clearance facilities would enable the industries of the various regions to expedite their trade, thus benefiting those regions as a whole. That point was made very strongly in the first report of the House of Commons Transport Committee on the Channel link. I shall not read out that section but for those who may wish to read it it is in paragraph 13(v) on page 207 of the report.
However, in paragraph 145 of the Select Committee report your Lordships report that you agree a modest amendment to the Bill to ensure that British Rail will focus resources on the dispersal of rail traffic from London to the regions. It is also important to quote paragraph 146 of the Select Committee report, which states:
"Goods for export must not only be able to travel efficiently, they need to be cleared for customs before doing so. Traditionally in the United Kingdom customs clearance is carried out at sea and air ports. There are only some 22 inland clearance depots in the country compared with 240 in France. At present the criteria adopted for considering whether such depots should he established include a requirement for 30,000 customs entries per annum. The Committee consider that British Rail and the Customs and Excise should urgently re-examine these criteria in order to help industry exploit the advantages of the tunnel project on a national scale.".
In paragraph 26 of their response the Government summarily dismiss the recommendation of the Select Committee that BR and the Customs and Excise should urgently re-examine the criteria. That was not asking a great deal.
But I find that paragraph 26 of the Government'sresponse brings in a new argument. They say that in addition to the 22 inland clearance depots in the

553
United Kingdom there are now some 370 traders who are approved for customs clearance of either imports or exports at their own premises. It is very strange that that was not an argument used at all in the other place, and the only reference that the Government make to a re-examination of the criteria is that, while normally a minimum throughput of 30,000 customs entries per annum is required, regional factors are fully taken into account when considering proposals for new inland clearance depots.
It seems as if the Government, as someone remarked on another amendment, move the goalposts when they want an argument. The proposed new clause seeks merely to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to investigate and report to Parliament by 1st August next year. That is 12 months. It does not compel the Secretary of State to decide in favour of any particular network of customs clearance facilities or indeed any network at all. It is a very modest proposal but nonetheless a very important one and I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept the principle that there shall be further consultations with the Customs and Excise commissioners, the railways board and such other persons and that Parliament shall have a report on those discussions.
Unless something of that kind is done we shall not be making the maximum use of the tunnel. From this Bench we have argued right the way through that the one big success from the tunnel can be the use of freight transport from all parts of the UK and this amendment is directed to that end. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we fully support the amendment from these Benches. It is very much in the category of the discussions that we were having last Thursday on the necessity for immigration and customs officials to be on passenger trains. I believe in many ways this is more important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said and as I have said from these Benches on many occasions, the major justification for the existence of the tunnel at all is the ability of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom to reach the markets in the Continent. Quite clearly if that is going to happen in an efficient way there must be an extension of the facilities in the inland depots.
It seems to me that the criteria that are being applied are either being dictated by the Treasury or by someone who is not taking into account the existence of the tunnel at all. I beg of the Government, even at this late stage, to modify their view on this whole question of inland customs facilities.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are certainly in agreement that one of the main aims in building the tunnel is that the maximum use of the tunnel should be brought to all regions of the country, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, in terms of freight. We have discussed passengers who will
554
disperse through the whole of the country. However, in that regard the tunnel will be competing with the airlines, and freight is where great benefits may be seen.
I wish to make two main points. First, it is necessary to disentangle inland Customs clearance from the wider issue of the development of international rail services beyond London. There is obviously some connection between the two, but inland Customs clearance depots, or ICDs, as such, are not the key factor in determining how much freight traffic British Rail will be able to attract to its international services. For example, for freight moving in wagon loads to or from private sidings, Customs clearance can be carried out satisfactorily from the trader's point of view at any convenient point between his premises and the tunnel.
A network of ICDs cannot be drawn up in a vacuum. It must depend on the likely pattern of demand for freight services when the tunnel opens. British Rail is investigating the potential market, and this work will provide part of the input to the plan which it is required to draw up under Clause 39. It is only when the market has been identified that British Rail will be a position to identify possible sites for inland clearance depots. An ICD is most unlikely by itself to stimulate a demand which would not otherwise be there.
The Clause 39 plan will identify any sites where British Rail considers that an additional ICD is required. It is already looking at the question. It does not need any prompting from the Secretary of State to examine the role of ICDs. It will then need to discuss with the Customs authorities the requirements it has identified. If there are problems, the Secretary of State is sure to become involved. But it would not be appropriate for him to take the lead in planning a network of facilities which depends crucially on the demand which it is British Rail's responsibility to identify.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the evidence before the Select Committee and the Government's response to it concerning the question of the criteria for ICDs. The Select Committee commented on the small number of these depots and recommended that the basic requirement of 30,000 customs entries a year should be reviewed. As the Committee will know, the Government's response to the committee's report has recently been published. It pointed out that the comparison that has been drawn between the scales of inland clearance in France and the United Kingdom is misleading. In addition to the 22 ICDs in the United Kingdom, there are some 370 traders who are approved for customs clearance of either imports or exports at their own premises. I should have thought that that was probably a more favourable way of doing things than that which the French have.
Following a Rayner study in 1983 and an internal review in 1985, the Customs authorities are now pursuing a policy of concentrating resources at those ports, airports and ICDs where there is sufficient traffic to justify full-time facilities. Customs resources

555
are not unlimited, and it is obviously sensible and in the interests of traders as a whole that the available resources should be deployed in the most cost-effective manner.
The recommendations of the 1985 review and the revised criteria it established for approving ICDs were published and discussed with the trade associations. While normally a minimum throughput of 30,000 Customs entries per annum is required, this is not a rigid standard and regional factors are fully taken into account when considering proposals for new ICDs. The Government do not therefore accept that there is a case for re-examining the criteria at the present time.
In the light of what I have said, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We are certainly agreed on the importance of seeing that the benefits of the tunnel spread through all the regions. However, I think we can accomplish that without necessarily having more ICDs. Our method of licensing traders for direct Customs clearance is in fact the better one, in many ways.
Lord Sefton of Garston: There were two phrases used by the Minister which gave me cause for concern. I was concerned not because he used the sentences but because it seems to me that no one has grasped the very real point that if we are going along with an organisation such as British Rail functioning "only when the market has been identified" and "where there is sufficient traffic to justify the facilities", then this country will get nowhere at all, and will get there very fast if it is in competition with France. The whole point that has been made over the last 40 years is that if, quite rightly, our economy is to grow, and to grow considerably quicker than it is doing at the moment from the point of view of 3 million people, then we must plan and put in situ the facilities to make that growth possible. We do not have to wait till the demand justifies it.
As a small example of the point I am making, at Liverpool's Seaforth container depot British Rail tore up the railway service to one of the biggest container depots in the UK. They said "We will look at it again when the trade coming through Liverpool justifies the provision of that rail link". How much better would it have been if that rail link had been in place? How much quicker would the Liverpool container depot have grown if British Rail had put it in first? I know that the Minister has had a busy day and that the briefs must come thick and fast; it must be awful to sort out the common sense, if there is any, in them. However, I appeal to him not just from the point of view of British Rail, but because of the kind of infrastructure that we need to lay down in advance in order to make our economy efficient.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I understand what the Minister is saying about traders who have their own customs facilities, but those are not the traders about whom
556
we are talking. These days, the Government are always talking about improving the situation in the inner cities and helping small businessmen. I know that the presence of ICDs would not in itself stimulate trade, but it is intangibles such as these that inhibit export trade. If the small businessman in an inner city finds it impossible to put his goods through an ICD, he will not look for export business which is surely available if he goes in search of it. In so far as this Channel Tunnel opens up tremendous possibilities for all sorts of people in this country to find new markets in Europe, the Government should surely be doing everything in their power to facilitate that trade, and should not be waiting for that trade to arrive before putting facilities in place.
Lord Mulley: I was extremely disappointed with the Minister's reply, because, although the form of the amendment is not exactly one that would have come from the parliamentary draftsman, the point is surely one which he would have accepted in principle; namely, that the Secretary of State should take the lead in examining the possibility of these additional facilities.
As has been said so powerfully, if you wait until someone comes along with a piece of paper and says "I can guarantee 30,000 every year" you will never do anything, just as British Rail will not provide for the carrying of cycles, because the cycling organisation seemingly, as we understood earlier today, cannot come along with a list of people who guarantee that they will make a profit in six or seven years from now through carrying bicycles. It is a negative attitude. We are not asking for anything to be done except that the matter be looked at.
The Government are rightly concentrating their efforts on further employment, and looking to try to help the inner cities. While I would not claim that having a customs depot will necessarily transform the problems in some of these areas, I am quite certain that there are a number of small businesses in this country, and indeed medium-sized businesses, which have an export potential, but which have been deterred from exporting because of the difficulties about customs, the uncertainty, the forms and all the rest of it.
If they had somewhere fairly near to which they could go and get assistance and advice, it would make an immense difference to their attitude towards exports. Certainly I should have thought that the Secretary of State could well set up an inter-governmental committee or something of that sort to look at the possibility of utilising the extra train facilities and the extra speed that will be available on the lines that my noble friend indicated.
Lord Underhill: Everyone seems to agree on the importance of this matter. The House of Commons Transport Committee on the Channel Tunnel expressed its great concern that unless something like this is done we shall lose out on a lot of trade, particularly to Northern France. We have your

557
Lordships' own Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, which received a considerable amount of evidence and expressed its view in support of the principle of this amendment. I know that Eurotunnel and BR held a number of regional conferences of manufacturers. I should very much like to know what was the general view at those regional conferences, because I should be very surprised if views were not expressed on the lines of this amendment: that some consideration should be given to customs clearance facilities.
When the Minister mentioned the BR plan under Clause 39 I was prepared to bet a large amount of money that my noble friend Lord Sefton would be jumping in, and he did. On this occasion he supports the principle, believing that the institution of an inquiry in order to have another look at the possibility of inland customs clearance facilities would help the area about which he has been talking day after day in relation to the Channel Tunnel.
The Minister says that it is not for the Secretary of State to take a lead in planning these matters. All we are asking is that the Secretary of State should take the lead again in calling for consultations. I should like to know whether part of the resistance to it is from Customs and Excise, because there is a strong suspicion that that is the situation.
Lord Tordoff: Would the noble Lord care to ask the Minister what view the Department of Trade and Industry takes? I should have thought that the department was extremely favourable towards this.
Lord Underhill: That is a question which I repeat to the Minister, if he would care to answer it and give also the view of Customs and Excise. It might be a question that he would like to keep in mind for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when discussing the development of further jobs.
At 20 past nine it would be foolish to divide the Committee, but this is a very important matter. If the Minister could reply to these two brief points—what is the attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry and is there a view from Customs and Excise?—I shall willingly withdraw the amendment
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord will be well aware that the Government speak as one and therefore the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, which is concerned with Customs and Excise, all speak with one voice.
I give one assurance to the Committee. In assessing whether an ICD is necessary Customs and Excise is well aware and willing to take account of the fact that a new ICD will up to a point generate its own demand. Such an assessment must of course be realistic and I have to tell the Committee that Customs and Excise has a considerable amount of experience in operating ICDs which have failed to
558
stimulate the demand that would have justified them. It is something that will be looked at very closely.
I apologise for dampening the enthusiasm of Members of the Committee that ICDs automatically generate a tremendous demand for small businesses or for large. It has not always been the case.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord is talking about past experience but we are arguing about the new experience of freight trains going through the tunnel into Europe, which is a new situation. We are talking about that and taking advantage of it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I accept that of course, but that is something for the future. That is why I say that Customs and Excise will want to look at that point.
Lord Underhill: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 39 [Railways Board's plan for international through services]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 47, leave out ("proposals as to").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 86 at the same time I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 because they all hang together. In doing so I speak on behalf of the Yorkshire and Humberside Association; that is, all the district councils in Yorkshire and Humberside whatever their political complexion. The amendments are also supported by the regional CBI and the regional TUC. In presenting a petition to the select Committee the Yorkshire and Humberside Association was concerned that the benefits of the Channel Tunnel should not be confined to the South-East but should extend to the North—in particular to Yorkshire and Humberside where there is industrial and commercial potential for growth.
It was enouraging that the strength of the case was recognised by the Select Committee through the inclusion of new Clause 39. It was also encouraging last Thursday to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, say in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that in the light of opinion throughout the Committee he would be prepared to look again at the situation of trains going north of London having on-train control.
It is less encouraging to hear his response tonight to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Underhill dealing with ICDs. My amendments follow from what my noble friend was saying. A comprehensive rail infrastructure with facilities for passenger and freight services is important to the North to ensure that the full benefits of the Channel Tunnel are felt there.
My amendments to Clause 39 are intended to ensure that the plan envisaged under that clause is sufficiently comprehensive to enable the regions to take full advantage of the opportunities available. My amendments provide the opportunity for comment to be made on the proposed plans without causing unnecessary delay. They make provision for the plans to be publicised through channels which will be known in advance. They also provide for the Secretaries of State who are likely to be involved in the development to be fully aware not only of the plans but of the comments on the plans.
Under Clause 39 as it stands the plan which British Rail is instructed to prepare is constrained by the financial resources likely to be available to it. The clause provides for:
"measures which the Board consider ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France",
which indicates that others as well as British Rail are likely to be involved in the plans which British Rail is to draw up. It is important therefore that the plan is not restricted by British Rail's financial constraints. For example, other sources of funding might be available such as the European Regional Development Fund. It might be possible, indeed it should be possible, to involve private business as well as local government in the plans. A whole range of people and organisations are likely to be involved.
In Yorkshire we should like to see the plan cover options for the provision of fast, direct routes for passengers and freight from the regions to the tunnel. From Yorkshire and Humberside the most direct route would be an improved Snow Hill tunnel. I know that some Members of the Committee are likely to recoil at the possible cost involved in that. The £80 million that the improvements to Snow Hill would cost are small compared with the total cost of the Channel Tunnel and compared with the benefits that are likely to result.
It is also important that we argue, for example, that the benefits of the Snow Hill tunnel will accrue to areas in the North which are already assisted areas under assisted area status. It will also be part of the European transport network. That has already been recognised by the loan from the European Investment Bank to Eurotunnel as part of its pre-funding of the tunnel. There are precedents for such action; for example, the Leeds-Bradford Airport and the Manchester Airport. We should like to see all the options presented in the report and fully examined.
The development of new passenger and freight services from the regions offers the biggest stimulus to the rail network that this country has had in this century. It offers, for example, the prospect of through-sleeper services to Paris and Brussels and for the development of many new types of rail freight services. These benefits should not be concentrated in the South-East only; they should extend to the North.
The question of on-trains Customs and immigration clearance was discussed last week. We hope for encouraging information at the Report stage. Inland Customs services, as my noble friend
560
Lord Underhill indicated, are very important. At the moment British Rail's commitment is to the South only. On the other hand, if we look to the Continent we see that Customs clearance is carried out much nearer to the point of production. We see other developments. The Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example, has received considerable investment with new railway links to maximise the benefits of the tunnel. Nord-Pas de Calais has similar problems to the rundown, traditional industries of northern England. It also receives assistance from the European Community. If the North is to compete with regions such as this, it must also have good links to the tunnel. There are other factors which the plan will need to cover. I shall not go into them in detail but it is clear that it needs to be a fully comprehensive plan.
The amendments that I am proposing tonight are very modest, seeking to extend the scope which Clause 39 already introduces for ensuring that the Channel Tunnel is a national link and not just a South-East link. Recent press advertisements, referred to in an earlier debate, from both British Rail and Eurotunnel strike the right psychological note about the comprehensive nature of Channel Tunnel services and the integration of these services into the British Rail system. But much has to be done before the content of those advertisements becomes a reality. My amendments go some way towards helping this objective. I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' support.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I compliment the noble Baroness for having moved this amendment. Once again it gives us the opportunity to discuss the fact that this Bill and the proposed tunnel will bring benefits throughout the country and not just in the South-East. That is the message that, certainly, the Government have been trying to get across for a very long time.
On a lighter note, I am somewhat surprised to hear, looking at the amendment, that publication in the London Gazette is thought to offer a guarantee of wide public dissemination. I am not certain that I have ever met anyone who has ever read it. I was certainly not aware of that fact.
More seriously, if there is any anxiety that the board might publish a plan in a hole-in-a-corner manner so that no one knew about it I think that that anxiety can be dismissed. I cannot imagine the British Rail Board wanting to do so since it has every interest in letting potential customers know what services are in prospect. I have no doubt that the board will publish the plan widely and that it will be happy to receive any pertinent comments. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate to place the board under an express duty to invite comments. A statutory requirement of that kind is usually related to situations involving formal objections and public inquiries.
I cannot believe that anyone will be inhibited from letting the board have comments on the plan simply

561
because there is no explicit invitation to do so. The proposed amendment would make it more difficult for people to comment because of the three-month time limit it would impose on representations. That is a point which should be borne in mind. I do not think that it is necessary to write into the Bill a requirement that the board should forward the comments and the plan to particular Ministers. The relevant Government departments will receive copies of the plan in the ordinary course of their day-to-day contacts with the board. There can be little doubt that the board will also tell the departments about any representations concerning the plan which are relevant to them. The board should not, however, be obliged to forward actual copies of each and every representation. They could be very numerous and the Government departments mentioned will not necessarily have any responsibility for adjudicating upon them.
The noble Baroness pointed out that new Clause 39 was brought forward by the Government in fulfilment of an undertaking given in another place by my honorable friend the Minister of State at the Report stage. It was originally proposed by members of the party of the noble Baroness. This approach is very much modelled on the original Opposition proposal. We believe that it is the right one.
Clause 39 is a valuable addition to the Bill which will help both British Rail and other interested parties to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel are dispersed as widely as possible. The noble Baroness asked particularly about the European Regional Development Fund. It is for local authorities and other bodies in assisted areas to put forward candidate projects initially to the Government for ERDF support. There is no reason why they should not do so in this case. If such projects were put forward to the Government, the Government would consider them with others when deciding what to submit to Brussels. As for the possibility that British Rail should have a limitation on funds, Clause 39(4) requires BR to take into account only the limitations upon its own sources of finance in putting forward proposals for action by other persons including the Secretary of State or Commissioners of Customs and Excise. British Rail cannot be required to take account of limitations on those persons' finances because they lie outside British Rail's knowledge. Equally it cannot sensibly consider alternative or additional sources of funds available to those bodies.
I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that I very much share her concern that the benefits should be spread right round the country, and I hope that what I have been able to say will give her some reassurance. I do not think that the amendment as drafted will help much and I hope that she will be prepared to withdraw it.
Viscount Sidmouth: While having sympathy with the amendment, I do not believe that it is realistic to press it too hard at present because of the hard fact that, as the Minister has said, in commercial terms British Rail has to justify any expenditure on this
562
project. It is a fact that what it proposes at the moment—that is, to make maximum use of the three existing routes between London and Folkestone with a terminal at Waterloo and the ancillary services—will just about do the job on the traffic forecast. However, if I may make a prophecy, I believe that if not before the tunnel is opened then very soon afterwards, rather than tinkering with the existing routes with all their restrictions of loading gauge and so on, the case will become overwhelming for what the Italians call a diretissima between London and Folkestone. If that is so, the bringing up of the Snow Hill trans-London link will make maximum use of that direct line. As the Minister is well aware, it has far better potential connections with both the east coast and west coast main lines, and those advantages, in addition to the future existence of a direct line, will make the case for the whole thing very strong in the light of the traffic which I hope and believe will develop.
Lord Underhill: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say in passing that I thought she put up an excellent case in justification of the four amendments. Nothing the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, has said in any way opposes the principle of the amendments. He is discussing what might be certain points in the British Rail plan. Nothing the Minister said appeared to render the amendments valueless. People want to know where they will see the plan. Whatever may be the Minister's views about the provincials and the London Gazette, once authorities and organisations know that it will be in the London Gazette if they do not already take it—and many of them do—they will know that that is the place to look.
There is nothing in the amendments to which the Minister should take exception. We know that the Government work together. Paragraph (e) of Amendment No. 89 relating to the plan being sent to the various Ministers is surely nothing that he would oppose. The Ministers will consider the plan and they will consider the representations. People want to know whether they will have the right to submit representations which will be considered. That is all that this series of four amendments is asking for.
Baroness Lockwood: I must thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for sharing my concern about the need to extend the benefits of the Channel Tunnel throughout the country. Having said that, however, I am disappointed at his response to my amendments.
If I may put his mind at rest in relation to the London Gazette, it is not that it is a firm favourite in the North but it is a recognised medium for public announcements. If there is such a framework as my amendments aim to establish, then local authorities and all bodies that are interested in British Rail's plan will know where to look for the proposals and the time limits in which they can respond. They will be preparing for them. Therefore I am disappointed that he does not see the advantage of including them in the clause.

563
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, feels that it is not realistic to press the amendments at the present time. If we are planning in advance and looking ahead, then this is exactly the time to press such amendments and not wait until events overtake us. However, I shall not press the amendments tonight. I shall look carefully at what has been said in this and previous debates and then determine whether or not to bring the amendments back at a later stage in the Bill's transit through this Chamber. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, line 17, leave out ("31st December 1989") and insert ("1st August 1988").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to make the Railways Board prepare a plan under Clause 39 (3) by 1st August 1988 instead of, as the Bill as it stands has it, by 31st December 1989. It is all tied up with the whole question of the clearance depots, which we consider of great importance. In an earlier debate last week many noble Lords suggested that it was only for this reason that the idea of the tunnel was given much credence outside the South-East of England. I find it difficult to believe that the railways are not already working out plans for the Continental through services. They must have some ideas. To wait until 31st December 1989, two and a half years from now, seems ridiculous. Therefore, we ask that this be brought forward and be done in considerably less time.
That would give the railways a chance, and the customers a chance, to make a decision. Once they know the sort of pattern British Rail are talking about and the volume they are trying to cater for, they will be able to think in terms of the estabishment of a network of inland clearance facilities linked to the board's determination of the sites for certain goods depots.
A lot of this must have already been done by British Rail and we should like to speed it up. To move from two and a half years' leeway for British Rail to make their plans and to bring it down to just over a year is perhaps asking a little too much, but I hope that the Minister will see this as part of the feeling of goodwill that the tunnel still has in parts of the country. If he could concede this it would be quite a boost to the whole idea of the tunnel outside the South-East of England. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This is a fairly straight-forward issue. It is a question of the sensible deadline for the preparation of the plan called for by this clause. The feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, expressed is that 31st December 1989 would be insufficient time to implement the plan before the tunnel opens in May 1993. The noble Lord mentioned again the inland customs depots as a factor.
564
Obviously the appropriate deadline is a matter of judgment. In fact, there will not be a clear separation between planning and implementation. The two processes will overlap. British Rail has already done a great deal of preliminary planning on tunnel services, and its plans will evolve continuously right up to and beyond the opening of the tunnel. Each part of the plan will be implemented as soon as it is practicable to do so, and there therefore will be a whole series of start dates for the various elements.
The question is, when will the plan have achieved a sufficient degree of comprehensiveness for it to be sensible to publish it. We consulted British Rail before settling on 31st December 1989, though some argued that that might even be rather early bearing in mind that it will still be three and a half years before the tunnel opens. The counter to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is that the sooner British Rail is required to publish its plan the more provisional its nature is likely to be.
We consider it sensible to give British Rail a reasonable period of time to research market data and work out a plan based on it, while still leaving time for consultations to be undertaken once the report is published. It seems to us, and indeed to British Rail, that the date in the Bill strikes a reasonable balance. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that that is the case.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I was a member of the British Rail Board for nearly 11 years, and if there was one thing we were good at it was producing plans. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will recall the booklets for plans that we were able to produce in British Rail on its future development, corporate plans, freight plans, and so on.
I hoped in the light of representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Minister would have agreed to go back to British Rail and say "All right, we have had this expression of view. Do you feel that you could expedite this?". The amount of work that has been done on the Channel Tunnel within the British Rail Board is enormous. I suspect that to delay this for two and a half years is rather overdoing it. While not pressing the amendment, I urge the Minister to make representations to the British Railways Board in the light of what has been said in the Committee tonight.
Lord Mountevans: I wonder whether the Minister before he replies could confirm that British Rail does a great deal of planning. In recent years it has become apparent that when British Rail puts a plan to the Secretary of State and the Government approve it, it tends to get on with it quicker than the plan allows. I am thinking of the East Coast electrification, of the electrification to Peterborough and of the Hastings line electrification. All those projects came in ahead of schedule in terms of the time originally allowed in the plan. Would it therefore not be prudent to let British Rail present its plan at the latest possible moment in the hope that in the light of its recent

565
performance it will be able not only to deliver it on time but to fine tune and refine it? The Minister laid stress on that in his earlier remarks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to ask the Minister for clarification. Although 31st December 1989 is the point at which the plan under this section must be produced, does it all have to be done at once? Am I correct in my impression that the plans will be evolved gradually, although the date for the final of the first stage before the continual review is 31st December? It would have some effect if we could hope that there would be interim plans before the final plan is passed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, British Rail has lots of experience in these matters and it must have a number of plans already being evaluated. If at this point the Minister could give that kind of assurance, I should be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the best thing I can do is to draw to the attention of British Rail the remarks made in Committee this evening. I certainly undertake to do that.
As regards reviewing the plan, paragraph (b) of Clause 39(3) states that British Rail:
"shall keep the plan under review and from time to time revise it".
I was referring to that paragraph when I said that it will keep the whole matter under review. However, I shall draw the remarks to the attention of British Rail. I have no doubt that representatives will read what has taken place without the need for me to draw attention to it. I shall certainly do so in any event.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Atnendments Nos. 88 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Dispersal of international passenger trains
.(1) Before commencing the construction of Work No. 21 in Part III of Schedule 1, the Railways Board shall assess or cause to be assessed in consultation with the London Planning Advisory Committee and such London Boroughs or the City Corporation as may be affected, the desirability of dispersing international passenger trains starting in or ending in London to two or more terminals in the Greater London area, including dispersal along a single cross-London line such as the Snow Hill route previously advocated by the London Borough of Lambeth.
(2)The Railways Board shall review or cause to be reviewed in consultation as specified in sub-section (1) above the assessment specified in sub-section (1) above, at intervals of 1 and 5 years after the commencement of international passenger services at Waterloo, and at 5-yearly intervals thereafter.
(3)The Railways Board shall present the findings of such assessments to the Secretary of State, and shall make them available to the public at a reasonable cost thereof.
(4)Such an assessment shall take into account railway operational matters, traffic generation, pollution, environmental effects, effects on local communities, benefits to international and domestic public transport passengers, the integration of transport facilities, and the provisions of development plans prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or the local Government Act 1985.
(5)If it appears desirable to the Secretary of State, the Railways Board shall be required to prepare a plan under this section to disperse international passenger services in London.")
The noble Lord said: This new clause is an attempt to persuade the Government to keep an open mind on the question of whether only one terminal is possible for London. A part of me believes that ultimately this is possibly the right answer and there will he only one terminal. However, there have been rumblings from a number of groups.
I know that many Members of the Committee have been given copies of a document from the Association of Waterloo Groups. There is something rather sad about the fact that here is a small group of people whose community will be torn to pieces by the new development. They have the feeling that they have not been thoroughly consulted. There is no way in which the area around Waterloo will be the same after the next five years or so. There is therefore a worry, and the amendment attempts to point out some of the difficulties which we envisage. We hope that the Government will keep clear and open minds about the possibility of another London terminal.
I have read the report and the Government's reply to it. I am always worried when we suddenly have figures of 11 million passengers coming from an area like Waterloo or anywhere else. When we see figures such as those I sometimes wonder how they are arrived at. There are many examples even of the Department of Transport, with its expertise, occasionally getting things quite seriously wrong. I do not blame it for that because it is not easy to get the figures right.
However, this area will suddenly have an enormous number of people coming into it. There will be problems of parking. Should the Government not decide that ordinary parking cannot be handled in an area such as that and say that there will be a centre for dispersal, with people arriving and then being moved out by Underground or some other
568
form of public transport? I think that the idea of putting a huge number of vehicles in that area was again discussed in Committee last week. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who works near Waterloo, said that there is not a great deal of room on the roads for additional traffic at most times of the day. It will be particularly difficult when this enormous number of vehicles comes in. I hope that the Government will consider saying that the area cannot handle it all and will make a central dispersal point.
The amendment asks that serious thought should be given to the dispersal of international passenger trains through London. However, failing that, we ask that the railways board shall review the situation or cause it to be reviewed in consultation as specified every five years after the commencement of international passenger services at Waterloo and every five years thereafter. In other words, this is an attempt to ensure that there is some compulsion; that the board does not drift towards a crisis but will look at the situation every five years under statute. It will need to be aware of exactly what is happening so that we shall not suddenly be hit with something that cannot be handled.
I can see difficulties in dispersing passengers around London, although I am sure it can be done. However, I think that there are a number of things the Government can do—first, look again at the question of dispersal and, secondly, as the traffic builds up, as we hope that it will, assess every five years the question of whether dispersal is possible. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: We trailed this amendment profusely when we were discussing Amendment No. 21A last Thursday night. It was also discussed to a certain extent just now in connection with the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It seems to me that what it is really about—and I should like to ignore emotional expressions from the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, such as the community being torn to pieces by this new development —is whether the choice of Waterloo was right and whether we should stand by it.
So far as I understand it, the Select Committee found nothing wrong in the choice of Waterloo. Among other things, in this amendment we are being asked to consider whether in the mid-1990s, when the Channel Tunnel will be hopefully alive and operating, Waterloo will be able to cope with some 159,000 passengers per day, as opposed to its average of perhaps 135,000 passengers per day now. I should like to suggest to the Committee with perhaps a bit of help from that excellent journal Modern Railways, and in particular the April 1962 number, which devoted no fewer than six pages to an August Bank Holiday Saturday at Waterloo, that Waterloo can certainly cope with these figures and that then, as now, the infrastructure around Waterloo can cope as well.
If Members of the Committee cast their minds back to the very early 1960s, they will remember that

569
not very many of us had access to cars. Most of us went on holiday in Britain, since the overseas package holiday had not really been invented; and most of us went by rail. Do not let us forget that in those days a lot of us worked a five-and-a-half or six-day week, which meant that we worked on a Saturday. In August 1961 one finds that Waterloo was capable of dealing with perhaps 175,000 passengers on a Saturday, purely on the commuting side of the business. Commuters can drift through Waterloo blindfold. They are creatures of habit; they know where they are going and they know whence they come. More interesting is the fact that Waterloo could deal with 49,000 holidaymaker-passengers on a peak Saturday like that. It dealt not only with its commuter traffic, which I have already discussed, but with the holiday traffic—to Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. It dealt with regular Channel Islands traffic, with three boat trains in and out each day. It dealt with liner and cruise ship traffic, which could amount to 11 or 12 trains on a Saturday. It dealt with race traffic. There was Ascot, Hurst Park (still in those days), and Sandown Park. The extra traffic emanating particularly from the holidaymakers and racegoers was calculated at 49,000 on a busy Saturday. Waterloo coped even if passengers did queue down the taxi road to Waterloo Bridge Road, which I can certainly remember doing, as, I suspect, can one or two other Members of this Chamber. The station coped and so did the infrastructure. There is no record of Lambethans complaining bitterly then about peak Saturdays at Waterloo. Indeed one hears very little about Lambethans complaining now.
The Committee will remember an exhibition at Waterloo promoted by British Rail when it sought to put its case and invited people to comment. To help promote the exhibition it ran a mail drop to some 85,000 householders in Lambeth and Southwark. It seems significant that of those who signed the visitors' book at the exhibition only 158 were residents of the areas covered by those two councils. That fact does not square with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about a community being torn to pieces by this new development. If the community felt that way, why did people not go to the exhibition? There was a questionnaire: why did they not answer it? Was theirs the negative attitude that if we put our heads in the sand it will go away?
I believe that Waterloo is the right choice and that the Select Committee was right, if I quote it correctly, in saying that there was nothing wrong with that choice. I do not believe that the Snow Hill tunnel offers a viable alternative. I use the word "viable" because it seems to me that to reconstruct the Snow Hill tunnel to take Channel Tunnel trains as I envisage them, or as they are at present envisaged by British Rail, would cost vastly more than any other works that we are currently proposing in terms of developing the railways to cope with the Channel Tunnel.
The amendment also suggests that there should be one-year and five-year reviews. I do not feel that we need to legislate for such reviews because no doubt there will be one-year and five-year reviews anyhow
570
and if major changes need to be made, British Rail will seek to make them. It will not simply put those reviews under the concrete and hope that they will be hidden.
As for Work No. 21, so far as I understand it, that is almost entirely upon railway land as already designated and operated by British Rail. I find that also difficult to square with the remark about a community being torn apart. It seems to me that if a tunnel is built under the existing platforms of Waterloo that is hardly tearing apart a community.
Subsection (4) of the amendment appears to seek to legislate for the Labour Party's manifesto plank on the Channel Tunnel which argues that there should be a wide-ranging public inquiry. To a certain extent so does subsection (1). The Labour Party did not win the general election although it fought on that plank, among others. It seems to me that if one has lost the election on a manifesto which includes such a plank, one should not seek to legislate it into a Bill of this kind.
Lastly, I should like to take up the remark about parking made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is my understanding that British Rail is keen to negotiate with Lambeth council on the provision of parking, not least within the site of Waterloo station as already defined. The unwillingness of Lambeth council to treat on the subject seems to me to be wrong-headed and I do not feel that we should give it additional bites of the cherry by introducing or accepting this amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, right—and I apologise if I heard him wrongly—I have the feeling that he said that the people around Waterloo were not consulted. That is not the point at all, they were consulted but they broke off the negotiations. On page 15 in paragraph 104 of the report, the Committee recommend that Lambeth Borough Council should forthwith reopen discussions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that the issue of Waterloo has been discussed at great length both in this House and in another place. An enormous amount of work was done by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on whether Waterloo should be the London terminal for the rail link. In the Government's view the Committee were right to rule out any fresh assessment of the principle that the terminal should be at Waterloo. There will, of course, be many opportunities to discuss and refine the details, but the basic choice of location must, I think, now be accepted. British Rail have already a great deal to do if they are to complete all their works in time for the opening of the tunnel. If they now had to divert their energies into conducting another round of studies and consultations on the case for Waterloo, there would be a serious risk of the whole programme of works being delayed, with damaging repercussions on the viability of British Rail's investment and an obvious risk that British Rail would not be able to begin services when the tunnel opened. If British Rail did find themselves with that problem it would no doubt also affect through services to parts of the country other than London. Furthermore, assuming

571
the choice of Waterloo were confirmed yet again, which I have no doubt it would be, there would then be even less time for British Rail to discuss and develop solutions to meet any detailed points of concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, said that the local area had been torn to pieces by this proposal—
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Would be.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Would be or will be torn to pieces by this proposal. I cannot see that. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, gave an indication of the actual increase in traffic which will take place. Waterloo is already an extremely busy station and goodness knows how many commuters go in there every day. I also recall that it was not so many years ago that Lambeth actually wanted Waterloo to be the London terminal of the Channel Tunnel link. They seem totally to have ignored the fact that over 500 jobs will be created by this. So I very much hope that Lambeth Borough Council and the various community groups who have opposed Waterloo will now accept the Select Committee's judgment and that they will join with British Rail in discussing how the adverse effects of the development may be minimised and its positive benefits for the neighbourhood maximised. I hope that the negative and head-in-the-sand attitudes will finally be removed.
I have more sympathy for the suggestion that further reviews should be carried out after international services to Waterloo have begun. It is self-evident that if the traffic to the Continent grows from year to year after the tunnel has opened there must eventually come a time when the capacity of Waterloo is exceeded. But that time is unlikely to be soon. British Rail consider on the basis of their traffic forecasts that Waterloo will have sufficient capacity until at least the year 2003. But forecasting is an imperfect art, as we have been reminded on various occasions, not least on the M.25, particularly in totally new circumstances such as those which would be created by the opening of the tunnel. It is only when the tunnel is opened that actual traffic growth can be observed and this will give British Rail a clearer idea of what additional facilities are likely to be needed and in what time-scale. It is not sensible to impose on British Rail the sort of rigid time-scale for review which this new clause envisages.
I would also remind the Committee that if British Rail do identify a need for additional facilities at some time in the future, they will have to follow the normal procedures involving either a Private Bill or a planning application before the development can go ahead. In the unlikely event that British Rail had not consulted interested parties on their proposals, objectors would have had every opportunity to put their views across under either of these procedures.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I cannot recommend this new clause as being either desirable or necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the new clause and that we may also be
572
able to put the Waterloo issue to bed once and for all tonight.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am disappointed. I thought that for once the Minister was going to take into consideration the real issue contained in the amendment. Up to now all we have heard from the opponents of the amendment is the British Rail case. It could have been the manager of British Rail speaking here. Is there nothing else involved but British Rail or does the City of London and the Greater London authority exist for the existence of British Rail? I thought that British Rail was a service industry that was intended to service an area in a correct way and that that area should be the United Kingdom.
The amendment calls for the first examination of an alternative to bringing the international trains right into the centre of London. That is the issue and it is just as alive now as when Colin Buchanan on behalf of the Government of this land produced a book called Traffic in Towns. It would be just as well if some of the people who produced these specious arguments, which are all based on British Rail's expertise and experience, looked back at some fundamental planning principles. One of those is that one cannot plan a good life for a city if one slavishly follows the idea of the traffic operators that they will go into the centre of the town without any restrictions.
The real reason that British Rail wants to go to Waterloo is because it knows damn well that that is the cheapest way to compete with the airlines. Of course it is. We can now be offered transport from Paris right to the centre of London. British Rail tried to defeat the air ferry from Liverpool to London with the same argument. I have no quarrel with that in the commercial world, but we are not talking just about the commercial world. We shall be shortly when the Government go ahead in a headlong fashion and privatise British Rail. I am concerned about the interests of all the citizens of this land and that means that we should have proper planning.
When this matter was referred to yesterday someone accused me of not knowing London as well as I know Liverpool. I shall wear that badge with pleasure but I know a little about London. I was told that there was no tube station at Clapham Junction, but I never said that there was a tube station there. Yesterday I referred to Clapham. The language I used was "the other side of Clapham".I said that I could get into the centre of London inside 10 minutes. I can do so from Wandsworth Common. I was merely using that example to illustrate that within 10 minutes' travelling time one begins to reach an area where it is possible to plan terminals with onward distribution. After all, British Rail has just told us that next year it intends to introduce a through service to Clapham Junction from the North, so that must be the right area to start examining.
I think that is was the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who told me that I did not know what I was talking about, and he suggested that British Rail had investigated all the alternatives. I said that British Rail did not investigate all the practical alternatives;

573
British Rail investigated only those alternatives and those criteria that British Rail itself laid down.
The amendment calls for a much wider survey. The Minister has once again advanced the argument that we heard over Canary Wharf and now there are some doubts about Canary Wharf. As I said in my closing speech on Canary Wharf, things were being done in a hurry and we had to give the position; otherwise, we were told, those great American and Swiss benefactors would move out of the country, taking the money with them, and we should not get Canary Wharf. Well, it looks as though we have the Bill and we may not get Canary Wharf. We were also told about the haste and the hurry in the private enterprise sector when it wanted to buy another newspaper.
Now we are told that there is a hurry about this and that British Rail does not have the time to investigate. If British Rail knows that and has convinced the Minister of it, then the Minister will know the timescale involved, first, for when the operation would have to start to make Waterloo a possible success; secondly, when British Rail intends to start it; and, thirdly, when it intends to complete the project. He should know that. If British Rail told him there was a hurry, it should have told him those three things. I do not think that it has. 1 think it has put down a bald statement. I think it is a specious excuse on the part of British Rail.
Let me close on this note. I may not know London as well as I know Liverpool. However, I know Liverpool. I know that at the moment it has a very good commuter service between the city and the outlying suburbs. I also know that if it had been up to British Rail that commuter service would not have been possible. It wanted to rip up two of the railway lines that were key elements. I think that the amendment should stand.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I wonder whether the Minister can comment on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, when he said that the reason Waterloo was chosen was that it was commercially more attractive. If that is so, I regard it as a very important argument. We must keep in mind that the whole project is being financed by private capital and therefore must be attractive and viable. There is no claim on the state for financing this project. Was that a serious consideration in the decision to concentrate on Waterloo?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, indeed it was. It was largely a commercial decision on the part of British Rail. If British Rail intends to be in business it must attract passengers to travel between Paris and London and Brussels and London on its railway. British Rail looked at something like 13 different alternatives in the London area and it came down, after a great deal of investigation and looking at many alternatives, to Waterloo.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, will be able to look at all the arguments if he reads the report of the Select Committee. It dealt with the matter at length. It has been gone over many times. Of course it was a
574
commercial judgment. It was made for the benefit of the potential passengers on British Rail who might conceivably want to go to Paris from the middle of London but who will probably not be persuaded to go out somewhere south of Clapham Junction, as the noble Lord is suggesting.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am not suggesting that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Very well. The noble Lord is not suggesting that.
Lord Sefton of Garston: There are alternatives. You can bring the train from Paris right into the centre of London. Nobody wants to go to Waterloo and stay there. Who would want to stop at Waterloo for any length of time? If you get to Waterloo, you are going to go somewhere else. Let me put this to the Committee. It may be that somebody will want to come from Paris, call into London and then go to Heathrow. Perhaps that person will want to go to Gatwick. What will he do? Will he go into Waterloo and then go to Gatwick? British Rail has been boasting about its service to Gatwick. It is much easier to move from the Clapham Junction area to Gatwick than to go from Waterloo. If you want to go to the West Country, it could be much easier to move there from the Clapham area than it is from Waterloo.
I am not suggesting that people should be stopped at Clapham. I am suggesting that the Minister opens his mind to embrace this idea that there is another possibility, provided it is properly discussed and provided we hear experts, other than those from British Rail. Just as aircraft come into Heathrow, because it is evident that they cannot be brought into the centre of London, the facilities are then improved elsewhere. Elsewhere does not just mean the 13 alternatives that British Rail put forward.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should like to know who the other experts are who suggested somewhere else. British Rail has been into this extremely carefully and the Select Committee looked at its evidence with great care and at great length. Waterloo appears to me to be the answer but I am not an expert on this; I take the word of those who are and who have looked into it extremely carefully.
I do not understand why anyone should conceivably want to go from Paris to Gatwick by train. If you wanted to go from Paris to Gatwick you would go by aeroplane. I would also point out that Ashford is also on the route down. There will be a terminal there which will capture a good deal of South-East out of town traffic. British Rail is anticipating 1 million or more passengers a year who will use that terminal.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister suggested that this would be the finish of the argument about Waterloo. I suspect that it will not be and that in a few years' time there may be a revision from British Rail. It has happened before when it has come to different conclusions.
On the question of the association of Waterloo groups, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord

575
Mountevans, that I do not think this is a suddenly trumped-up group. The Minister may know more than I do, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, may know more than I do, but it seems to be a very representative collection of interested people in the Waterloo area. I still maintain that you will not be able to have a terminal of this sort there, dealing with the traffic that we are talking about, without an irreversible change. For instance, one of the suggestions that this group made is that house prices will undoubtedly go up. There will be a big change in property values and the local residents will not be able to compete.
However, I can see that there is no possibility at this stage of getting further, and I suppose I should be grateful for the fact that the Minister saw some merit in the question of a periodical revision, although he was not willing to give us on the face of the Bill any specific time. But he said that British Rail would periodically assess the value of Waterloo and whether it needed another terminal somewhere else. I shall read the Minister's words with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [No government grants to Railways Board in respect of international railway services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill. I shall not detain the Committee more than a couple of minutes and in the end it is not my intention firmly to oppose the clause.
I wanted to take the opportunity of briefly raising the question of no obligation with respect to international railway services being imposed on the railways board under Section 3 of the Railways Act 1974, which is what the clause states. It is all part—is it not?—of the Government's intention not to subsidise this whole system. I was interested when we were discussing Amendment No. 81 to hear that the transport supplementary grant for Kent would have special treatment for the schemes that are being put up by the Kentish men or the men of Kent who were speaking from the Government Back-Benches. That is all right. That is the road lobby. When it comes to the rail lobby, that is a different matter.
If this whole system is going to work properly—and we come back over and over again to what happens in the remoter parts of the country—and if through-rail trains are to work, there have to be provisions at the far end not only for Customs but for container ports and freight handling. At the moment, British Rail has been dismantling a number of these freight terminals because they are not viable. Again, if the whole thing is driven only by market forces, I believe that those services will not be as productive and successful as they might be.
The Government ought to be putting money into the infrastructure at the terminals in the distance—in
576
Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and so on. I believe that the opportunity for the Channel Tunnel to entice freight into our ports as well as on to our railways is important. I have said before that the ability to take ships into Liverpool or into the other west coast ports, to load their goods on to a train and to get them into central Europe quicker than the boats can get to Rotterdam, is an important factor for the rail tunnel. That is one of the reasons why I support it. Without the infrastructure at the ports and without the freight handling terminals within our industrial areas, that will be delayed. The Government ought not to be taking powers under Clause 41 to deny any obligation to give the appropriate grants to the Railways Board to fund such projects. Having said that, I do not intend to oppose the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I will briefly reply to that because it makes a change to have to defend a situation where the Government have declined to give support to the railway or, indeed, the tunnel system as a whole. It has been made very clear to us in the past in this Chamber that this system has to operate competitively, in free and fair competition with the ferry system, and that is why we have introduced Clause 2 and also Clause 41. It was to meet the concern of the ferry operators that government funds might leak to the concessionaires in breach of the treaty through the medium of government support for British Rail's tunnel services.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and with much of it I am in agreement—namely, the way in which the benefits of the tunnel should spread throughout the country. It is an important principle of the Bill that this system should be in the private sector and not subsidised by taxpayers' money. That is why Clause 41 is in the Bill. I think if we attempted to remove it at this stage the wrath of the ferry operators, among others, would be something that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, might not wish to face.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Transparency of arrangement with and investment by British Railways Board.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that—

(a)any arrangement between the Concessionaires and the Railways Board; and

(b)any proposed investment by that Board;

relating directly or indirectly to the tunnel system shall be made public.
(2)If in the opinion of the Secretary of State any arrangement or proposed investment should not be made public because of commercial confidentiality he shall ensure that the arrangement or proposed investment concerned is examined by such independent person as he considers appropriate.
(3)The independent person referred to in subsection (2) above shall he required to certify whether in his opinion—

(a)the arrangement has been made on arm's length commercial terms; or

(b)the proposed investment complies with commercial investment criteria.")

The noble Lord said: I am very glad the Minister finished his last remark by saying that this was a private sector matter and that no government money would be involved. It is clear from the amendment which I am now proposing to move, which is a new clause, that the purpose is to ensure that there are safeguards so that not only will the Government not be giving money towards the construction and the running of the Channel Tunnel but there should be no government support through the British Railways Board for the concessionaires of the tunnel. If any money is given, the arrangement should be as transparent as is possible with investment by the British Railways Board. In other words, we should know about it.
I am sure that, having said what he did in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Minister will agree, at least in principle, that any concessions or arrangements made by the Railways Board should be obvious for all to see. It should be a matter of commercial confidence and there should be an arbiter who makes a decision. The arrangements should be arm's length commercial arrangements and the proposed investment should comply with commercial investment criteria. I am sure the Minister will only be too pleased to accept the principle of this amendment. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I agree in principle with the noble Lord's desire, but I cannot accept that it is necessary or appropriate to impose the further safeguards called for in this new clause. The noble Lord recognises that contracts entered into by the board in pursuit of its commercial activities are likely to be commercially confidential. His proposals for independent examination in such circumstances are aimed at overcoming that difficulty, but even with that feature included the proposals are not acceptable to British Rail or to the Government.
British Rail is required to act commercially in providing services through the tunnel. It is precluded from receiving government grant in support of those services. Yet it is not to be trusted to enter into any arrangement with Eurotunnel on commercial terms. And it is apparently not considered capable of taking its own decisions about what is a commercial investment. I find these propositions frankly insulting to British Rail management. If the noble Lord were running a business which involved him entering into a contract with Eurotunnel, he would not expect the terms of that contract to be opened up to public scrutiny so that it could be judged whether he had made the right commercial decision.
I hope that, on further consideration, the noble Lord will accept that we have in Clause 41 placed an effective bar on government funds leaking to Eurotunnel through BR, and that he will feel able to withdraw this new clause.
Lord Mulley: The Minister is probably right when he says that he can understand why British Rail is reluctant to give any information, but this is a two-way situation. I know only what appeared in the
578
press at the time. I understood that Mr. Morton of Eurotunnel was anxious to make arrangements as to how payments from British Rail and the French railways would be made before the trains went through the tunnel because he considered this important to him in obtaining the finance necessary to carry forward the project pending the equity issue which, I think, is contemplated for the autumn.
As I understand company law and the requirements of the Stock Exchange, the tunnel's commercial success or failure may depend on the cash flow and the revenue. I understand that in a press release it has been stated that 50 per cent. of the tunnel's capacity will be made available to the railways. Clearly, the amount they will pay for that capacity is crucial in determining whether people will invest. Whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that the Government will not withhold information from the public, who will be invited to invest in the project. I am bound to tell the Minister that I shall not be one of those investors.
It would be wrong in principle for the ordinary British investor to subscribe the large sums involved without a full disclosure of the recent agreement made by British Rail and the concessionaires. I understand that Members of both Houses of Parliament have sought such information and have been told, as the Minister said, that the contracts are commercial and cannot be disclosed. Any prospectus I have seen inviting the public to invest in a company has to disclose all relevant contracts, both personal, for services rendered, and commercial, which would have a bearing on the future viability and profit capacity, including in many cases, profit forecasts of the company concerned. I should have thought that without knowing what the railways are paying to use the tunnel it would he difficult to ask for public investment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mulley for expanding on what I said. I thought that the Minister would have accepted those remarks. I was slightly peeved that he took exception to what I said as if I did not trust British Rail. It is not that I do not trust British Rail. About nine years ago when the Transport Select Committee of another place dealt with this question there was a big debate as to whether it was to be a mousehole or a proper tunnel carrying freight as well as passenger trains. It was the Treasury which insisted that British Rail could not commit itself because of its public service obligation to guarantee a throughput for whoever was running the tunnel.
It was considered by the Treasury that if any guarantee was given it would come out of the PSBR. I never quite understood why with a huge sum like that, no matter how little was given by British Rail, it would still, in the Treasury's view, be part of the PSBR. It is not an issue that has been dreamed up, but a matter that has been apparent for a very long time. Either directly, or in the way suggested by my noble friend Lord Mulley, there could be an advance about which we did not know or which was unfair to the ordinary shareholders of the UK who are providing some of the public service obligation in

579
another way to British Rail. It is a matter on which we need a proper answer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may first explain that the usage contract does not require British Rail to make any payments to Eurotunnel before the tunnel opens. They have agreed to pay a minimum monthly usage charge based on a proportion of the forecast traffic tolls. In British Rail's view this represents a low commerical risk and in return they will be entitled to use 50 per cent. of the capacity of the tunnel for through trains.
On the public service obligation, none of the services through the tunnel will be a part of that. They will either be InterCity or freight, which do not attract the PSO.
On the prospectus—the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley—there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that anything in the prospectus to investors will be any different from any other prospectus issued under United Kingdom law. Therefore if it is a requirement in the prospectus—I cannot say whether it is as I stand here—that these details will be given, so they will be. There is nothing in the Bill that says that anything in the prospectus for this issue should be any different from any other issue.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I shall read with great care what the Minister has said. We shall keep it beside us during the publication of the prospectus. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("On-train immigration and customs controls.
.—(1) In the event of provision being made for any United Kingdom immigration or customs controls to be carried out on board trains which are providing international railway services, any additional cost of providing such controls on board those trains (instead of at fixed locations) shall be borne by the Railways Board and shall be treated for the purposes of section 41 of this Act as expenditure properly attributable to revenue account and referable to the provision of international railway services.
(2) In this section "international railway services" has the same meaning as in section 41 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that we get Customs and immigration control on the trains and that the charge will not be placed on the taxpayer but on British Rail.
The new clause would ensure that the additional costs were treated for the purposes of Clause 41 of the Bill as:
"expenditure properly attributable to revenue account as is referable to the provision of international railway services".
thus ensuring that the costs cannot be funded by the Government.
On 23rd April 1987 evidence was given on behalf of the Government to the Select Committee of this House that roughly half as many officers again would be required to administer on-train controls compared with fixed-point controls. That is in the Minutes of Evidence at page 24. The Select Committee stated that 80 Customs staff would be likely to be required
580
to carry out checks on trains, while only 30 would be needed if controls were carried out off the trains at Olympia. Immigration staff would also need to be increased but not by so great a proportion.
Counsel for the Government stated to the Committee on 23rd April that paragraph 15 of the concession makes provision for the additional costs caused by these different types of controls to be borne by the concessionaires in the case of the shuttle service. In the case of through trains, however, the relevant body is British Rail. Counsel said that discussions as to whether British Rail would have to bear the additional costs of the extra personnel is a matter which has not yet been resolved. The amendment that I have put forward seeks to help the Government to resolve this matter. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment in the spirit in which I am moving it. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I first confirm that we are looking urgently at whether there should be an early commitment—which I explained last Thursday—to provide on-train controls for through trains going beyond London. This amendment would require British Rail to pay any additional costs associated with on-train controls if it is decided to have them.
Despite the persuasive case put up by the noble Lord, the Government believe that the amendment would be prejudicial to reaching the appropriate and fair solution and are therefore opposed to it. The Government's starting point is the commitment that I set out to the Committee last week to be evenhanded between services using the tunnel and competing services, whether they are the ferries, which will be in competition with Eurotunnel's shuttle services, or the airlines, which may be the main competitors of the through train services.
The general approach of HM Customs and the immigration service is to provide facilities for all persons entering or leaving the UK in the most efficient, practicable way. In cases where operators or users require special facilities, there are certain precedents for HM Customs, although not immigration, to receive payments for extra services.
The Government therefore certainly do not rule out charging the operators for the additional costs of on-train controls. But such an approach does presuppose that there is a practicable alternative way of carrying out the controls at less cost to the Customs and immigration services. As we have heard, however, it has been argued that there is no reasonable and practicable alternative to on-train controls for certain trains. If one follows that argument, one concludes that there can be no such thing as additional costs. It is a fact that in the past Customs and immigration authorities have adjusted to the different circumstances of new forms of transport, and their services are, with a few exceptions, provided free of charge.
The arguments are therefore not clear-cut. It is nearly six years before the tunnel opens, and I ask the Committee not to tie the Government's hands in the task of reaching a fair solution to this question. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure he sees the dilemma that we find. There could be an argument that the cost would be the aspect that would defeat the assessment on the Customs and immigration on the through service. It would be a pity if such a thing happened and it would do great harm to the acceptability of the tunnel in the country as a whole.
On a matter such as this no one wants to tie the Government's hands. We want them to look at these matters with as open a mind as possible, bearing in mind the responsibilities they have to the whole country. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 42 to 45 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Consequential Developments
Having regard to development pressures likely to arise from the construction of the Channel Tunnel and other new transport infrastructure to the east of London, the Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of passing of this Act lay before Parliament a report giving guidelines for the protection of the natural beauty, wildlife interest and amenities of the countryside.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is fairly clear. I shall be as brief as possible in view of the hour. A recent report prepared for the Council for the Protection of Rural England highlights a number of issues in connection with the development of the Channel Tunnel and points out that the tunnel is only one of a number of factors which are likely to result in unprecedented development pressure in Kent and the South-East. The report identifies the major thrust of development pressures as originating in and from London, especially East London, following the City's Big Bang, the extension of the M.11 motorway through East London and new economic activity in the docklands
The Government agreed with the Council for the Protection of Rural England in a letter dated 10th October 1986 that the Channel Tunnel would indeed create:
"strong pressures for development in Kent".
However, they rely on the Kent structure plan and the Kent impact study to regulate these pressures and so too does the report of the Select Committee which we have before us.
The Minister will probably answer that safeguards exist in the Kent county structure plan and the Kent impact study, but these can no longer be relied upon. The Kent structure plan is in the process of review and I have in my possession a copy of the recommendations that are being made as part of that review. The findings of the Kent impact study are a material factor in the review. The structure plan is likely to play a more prominent role than the impact study. The consultation document containing the new policies, which is to be published today, includes references to the need to provide,
"an ordered basis for the release of green field sites and to examine the potential for releasing sites within the green belt for retail operations
582
in response to the new demands created by the Channel Tunnel and the M.25".
I use this just as an illustration, but the pressures are real. As regards the Kent structure plan there is every indication that the pressures will win and that Kent will yield. In any case in the longer term the Government have already said that structure plans will be abolished though we do not have a date for that.
Even if the structure plan was not in danger the issue would need to be dealt with on a different basis, because it is a regional issue and not a county one. There is no evidence that other adjacent counties are addressing the issue even to the extent that it is being done in Kent. The CPRE therefore believes, and I support the view, that this amendment is essential to provide for a full regional analysis of likely development pressures and to identify measures for securing the protection of the wildlife, landscape and amenity of the countryside. It is simply an attempt to have established guidelines against which applications can be measured and developers will know from the start where the line is likely to be drawn. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: In rising to support my noble friend in this amendment I hope the Committee will agree that the publication of guidelines along these lines would be extremely important and desirable.
My one criticism is that it is confined to:
"other new transport infrastructure to the east of London",
whereas in this case the development in other parts of the country, not only in the east, is being affected. The suggestion is for guidelines for the protection of the beauty, interest and amenities of the whole countryside. I should prefer the wording to be different but the principle is there and I hope the Minister will view it favourably.
Lord Belstead: I recognise that the Channel Tunnel and other major infrastructure projects will create strong pressures for development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities already have powers to control unsuitable development and they are encouraged to apply them by well established national policies for the protection of the countryside as a whole, to which the Government remain firmly committed. That is the nub of the answer which I give to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness referred to structure plans being succeeded by a different system of district development plans, which we believe will have advantages. The new system will still require district development plans to be in conformity with county policies for the area, and any way the forthcoming review of the Kent structure plan will be carried out under the existing development plan framework and procedures. Its timing is such as to enable the results of the Kent impact study, which is being undertaken under the aegis of the Kent joint consultative committee and due to be completed by the end of this month, to be considered.
I was sorry to hear that the noble Baroness did not have very much confidence in the results of those procedures, but I do not think that that is a reason for

583
simply plucking away the responsibility from county level, for the structure plan review will address the impact of the Channel Tunnel and will seek to balance the need to encourage development with the need to protect and enhance the countryside. I suggest that that is the proper context in which matters concering consequential development should be considered in a way which will give all interested parties an opportunity to comment both during the formal consultation processes and at the examination in public. There is also a continuing forum for such matters to be fully aired in the Joint Consultative Committee, to which I have just referred, and in which the Government are of course also a partner.
These issues were all raised before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and the committee indicated that they were "confident that these concerns are best dealt with at local level". If the noble Baroness will forgive me, although I listened carefully to her, I think that the answer that the Select Committee gave is the right answer.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for his, as usual, courteous reply. I still feel that there is an argument to be made for a regional approach on this and I should still like to see general guidelines for the protection of the country side which were outside any local plan, because quite often there is a conflict when the boundary is crossed. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Interpretation]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 98:
Page 33, line 25, leave out (", 16A, 17A, 18A, 19A, 20A")
Page 33, line 27, leave out ("Bill for this Act") and insert ("Channel Tunnel Bill")
Page 33, line 29, at end insert ("in April 1986 and the plans and sections so deposited in July 1986;")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 96, 97, and 98 en bloc. The amendments are consequential on the Bill being reintroduced. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No.99 not moved].
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 33, line 47, leave out ("(together with its supplementary protocols and arrangements)")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No.101 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.102:
Page 34, line 18, at end insert—
(" "substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour;")
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The scheduled works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.103:
Page 36, line 27, leave out ("the")
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply deletes a redundant word. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Supplementary provisions as to the scheduled works and other authorised works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.104 to 110:
Page 43, line 13, at end insert—
("() references to the company are references to the Concessionaires;")
Page 43, line 22, at end insert ("and").
Page 43, leave out lines 27 to 33.
Page 43, line 36, leave out ("railway").
Page 43, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) For the purposes of the provisions of the said Clauses Acts so incorporated and applicable to the Concessionaires and the Railways Board—

(a)section 87 of the said Act of 1845 shall have effect as if for the words from "company, being" to "other railway" there were substituted the word "body" and for the words "other company", where secondly occurring, there were substituted the words "other body"; and

(b)section 88 of the said Act of 1845 shall have effect as if for the word "companies", in both places where it occurs, there were substituted the word "bodies" and for the word "company" there were substituted the word "body".").

Page 44, line 22, leave out (", water or") and insert ("or waterpipes,").
Page 46, line 10, leave out ("all conditions (if any)") and insert ("any conditions").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 en bloc. The first five amendments I spoke to with Amendment No. 83, and Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 are purely drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 48, line 37, after ("Board") insert ("shall not carry out any preparatory work or site clearance and").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 112, with the Committee's leave, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116 and 122. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I take just a little longer than usual to sort out those amendments, but I think that in the end we shall save time.
The purpose of all these amendments is to achieve, if we can, the preservation of some part of Scrubs Wood, with which I am sure all noble Lords are now familiar because there has been a lot of publicity about it, to make sure that consultations about it are adequate, and to ensure if possible that at least a measure of the wood— if possible, most of it—can be restored and that there are adequate funds with which to do it.
I shall now work through the amendments as quickly as I can. Amendment No. 112 deals with the question of clearance works: that is, works which could be undertaken by British Rail before the actual work on the depot starts. It appears that earlier redrafting, which involved moving government amendments from their position after the description of works, has reduced the strength of the provision by allowing the consultation about the effects of construction rather than all works including construction. That would mean that there is nothing to stop clearance work being carried out and, as you will appreciate, that could be very destructive in a nature reserve. That could be done immediately. We seek to secure consultation prior to any work, preparatory or otherwise, so that the possible detrimental effect of that work can be minimised. I believe that British Rail would be sympathetic to this, and 1 hope that the Government will be too.
I understand that British Rail has given an assurance that should the project fail for any reason they would be willing to discuss the possibility of leasing the area as a nature reserve. It would be a pity if it were to be destroyed in the meantime by preparation works. Some damage has already been done during survey, and proper consultation in the future would reduce the possibility of this kind of thing happening again.
On Amendment No. 113, we feel that the Nature Conservancy Council should be added to the list for consultation. This seems a sensible move. It has been very helpful over the whole project and it would seem not unusual to want to put it on the list. I hope that that, too, is something the Government will be prepared to accept.
I am afraid that this is quite a complicated exercise. The arguments as regards Amendment No. 114, are the same as for Amendment No. 112. We then come to Amendment No. 115, which is concerned with the putting back of what has been removed. It is felt that the money being suggested by British Rail—I think a sum of £36,000—is really far too small to be of any use. In a scheme of such high overall cost—we have heard a lot about it this evening—the estimates which have been offered by the London Wildlife Trust and the Scrubs Wood Group seem modest enough. As I have said, the figure suggested by British Rail is totally unrealistic. It would be interesting to know how they arrived at it. The cost of the depot we are discussing is £41·9 million, and in that context £36,000 to reinstate a nature reserve seems peanuts. Surely the re-locating of what is a very important reserve to the people who live around it—because after all it is an urban area and there is nowhere else within easy reach where people can enjoy access to a
586
nature reserve—seems important enough to justify just a little more expenditure.
Finally, as regards Amendment No. 116 in this small group, if in the first instance the amount of land used for the depot was as small as possible, obviously it would reduce not only the upset felt by the residents but the possible cost of reinstating the nature reserve. In addition, it would give an advantage in reinstating the nature reserve in that a lot of the scrub land could be saved and there would not be a break of several years before it could be re-established.
A draft undertaking from the railways board to the borough of Hammersmith states that the board will use its best endeavours to locate its work. I believe that we should take it up on that point and keep the amount of land used as small as possible. I understand that the local authority responsible for the land which adjoins Scrubs Wood is willing to allow part of it—if not as much as is needed—to be used as a nature reserve. So there is no problem in that respect.
Amendment No. 122 is a simple case of adding the London Wildlife Trust to the list of those to be consulted. After all, it knows more about the area than anyone else. The Nature Conservancy Council has recommended that the London Wildlife Trust should be involved. British Rail's report states the need to involve the trust in management.
11 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: I support my noble friend on this series of amendments. The Committee must be quite well acquainted with Scrubs Wood and will not need reminding of its importance as a habitat not only of insects and plants, including trees, but in particular of birds which are my interest. Some 99 species are recorded as having been found there, many of them breeding species. But many more are migrating birds using the land on their way to and from warmer climates.
The existence of Scrubs Wood arises solely from the complete neglect over many years of the area alongside the railway by British Rail and its predecessor the Great Western Railway. Therefore, after decades, a little wilderness has grown up alongside the railway track. That does not say much for British Rail. But it has accidentally created a marvellous habitat for wildlife. I feel that British Rail has behaved so badly over the area that it no longer has any claim to it. Ornithologists and bird watchers in the area have established a kind of squatters' right to it.
So far as one can tell from the description of the work to be carried out, it is basically the construction of a railway line and the establishment of a maintenance shed. The need for it arises in order to provide maintenance facilities for British Rail for rolling stock and locomotives using Waterloo. So much new transport will be entering Waterloo that there will have to be new ways of maintaining the stock. I am not at all clear why, in order to maintain rolling stock using Waterloo, it must be taken to Wormwood Scrubs and maintained there. That apparently is the intention. I should have thought that it would he better for the work to be done

587
somewhere south of London rather than bringing it through London to the Scrubs.
Amendment No. 112 includes the carrying out of any preparatory work or site clearance along with the other matters enumerated in line 37. It seems to me to be clearly necessary and I do not see that there can be any objection.
The thinking behind Amendment No. 115 is that an environment has been created in which birds will breed. It is now intended to destroy about half of that environment. There is an area of two or three hectares on the westerly extremity which is to be left as it was so that the birds can continue to breed there and use it as a staging post in their flight to Africa or wherever. The proposal is to plant young trees and let the land grow wild in another part of Wormwood Scrubs so that the birds can nest there and rest their weary wings when the rest of the site has been taken over by a maintenance depot and some railway sidings.
That is certainly better than nothing. However, any Member of the Committee who knows anything about birds will know that one cannot just persuade birds to go and nest somewhere else. If one takes away half their habitat and puts down some trees half a mile away, it will take seven to 10 years before another habitat is created and by then the birds will have flown away or maybe stopped coming to Britain; or maybe they will not be nesting any more or will be nesting elsewhere.
It is the purest luck if, having planted a lot of trees elsewhere in Wormwood Scrubs, then in seven or 10 years' time the garden warblers, willow warblers, chiff chaffs and others come and build their nests there. In my opinion the right course is to leave Scrubs Wood as it is and build the depot somewhere else.
Lord Belstead: We have already made provision in Schedule 2, paragraph 11 of this Bill for consultation with the local authorities and the London Wildlife Trust, so that they can offer advice on the mitigation of the harmful environmental effects to which both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, have referred, when the North Pole depot, as it is called, is constructed on the edge of Wormwood Scrubs.
However, these amendments go a good deal further than that. In the Government's view they go too far. Two of the amendments, Nos. 112 and 114, require consultation before preparatory work is carried out. During the proceedings of the Select Committee, the London Wildlife Trust raised the question of extending the consultation requirement to clearance of the land and asked British Rail to give an undertaking that it would not at any time alter the site in any way without adequate prior consultation. The noble Baroness said that she thought that British Rail was sympathetic to that course. Indeed, British Rail was able to give an assurance that if the London Wildlife Trust wished to identify a particular species or habitat that it wanted to preserve or remove, that opportunity would be given. I believe that we ought to accept that assurance in good faith.
588
The next amendment requires consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand that the NCC is content with the arrangements about consultation on the North Pole works and is not itself seeking statutory consultation. If I may say so, I believe that this fact renders that amendment unnecessary.
The next amendment seeks to extend consultations further to embrace landscaping and associated works on a replacement area for land lost at Scrubs Wood. British Rail undertakings on this matter have already been offered to the local authorities before the Select Committee. As the noble Baroness said, the board will carry out or contribute toward planting and other works in accordance with a scheme to be agreed, to a maximum cost of £36,000.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said that she wondered about the basis of that figure, I can tell her that it is based on an illustrative scheme that has already been prepared by British Rail, and the Select Committee felt that British Rail could not be expected to do more. I must say that the Government share that view.
Amendment No. 116 seeks to ensure that as much British Rail land at Scrubs Wood as possible is left for the purposes of nature conservation. British Rail has already offered the local authorities an undertaking that it will use its best endeavours to locate the facilities and works so as to maximise the area of land to be conveyed to the council for use as an ecological park. Again, I think that the undertaking given ought to be accepted in good faith.
Finally, Amendment No. 122 seeks to give a statutory right of consultation to the London Wildlife Trust, and I do not think that the London Wildlife Trust ought to have a higher profile than the voluntary environmental bodies in Kent. Indeed, this amendment would put the trust on the same footing as the statutory conservation bodies which are mentioned in the Bill.
The environmental bodies have received an assurance from the local planning authorities that they will be consulted on matters which affect their interest. I am pleased to say that the London boroughs within whose boundaries Scrubs Wood is located—that is to say, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Ealing—have both agreed to consult the London Wildlife Trust and other appropriate bodies on the same basis as the Kent environmental bodies are to be consulted. I therefore believe that the substance of what is being sought in this final amendment has already been given in those undertakings and that that matter ought to rest there.
I am sorry to sound resistant to all these amendments but it is because I genuinely feel that each has been met by the undertakings which have been given—undertakings which I think ought to be accepted.
Lord Kilbracken: Can the noble Lord say whether the figure he mentioned of £36,000 is intended to include the purchase of the land, or merely the planting, care and maintenance of the land?
Lord Belstead: As far as I know, it is for the planting and laying out of the land.
Baroness Nicol: The Minister seems to base his case on the need to trust the undertaking given by British Rail. I am sorry to say that the damage that has been done to the site as a preliminary to survey work has been done within the last two weeks, which is after the undertaking was given. Noble Lords can scarcely be surprised therefore if the London Wildlife Trust and the other local groups feel a little diffident about accepting the rest of British Rail's undertakings. I am sorry to have to undermine the Minister's argument but this is a fact, and somewhere I have photographs of the damage.
As far as the £36,000 is concerned, I understand that that would roughly pay for the fencing around the area. The London Wildlife Trust has just received a report from land use consultants giving them details of the possible cost of reinstatement of Scrubs Wood together with certain environmental works. The report is broken down, and I shall not bore the Committee with it at this hour of the night, but the total cost is approaching £250,000, not £36,000. Certainly, the trust's own estimates were somewhere in the region of £140,000. So I do not think that we are talking about realistic money when we talk about £36,000.
However, I can see that we are not going to get anywhere this evening and I am afraid that at this stage I must withdraw the amendment. However, I do so very reluctantly because I am aware of the feelings of the trust regarding British Rail's undertakings. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 112.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Earl Cathcart): I should point out that only Amendment No. 112 was moved and that we have been debating, because they were spoken to initially, Amendments Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116 and 122, which were never moved formally. So those amendments are not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 116 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 120:
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("for all purposes of the law relating to highways")
Page 59, line 32, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 35
Page 60, line 36, after ("were") insert (", as from the commencement of its construction,")
Page 61, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("which involve the construction or alteration of a highway")
The noble Lord said: I hope that it is convenient to the Committee if I move Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 en bloc. These are technical or drafting amendments and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Planning permission]:
11.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 64, line 53, at end insert—
("Protection of site at Holywell Coombe)
6A.—(1) No part of Work No. 3 shall be constructed in any part of the protected site.
(2) Nothing shall be done in any part of the protected site in connection with the construction of that work except necessary drainage work and landscaping of the site.
(3) No part of that work shall be constructed, and nothing shall be done in connection with the construction of that work, anywhere else unless—

(a) the southern boundary of the protected site is fenced; or

(b) that boundary has been fenced but the fencing has been temporarily removed because it was necessary to remove it in order to carry out necessary drainage work or landscaping of the site.

(4) In this paragraph "the protected site" means the area of land at Holywell Coombe in the district of Shepway (town of Folkestone) bounded on the southern side by a straight line between National Grid reference points 622058E 138078N and 622138E 138095N, on the western and eastern sides by straight lines passing due north from each of those points to the limit of deviation of Work No. 3 and on the northern side by that limit.").
The noble Lord said: Representations were made to the Select Committee by the Nature Conservancy Council and other environmental bodies about the impact of the railway tunnel on two scientifically interesting geological deposits in Holywell Coombe which contain a rich collection of animal and vegetable fossils. The original alignment of the tunnel would have destroyed or severely damaged both deposits. However, in response to representations Eurotunnel agreed to move the centre line of the tunnel to a more southerly alignment—which would save the northern deposit—and to contribute £100,000 towards a rescue dig of the southern deposit.
The Select Committee recommended (in paragraph 33 of its report) that the revised alignment should be written into the Bill. This amendment gives effect to that recommendation, by defining a protected area south of which all the construction works must take place. Incorporation of these requirements in Schedule 3 will mean that they become planning conditions of the deemed planning consent conferred on the concessionaires by Clause 9 and I hope that the Committee will feel that this is the right way to proceed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The A20 improvement works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 133:
Page 69, line 47, after ("with") insert ("the").
Page 69, line 56, after ("with") insert ("the").
Page 73, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("the") in page 74, line 1 and insert—
("6.—(1) On the date on which this Act is passed").
Page 74, line 18, leave out ("certified under sub-paragraph (1) above") and insert ("on which this Act is passed").
Page 74, line 36, leave out paragraph 7.
Page 75, line 3, leave out ("7 above") and insert ("9 below").
Page 75, line 13, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 16.
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("(without prejudice to paragraph 7 above)").
Page 75, line 23, after ("Act") insert ("made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads and special roads by virtue of paragraph 6(2) above").
Page 75, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads by virtue of paragraph 6(4) above"). Page 75, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("above") in page 77, line 11 and insert—
("10.—(l) The carrying out of any of the A20 improvement works which is not the construction of a highway and the stopping up of any highway in pursuance of Part II of this Schedule shall be treated as having been authorised by an order under section 14 of the Highways Act 1980 made in relation to the roads which become trunk roads by virtue of paragraph 6(4) above.
(2) Subject to sections 21 and 22 of that Act as they apply by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)").
The noble Lord said: The first two amendments correct tiny slips and the second batch are technical amendments concerned with the status of the A.20 improvement works. If the Members of the Committee wish for a more detailed explanation I shall of course give it but otherwise I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Supplementary provisions as to acquisition of land]:
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.135 and 136:
Page 80, line 38, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 41.
Page 80, line 43, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("the purposes mentioned in those sections").
The noble Lord said: The first amendment deletes superfluous words and in doing so corrects an inconsistency in the drafting. The second amendment is consequential on the first one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Protective provisions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos.138 to 147:
Page 88, line 28, leave out ("constructing or carrying out works of maintenance on") and insert ("carrying out any work for the construction or maintenance of).
Page 88, line 32, leave out ("such part") and insert ("the work").
Page 88, line 35, leave out ("construction of such part") and insert ("carrying out of the work").
Page 88, line 38, leave out ("that part of the works") and insert ("the works").
Page 88, line 39, leave out ("constructed") and insert ("carried out").
Page 88, line 42, leave out ("part of the works") and insert ("work").
Page 88, line 43, leave out ("constructed and") and insert ("carried out,").
Page 88, line 43, leave out ("or"").
Page 97, line 35, leave out ("be caused or").
Page 97, line 42, leave out ("or interference").
The noble Lord said: These amendments eliminate an ambiguity and an inconsistency in the drafting. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 150
Page 100, line 38, at end insert—

PART V(C) PROVISIONS FOR ENABLING CROSS-CHANNEL FERRY OPERATORS TO INTEGRATE THEIR SERVICES
1.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading, release all existing undertakings given by ferry or hovercraft operators to the Secretary of State containing restrictions on co-operation between such operators in respect of cross-Channel car ferry services and the fares and rates charged for such services upon receipt from the operators concerned of substitute undertakings as referred to in subparagraph (2) below.
(2) Such operators shall enter into substitute undertakings to the Secretary of State in the following or a substantially similar form—

(a) to provide ferry services reasonably sufficient to meet the demands of the cross-Channel ferry market for all categories of traffic until the opening of the tunnel system; and

(b) to maintain fares and rates for all categories of traffic using such services at or below those levels subsisting at the date of the passing of this Act until the opening of the tunnel system, subject to adjustment for increases in operating costs properly incurred.

(3) In this paragraph "hovercraft" has the same meaning as in the Hovercraft Act 1968.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I hesitate to detain the Committee. However, this amendment is directed to a very real problem to which I think, at a later stage, we should give further consideration; namely, how to ensure that adequate ferry services are maintained in the interval between now and when the tunnel opens. If the ferry operators follow the advice of the Select Committee and apply proper commercial standards—the pursuit of the profit motive—then clearly services will begin to tail off some time before the tunnel is ready, to the detriment of our trade both in tourism and in goods. Perhaps it would be better to ask the Government at another hour their views on how best to deal with that matter. However, the Minister may wish to give a preliminary view at this stage.
One suggested solution is that the ferry operators, together with the Secretary of State, should try to work out a reasonable schedule of ferry services in this difficult period, not least because the cash flow of the operators varies greatly with the season. They make a lot of money in the summer and very little in the winter. It would be sensible, I suppose, if many of them closed at the end of the summer season in 1992. Then we should lose the capacity for freight and so on until the tunnel was ready. That would be a very serious problem. I think it demands a rather more careful and mature consideration than we are likely to be able to give as the hour approaches midnight.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall take the opportunity, if I may, of responding briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord. No doubt he can read what I have said and, if necessary, come back to the issue at another stage.
This amendment would release European Ferries and Sea link from undertakings they gave following

593
the 1974 report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on cross-channel car services. Those undertakings were not to agree tariffs, not to enter into new pooling agreements without the Secretary of State's prior approval and not to discuss tariffs without arranging for a record to be sent to the Director General of Fair Trading within 30 days. Subsequently, in 1982, European Ferries gave a further undertaking not to seek a merger with Sealink.
The ferry companies wish to be released from these undertakings in order to be free to integrate their operations in a manner which would enable them to compete more effectively with Eurotunnel's frequent no-booking shuttle service. As the Select Committee noted in paragraph 80 of their special report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, rejected last October an application by the companies for release from the undertakings. However, the Secretary of State pointed out that the undertakings did not prevent the companies from discussing ways in which they might respond to the prospective competition of the tunnel, provided that a record of the discussion was sent to the Director General of Fair Trading. But if the companies wished to make a specific proposal for co-ordinating or integrating their services, it would need to be considered by the Office of Fair Trading against the circumstances prevailing at the time.
The Select Committee accepted that the Director General would need to take many factors into account, including the effect on users of any reduction in competition between the ferries in the period before the tunnel opens. The substitute undertakings proposed in subsection (2) of the amendment are unsatisfactory, not least because they would be statutory and inflexible, whereas under the present system the Director General has a duty to keep undertakings under review and to recommend to the Secretary of State whether the undertakings should be varied in the light of changing circumstances. The Select Committee concluded that it would he wrong to pre-empt the Director General's judgment by writing the ferry operators' amendment into the Bill.
In its response to the Select Committee's report the Government confirmed that the Director General would, when considering any proposals from the ferry operators for integrating their services, take into account the possibility that the operators would otherwise restrict their investment or curtail their services in the period before the tunnel opens, which was the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, in moving the amendment.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be wrong to pre-empt the decision of the Director General in the way this amendment would do, and that he will consider what I have said before returning to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Mulley: I am most grateful to the Minister. I think I speak for all Members who have been concerned with this debate when I say that I
594
congratulate him on the way in which he has conducted the Committee. It is a very demanding task dealing with one amendment after another and he has performed with great courtesy and efficiency for the benefit of us all. I shall read very carefully the report of what he said in regard to the problem that I have just raised and, if necessary, will perhaps seek an alternative form at a later stage. I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  TERRITORIAL SEA LIMITS IN NATO MEMBER STATES
  TERRITORIAL SEA LIMITS IN NATO MEMBER STATES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION 1986 AND 1987
  NORTHERN IRELAND: UK SUBVENTION 1986 AND 1987