Sitting of 9 July 1987

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL
  Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified. Read the Third time, and passed.
  FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Orders fir consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 16 July.
  HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL (By Order)
  Considered; to be read the Third time
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 July.
  WESTERN ISLES ISLANDS COUNCIL (VATERSAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway).

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Self-employment
    Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The latest published figures show that self-employment in the United Kingdom has increased by over three-quarters of a million since 1979.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and on the very encouraging answer that he has just given. Does he agree that self-employment and small businesses can provide a powerful force for reviving commercial and business efforts within the depressed inner cities as well as elsewhere? Will he please assure me that he and his Department will do what they can to remove the petty bureaucracy which still stands in the way of many who would like to start up on their own?
    Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely correct in saying that there could be no greater benefit to the inner cities than a continuing growth in self-employment. He is also correct in saying that the Government will do all in their power to remove obstacles to that growth.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Such a dramatic increase in self-emloyment figures must be a tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies in promoting enterprise. What information does my hon. Friend have on how those figures are spread throughout the country? Is it not important to encourage self-emloyment in those areas hardest hit by the loss of traditional industries?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The growth has been quite dramatic. It is up 40 per cent. since 1979. The growth in the region is much the same as in the south-east and the south-west. The growth in the regions is particularly encouraging, because, for every self-employed person, in due course more jobs will be created as they in turn take on employees. That is why we are encouraging, wherever we can, the growth of self-employment in the areas that have been hardest hit by the decline in the traditional industries.
    Ms. Short: Is the Minister aware that it is true that there has been a remarkable growth in self-employment, but that if we look at the historical record since 1945, we see that in every period when unemployment grew. self-employment grew? I invite him to check that. If he looks at the figures for tax and VAT, he will see that the self-employed are overwhelmingly very low-paid. It is not a real measure of a successful enterprise economy. A lot of it is the desperation of people struggling along because it is their only alternative to unemployment.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is right in one respect. Under the Labour Government unemployment doubled and self-employment fell. However, she is incorrect in suggesting that a similar pattern has occurred under this Government. Self-employment has increased by 40 per cent., which is five times the increase in self-employment that has occurred over the past 30 years.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I join my colleagues in wishing my hon. Friend every success in his new position. May I draw his attention to the fact that, although self-employment has grown fast in this country, it is still only one third of that in countries such as Italy? My hon. Friend will be aware that Italy's new economy has had many compliments paid to it in recent years. Is there a link between Italy's healthy economy and the mileage that still exists for self-employment in this country?
    Mr. Lilley: I have no doubt that the self-employed in Italy contribute to that country's economic growth. However, this country's economy grew more rapidly over the period of the last Parliament than that of Italy, and we shall continue to encourage the growth of self-employment wherever it is appropriate in the United Kingdom.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Ian Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of industrial production.
    Mr. Lilley: In the three months to April industrial production was 2½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, and within that manufacturing output was up 4½ per cent.
    Mr. Taylor: I welcome those figures, which must be very good news for many regions of the country. Does my hon. Friend consider that the growth of output can continue so that, by the end of next year, we will have the highest rate of sustained economic growth in this country since the war?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. On official forecasts, we will have had seven years of sustained growth at one of the highest rates that we have seen since the war. Of course, on unofficial forecasts, the projected rate of growth is constantly being forecast to increase. We see no reason domestically for growth not to continue in this country.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have succeeded in reaching the same figure for industrial production as existed in 1979?
    Mr. Lilley: Yes. We are well above it.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1980 the growth of gross domestic product of United Kingdom Limited has been more rapid than that of any other European country? Is that not a welcome and refreshing change compared with the 1060s and 1970s? In those circumstances, was it not predictable that the shareholders would vote in the same board of directors?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that since the election the board of directors has received praise from some surprising quarters. The growth of the economy is not only good for the continuing prosperity of the country, but it has restored the pride of the British people.
    Mr. Blair: I welcome the Economic Secretary to his position and congratulate him on having achieved it. Is it not the case that any increase in industrial production has come about largely as a result of the exchange rate depreciation and the fact that those competitive gains are now being eroded? The hon. Gentleman boasts about the Government's economic record, but will he tell us when they will get back, under this Chancellor, to the position on the balance of payments in manufactured trade that they inherited in 1979?
    Mr. Lilley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and, in turn, congratulate him on the success that he achieved in the elections. Clearly, the Labour party has considerable sense in some matters.
    The growth of industrial production is not just the result of changes in the exchange rates. We have had six or seven years of continuous growth that cannot possibly be attributed to the recent change in the exchange rates.

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his gross wage a single person receiving half average industrial earnings pays out in income tax and national insurance contributions.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): A single person on half average male manual earnings will this year pay just under 21 per cent. of his earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions. The corresponding figure for someone on half average earnings for all occupations is just under 25 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that that proportion has been reduced significantly, in particular as a result of the past three Budgets, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that people earning quite modest wages and salaries are still paying far too great a proportion of those wages and salaries in direct taxation of one sort or another? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's top priority to reduce those direct tax levels still further during the course of this Parliament?
    Mr. Major: We are certainly keen to reduce taxation whenever and wherever it is prudent to do so. As my hon. Friend intimated, since 1979 there have been substantial improvements, not only in the basic rate, but in the thresholds, and, perhaps most important of all, the fact is that nearly 1½ million taxpayers have been entirely taken out of tax.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that the figure in the latter part of his first answer — that for all workers on half average earnings the share of their wages taken in tax and national insurance is just under 25 per cent.—is higher than the figure of 23·5 per cent. in 1978–79, the last year of the Labour Government? Every worker, married or single, on less than average earnings loses a bigger slice of his wages in tax and national insurance under this Government than he did in the last year of the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is half right, in that he correctly interpreted what I said a moment ago. As regards a comparison with 1978–79, the more accurate comparison would be the updated index figure under the system that applied before. On that basis the reduction still applies.
    Mr, John Townend: The figures given suggest the reason why the population voted to return a Government who are dedicated to reducing rather than increasing taxation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our starting basic rate for income tax, plus insurance, is still relatively high compared with our industrial competitors?
    Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor quite clearly indicated his opinion on that in the last Budget, when he reduced the standard rate.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Martyn Jonesasked the Chancellor of Exchequer whether he has any plans to increase value added tax base in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Parryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to impose value added tax on children's clothes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any plans to extend the range of value added tax; and if he will make a statement.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain what the Government intend to do in the light of the probable result of the Cockfield report to the European Commission next week, which will certainly insist on the harmonisation of VAT rates within the European Economic Community? That, of course, will mean VAT on food, clothing, fuel and other goods in this country.
    Mr. Brooke: Last night the Commission decided not to take a decision on the proposals put forward by Lord Cockfield's commission. Therefore, as yet, the hon. Gentleman's question remains hypothetical.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will veto any attempt to introduce VAT on children's shoes and clothes?
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the situation on food and children's clothes entirely clear.
    Mr. Heathcote-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree, and will he confirm, that, whatever the merits or objections to extending the VAT base, it should remain a decision of this Parliament and not be subcontracted to the European Parliament? Moreover, we should not be pressured into it by the European Court.
    Mr. Brooke: I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend has no such plans, but it is the need to preserve his freedom to have plans in this area that might cause us to exercise our veto in Brussels.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Lord Cockfield's proposals also include the harmonisation of excise duties? Can the Minister assure us that the Chancellor will oppose any efforts to harmonise excise duties?
    Mr. Brooke: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as the one that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). Lord Cockfield has not brought forward his proposals. Therefore, that question remains hypothetical.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the fact that the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on the Opposition Front Bench demonstrate that debility is not necessarily a bar to advancement in the Labour party? In view of the disgraceful scare-mongering that was carried out during the election campaign on the issue of VAT, has my hon. Friend yet received an apology from those hon. Gentleman for the lies that were told—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) knows what I am about to say.
    Mr. Hamilton: I refer to the lies that were told by members of the Labour party who were not standing as candidates for membership of this House.
    Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in admiring the two hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. As to secret agendas during the election, we were conscious of
    502
    two pieces of small print that were missing from the Labour party manifesto. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, "To omit one piece of small print might be regarded as a cock-up; to omit two looks like a conspiracy."
    Mr. Gould: The Minister must know that the Prime Minister has merely said that she does not believe that plans to levy VAT on children's clothing and other items of the family budget would get through the House. I agree with her on that point, but what, however, is the Government's attitude? Will the Minister tell us whether he, his colleagues and the Prime Minister will ensure that a veto is applied to any such proposals?
    Mr. Brooke: I have the distinction of having been the pairing Whip during the 1979 Parliament who uniquely lost a vote in the House, but it is not the Government's practice to put in front of the House proposals that they would not expect to carry.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lilley: In the three months to April 1987 manufacturing output per head is estimated to have been over 6½ per cent. higher than a year earlier.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Is it true that the growth in manufacturing output per head in this country is now greater than in any other major industrial country, including Japan? Is it not also true that, under the last Labour Government, we were nearly bottom of that league? Therefore, is it any wonder that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) should now have taken to praising the Government on their economic record?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The rate of growth of manufacturing productivity in this country has exceeded that in every major industrial country, not excluding Japan, since 1979.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister agree that investment by overseas multinationals in manufacturing in the United Kingdom is now declining and that the 30 top overseas companies show a massive reduction in employment?
    Mr. Lilley: Investment overall in this country is at an all-time record. If a Labour Government had been returned, there would have been negative investment from abroad in this country.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 4 per cent. growth in manufacturing output per head since 1979 not only contrasts favourably with the preceding six years from 1973 to 1979 but bodes extremely well for the creation of new jobs in this country, because it shows that Britain is becoming competitive again, compared with countries overseas?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. That growth bodes well for the future. Manufacturing industry is now increasing productivity. It is doing so because we have restored to management the power to manage and to trade union members the power to control their unions. As a result we have better industrial relations and greater incentives to increase production.

    EC Budget
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of Britain's contribution to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Brooke: The latest projection of our net payments to Community institutions in 1987–88 is £870 million.
    Mr. McKelvey: We are still a large net contributor. Is it not the case that in Fontainebleau in 1984 there was an agreement that, if there were an increased resources payment, there would be proper budgetary control? Has the Prime Minister herself not agreed that there has been a budgetary control failure? If so, why are we agreeing to a further 3·5 billion deficit in this respect? Will we have proper guarantees that there will be proper budgetary control in future?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not entirely sure about the 3½ billion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but the great achievement of the Fontainebleau agreement was to secure a permanent abatement for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that was beyond the power of the Labour party to achieve during its time in government.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the British taxpayer has any more largesse to dispense charity begins at home, and that that money would be far better spent on our own inner cities than on Ireland, Greece and the Mediterranean coast?
    Mr. Brooke: I share with my hon. Friend a desire to restrain expenditure in the European Community.
    Mr. Spearing: Whatever our net or gross contributions, is it not a fact that a good slice of those contributions is taken up by VAT? Whatever the Chancellor said, and whatever plans Lord Cockfield may or may not have, is it not a fact that the European Commission is now taking the British Government to court so that VAT rates on all building, fuels, some new services and water should be put up? Should not that fact be in the Government's calculations?
    Mr. Brooke: It is certainly a fact that the Commission has taken the British Government to the European Court under infraction proceedings on zero rates on a number of different items. That is a legal case, which will be heard on 15 September. We will not know the judgment until the end of this year or the beginning of next, and the Government will then react to whatever the judgment is.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a mistake to pay twice for the same thing? As the House was persuaded to go along with an increase in own resources for the Community on the ground that there was to be budgetry discipline, we should not give a further increase just to get that guaranteed.
    Mr. Brooke: I repeat and endorse what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it is very much the concern of the Government to restrain expenditure in the Community.
    Mr. Hoyle: As we are net contributors, what is our trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC? Can the Minister confirm that our deficit with West Germany is the largest trade deficit that we have? What will be done about this albatross around our neck?
    Mr. Brooke: These are supplementary questions to question 6 to the Treasury, not "Mastermind". The hon. Gentleman's supplementary does not fall within the terms of the original question.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Simon Coombsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies and how many employees have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector since 1979.
    Mr. Major: Fifteen major businesses have been privatised, employing 650,000 people.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the proportion of public industry that has been returned to the private sector since 1979 and what other elements of the public sector remain to be returned in the immediate and medium term future, and will he take this opportunity of telling the House about some of the many advantages that privatisation bestows?
    Mr. Major: Were I to respond in detail to all those points, I fancy that we would run on for rather a long time. Over one third of state industry has been privatised since 1979. As the House knows, we have a continuing rolling programme for the future. Many benefits are increasingly apparent, not least the access to capital markets and greater incentives for management and employees to produce a profitable return, as they are doing.
    Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the workers in most of the companies that have been transferred now have lower wages, job insecurity, lower pensions, lower sickness benefit and fewer holidays? What excuse has he to offer for this shabby transformation?
    Mr. Major: I cannot confirm any of those propositions. The companies that have been transferred to the private sector were often unprofitable before, but they are now substantially profitable.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of 11 June shows that the public like the idea of transferring properties from the public sector to genuine public ownership? When will he start this process on the Bank of England?
    Mr. Major: I have no comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. On the former, I entirely agree. The concern for privatisation that we have shown has been followed in a number of other countries. It is noticeable that on 11 June privatisation was preferred to social ownership.
    Mr. Blair: If the British Airports Authority is to be sold partly by fixed tender to get value for money for the taxpayer, why was the same procedure not followed on the sale of British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways, when thousands, if not millions, of pounds were lost to the taxpayers through selling those companies off at a knock-down price?
    Mr. Major: I do not accept that any of those companies was sold at knock-down prices. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on BAA at the moment.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend recollect the dire predictions of doom and gloom when companies such as Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and Jaguar were

    505
    privatised? How do those predictions square with the current performance of those companies in the private sector?
    Mr. Major: As my hon. Friend intimates, those predictions do not square. For example, Jaguar's pre-tax profits are up 33 per cent. on 1984, and Cable and Wireless pre-tax profits are up fourfold since that date. Therefore, the predictions that were made at the time were wildly inaccurate.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to seek to reduce the present rate of standard income tax; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 25p in the pound as soon as I prudently can.
    Mr. Cox: While I note that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's commitment, about which we now hear repeatedly, to regenerate and rebuild confidence in our inner cities is real? He must be aware that it will take substantial sums of money to do that, and it is certainly the wish of the general public that that money should go into our inner cities and the social fabric of our country rather than on tax concessions to the wealthy. Will he tell the House exactly what is his commitment to the inner cities and social fabric of the country?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman's question betrayed two failings on the part of the Labour party to understand the facts of life which, I believe, cost it dear at the last general election. The first is that he referred to the basic rate of income tax as a tax on the rich. He totally fails to understand that that is a marginal rate of tax on millions and millions of ordinary working people, many of whom are earning incomes well below the average. Getting the basic rate of income tax down for them is something of the first importance—it is not simply a tax cut for the rich.
    The second thing the hon. Gentleman fails to understand is that the achievement of all the things that we seek to achieve in the public sector must be secured by growth in the economy. Lowering the rate of income tax and creating a more dynamic economy and greater incentives in the economy is the crucial part of the way to get a stronger economy that will enable us to do more for the inner cities, among other things.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuation of the reduction in the standard rate from 33p to 27p to 25p is welcome to all taxpayers, whether rich or poor? Indeed, it affects people who are retired. Does he further agree that when we get down to 25p as a standard rate of tax, the next jump to 42p in the pound will be far too high, and that it should come down at the same time as the 25p is achieved?
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the policy that we have been pursuing of bringing down the rates of income tax and raising thresholds. We shall continue to do that as and when circumstances permit. I shall certainly consider the question of the jump from the basic rate to the first higher rate, but it is interesting to note that, in the United States, the new tax reform package, which has gained a number
    506
    of plaudits in this country, has a basic rate of 15 per cent. and then rises to 28 per cent. That is a gap similar to the one about which my hon. Friend has spoken.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Chancellor accept that the tax cut in the basic rate has really been a con job on the majority of ordinary people? Is it not a fact that the tax cuts have not benefited the very low-paid and people living on state benefits, and that the majority of people on average earnings are paying more in VAT and national insurance and are worse off in taxation terms than they were before the cut in basic tax?
    Mr. Lawson: On the contrary, the very low-paid have done particularly well under this Government as a result of the introduction—for the first time in this country—of reduced rates of national insurance contributions for employees and for those who employ them. That has helped those at the lower end of the wage spectrum, especially.
    As for con jobs, the only con job that I can recall was when the Labour party sought unsuccessfully to conceal the fact that it planned to abolish the married man's tax allowance.
    Mr. Boswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the healthy worldwide trend towards lower and less penal tax rates? Does he agree that that has considerable relevance to the level at which we set our own basic and additional rates?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. That international context is both very striking and something that we do have to take into account. It is something that I have to take into accont in deciding what is appropriate and necessary for this country. Indeed, the consensus about the need to bring down income tax is one that is now shared by all those in charge of the major economies of the world. It is only the Labour party in this country that is determined to put up income tax—at least it was at the last election. I do not know whether it still is. This revisionism that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is going in for is bewildering us. But it was only the Labour party—atleast until very recently—that was determined to put up income tax.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Lilley: Bank base rates are 9 per cent.
    Mr. Macdonald: If the economy is as successful as the Chancellor frequently claims, why do we have one of the highest bank interest rates in the Western world? Does the Minister have any idea of the damage that that is doing to small businesses in my constituency, and when can my constituents expect some relief?
    Mr. Lilley: It is not correct to say that British interest rates are the highest. Interest rates are kept at a level sufficient to keep downward pressure on inflation. I wonder whether, during the election campaign, the hon. Gentleman paused to think of the consequence for British interest rates if his party had been elected and had spent an extra £35 billion, largely financed by borrowing?
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what is preventing a reduction in interest rates, given that the economy is doing well, sterling is not under pressure and the credit expansion is being controlled?
    Mr. Lilley: As I mentioned, it is our policy to keep interest rates at a level sufficient to keep money GDP on a steady downward path and, therefore, to maintain downward pressure on inflation. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why are the interest rates of Belgium, Canada,—[Hon. Members "Reading"]—France, West Germany, Holland, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America all lower than the level of interest rates in this country? [Hon. Members: "Reading".] Why should British business men be penalised when overseas business men are not penalised?
    Mr. Lilley: Real interest rates in Britain are about ½ per cent. above the average for other major industrial countries. I have not noticed British industry being penalised, since it is growing faster than industry in any other major Western economy.
    Mr. Forth: In adding my best wishes to the others expressed to my hon. Friend about his new position, may I ask him whether he agrees that interest rates cannot be arbitrarily varied on their own as they are necessarily interlinked with and interdependent on the other great factors in any economy, such as inflation and exchange rates? Does he further agree that any responsible Government must bear that in mind when looking at interest rates, which cannot be considerd in isolation?
    Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is quite correct. We have to take into account all those factors when determining the level of interest rates, but we give priority to keeping inflation on a downward course.
    Mr. Gould: Does the Minister share the Bank of England's continuing concern, indicated again today, about the explosion of credit in the personal sector? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) that manufacturing industry is now severely constrained by the high interest rates that the personal and property sectors are prepared to pay? Why is it that he and his colleagues are obsessed with public spending, when they should be doing something about this new and damaging version of crowding out?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asks almost as many questions as he received votes. Interest rates are not inhibiting output. Output is growing more rapidly and the CBI survey shows that investment intentions are very strong. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the remarks of the Bank of England. They were directed towards the prudential aspects of borrowing. Of course it is correct that financial institutions should look closely at the ability of borrowers to repay their debts and the effect that that has on their balance sheets. We support that.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend towards lower interest rates has been assisted by the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement occasioned by the Government's programme of privatisation?
    Mr. Lilley: It is certainly true that as my hon. Friend said, if we were to eschew privatisation—even though that programme is primarily carried out for reasons of competition and efficiency—and the revenues that flow from it there would have to be higher borrowing and, therefore, higher interest rates.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Altonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for the United Kingdom to join the European monetary system.
    Mr. Lawson: We continue to keep the matter under review.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Chancellor agree that for far too long we have ducked membership of the European monetary system because of short-term arguments that have disappeared on the next prevailing wind of the world currency market—[Interruption.] Does the Chancellor agree that sterling is not a super currency and should not be subjected to the vagaries of the world money markets?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not sure that I was able to hear every word that the hon. Member uttered, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give the fullest answer to his question. What he has failed to observe is that since the Louvre agreement towards the end of February of this year—which was conducted through G7, even though only six members were present on that occasion—we have enjoyed the benefits of exchange rate stability throughout all the major currencies, not just the European ones.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is it really a wise or constructive move to make binding commitments in regard to the exchange rate of the pound before we have completed the integration of the European market for capital? Would it not be much better to integrate our policies with those of the continental countries, particularly West Germany, after which the currencies will look after themselves?
    Mr. Lawson: I agree with the first half of what my hon. Friend said. I strongly support the move that there is now throughout Europe for freedom of capital movements. A number of countries in the Community have complete freedom of capital movements and others are moving in that direction. The Commission is making further proposals this autumn for freedom of capital movements for those countries which, unlike the United Kingdom, do not already have it. This is an important development and I welcome it.
    Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be lured by the call of the Liberals and Social Democrats into a further bout of merger mania and into agreeing that the pound should join the EMS. We have had enough twaddle about the Common Market in the past 14 years from Euro-fanatics at the back of me and the one below me who has just turned up for work. It has cost the British taxpayer £8,000 million net to be a member of this club, despite all the talk about barrow-loads of money being brought back by the Prime Minister. That has been the cost to the British taxpayer and it is time that it ended.
    Mr. Lawson: I can assure the House that I am no more likely to be lured by the Liberals and Social Democrats than I am by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Fallonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new companies registered for value added tax in 1986.
    Mr. Brooke: I regret that records are maintained in a form which enables only the net change in the number of VAT registered persons of different status to be given. In 1986 the net increase in the number of companies registered for VAT was over 7,000 and total VAT registrations increased by some 23,000.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some 6,000 new companies were registered during 1986 in the north-east alone? Is this not the best possible testimony to the success of Government policies in the region and the surest possible way of creating new jobs in the north-east?
    Mr. Brooke: Because Customs VAT areas—what in Customs terms we call collections—do not match the boundaries of the economic regions, it is difficult to give regional figures, but the Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Washington collections showed positive VAT registrations last year.

    Rebated Fuel
    Mr. NicholasBaker asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received representations about the rules concerning the use of rebated fuel in farm vehicles.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received about 10 letters over the last six months on these long-standing rules.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long-thought-out and carefully delivered reply. Is he aware that the effect of these rules, certainly as administered by the Inland Revenue, is to say that tractors may not be used, for example, in fetes and on community occasions in villages to help carry floats at carnivals and other such community projects? Is that not a ridiculous restriction on the use of tractors?
    Mr. Brooke: Customs and Excise, which in fact administers these rules rather than the Inland Revenue, is a very old-established organisation. It is true that anxiety in the Farming News during the past year suggested that Customs officers had been instructed to intensify checks on the use of farm tractors. In fact, that was not true. In terms of community and charity work in rural areas, the law is complex because of associated use of public roads. In practice, few difficulties have arisen, and grass-cutting, not on a public road, is allowed. As to charity work, this would require a change in the licensing law and that would come under the Department of Transport, but in practice few difficulties arise.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Arab League.
    Mr. Maxton: As the Tory party made the introduction of a poll tax a major plank in its campaign in Scotland, and as it suffered such a crushing defeat in Scotland, what moral or democratic justification can the right hon. Lady have for continuing to impose this unfair, unjust and unworkable tax upon the people of Scotland? Will she now instruct her Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce legislation to repeal it?
    The Prime Minister: No. The Act was passed during the last Parliament, and I take it that the hon. Gentleman is proud to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Yeo: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to meet the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to obtain agreement between the two Front Benches that attacks made the under cloak of parliamentary privilege upon individuals who cannot answer for themselves are particularly despicable? An outstanding example of that nasty practice that is deserving of condemnation came in the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
    The Prime Minister: I hope that most hon. Members will agree that it is utterly contemptible to use the privileges and platform of the House to smear the reputation of those who lost their lives in the service of their country. I know that many of us in the House have the deepest sympathy for the families who are now suffering such grief and distress—the family of Captain Nairac a courageous officer of whom Britain can be proud—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister:—and the widow and family of Airey Neave, whose death we honour in this House, who was a deeply honourable, brave and gallant Member and who was murdered by Irish terrorists within the precincts of Parliament. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate the despicable comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—
    Mr. Speaker: Before we have any more questions of that kind, may I say to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who well knows the rules—and to the whole House—that—[Interruption.] I did not get the drift of the hon. Member's question while he was asking it. Questions must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Kinnock: Notwithstanding the blatant effort to usurp your position in the House by the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this place cannot be used as an excuse or an opportunity to smear anyone about anything and must not be put to that purpose. However, it is fair to reflect to the right hon. Lady, that, as grave allegations—probably unfair allegations — have been made by people outside the House against a former Member of the House who died in tragic circumstances, and an officer of Her Majesty's forces, who was murdered, it may be reasonable to reflect upon the Government's decision not to respond to them. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Adley: Klaus Barbie's defence lawyer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark. [Interruption.] Order. I repeat: will the hon. Member withdraw that nasty remark made from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Adley: If you consider that my remark was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Speaker, the whole nature of Prime Minister's Questions is being changed by the efforts to use them in a particular way—by the view expressed in the question of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)—[Interruption.]—by the answer that came from the Prime Minister, the use to which it was put, and the interjection of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker that, in view of that, it is necessary for us to treat this last passage as points of order and then revert to questions, as I want to ask the right hon. Lady an important question. That possibility has now been discouraged by the blatant use of Prime Minister's Question Time and the reference to tragedies in Northern Ireland by Conservative Members for strictly partisan purposes.
    Mr. Butterfillasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British mining industry now has the opportunity to become one of our most successful and prosperous industries? Does she share my hope that the British miners will demonstrate their innate common sense by voting in favour of flexible working and disregarding the Luddite, negative advice of Mr. Arthur Scargill?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that our Acts provide an opportunity for a secret ballot for the members of that trade union. I believe that miners should have the very latest technology and the best conditions. That will lead to a more efficient and prosperous industry, and I hope that they will not reject such a course of action.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the appalling shooting in Woolwich today, and the further evidence of the widespread availability of pump-action shot guns, and so on, will the Prime Minister re-examine the whole question of the control of firearms? I have two suggestions in particular. First, will she look at the question of having to present a shotgun licence when buying ammunition—[Interruption.] This is a serious question. Many people are shocked and appalled by what happened in Woolwich and must be very grateful that no loss of police life took place.
    Secondly, will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has come for another amnesty on all firearms, to encourage people with unlicensed firearms to make them available?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the maximum penalties for those who carry firearms with intent to commit a crime to life imprisonment. That is in our Criminal Justice Bill, which I hope will be fully supported. We are also examining matters such as the carrying of knives, which is causing
    512
    considerable concern to the police. I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in view of the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity during her busy day to note the concern expressed by some leading churchmen about the continued experimentation on foetuses without any rules or regulations to stop it? Bearing in mind the great concern of a large number of people within and outside the House, will she consider whether the time has come for legislation on the Warnock committee proposals?
    The Prime Minister: The legislation on the Warnock committee proposals will not be introduced this year. As my hon. Friend knows, it will take a good deal of time to prepare and gives rise to very contentious issues. I hope that we shall be in a position to introduce it next year, but I understand that it may be a possibility that the proposals which previously came before the House from a private Member will come before us again in a private Member's Bill this Session.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: In the Government's plans for schools to charge for books, teaching material, visits, field trips and many other items, does the Prime Minister intend that those parents who have to survive on social security should be expected to meet those charges, or does she intend to change the social security regulations so that such people will have something with which to pay these new charges being imposed on them? The right hon. Lady will recall that about two and a quarter million children in this country live in households entirely dependent on benefits? Does she agree that it would be a great shame if their education was blighted because their parents cannot pay for those facilities in schools?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these charges have been extant for some time in education authorities on both sides of the political divide. He knows that there has been a case about it, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is putting out a consultation document on the subject. The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that when parents cannot pay, for the reasons that he gave, the parent-teacher association is usually able to find the necessary funds.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the courage, service and dedication of the Member commemorated above the door through which we all come in each day are likely to be remembered for far longer than most Members of this House?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I remember the day when that crest was put up.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Prime Minister accept that the allegations that I reported to the House in my maiden speech I repeated yesterday outside of parliamentary privilege and am prepared to do so again? As those allegations have been corroborated by sources available to RTE, and in some instances by forensic evidence, does the Prime Minister accept that the only way to clear the names

    513
    of Captain Nairac and Airey Neave is for her to stop obstructing an inquiry into the traitorous activities of the MI5 officers responsible?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that it is a proper way to go about things by making smears and then calling for an inquiry. No inquiry is called for.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend mark the contrast between the honour and courage of Mr. Airey Neave and Captain Robert Nairac, each of whom was decorated for gallantry, and both of whom were murdered by the IRA, and the turpitude of some of their critics?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have a great deal for which to thank Captain Nairac and our former colleague Airey Neave in the defence of freedom.
    Mr. Maginnis: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, during her most recent talks with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, she raised the subject of the Irish Republic's failure to implement the European convention on the suppression of terrorism? Did she convey to him the concern of the House about that matter, and did she receive any reassurance or any specific date on when the convention would be implemented?
    The Prime Minister: No. That matter was not raised in the brief talk that I had with the Taoiseach.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper workings of the usual channels are essential to parliamentary democracy, particularly to deal with, among other things, cowardly attacks upon the dead? If that is the case, will she reflect on how this can operate if the Opposition Whips Office is apparently completely denuded by the resignation of many Whips?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That hardly falls within the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister now convinced of the crucial importance to our manufacturing base of the Scottish steel industry? Will she therefore ensure that there is adequate investment in Ravenscraig to assure its future throughout this Parliament and beyond?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Ravenscraig's future was assured to August 1988 and we have not yet received proposals for after that time. There is nothing further to report than that which we said during the recent election campaign. The hon. Gentleman knows that every effort has been made to get as much work as possible into Ravenscraig.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order in the proper place, after the business statement.
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that the point I raised when you made the original ruling that there would be——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the right hon. Member that I must apply the same rules to the Front Benches as to the Back Benches. We must have business questions next, please.
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I have to insist—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Member will not do that. This practice is of some standing and it has been discussed with him. We must stick to the rules. The same rules must apply to the Front Benches and the Back Benches. Business questions, please.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am anxious to do that, Mr. Speaker. I shall just ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 13 JULY — Motion for the Summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

TUESDAY 14 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Motion on the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order, followed by Motion on the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order.

WEDNESDAY 15 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Motion on the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 2) 1986–87 (HC No. 35), followed by Motion on the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1986–87 (HC No. 23).

Motion on the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Order.

THURSDAY I6 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.

Remaining stages of the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill.

Motion on the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments and Schemes) (Amendment) Order.

FRIDAY 17 JULY—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 20 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ensure that time is provided next week for a procedural debate on the circumstances in which it is essential to raise, for instance, points of order when all the people who might have been associated with the matter that gave rise to them are likely to remain in the House? I ask that in view of the representations made on that point by the Leader of the Opposition when the ruling was initially considered in the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman also find time next week to have a procedural debate on the appropriateness of the form of the questions to the Prime Minister which, by their very definition, are taking the office of Speaker, making assumptions about the rules of order and raising questions which, whatever else they may imply, are not within the Prime Minister's general business? Perhaps we could have the right hon. Gentleman's response on that.
Early in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate next Monday, there will be a debate on the financing of local government, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be present to answer that debate so that he can give his views on the poll tax, in the same way as he is reported to have done to Conservative Members on Monday?
Before the House rises for the recess, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the arts, in view of the difficulties that are currently experienced by the Royal
516
Shakespeare Company and others, and of the statement made this week by the Minister for the Arts to the Council of Regional Arts Associations that those who are concerned about the future of the arts in Britain must simply
"make the best of the political and economic climate, whatever their private views."
In view of the fact that British Telecom has been criticised by Oftel and consumers as the "worst public service" in Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman shortly arrange for a full debate on the quality, accountability and charges of British Telecom since the corporation's privatisation?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement made this week by his hon. Friend the Minister for Health that 10,000 people in Britain could develop AIDS during the next five years is a further reminder of the serious threat that the syndrome poses? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore, ensure that the Government's response to the report of the Social Services Select Committee on that subject will be speedy and will reflect the Select Committee's concern about the levels of resources for research, health education, and treatment in relation to that disease?
Finally, could the House have an assurance that the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the effects of local authority expenditure policies in education provision in England and Wales will be published before the recess as those reports are now already months later than usual?
Mr. Wakeham: Questions on Prime Minister's questions, whether they are in order, are a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. However, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on such matters, the best way might be a discussion through the usual channels to decide on the appropriate way of dealing with that matter.
Sir Anthony Grant: Where are they?
Mr. Wakeham: On the question referring to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I shall refer that matter to him and consider how to deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a question about the arts and the Royal Shakespeare Company. The Arts Council, and not the Government, determines the level of support for individual arts bodies. The Arts Council and the Royal Shakespeare company are discussing the company's deficit and hope to reach a conclusion that will ensure the future of that centre of excellence. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts awaits the outcome of those discussions.
I take note of the point about British Telecom. Perhaps tomorrow's debate on the quality of industry might be the appropriate place for hon. Members who wish to raise such matters.
With reference to a debate on AIDS, I shall certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as I will the question of the education report, which the right hon. Gentleman also raised, to see whether that can be dealt with before the summer recess.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend consider that the conventions relating to maiden

517
speeches might also usefully be discussed through the usual channels when there are some? When shall we have an opportunity to discuss and settle the question of Members' pay? What form is the motion tabled by the Government likely to take on that occasion and shall we have a chance to discuss the secretarial allowance at the same time?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We want a six-day week as well.
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point about maiden speeches and that is something that we can discuss through the usual channels.
On Members' pay, I intend to table a motion reflecting the resolution that was passed by the House in June 1983. The linkage with the Civil Service grade will come into effect on 1 January 1988 and will determine subsequent annual adjustments. It is for the House to decide whether to confirm that arrangement. As I said last week, I intend to bring the matter to the House before the summer recess, and I hope that at the same time we can deal with the report of the Top Salaries Review Body on the secretarial allowance. Following discussions, I propose to accept the recommendations about the level of allowance and to take account of the TSRB's view on the tightening of arrangements for accountability.
Mr. David Alton: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to study my early-day motion 79?
[That this House notes the recommendation of the 2nd Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, HC350, that in some cases amendments should be permitted to motions to approve statutory instruments; and believes that this would he a desirable first step in reforming the procedure for Northern Ireland business.]
Coupled with that is the desirability of debating the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, especially giving the House the ability to amend statutory instruments. Does he agree that an issue such as the Northern Ireland orders on Tuesday, concerning the opening of public houses on Sunday, will be decided without giving the House a chance to amend them and would he far better dealt with in the normal way which would apply in England, Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Wakeham: These are very complex issues which I cannot answer on the Floor of the House, but I hope that we can have discussions through the usual channels.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at least four reports of the Select Committee on Procedure in the previous Parliament have been before the House, some for as long as two years, and that the previous Leader of the House said that he thought the House would want to debate these matters early in the new Parliament? Does my right hon. Friend also recall that, for many weeks, there was a Government order on the Paper to carry out one of the resolutions which might have assisted the Chair? Will he ensure that prime time is found to debate these matters, with the possibility of a resolution of the House, as soon as we get back after the summer recess, if it cannot be held next week? If senior Members of the House give a large amount of time to considering matters which the House has asked them to consider, they are unlikely to want to continue doing that if their reports are entirely ignored.
Mr. Wakeham: First of all, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, and to the members of that Committee. We shall have to consider these matters, and we shall see what can he done as soon as possible after the summer recess.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to setting up the Select Committees, especially the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Although the Opposition appreciate the Government's difficulty in getting Members to serve on that Select Committee, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that we have a superfluity of willing Members to serve on that Select Committee? The work of the House should not be delayed because of the paucity of Conservative Members in Scotland.
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman will see from today's Order Paper, some progress is being made. These matters take a little time, but it is my intention to make progress as quickly as possible.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment of my constituents that the House could debate for three hours on Monday the business of the Today newspaper, in which no individual lost any money, yet the House has been unable to debate the fact that some councils have sunk hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money into the News on Sunday? Would it not have been more appropriate for us to debate the use of ratepayers' money rather than the use of an individual's money?
Mr. Wakeham: The business of the House is arranged through the usual channels. We try to arrange debates which meet the requirements of all the parties in the House. I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not think that that was an appropriate subject for debate. However, the important issues that he raises would be appropriate to one of the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday night.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House told the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that he hoped to make progress as soon as possible on the issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will there be a statement before the summer recess? Is he aware of the widespread rumours circulating in this place and reported in the Scottish press, that that Committee may disappear altogether? Does he accept that that is not a solution to the predicament of the Conservative Government in Scotland which would be acceptable to the Scottish people or to Opposition Members?
Mr. Wakeman: I do not want to add anything to what I said to the hon. Member for Dumfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), except that I would not believe everything I read in the Scottish press.
Mr. Michael Latham: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes to test the opinion of the House before the summer recess on the question of televising our proceedings? As one who, in the past has always voted against it, I am beginning to think that I was wrong, in view of the behaviour in the past few days.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more to what I said last week on that. I recognise that this is a subject that we shall have to deal with in the fairly near future, but I do not foresee time before the summer recess.
Dr. John Reid: Does the Leader of the House accept the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that there is great concern on the Opposition side of the House that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs should be established as soon as possible and an announcement made? Will he also note that, if there is a reluctance in certain quarters on the Government Benches to fill those places, there are plenty of Members on the Opposition Benches who are ready and willing to fill them?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more, except That plenty of my hon. Friends are also most anxious for the Select Committees to be set up.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House please make time available for a discussion of the ancient procedures and customs of the House? To explain my call for this debate, may I just say that maiden speeches in the past were always observed with great indulgence by the House, the reason being that an hon. Member could be heard, perhaps for the only time, in silence and without interruption to give the new hon. Member a chance to break the ice in this great Chamber. It is disgraceful when hon. Members who believe that they know it all disregard the conventions but when they attack the British Army it is despicable.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this. I have undertaken to have discussions through the usual channels, and that I will do.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House accept from one of the new Members who knows it all that people at home get an impression of this place through Prime Minister's Question Time and that the planted question and the open question bring our Parliament and our democracy into disrepute? Therefore, will he make time for a debate on the procedures of the House at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Wakeham: If I may modestly say to the hon. Gentleman, I am unlikely to be more forthcoming to him than I was to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think I can say anything more than I said to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to assess the progress of the legislation in the Queen's Speech in terms of the programme for Parliament? Is he satisfied that time will be found for all the measures in the Queen's Speech, particularly the major items such as the community charge and rent decontrol?
Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are making very good progress and that we shall have a lively Session when we come back after the summer recess.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, his modesty apart, he should have been far more forthcoming when the Leader of the Opposition asked about Prime Minister's Question Time, because there is evidence of abuse by the Prime Minister?
520
I suggest to him that it is the job of the Leader of the House to listen to hon. Members on both sides when they raise matters that are of interest to the House and are not simply party political issues. Therefore, why does he not recommend a debate on Prime Minister's Questions as soon as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that for me, with my background, to say that we have discussions through the usual channels could not make the matter more important.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the way that anomalies in the Shops Act 1950 are affecting many hundreds of thousands of retailers? My own Southampton city council is having a purge of prosecutions, but the magistrates are taking a very lenient view. One of the great crimes in Ocean village in Southampton was selling a pair of boxer shorts on a Sunday. Is it not time for those anomalies to be cleared away and is he not aware of the vast amounts of ratepayers' money that are being wasted on those quite absurd prosecutions?
Mr. Wakeham: I am unlikely to forget that in the previous Parliament the Government sought to deal with some of the anomalies, but the House felt otherwise. The problem still remains and I shall refer my hon. Friend's remarks to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Leader of the House agree that on many occasions I have raised the subject of overcrowding in the prison system? Does he further agree that the current evidence is that the overcrowding is now reaching almost crisis level? Should that not be a subject for an early debate so that some solution can be found before we find that the summer of discontent comes upon us once again and the riots of last year spread from Scotland to England?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is an important matter as does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to whom I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week the Department of Health and Social Security tabled no fewer than 20 statutory instruments that are important for the management of occupational pension schemes? Will he consider my suggestion that the appropriate way for the House to deal with them before we rise, since some of them are due to come into effect this month, would be to refer them for consideration by a Standing Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I will look at my hon. Friend's suggestion and be in touch with him later.
Mr. Harold McCusker: The Leader of the House will be aware that no two people could be more diametrically opposed in their views on the future of Northern Ireland or terrorism than myself and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). However, will he remember that there are more people involved in the current controversy than the hon. Member for Brent, East and those who seek to defend the honour of Captain Nairac and Airey Neave? Will he remember that Captain Nairac operated in my constituency and that John Francis Green, whom it is alleged he killed, was a constituent of mine? Will he remember that a member of the Miami Showband was a relative of someone in my constituency

521
party and that two men constituents of mine are currently serving life imprisonment for the murder of the Miami Showband?
Central to the issue for myself and my constituents is the allegation that the gun used in the killing of John Francis Green was used in the Miami Showband killings. Believe it or not, that allegation has never been made to me by either of the two men——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a statement.
Mr. McCusker: —or their families and it is important. If there is evidence available to prove or disprove the allegation, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible, to clear the air once and for all?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. However, I will refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Marlow: When will the Government be able to introduce measures to assist the millions of pensioners, whom we all met during the election campaign, who have limited occupational pensions and limited savings but who get no support from supplementary benefit and the state and who find themselves no better off than their neighbours who blued the lot when they were in work?
Mr. Wakeham: There is nothing in that question to affect next week's business. However, I will refer my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that a Speaker's Conference on political devolution was appointed in October 1919 and reported in April 1920. He will recall that recommendations were made concerning the powers to be devolved to domestic legislatures. Why should that precedent not be repeated? May I ask for support in a request to the Procedure Committee that such a Speaker's Conference be set up once again?
Mr. Wakeham: We gave not yet set up a Procedure Committee, but if there is a general demand for one, of course we shall set one up. The hon. Gentleman does not necessarily require my support to refer a matter to it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend accept, rather more readily, one of the requests of the Leader of the Opposition that we should have a debate on AIDS at an early date, preferably before we rise for the summer recess, not only in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which was published just before the dissolution of the last Parliament, but because one of the more offensive new Opposition Members appears to go around the country promoting active homosexuality, which is one of the major causes of the spread of the disease?
Mr. Tony Banks: Give us a kiss!
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that AIDS is a very important matter, but I am afraid I do not see time for a debate next week.
Mr. Allan Roberts: In the light of statements made by Ministers during the general election denying that
522
the Government were going to increase the rents of tenants, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the speech of the chairman of the Housing Corporation, reported today? In that speech, he said that the housing association movement will have to charge profit or market rents rather than fair rents and that the Housing Corporation will implement that policy in advance of the Government's proposals. Is it the Government's proposal to switch from fair rents to profit rents?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what was said during the election. However, I will refer the matter to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment
Mr. Michael Brown: Referring to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), and the assurances given by my right hon. Friend that good progress is being made on the legislative programme, can my right hon. Friend specifically assure us that, at an early stage, we will have a Second Reading debate on the Bill to decontrol new lettings of accommodation?
Mr. Wakeham: I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that we are making good progress, but I am not prepared to state any dates or times when debates will take place.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when the House agreed to a time limit on the Consolidated Fund Bill, assurances were given that the House would be given a full day for the Consolidated Fund Bill and that it would not lose time to motions such as that on the summer Adjournment? Since that undertaking will be broken again on Monday, will the Leader of the House make sure that, for the rest of his tenure, we get a full day for the Consolidated Fund Bill and extra time for such things as the summer or Christmas Adjournment debate? Otherwise, Back Benchers will yet again be robbed of time by the Government.
Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly look at the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend was present when the Prime Minister referred to the possibility of an hon. Member bringing forward a Private Member's Bill on the subject of experimentation on human embryos. If such a Bill is produced and receives overwhelming support on Second Reading, such as that which was given to Enoch Powell's Bill, will the Government offer their facilities?
Mr. Wakeham: That has the ring of a hypothetical question and I do not believe that I can answer it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some time needs to be set aside to discuss some of the effects of the disastrous privatisation policies? My district health authority faces chaos because the laundry service was put out to private tender. The authority was forced to take the tender of private contractors rather than the cheapest tender. The authority now faces chaos because the private contractor has put up its charges by 50 per cent. We do not know what to do about the laundry service in Halifax.
Mr. Wakeham: I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are one or two occasions next week when I believe that she may be able to raise the matters that concern her.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Bearing in mind the recent appeals that have been allowed by the Secretary of State in Berkshire and elsewhere, which have resulted in the excessive development of housing in those areas, will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on planning and development? That should not be during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, as that would not give enough time. However, there should be a debate because this policy appears to conflict totally with the Government's aim of rejuvenating the inner cities.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is a very important matter, but I do not see there will be time for it next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: When can the House debate the plight of the outer cities—the estates such as Braunstone, in my constituency? The people on that estate resent the help that is being given, quite rightly, to the inner cities. They feel that nothing is being done about the deep disadvantage, unemployment and need that they suffer because they are not in the centre of a city.
Mr. Wakeham: Of course, these are important matters, but there is no time for them next week.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend give us an idea about the motion on rates which is to come before the House next Wednesday? Will he bear in mind the deep suffering of individuals in Ealing who are facing a 65 per cent. rates increase from the Ealing Labour council? Many pensioners are going without meals to try to pay this increase. There are also great difficulties for industries that are having to find a 57·3 per cent. industrial rate increase, also set by the Ealing Labour council. Consequently, that increase will have a bad effect on jobs. Will the business on Wednesday include measures for rate-capping authorities such as Ealing?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the ratepayers of Ealing. I shall see that the motion is tabled as soon as possible.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Before the House proceeds to debate the televising of its proceedings, would the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider my suggestion of last week that he should produce a Green Paper with audio illustrations of how the media misrepresent and misreport what really goes on in this place, and avoid the hours of serious exchange and serious debate? Would he make an additional consideration; if the proceedings of the House are to be televised, what protection does the House have from the Prime Minister abusing set planted questions, however out of order, so that she can make her views known on any topic she wishes to do so?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that my right hon. Friend abused Question Time. She answered the question, and she answered it forcibly. I shall certainly look at the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate early-day motion No. 2 standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) on abortion, especially in
524
view of the answer given to me that, in 1986, two abortions out of 147,000 were carried out because the mother's life was in danger?
[That this House notes that since the enactment of the Abortion Act 1967 some two and a half million unborn children have been destroyed through legal abortion; notes that a large proportion of these abortions have taken place on demand, which was never the intention of Parliament; notes that since 1975 all Bills to amend the Abortion Act have had a substantial majority, but have been frustrated by a minority determined to thwart the will of Parliament; believes that the time has come for this House to beenabled to decide how the Act should be amended to bring to an end the tragic consequences of legal abortion; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give the new Parliament time for such a debate at the earliest possible opportunity.]
Will he further give time from the Government's allocation in view of the fact that the original Bill was given Government support?
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, those are important matters. The Government intend to issue a White Paper later this year. I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the length of the summer recess? Some hon. Members on both sides of the House believe a recess from 24 July to 21 October is far too long. It is misunderstood by people outside. It plays into the hands of the Government by making it impossible for hon. Members to hold Ministers to account. As we are to have discussions on Members' pay, why can we not have a debate on the length of the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am pleased to be able to say that there will be a debate on Monday night on just that point—and not only that, but he will have a chance to vote against it if he does not like the Government's proposal.
Sir Bernard Braine: Earlier, my right hon. Friend answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who was concerned about possible legislation on the subject of embryo experimentation, saying it was not a matter for him. Will he take note here and now that not only in the House but in the country as a whole there is a deep feeling of unease and repugnance at the possibility of the Government fudging the issue? There must be an early debate—if not now, soon after our return—so that the Government's intentions on the matter should be made plain to the House and to the country.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strong feelings that many hon. Members have on such an important issue. The Government will publish a White Paper setting out their views. After that White Paper is published is the right time for the Government to arrange a debate.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Because of the continuing cuts in the Health Service in Scotland and the deleterious effects that they are having on the health of the nation, particularly in my constituency, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the matter before the House prorogues for the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but I shall refer his point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Edward Leigh: As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that it would be appropriate for a private Member to move a Bill on late abortions, if a private Member were to use his allocation in the ballot so to do, would the Government consider giving Government time to such a Bill? If they did not do so, it would be all too easy for a small minority in the House to use time-wasting tactics to defeat it.
Mr. Wakeham: In all these matters, it is better to proceed slowly and see how we get along. Certainly, at the Dispatch Box now, I cannot say that the time-honoured conventions regarding private Members' Bills can be altered immediately.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week about the implementation of the Tory manifesto commitment to consider changes to improve the Government of Scotland? Now that the Tory Government have been even more resoundingly rejected by the people of Scotland, and senior Tory Members, such as the last Leader of the House, the former Prime Minister and the present Father of the House, have said that more recognition should be given to the Scottish political dimension, when will the present Leader of the House show some real leadership and arrange for a statement to bemade at the Dispatch Box that the Government intend to set up a devolved Scottish assembly with legislative and economic powers, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of Scottish people?
Mr. Wakeham: There may be doubts about whether the hon. Gentleman's views on Scotland are those of the majority of Scottish hon. Members. Certainly, I do not anticipate my right hon. Friend making a statement next week.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Since a White Paper is a declaration of policy, should not a debate on foetus experimentation occur before the declaration of policy rather than after it? If it occurs after it, it will occur too late. Will my right hon. Friend revise the decision that he gave in reply to the question asked by the Father of the House and arrange the debate before the White Paper is published rather than after it?
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, if there is a strong view I shall discuss it with all those who are interested to find out the most acceptable way to proceed.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been standing, but I ask them to be brief, please.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have a debate next week on the specific criteria that are used by inner-city task forces in giving grant aid? A registered charity in the inner-city part of my constituency runs day-care facilities for pre-school children and enables their parents to stay in jobs. It runs the only latchkey project for children of school age up to the age of eight in the Handsworth area of Birmingham. When it asked for help to expand its vital project, it was told by the inner-city task force that it met all the criteria but was not politically visible enough. That smacks of a Conservative party pork barrel in inner cities. That is totally unacceptable, and it should be debated in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend, but I certainly do not accept the strictures that he put on the Government.
Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent television coverage of accidents and fatalities that have occurred in children's playgrounds. The issue focuses on safety outside the workplace. Since there are about 3 million accidents a year and about 500,000 admissions to hospital, will my right hon. Friend give thought to a debate on the subject so that the House may contribute some initiatives to tackling the serious problem and perhaps relieve our pressured accident and emergency hospital departments?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raised an important subject. I shall see what can be done. I am afraid it will not be before the recess.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Leader of the House give a simple assurance that a Select Committee on Scottish affairs will be set up?
Mr. Wakeham: I have every intention that we should set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs if that is the general wish of the House.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those hon. Members with northern constituencies would welcome an early opportunity to debate proposals on local government finance and to underline the advantages for business on Tyneside and Teesside of a national non-domestic rate?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend would like to have a debate on this important issue. However, I cannot promise one next week.
Mr. Skinner: When will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a proper debate on the way in which the big four banks are offloading their debts onto the backs of the taxpayers? Is he aware that the negotiations with the Inland Revenue in respect of the National Westminster and Midland banks, with Barclays and Lloyds to follow, could result, according to information today, in the taxpayer having to find £875 million to pay for the entrepreneurial so-called risk that the banks took several years ago? If it is right for the Government to withdraw rate support grant from hard-pressed inner cities, to hammer the unemployed and the sick and to give only 80p a week to the pensioners, why are we not having a debate about the transfer of nearly £1 billion to the banks?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for one minute the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation. I am not in a position to refer to the individual tax affairs of any bank. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of combating homelessness, and the fact that there would not be so much homelessness were it not for the Rent Acts, which have dried up supplies of accommodation that would otherwise be available for rent. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not able to say when we shall have the Second Reading debate on the Bill promised in the Queen's Speech, but will he confirm that there will be such a Second Reading debate during the course of this Session?
Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm it absolutely.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that some alarm is felt by Labour Members because of his response to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), with the implication that Government members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might not be Members representing Scottish constituencies? Can we have assurances that that will not be the case, that the number on the Committee will not be less than nine and that it will be set up fairly soon?
Mr. Wakeham: Membership of departmental Select Committees is not a matter for me.
Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Newton.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We will take the statement first.

Child Abuse (Cleveland)
4.13 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I will, with permission, make a statement about child abuse in Cleveland.
The House is already aware of certain action which has been taken by the authorities there in response to the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere. The Northern regional health authority has set up an independent professional panel to provide a second opinion on cases already subject to investigation. It has also established a special group to consider future cases. On Tuesday, the Cleveland social services department agreed with the police and the health authority about medical examinations where child sexual abuse is suspected. I hope, as will the House, that these steps will go some way to overcome the problems which have arisen.
However, having studied the reports for which I asked last week from the regional health authority and the social services inspectorate, together with representations by hon. Members and the material that they have made available to me, we have concluded that there should be a full inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland in recent months.
Therefore, we propose to establish a statutory inquiry headed by a High Court judge. The judge will be assisted by a panel of three assessors: one with medical experience, one with social services experience and one with experience of police work. It will be necessary to ensure that there is no risk of conflict between the inquiry and litigation presently arising from individual cases. It will be for the judge to determine how best to carry out the inquiry, but I can say now that its report will be published.
Important as it is to resolve and learn from the situation which has arisen in Cleveland, it is not less important to carry forward the work already set in hand to improve our capacity to tackle the problem of child abuse wherever it may occur.
Draft guidance on the way in which different authorities should work together in this sector was issued last year, covering for the first time the specific issue of sexual abuse. Preparation of the final version of this guidance is being pressed ahead, with a view to issuing it as soon as possible, after taking account of any relevant lessons from Cleveland and the current inquiries into the deaths of Tyra Henry and Kimberley Carlile. Meanwhile, I am asking the social services inspectorate to check with all social services authorities that proper co-ordinating arrangements have been made in their areas.
As envisaged in the draft guidance, we shall arrange with local authorities for the collection of national statistics on child abuse. I shall be discussing with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose director I met this morning, the contribution it can make from its special experience in maintaining child abuse registers in various parts of the country.
The standing medical advisory committee has been asked to prepare guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. Practice guidelines are also being prepared for social workers and for nurses, including

529
health visitors. The professional groups concerned are being asked to aim to complete this work by the end of the year.
The House will also be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment published yesterday on five cases from the United Kingdom, has found inadequate our legislation on parental access to children in local authority care. These cases pre-date legal changes made in 1983 and 1986 to strengthen parents' rights, but we fully accept the need to make further changes to reflect the court's findings.
We shall be studying the full judgment in detail, in relation to the proposals of the White Paper on child care law published earlier this year. In framing legislation, we shall also wish to take account of the lessons of Cleveland and the other inquiries to which I have referred, but our aim will be to bring such legislation forward at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that, while the Opposition in principle welcome any initiative that will cool the partisan sensationalism of the past few weeks, we are concerned that this does not turn into a narrow judgmental inquiry confined to one area when what is needed is to implement new agreed child care procedures throughout the country to safeguard the rights of both parents and children alike? What specific evidence of a breakdown in medical and social procedures has been discovered which now justifies a full public inquiry? Will the Minister state the precise terms of reference for the inquiry, which, surprisingly, are left vague in his statement? Will this inquiry be in public or behind closed doors?
Why is it that, after 12 years of mounting public anxiety over child abuse and 13 months of consultation, the Government still have not produced an advisory code of practice for handling such cases? Will he give a firm date when it will be produced?
Why is there nothing in this statement about implementing last year's proposals for reform of the law on child care and family services, which command all-party agreement and are tailor-made for strengthening parental rights, which have been such an issue in Cleveland? The Government produced a White Paper on these agreed proposals in January this year. Why was there no Bill to implement them set out in the Queen's Speech?
Is it not extremely regrettable that the Government have found time this Session for the introduction of the poll tax and the liberalisation of the licensing laws but not for reform of child sex abuse procedures, which can cause enormous anguish to parents and children alike? Is it not wrong that, under the present procedure, children can be removed from parents for a month without either the parents or the children having the chance to oppose the move in court? As 6,000 children each year are removed from their homes through place of safety orders, will the Minister accept that all such orders should be confirmed by a court within a week, with the parents having an automatic right to attend and to be legally represented?
Above all, will the Minister accept that a national consensus does not yet exist, either on the criteria for identifying child sexual and physical abuse or on the interprofessional procedures to be followed when such cases are suspected? Will he acknowledge that, until such a consensus has been created, no reliable statistics of the national incidence of child abuse can be attempted, and
530
the conflict between paediatricians and police surgeons that we have seen in Cleveland will not be resolved? Will he accept that a judicial inquiry into specific events in Cleveland is not an appropriate vehicle to achieve such a national consensus?
Finally, will the Minister accept that his responsibility is not discharged merely by removing a child from the hands of its abuser, but that care programmes should guarantee necessary counselling, support and family therapy if we are ever to break the tragic cycle whereby an abused child becomes an abuser?
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in approximately reverse order. The issue of consensus to which the hon. Gentleman referred is indeed a difficult one. That is one reason why we have set about the drawing up of guidelines in relation to clinical diagnoses and practice, and why we shall be having discussions with local authorities and others about the collection of statistics, including, as I made clear in my statement, the NSPCC. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the difficulties in this area and the fact that there are no easy answers.
Far from not referring to the reform of child care law in my statement, the last two paragraphs of the statement—which the hon. Gentleman cannot have heard—made clear our intention to legislate as soon as practicable, but, not least, to take account of yesterday's judgment of the European Court. It would be right to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about the terms of reference and the conduct of the inquiry. The details will need to be determined in conjunction with the judge who is appointed to conduct the inquiry. That is the normal practice.
On the introduction of agreed procedures, one reason why I have announced to the House an inquiry that we hope can produce an early report specifically about Cleveland is that we do not want an enormously lengthy report that would necessarily be likely to delay further progress in introducing precisely those procedures that the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I would have hoped that both sides of the House would have welcomed my hon. Friend's statement, which was sensible and sound. I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that child abuse cases should really be heard in a professional and properly structured family court. Will my hon. Friend take heed of what his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday about family courts, and may we have some legislation on this issue as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend has said and undertake to draw it to the attention of my colleagues.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I thank the Minister, his Department and officials for all the hard work they have been doing as the lead Department for child protection. It is deeply appreciated.
Does the Minister accept that child protection has to include mental, physical and sexual abuse? Does he concede that, when we talk of child care, care must mean care? Sadly, it does not always mean care. Will my hon. Friend go one step further after the inquiry and examine

531
the area of care to ensure that, when children are taken into care, that trust is not betrayed? Unfortunately, it sometimes is.
Mr. Newton: We are certainly very concerned that when, unhappily, it is necessary to take a child into care, local authorities should have appropriate policies for taking care of that child in the best way. However, the focus of the present concern, and of the inquiry, is the processes by which children are taken into care. It is important to ensure that those are correctly handled.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Minister aware that the people of Cleveland in my constituency will welcome his long and detailed statement today and his announcement of the inquiry? I thank the Minister for the courtesy and diligence that he has shown in what is, after all, a sensitive matter.
I look upon sexual abuse as a heinous and evil crime, and I want every effort made to prosecute the perpetrators. Will he give the House an assurance that the specific things that happened at Middlesbrough general hospital, where children were taken in for specific ailments but were analysed and investigated for sexual abuse, will be part of the inquiry? Will the fact that parents and children were held for hours on end, and that children were woken in the middle of the night and taken to a room to be photographed, and that the police were obstructed in their duty of investigating what is a serious crime be part of the inquiry? No one wants the Health Service to be brought into disrepute or discredited, and it is in the interests of the Health Service that the inquiry should complete its investigations and studies, that the report should be published, and that the Health Service be maintained with its reputation intact.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I shall reciprocate by saying how grateful I am to him for the way in which he has kept me in touch with his own work and made his papers fully available to me. One of the difficulties with the inquiry, as I said in my statement, is the interrelationship with other investigations of a judicial kind, or under the hospital complaints procedure, which are already going on. Therefore, I cannot be specific at this stage about precisely how the judge will feel it right to go about his work, or the extent to which he will be able to look at particular cases that are already the subject of other forms of action. In general terms, I have no doubt that he will wish to examine the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made about events at Middlesbrough general hospital and other places.
Mr. John Morris: I welcome the judicial inquiry that the Minister has announced, because the sheer concentration of cases will not go away and because a period of calm is required.
Will the terms of reference be drafted in such a way that the evidence that we have obtained in Cleveland and the remit of the judge in the inquiry will enable national comparisons to be made and national lessons to be learnt? Finally, what powers will the inquiry have? Will it have the power to summon witnesses, to take evidence on oath and to take action for contempt when witnesses are unwilling to give evidence?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is that this is a statutory inquiry, and it will have the powers to which he referred.
As regards the terms of reference, it is certainly my expectation, subject to discussion with the judge, that, while the initial focus will be on Cleveland, the inquiry will be empowered to draw conclusions that are of relevance elsewhere.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he assure the House that he will take time during the inquiry to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some of the delays that occur when these cases come to court and the court wishes to appoint guardians ad litem. That is causing much concern in other parts of the country, as well as in Cleveland.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend as my hon. Friend asks.
Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members are worried about the way in which Cleveland has been highlighted and vilified? We know that the problem of child sex abuse has been neglected for many years, and that a child that is being sexually abused has its whole life damaged. There is a danger that any authority that tries to move on the issue, and therefore finds more cases, will be attacked in the press for doing so, that parents who are not abusing their children will feel in danger of losing their children, and that the net result will be that the abusers will continue to get away with their crimes. We know that there is more abuse than that which is dealt with. The research is clear on that point. Parents who abuse always deny it.
It is a mistake to have a judge heading the inquiry. The judiciary does not have a good record on the issue and it is a mistake to confine the inquiry to Cleveland. We need the best lessons and the best practice in this country and internationally so that we can deal better and more sensitively with the needs of children who are being sexually abused. Most of those children are not being protected or given the appropriate therapy and support at present.
Mr. Newton: It is precisely because I see some risk of the kind that the hon. Lady outlined in the first part of her question that it is right to have the kind of inquiry that I have proposed focused primarily on Cleveland. The risks about which she is rightly concerned will multiply as long as public confidence is not restored about what is alleged to have happened in Cleveland.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend. The inquiry should be focused, specific and time-limited. There has been near hysterical public reaction to what seems like a professional over-reaction in Cleveland. The vast majority of child abuse cases arise because of what appears to be a lack of professional vigilance, not an idiosyncratic excess of professional interference. We shall have to co-ordinate our professional operations and the conduct of our professionals, but primarily our health and welfare services are there to protect not the interests of parents and professionals, but the welfare of vulnerable children.
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am grateful to her.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the inquiry, the way in which the judge will be assisted by assessors and the fact that the report will be public. I hope that the inquiry will be wide-ranging and that as far as possible—given that the inquiry needs to be speedy—the judge will take the comments of hon. Members into account.
The Minister said at the end of the statement that there will be legislation at the earliest practicable opportunity. That must mean next year. It is 13 years since the Finer committee recommended family courts, and a year has passed since we had all-party agreement on the need to reform child care law. As has already been said, many less important pieces of legislation for this year were announced in the Queen's Speech. There is no justification for the Government not legislating at the beginning of the next Session to take into account this inquiry and the European Court judgment, because these are vital national issues.
Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond the words that I used in my statement. Those words show our clear wish to make progress in this area, taking account of recent events.
Sir Trevor Skeet: I appreciate the method of approach adopted by the Minister. Will he bear in mind that in many cases one parent can be entirely innocent of the other parent being involved? If we are to get a balance between the child and the parents, is it not very much better to have a family solution for the beneft of the parents themselves?
Mr. Newton: Yes. Again, I very much agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the Minister's statement. He said that he is to consult the NSPCC, and it is right that he should do so. May I also advise him to seek the advice of the officials of the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children? It, too, has many years of experience, and the Minister must remember that it works within a different legal framework.
I am sure that the Minister is aware, although other hon. Members may not be, that a significant number of referrals about alleged child abuse come from neighbours and even the families of the children concerned. Voluntary agencies and social work departments have sought to establish a climate of opinion which encourages the families of abused children to come forward. Does it not make sense to ensure that that positive development is not diminished or retarded by unhelpful publicity and thoughtless criticism made in this House and elsewhere?
Mr. Newton: Again, rather as I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), one of the reasons for the sort of inquiry that I have proposed is that we hope it will act speedily to respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—the re-establishment of confidence in Cleveland. That is important so that the fears that have arisen there will not spread to other parts of the country and undermine good developments of the kind that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
534
I am sorry if I inadvertently appeared to have ignored Scotland. I shall certainly ensure that we take note of the views of the RSSPCC.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that the care and speed with which he has acted in this matter is deeply appreciated? In fully supporting the views and thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), in whose area these sad cases occurred, may I ask whether my hon. Friend accepts that many of these problems could in part have been dealt with if the Government had acted on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Services? That Committee carried out an in-depth inquiry into children in care. It did not deal specifically with the matter of child abuse, but the Committee's particular recommendation about the formation and establishment of children's courts would have made a major contribution to the prevention of these cases. Will my hon. Friend also accept that a valuable part is played by police surgeons in identifying and dealing with these matters? I hope that their contribution, experience and expertise will not be overlooked.
Mr. Newton: I have made it clear that one of the assessors will be someone with experience of police work.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Select Committee on Social Services. I am well aware that the Government, the House and, indeed, the country gained much from the work of the Committee. However, I resist the conclusion — if such a conclusion was implied — that the Government have not been taking vigorous and effective action to make progress on these matters.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead' of us. I shall call hon. Members who have been persistently rising, but I hope that we can have questions on the statement concluded by 4.45 pm.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Minister ask the inquiry team to ignore many or all of the comments that have been made in the House, especially comments along the lines that there has been obstruction of the police and that professional workers have been over-reacting? All those comments prejudge the evidence and therefore prejudge the conclusions. Will he also take this opportunity to reassure those who work in this very sensitive area—doctors, health visitors, nurses and social workers—that the Government support their activities? The frenzied atmosphere generated either in the House or in the newspapers in recent weeks makes their job more difficult. Some reassurance from the Government or from the Minister that the primary responsibility is always for the safety of the child would be very welcome.
Mr. Newton: I certainly echo the hon. Gentleman's last sentence. I hope it is implicit in everything that I have said and done over a much longer period than the last fortnight that we greatly value the work of all the people who are involved in seeking to tackle those problems.
I cannot respond quite so forthcomingly to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think that the House as a whole would take it rather amiss if I asked an inquiry to ignore everything that was said in this House.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the Minister accept that many of us are very pleased about the tremendous

535
emphasis that he is putting on inter-professional cooperation? Will he also accept that co-operation on the ground depends far more on the quality of the one or two people working at ground level than on which profession they belong to? Will he give an assurance that he will be very careful not to be dragged down the path of automatically giving guidance that one profession should be the lead profession at local level in cases of this kind?
Mr. Newton: Yes. I have always been very conscious that the issue of guidance or circulars will not achieve as much as anyone would like if there is not practical working co-operation between individuals on the ground. That is one of the problems that anyone faces in this area.
Mr. Roland Boyes: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the sexual abuse of a child is a most serious and tragic event. He will also agree that it is extremely difficult for many and almost impossible for the vast majority of children to do anything about the situation.
I am sure he will also agree that social services departments throughout the land have an obligation to act promptly if they suspect that any child is being sexually or physically abused. We must take care to ensure that social workers do not become over-cautious because of remarks, such as those made by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), that social services departments might be guilty of over-reacting. Many of us think that perhaps on some occasions they act rather cautiously.
On a number of occasions the Minister mentioned parents' rights, but does he agree that children also have rights?
I welcome, as do other hon. Members, the inquiry into the matter in Cleveland, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that the inquiry will be concerned not solely with the social services department at Cleveland but will involve other authorities, such as the police and the health authority that may have been involved in what happened in Cleveland?
Mr. Newton: I go along with the spirit of much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to his specific question, if he looks at my statement he will find that it refers not to any one authority but to the arrangemants for dealing with cases of suspected child abuse, including, in particular, child sexual abuse in Cleveland. That manifestly is intended to embrace the work of all the authorities that are involved.
Mr. Bob Hayward: I welcome the Minister's rapid announcement of an inquiry, but will he say when the judge will be appointed and who will head the inquiry?
Further, will he clarify his comments with regard to adoption? Will there be a review of the guidelines used by social services departments with regard to adoption practices and the people whom they consider suitable for adoption? I have recently received two cases which express concern about two social services departments' guidelines which are being applied to potentially adoptive parents.
Mr. Newton: We shall be consulting my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor about the appointment of the judge. I hope that it will be possible to make the name known within a week or so.
Ms. Short: May we have a woman, please?
Mr. Newton: The point about adoption does not relate directly to the issues that have arisen in Cleveland, although it is closely related. I take on board the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
Miss Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister consider the question of additional funds for Cleveland county council? I accept the point that a number of different services will be included, but there has been great pressure on Cleveland's social services over the past couple of months, and clearly it will increase in the months to come.
Mr. Newton: I think it would be a little premature for me to come to such conclusions at present. The hon. Lady will be aware that last year there was a substantial increase in the provision for social services generally which took account of pressure on children's services and the need for training. In the next few months we shall be considering provision and related matters for next year which will take account of these issues, but I cannot make a specific promise from the Dispatch Box about resources for Cleveland.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the setting up of the inquiry will be warmly welcomed by professional and lay people, not least because it should help to establish the facts of the matter as distinct from the rumours and speculation that have surrounded it in the media? One of the dangers of setting up an inquiry is the possibility that there will not be action until it reports. Therefore, I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is going ahead with the establishment of a national child abuse register and with the issue of national guidelines. Will he say a little more with regard to the possibility of legislation? Is he aware that he will have the full support of Conservative Members for any steps that he may take to get the White Paper turned into legislative form in the present Session of Parliament, which is rather longer than normal?
Mr. Newton: I cannot go beyond what I said in my statement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, not least because I know of his close interest and involvement in these matters through his work with the NSPCC. I am glad to say that the NSPCC thinks it right to have an urgent, focused inquiry so that the action that is needed to make progress on other fronts is not held up.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join in the all-party welcome of the Minister's statement, but will the inquiry or the Minister's Department be considering the provision of independent counselling and advice for parents whose children have gone on to the "at-risk" register or where it is suspected that there has been abuse? I have received a number of cases in recent months from parents who have wanted some independent qualified advice on what they should do in those circumstances. Not all of those parents have acted in a criminal or evil manner and many of them need help and advice. Will that help and advice be provided through Government offices?
Mr. Newton: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that that matter goes rather wider than the inquiry that I have announced. We shall wish to consider with the judge the need to ensure that parents and children are effectively represented in the proceedings of the inquiry.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the setting up of the inquiry, as I am sure the whole country does, but, without wishing to constrain it, in what sort of time scale does my hon. Friend expect the inquiry to report? During that time, with regard to the guidelines that he has talked about, will he ensure that they are communicated directly to county councils and magistrates, who sometimes make these orders?
Mr. Newton: The draft guidelines were widely circulated and brought a number of comments which need to be and are being taken into account in the further work. I said that we were asking the social services inspectorate to check that appropriate action has been taken already in the light of those draft guidelines. If further action is needed, it will be taken.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the inquiry and think that the right decision has been made. However, many junior policemen — young constables and sergeants—are not competent or trained to deal with these matters in as sensitive a way as they should when they visit families where these matters have been reported. Will the Minister raise that matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers with a view to it briefing policemen on what is expected when reports are brought before them?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the appropriate course is for me to undertake to bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Richard Holt: I thank my hon. Friend, on behalf of my constituents in Middlesbrough and Cleveland, for the decision to have this inquiry. May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, despite the media publicity and furore and the fact that procedures were allegedly established whereby children could no longer be taken from their parents on the say-so of one of the paediatricians named in the House, as recently as three days ago a family has been broken up in similar circumstances? I have spent almost two days on the telephone seeking to find out whether there was a second opinion that confirmed the diagnosis of Dr. Wyatt. I have been bluntly refused by everybody, and the children are in care. There was no corroborative evidence whatsoever that any person can get access to the single diagnosis and, as I understand it, it was not put to the magistrates. It is clearly in breach of the rules that were laid down for operation by the Northern regional health authority, where Dr. Donaldson bluntly instructed the director of social services that he would not give him the information, nor, if he found it, was he allowed to give it to me. The parents are distraught. The police were involved in finding
538
the children and rounding them up when the father absconded with them, but the police have not been brought in to see whether charges should he brought against that parent. In all these circumstances, the inquiry is welcome but urgency is still the order of the day.
Mr. Newton: I accept the need for urgency, and I hope that that was conveyed by my statement. As to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised, he will understand that I would not wish to make some quick comment at the Dispatch Box on what he said. However, I understand that the position on first or second opinions and their availability is the normal one. They would be made available with the consent of the patient concerned or, in the case of a child, with the consent of the parents or guardians. It is not normal for medical opinions to be made available to third parties without that permission, and that is the position that would be maintained in this case.
Dr. John Marek: I welcome much of what the Minister has said, in particular the announcement of the inquiry. I am sure that that will find favour with both sides of the House. Has the Minister decided who the judge will be? If not, will he announce that as soon as possible? Will he give the House a guarantee that the assessors will be of sufficient integrity in their own professions to command the various opinions within the professions that are involved?
With regard to the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, is the Minister aware that should the Government introduce legislation as a result of that judgment they will have the co-operation of the Opposition? Even if it took them until Christmas to study that judgment, it would not be too late to introduce appropriate legislation early in the new year. Will the Minister guarantee that he will look at that carefully?
Why was I able to read about this statement in the afternoon press an hour before it was delivered in the House? Has the Minister any explanation?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly not in a position to explain the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I note the implicit concern that he has expressed.
As for his remarks about legislation, I cannot go beyond what I said earlier, but I am again grateful for the helpful spirit in which, I take it, the hon. Gentleman's remarks were intended.
With regard to the integrity of the assessors, I can certainly guarantee that our aim will be to find assessors who will command the sort of confidence that the hon. Gentleman wants. I have already indicated that we would hope to be in a position to announce the name of the judge within a week or so.

Points of Order
4.51 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from what was said earlier. With respect, will you now give further thought to the question of points of order? As you know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wanted to raise a point of order and you explained that Front Benchers would be treated the same as Back Benchers. However, a situation arose that we believe merited valid points of order, but because of what happened they could not be taken. All those mainly involved have now left the Chamber—I do not criticise them, as I am sure they have many other commitments—including the Prime Minister. You will remember that in the last Parliament you made a distinction between points of order that arose from questions and other points of order. Will you bear that in mind and consider whether points arising from Question Time, particularly Prime Minister's Question Time, should be taken at the time they arise?
It might be argued that the situation has now been defused, but hon. Members may have strong points of view which for various reasons they cannot press because they are not here at the appropriate time. For example, as is normal on Thursdays, business questions follow Prime Minister's Question Time and there could well have been another statement in addition to the one that has just been made. For all these reasons, it is in the interests of the House and of hon. Members to ensure that if they wish to raise a point of order — especially if it arises from questions — it should be taken immediately after questions. That would have the advantage that those involved—be it an hon. Member wishing to criticise or wishing to obtain a ruling from you—would be present, especially as the Prime Minister is unlikely to be present for no more than five or 10 minutes after Prime Minister's Question Time has come to an end.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. What the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has just said might be an argument in favour of taking the point of order at the moment when the occasion for it arises, but in my considered opinion it cannot be an argument for having three different times for points of order—one when the event occurs, another after Question Time, and another at the normal time for points of order of which notice has been given.
That was the evil which your ruling dealt with very effectively, Sir. But if there is a balance of opinion that points of order should be taken during Question Time, the abuse might be self-correcting, because there is no doubt that there was abuse. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman rather let the cat out of the bag when he referred to "points of view". Points of order are not to do with points of view and should be tightly constrained, but they have become open to abuse.
The only alternative to the ruling that you gave, which I think met with general acceptance, would be to experiement with taking points of order at the moment when the occasion for them arose—the discipline being that the House would get very cross if they were unnecessarily used or expanded upon at the cost of questions that would not be reached in those circumstances.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that earlier this week I took the opportunity to advise you that I felt that we might run into the very difficulty that has arisen today as a result of the ruling give on 12 February. In fact, this is the second Thursday in succession, as you will appreciate, on which we have had just such a difficulty. Last week, in response to the only question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister dodged answering it by a complete mis-statement of the rules of this House when she said that she was not allowed to comment on sentences—a matter that you remedied later. But even you had to wait for an hour before you were able to put it right in your guidance on further points of order because of the business statement.
Today we had a triple abuse. We had a planted question on a matter that was not the responsibility of the Prime Minister—the very sort of question that you in the past have said that you are not willing to allow. That was then followed by what was clearly a carefully prepared and detailed statement from the Prime Minister on which she could not be questioned because she made it in the form of a supplementary answer. Rather poetically, she did so on the conduct of the security forces, a subject on which she had been singularly coy about making any statement at all in recent months on which she could be questioned. The third abuse was that the Prime Minister then chose to pontificate in her usual style on matters of privilege and procedure which have nothing to do with her but which are matters for you and the Committee that we have appointed to deal with these things.
As you will see from the clock, Mr. Speaker, it is now more than an hour and a half since that incident arose. Understandably, the Prime Minister has had to leave the Chamber, as has the Leader of the Opposition. We are now discussing the matter in a vacuum. We must therefore ask you to look at the way in which this ruling is operating. I well understand why you made it, and I understand that you wanted to avoid one set of abuses, but I put it to you that you have opened up the possibility of a further set of abuses, because we have a Prime Minister who consistently, repeatedly, and calculatingly abuses the procedures of this House when it suits her purposes. I therefore ask you to protect the House and to reconsider your ruling.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us and I should like to deal with this matter. I shall therefore call one more hon. Member from either side.
Mr. Michael Fallon: I would not want you to consider ruling on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, without our correcting a matter of fact. The Prime Minister's answer this afternoon actually invited the Leader of the Opposition to make his position on these matters clear and did not rule out further questions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As I observed when you made your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it was a valiant try, but it was not likely to last permanently, for the very good reason that the House of Commons is subject to points of order at any time during the day. Indeed, this whole episode began when an hon. Member raised a point of order in the middle of a maiden speech, and he was able to do so because it is acceptable that a point of order can

541
be raised at any time, even in the middle of a maiden speech. Therefore, if a maiden speech can be subjected to a point of order, why on earth cannot we have points of order at times when the Prime Minister is still in the House, when the Leader of the Opposition is available to raise points of order and so on?
No one should crow about this, Mr. Speaker, because your ruling was an attempt to bunch points of order together rather than to have one set after questions and some later on. To some extent, the experiment has worked for a time, but there was bound to come an occasion when all these conflicting interests needed to be present so that the point of order could be properly examined and dealt with. On those occasions when the participants, including Back Benchers—not just the Front Benchers, incidentally—want to raise such a point of order, the ruling should be revised to enable them to do so.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take one more point of order and then I shall rule on the matter.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Mr. Speaker, I hope that in weighing the matter you will take into consideration the fact that your ruling was tried with great success in the last Parliament. There are two reasons why I hope you will resist the suggestions made by Opposition Members. This is a blatant attempt to extend Question Time, the very thing that you have said you always wanted to avoid. Secondly, as we have seen in this case, your ruling provides a cooling-off period during which those hotheads who might have wanted to cause trouble earlier drift off to the Tea Room, so that only responsible and mature Members are left to raise relevant points of order.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the question of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) was an abuse. I did
542
not appreciate what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do until too late, but it was an abuse and I shall have to reflect upon the matter.
However, I am reluctant—and I think the House will be reluctant—to return to the time when we had points of order arising out of questions because, as I said in my statement on 12 February, that is an open invitation for hon. Members to raise points of order. The House will recollect that in the early days of my Speakership—I inherited this practice—we started every day with point; of order. Since my ruling, that has not occurred. However, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is probably right — I shall reflect upon his suggestion carefully — that points of order should be raised immediately; we should apply the doctrine of the first occasion.
The House should know that I made my statement on 12 February after wide consultation and discussions with those likely to be involved, and I would wish to do so again before making any further changes.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your clear rebuke of the activities of a Conservative Back Bencher. You were correct that, as with points of order, you cannot always tell until near the end of a question whether it is in order. However, by the time that the hon. Member for Suffolk. South (Mr. Yeo) had finished, you, Sir, were clearly aware that what he said was in breach of your ruling. Why then did you allow the Prime Minister to read from a written statement for a full minute on a question that was not permissible?
Mr. Speaker: I have just said — the right hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth—that I did not appreciate what was happening until the Prime Minister was on her feet. I have said that I will reflect on the matter, but I hope that the House will agree that one clear abuse should not lead to a change in our procedures which would lead to many other abuses on a daily basis.

Scottish Business
5.2 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay the normal business of the House. However, it has just been drawn to my attention that on the Order Paper today there is a selection which purports to be the Committee on the Local Government Bill. You will recall that, at the start of the Second Reading debate on that Bill, considerable anxiety was expressed about the fact that, although it was a United Kingdom Bill, it included provisions affecting the very essence of local government in Scotland. You will remember, Sir, that you listened for nearly half an hour to points being raised on that matter. Much justified anxiety was expressed about the difficulty for Scottish Members of dealing with the Scottish aspects of the matter when there was no Scottish Office Minister to answer the points.
I note with horror and very considerable anger that no Scottish Minister is to serve on the Local Government Bill Committee. I was told on Second Reading that in Committee we should have adequate opportunities to debate the Scottish aspects of the Bill and that there would be Scottish Office Ministers to answer our points. The Committee on the Local Government Bill is a large Committee, on which the Scottish National party will be represented and on which one of my Scottish Front-Bench colleagues and two or three Scottish Labour Back Benchers will serve. However, not only is there not a single Scottish Conservative Member on that Committee but—and this is more germane—there is not a single Scottish Office Minister.
On Second Reading, it became absolutely clear that Ministers from the Department of the Environment were not in a position to deal with detailed questions about Scotland. That was bad enough, but it is an outrage that there is to be no Scottish Office Minister on a Committee dealing with a fundamental and extremely controversial Bill which affects Scotland.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to agree with me that we must have protection on this, because it makes a mockery and a farce of the role of this House as a scrutinising body. I appeal for your help.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it to do with the same matter?
Mr. Marlow: Yes, Sir. As an English Member, can I say how fed up we are with Scottish Labour Members whingeing on and on about their lack of ability to debate matters in this House? As you know yourself, Mr. Speaker, when matters such as rate support grant are discussed in this House, there is as much time available for 70 Scottish Members as for 500 or more English Members to discuss the same matters.
As Opposition Members ought to know, there is a majority of Conservative English Members of more than 200 over Labour English Members. There are seven English Conservative Members for every three English Labour Members and they get one question for every one question that we get. If there is any degree of overrepresentation in this House, it is by Labour English Members against English Conservative Members and if
544
there is an imbalance of debate in this House, English Conservative Members have suffered a damned sight more than anybody else.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) obviously does not know what he is talking about.
I return to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). This issue is important not only in connection with the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill. It gives us an idea of the way in which the Government—if they are allowed to get away with it this time—intend to treat Scottish legislation in future. We know that the Government are in difficulties because of the small number of Conservative Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and because some of those Back Benchers have said that they have no intention of serving permanently on Committees dealing with Scottish Bills. The fact is that the Scottish provisions in the Local Government Bill should in any case have been included in a separate Scottish Bill. We asked for that, but the Government resisted it and have introduced a United Kingdom Bill full of clauses applying to Scotland. It is as much a Scottish Bill as an English and a Welsh Bill and it is an outrage that on a Committee of 30 Members—it is not a small Committee—there is not a single Scottish Conservative Back Bencher and, even worse, there is no Scottish Minister to deal with Scottish points.
This matter goes well beyond normal questions of Committee selection. I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about this, because if the Government think that they can get away with it, they could not be more mistaken. We shall simply not put up with this kind of behaviour and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will do your part to protect the interests of Scottish Labour Members.
Mr. Speaker: I have the point.
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the subsequent debates and some of them are maiden speakers? It would be in their interest and for the convenience of the House if I dealt with this matter.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The whole House knows that I do not make appointments to Standing Committees; that is a matter for the Select Committee of Selection. Any complaints about the nomination of Members should correctly be taken up with the Chairman of that Committee. I have no power to overrule the Select Committee's decisions or to take hon. Members off Committees or appoint to them. That is not my responsibility.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept what you are saying. However, this matter deeply affects the workings of the House, the standing of hon. Members and our credibility as a body that scrutinises legislation. The Leader of the House is with us. I know that he takes his duties to the whole House

545
seriously and I think that he will recognise that this is not, in any sense, a frivolous point and that we are not expressing fake indignation. We now feel very strongly about the matter. We have been snubbed dramatically in this matter and I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about it now.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is for the Government to determine which Ministers should lead on a Bill. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his ministerial colleagues will be able to deal with all matters raised in Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Dewar: No!
Mr. Wakeham: I must tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that under the Labour Government there were occasions when Standing Committees on Bills affecting Scotland had no Scottish Office Minister as a Member of the Committee.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with matters that are not my responsibility.
Mr. Dewar: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can help me with a little technical information that I am sure will be within your knowledge. The selection is totally unsatisfactory. We can and will complain about it, but there is no question of the matter going unchallenged on the Floor of the House. How do we block the Committee and force a debate on an issue which is fundamental to our rights and to the conduct and working of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to advise the hon. Member on tactics. There are opportunities to raise these matters.
546
[Interruption.] Surely the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to make a judgment on matters for which I have no responsibility. It is a matter for the Committee of Selection, on which the Opposition are represented. Complaints about selection should be taken up with the Chairman and the Committee.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I promise to be brief. I appreciate that you have been put in a difficult situation which we do not want repeated. At the beginning of a new Session of Parliament, it is as well to have the matter clarified straight away. I appreciate that it cannot be done here and now, but, as the Leader of the House is present and has intervened, may I say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that between now and the first sitting of the Standing Committee the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to have discussions through the usual channels so that we may consider how in the future we deal with issues that are clearly essentially Scottish issues but on which equally clearly there is inadequate Scottish representation at both ministerial and Conservative Back Bench levels. If the Leader of the House will give that undertaking, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be only too happy to allow businesss to continue now.
Mr. Wakeham: I am always happy to have discussions through the usual channels.

Scottish Business

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Orders of the Day

  British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.12 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) who I understand will be leading for the Opposition. He did not shadow my previous Department but he hounded and persecuted me none the less regularly from the Back Benches. He was so successful in that and other ways that he has been elected to the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that we all agree that that is richly deserved and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success.
  In a vein which I hope will arouse equally little controversy, I come to the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. By tradition, Bills of this kind have become the occasion for a debate on the fortunes of the merchant shipbuilding industry. We all realise that the fortunes of the industry remain in a very difficult state. Once a major employer, the industry on the mainland now has fewer than 8,000 employees, most of whom work for British Shipbuilders. As we all know, and certainly as I know, behind that stark figure of the reduced number of employees lies a history of hardship, difficulty and unemployment for many thousands of people in great industrial centres in this country.
  The adjustment in the scale of the industry has not been for lack of support from the Government and the taxpayer. Since 1979, British Shipbuilders alone has received more than £1¾ billion. That is an enormous figure. The root cause of the continued problems for British shipbuilding has been a world market dominated since the first major oil price increase in 1973 by massive excess capacity in shipping and shipbuilding alike. The two industries are linked. The merchant shipping industry—the customer of the shipbuilding industry — has been through a terribly difficult time. Great tonnages are laid up throughout the world. Shipping rates are generally depressed and returns on capital are very low. When the customer is in trouble, the industry which supplies the customer with essential equipment — in this case, the shipbuilding industry—gets into deep trouble as well.
  By 1976, when the need to restructure had really hit home in the older shipbuilding countries, about 230,000 people worked in merchant yards in the European Community and 175,000 were employed in Japan. Since then, the European Community work force has fallen to below 100,000 and the Japanese work force to about 90,000. In January this year I visited the great Mitsubishi yard in Nagasaki where the Japanese imperial fleet was built before the war. The yard is short of work and shedding labour rapidly. Some of the managers who showed me around explained that they were unable to win orders and could not compete with the Koreans. The problem of change has gone on throughout the world. As we consider the stark international position, therefore, I
  548
  hope that we shall not hear too much today from hon. Members pressing the case for their own industries and seeking to attribute the changes of the past 10 years to the Government's policies, our economic line, Thatcherism or anything else. The problem is a world-wide phenomenon with very obvious causes — the excess capacity of shipping and the resulting excess capacity of shipbuilding.
  The past 18 months in particular have seen dramatic restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in a number of countries. We certainly have not been alone. France began 1986 with five yards and is now reduced to one. Sweden effectively abandoned merchant shipbuilding altogether and a number of West German shipyards went into liquidation.The Japanese announced a programme to cut capacity by 20 per cent. but look like ending it with capacity cuts and jobs losses nearer 40 per cent. Even the South Korean yards are under pressure.
  [Miss Betty Boothroyd took the Chair.]
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mr. Clarke: Madam Deputy Speaker, I had thought that the cheers were for the difficulties in South Korea, which would be understandable in view of the constituency difficulties of many hon. Members present. I am glad to see, however, that they were for your taking the big Chair for the first time. It is a pleasure to welcome you there. You and I will recall taking part in debates chaired by your distinguished predecessor, Betty Harvie Anderson. There has been too long a gap since a woman took the Chair as Deputy Speaker. We are pleased to see you there and we look forward to your presiding over our affairs with great distinction.
  As I was saying, even the South Korean shipyards are under pressure. All are looking to reduce their dependence on new merchant building and are diversifying into other engineering activities. Despite the difficulties of all the existing shipyards, however, newcomers such as the Chinese and the Yugoslays are actually building new shipyards and increasing their shipbuilding capacity.
  The international situation of more than 10 years, of depression both at home and overseas, will be familiar to those who follow the fortunes of the industry. I have set out the position again today because those of us in the House, including just about every hon. Member now in the Chamber, who are concerned with the prospects for the communities, towns and cities of Britain which were once dependent on shipbuilding for their industrial life, have a duty to face those international facts of life. The present world position is that there is capacity to build 18 million tonnes of new merchant ships each year. Last year, however, new orders totalled only 9 million tonnes, of which the Japanese took 41 per cent., the Koreans 14 per cent. and the European Community 15 per cent. and of which our share was 2 per cent. The latest forecasts from the Association of West European Shipbuilders and the Shipbuilders Association of Japan accept that there is no prospect of an upturn in market demand until 1990 at the earliest. Even if that upturn were to start—many are not certain that it will begin even then—even optimists do not predict a balance between supply and demand until the mid-1990s at the earliest.
  That leads me to my first conclusion. When we consider the problems of people in the communities worst affected by the situation in the shipbuilding industry, we shall clearly have to look much wider than shipbuilding itself as

  549
  we tackle the problems of towns in Scotland and the northeast in particular. The expansion of an enterprise economy on Clydeside, Tyneside and Teesside must be a key objective of all our policies. But if I start going into that, I shall go wider than today's debate on the Bill.
  British Shipbuilders is a corporation that has had to adjust. Orders are still, and will remain, hard to win. Inevitably, the profound imbalance of the market has had particularly severe consequences for British Shipbuilders' finances.
  The Bill concerns British Shipbuilders' borrowing limit. The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 places a statutory ceiling on the funds that British Shipbuilders may acquire in the form of public dividend capital from the Government and loans from the commercial market. The limit on the corporation's borrowing stands at £1·4 billion as a result of the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order, debated in the House as recently as December last year. The Bill proposes an increase in the borrowing limit to £1·55 billion and makes provision for further increases, subject to affirmative resolution of the House, up to £1·8 billion.
  The Bill does not vote money. It simply gives British Shipbuilders the power that it requires to receive moneys. The actual provision of funds in the form of public dividend capital is, of course, a matter for Parliament to decide in due course through the normal Estimates procedures. The borrowing limit has no effect on the other important source of Government support for British Shipbuilders—intervention fund in support of particular orders.
  Many hon. Members will recall that it was only this time last year that my hon. Friend the then Minister of State — the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison)—spoke at the Dispatch Box in favour of an increase in the borrowing limit from £1·2 billion to £1·3 billion. As I said, the order agreeing an increase of a further £100 million was made in December last year. In veiw of the frequency of debate, obviously reflecting the frequency of the expansion of financial demands by British Shipbuilders, the House deserves an explanation as to why a further increase is needed now. That increase is urgently needed. The corporation forecasts that it will come close to exceeding its present limit before the summer recess. I hope that no one contemplates delaying the Bill, because that could have a profound consequence for the corporation. An amount of £200 million is a considerable sum for a business of this size to exhaust in little more than a year.
  Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is right that the House should know what is happening to taxpayers' money. Will he take the argument back a little? I think that, two borrowing requirement Bills ago, we raised the sum from £1 billion to £1·2 billion. The £200 million was largely for Barrow to build a construction hall. Since we voted that money, Barrow and Cammell Laird have been privatised for a considerably lower sum, although all their assets were privatised. What happened to that taxpayers' money? I ask that question because we are so concerned about the growth announced in this Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: The privatisation was debated at the time and I believe that the hon. Gentleman was given explanations as to why the price was set as it was. Several
  550
  privatisations have obviously involved getting the current market value of the assets. Sometimes offsetting expenditure has to be made to discharge losses on work in progress, and so on, so those costs were not counted at Barrow.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is labouring under a fundamental misconception. The fact that one has to pour money into an institution does not make it more valuable. If one is privatising a company, it has a market value based on the prospect of returns to the purchaser. To compare whatever extra borrowing may be required when an industry was nationalised with the price realised on the taxpayer's behalf when the asset is eventually sold is a false analogy. Many loss-making nationalised industries have consumed vast amounts of taxpayers' money. It is only too true that eventually, when the industry has been sold, although the market price may have been obtained, the taxpayer has to wipe off a lot of money expended for past folly.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am not trying to trap the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He will have seen from BSEL's returns that it was not a loss-making concern, but a profitable concern, which was to be privatised. I suggest that £200 million of taxpayers' money was not just poured into a bankrupt industry. It was poured into the building of a construction hall at Barrow, which is building Trident. Far from the Government presenting the case as one of taxpayers' money being wasted, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman be saying, as part of his conversation with the House, that that money should be put to the cost of building Trident? The money has not been lost to taxpayers. It has been a real cost. From the way the accounts are being presented now and the way they have been presented, one could be forgiven for thinking that taxpayers make contributions and the whole contribution is then forgotten. It should he attributed to the right accounts.
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about how the cost of Trident is calculated for the purpose of defence debates, he must make his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the next time Trident's cost is regarded as an issue. If he is asking whether the correct market value was placed on Vickers when it was privatised, I must say that I understand that it was correctly valued. We are now dealing with the £200 million incurred over the past year. Although the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to intervene, I think that it is right for me to explain what on this occasion has caused us to come back with an increase of £200 million on the borrowing limit agreed only 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman will have to make his point in defence debates if he is trying to add his estimate of the cost of Trident.
  Mr. John Smith: This is a trade and industry matter.
  Mr. Clarke: If the Opposition say that this is an industry matter, the hon. Member for Birkenhead will have to deal with that difficulty when it presents itself. I think that I am being patient in conceding that it has anything to do with the Bill. It does not. I should like to come to this year's £200 million and to why we are considering it again within 12 months.
  Of the £200 million, only some £20 million has been absorbed in what one might call the normal costs of the

  551
  business-capital investment and such essential charges as research and development, marketing and general administration. Last year's restructuring cost some £30 million, a direct result of the shortage of orders. Another £30 million or so was needed in final settlement of the sale of Scott Lithgow to Trafalgar House, principally representing compensation for losses on work in progress which British Shipbuilders agreed as a condition of sale necessary to secure the future of that yard.
  Another £40 million of the £200 million has arisen because of the receivership of one of British Shipbuilders' major customers—International Transport Management. ITM had ordered, but barely begun to pay for, a major craneship when the receiver had to be called in. This was no fault of British Shipbuilders, but it reflects the predicament of a customer whose operations had been considerably affected by the recent fall in the price of oil.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the additional payments in respect of Scott Lithgow. Can he tell us how much in total has been paid out in respect of Scott Lithgow's transfer to the private sector?
  Mr. Clarke: I cannot do so on the spur of the moment, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—will be able to answer that point if he catches your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Off the cuff, I cannot say how much has so far been paid out.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: How, much of the money has been spent in funding employment instead of funding unemployment? In particular, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how much is involved in new investment in the shipbuilding industry?
  Mr. Clarke: All this is essential for employment. I am describing a huge extension in the borrowing by British Shipbuilders to keep the corporation in existence and to ensure that it can continue to trade and to protect the jobs of the 8,000 employees in the industry. When we are dealing with a problem of surplus capacity, a lack of orders and customers who place orders and then get into financial difficulties, the idea that I should be asked to describe what we are doing to invest in new capacity misses the point. It is part of the tragedy of British Shipbuilders that the position is so bad at the moment that money is being drawn in the kind of provision that I was describing.
  I had reached the stage of describing the provision that has to be made when orders are placed by customers who get into financial difficulty. Such is the state of the shipbuilding industry and the problems of shipping companies that builders have had to become involved in their customers' problems and provide sufficient security for finance of new purchases. When it gives guarantees for the finance required to buy the ships that will be built, in the present market British Shipbuilders face a high risk of those guarantees being called in or of becoming involved directly in the financial reconstruction of shipping companies to avoid the full impact of such guarantees being called. Therefore, shipbuilders are required to shoulder part of their customers' risk and to prop up their customers to make sales.
  In addition to the ITM illustration that I gave earlier, a further £20 million has been the result of other customer
  552
  difficulties. A further £30 million represents the cost of labour and overheads that cannot be attributed to contracts over the past year. Because of the nature of their business, eligible merchant shipyards must bear the costs of spare capacity if they do not have profitable work in addition to that taken on a break-even basis with intervention fund help. During the past year, delays in winning orders, notably the delays that took place before we had great success in winning the China order at Govan, have swelled those costs considerably in the case of British Shipbuilders.
  However, in addition to all those factors which affect the state of the market, and which are largely beyond the control of British Shipbuilders, the largest single element of the increase—£50 million, or a full quarter of the capacity to borrow that was agreed by this House last year—has been lost on contracts that are in progress in the yards. That is in addition to the subsidies that were required to win the orders in the first place. When a contract has been entered into and a great deal of subsidy given to win it, losses are being made of the order of £50 million in a single year. That figure is a stark reminder of the total cost involved in supporting this industry.
  I know of few other industries in which losses on contracts amount to almost half of the turnover before intervention fund support. While Govan and the smaller yards have been far from immune — they have made their contribution to the losses—the greater part of the losses have been made at North-East Shipbuilders' Sunderland yards. That performance must improve against the background of the dire market conditions that I have described.
  Undoubtedly, the most unsatisfactory aspect of British Shipbuilders' performance has been those contract losses. I must concede that, even in that case, the fault can be laid only partly at the door of the building yards. In a buyer's market for ships, in which most builders are in desperate straits, suppliers have been able to secure terms that leave the builders exposed to a considerable share of the risks of delayed delivery, unsatisfactory performance, and the costs of rectification. I am glad to say that British Shipbuilders is making great efforts to redress that imbalance. However, it is obvious that British Shipbuilders' performance during the past year has, to say the least, considerable scope for further improvement. I trust that every hon. Member who takes an interest in shipbuilding will join in wishing to see that improvement made. Their constituents must certainly understand how crucial it is to improve the performance of the yards.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East trailed his speech a moment ago by suggesting, in describing that great extension of borrowing and explaining where the money has gone, that I did not say enough about what was being done to sustain employment. I reject that just as earlier I rejected strongly the idea that it is nonsense to suggest that the present state of shipbuilding is in any way closely related to the policies of the Government. It is also absolute nonsense to suggest that the Government have not gone to enormous lengths to try to maintain the future of the surviving yards and to keep their employment in existence. We have expended great sums of taxpayers' money to support the corporation's efforts to find work for its yards.
  I trust that Ministers agree with those many hon. Members who are present, whose constituents work in the industry, that we are all relieved to know that the

  553
  corporation has secured work, in a difficult market, which will take all its yards beyond this year and, in the case of the two major yards, well into 1989. The key orders for the 25 Danish ferries at North-East Shipbuilders and for the two, but we hope three, Chinese container ships at Govan were won with the assistance of a great deal of Government subsidy, using taxpayers' money. In the case of the Chinese order, advantage was taken of the soft loan provision that the Government are providing for trade with the Republic of China. We won those orders in the previous 12 months and the Government have put a great deal of taxpayers' money into helping those yards to try to get through their difficulties and to achieve further orders.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not a matter for serious regret that the closing date for the tenders for the contracts for the construction of the replacement vessel for the St. Helena service has been put back, this time by three weeks?
  Mr. Clarke: As I understand it, the final date for the tenders has been put back because certain British yards that wish to tender require more time because their suppliers require more time to give the necessary details, and the holiday season is upon them. However, I hope that the St. Helena Government will be in a position to consider those tenders and will place an order later in the year. Obviously, we all hope that that date will not be too far away. The St. Helena order is one of the prospects in sight that we hope will give at least some assistance to one of those yards.
  Looking ahead, the corporation now has a new chairman, Mr. John Lister. I have had the advantage of meeting him twice in the past few days.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: Before the Minister leaves the subject of intervention funding, it would be right if he told the House about the Government's attitude to intervention funding for merchant work in the privatised warship yards. The Government are encouraging British Shipbuilders to reject merchant work, partly because they have run the industry down to such an extent that it cannot undertake such work, and partly for other and more suspect reasons. Do the Government intend to deprive the privatised yards of such work as well?
  Mr. Clarke: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring when he says that we are telling British Shipbuilders to reject merchant work. I thought that the position of naval yards was well known, but I realise that it is not acceptable to everybody. The naval yards were privatised on the clear understanding that they would not receive intervention fund support for merchant orders. There are good reasons for that.
  The problem that I described in the earlier part of my speech is that we have an excess capacity of shipbuilders for conceivable merchant orders. It does nobody any good, given that we expend large amounts of intervention fund money, to keep the merchant yards in the hunt for those merchant orders that exist. If we suddenly greatly expand potential capacity by giving intervention fund support to the naval yards to go for merchant shipping orders, the result would be that potential capacity would greatly increase but the market would remain the same.
  554
  That would damage some of the merchant yards to which we have been giving a great deal of intervention fund support in recent years.
  I have considered that policy because two hon. Members representing Aberdeen constituencies have already been to see me to press the case on behalf of Hall Russell. However, I can see no ground for changing the policy or for going back on the clear understanding that was made at the time of privatisation that intervention fund support would not be available to naval yards.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Minister is being disingenuous. The understanding on privatisation was not as clear-cut as he has said. If the Minister means that work which the Government will not allow British Shipbuilders to do will not be undertaken by privatised yards because the Government will not put intervention funding into those privatised yards after British Shipbuilders has said that it cannot do the work, is he saying that an entire segment of the industry will be lost to our country for good, and that our European or far eastern competitors will have a slice of the market to themselves, or he is saying that the Government will no longer support a section of the industry in this country?
  Mr. Clarke: I continue to be mystified by the hon. Gentleman's reference to work that we shall not allow British Shipbuilders to undertake in merchant yards. We make British Shipbuilders work within a contract support limit that it has not yet reached. Obviously, we are interested, but we are constrained by the EEC rule on the amount of intervention fund support that we can offer to British Shipbuilders. I am afraid that I remain mystified by the case that the hon. Gentleman appears to have in mind about an order that British Shipbuilders has been told not to take and that has been driven to the far east because the naval yards cannot take it.
  I repeat that it is quite clear, and known to the owners of the privatised naval yards, that intervention support is not available for merchant orders. It is common sense for us to insist on that and it is consistent with the policy that this House has supported for some years of giving intervention fund support to the merchant yards that are still having all the difficulties that I have described. The merchant yards at Govan, and North-East Shipbuilders, would he horrified to discover that we are suddenly opening up intervention fund support to allow a lot of naval yards to try to get into their merchant markets. I am not persuaded of the case for doing that.
  I have already met John Lister twice during the past few days, and I know how determined he is to improve the performance of British Shipbuilders and to sustain the efforts of the corporation to create new market opportunities. He has promised a new corporate plan in the early autumn setting out the corporation's view of the way ahead. I await that with impatience and I shall consider it with care. Meanwhile, as a result of the Bill. Mr. Lister will know that we propose that he should have the headroom within which the business can survive and be financed. To give added reassurance to hon. Members with shipbuilding interests, I can tell the House that I have agreed that the British Shipbuilders external finance limit for 1987–88 will be £118 million.
  The external finance limit is the limit on cash, either in the form of borrowing or intervention fund support, within which the corporation must try to operate this year.

  555
  I trust that the House will appreciate that £118 million is a considerable figure. It is a very substantial increase over the existing provision, and I am satisfied that it is a necessary increase. It represents nearly £20,000 for each employee of the corporation over the year. I hope that we shall not continue to hear from the Opposition that the Government are not doing enough to support the industry and the employees of British Shipbuilders. But it must be obvious to everyone of common sense that all the figures that I have mentioned are far too high. The corporation must reduce its costs and continue to improve its performance.
  Merchant shipbuilding continues to face unprecedented market difficulty. The Government have always accepted that the industry needs substantial support if it is to have any chance of survival. The new external finance limit signals the limit on cash within which the corporation must try to operate this year. But its continued operation beyond the end of this month depends upon an increase in its limit on borrowing, as provided by the Bill. Its continued survival depends, above all, on its ability to continue to win orders in a crowded market and to improve its performance and justify the huge finance which the Government and taxpayer are putting forward.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking up your duties in the House. It gives us special pleasure, not just because of the personal qualities that you bring to the job, but because you are the first woman Deputy Speaker from the Labour party. We look forward to working under your chairmanship in our debates.
  I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his first debate on shipbuilding. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the new shipbuilding Minister, who will reply to the debate. During the past four years we have had four Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, who are responsible for shipbuilding, yet we have had three shipbuilding Ministers during the past nine months. I hope that the new Minister will not take it amiss if I recall that the maiden speech of the previous shipbuilding Minister in December last year turned out to be his valedictory address on the issue. If we had had as many new orders as we have had new shipbuilding Ministers, the industry would have been in a much better position.
  As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, this is more than a debate about the technicalities of the Bill; it has become a debate about the general state of shipbuilding. The main point that we wish to make is that Britain used to have 25 per cent. of world orders, but now it has only about 2 per cent. The privatisation of many yards has led to rationalisation and, in some cases, the elimination of shipbuilding in our communities. Half of the yards that have closed in Europe during the past 10 years have closed in Britain, and half of the merchant shipbuilding jobs that have gone have gone in Britain. Therefore, we need more than just a new British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill; we need new measures to protect and to advance shipbuilding, and a
  556
  new commitment to winning orders for the rest of the 1980s that will bring new hope to our shipbuilding communities.
  This summer is the 10th anniversary of the creation of British Shipbuilders. During those years, 70 yards and facilities have become only seven and a work force of 80,000 has become one of fewer than 6,000, and, despite what the Minister says about what is happening elsewhere, Britain more than any other European country or any of our international competitors in the far east has suffered the lion's share of job losses in merchant shipbuilding. Other European Community countries have suffered losses of 30, 40 and 50 per cent., but during the past eight years we have suffered losses of 300 per cent. in our shipbuilding work force. The Minster must answer this question: why does Britain—a merchant shipbuilding and trading nation—with most to gain do least while other countries with least to gain do most to protect their industry?
  During the past few months, we have seen the end of engine building at Clark Kincaid at Wallsend and the closure of Smith's Dock. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) will wish to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to mention her fears about her area. Despite the success of North-East Shipbuilders in winning the order from Denmark and the success of Govan in winning the Chinese orders, those yards will still be running at about 70 per cent. capacity as a result of the redundancies in April this year.
  There should be no further cuts in capacity in the industry and no further job losses. The Government should take the necessary action to sustain merchant shipbuilding, not least because about two years ago the former shipbuilding Minister, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said
  "British Shipbuilders now employs less than 12,000 people in merchant shipbuilding and engine building—that if it declines much further it will simply disappear. The road runs out."
  During those two years, the work force has halved. If the Minister does not take action to protect the industry, Britain will be without a merchant shipbuilding industry worthy of its name.
  Will the shipbuilding Minister tell us what is happening about the orders in the several areas in which British Shipbuilders is competing for business? The Cuban order could bring new jobs and opportunities, especially to North-East Shipbuilders. What has happened to the additional Danish orders for which North-East Shipbuilders is looking to sustain jobs in the area? What resources will be made available to pursue Govan's aim to re-enter the cruise ship market? At least four new orders will be placed later this year. Remembering that the QE2 was refitted abroad—something that should not have been allowed to happen—may I ask what action the Minister will take to ensure that when the Cunard orders are up for tender British yards are put in a position where they can win the orders?
  What is likely to happen with regard to public sector orders? In an answer that I received this week the Minister said that, apart from the Cal-Mac order and the St. Helena ship, there are only two sets of public sector orders that are likely to be placed in 1987 and 1988. We would be grateful to know the dates when those orders are likely to be placed. I think the Minister has a responsibility to trawl

  557
  through the Government Departments to look at whether public sector orders in other areas can be advanced to sustain the capacity that is in the industry at the moment.
  Will the Minister also refer to the St. Helena supply ship order? He may recall that it was in the debate last May that the decision to order the St. Helena ship, after many years of discussion, was announced. It is now more than a year since that announcement was made. We understand that the order is out to tender, but when will a decision be made that will enable at least one yard to benefit in jobs from that order, which should have been placed some time ago?
  What can the Minister do to ensure that British ship owners buy British and that, as we have suggested, a task force is set up within his Department to scour the world for available orders? Will the Minister tell us something about the Government's protest to the European Commission about the Brittany Ferries order? Given that the original complaint was made by the Government to the Commission in January and given the recent statement by the Competition Commissioner that a decision was about to be made and a report issued, has the Minister been notified of the Commission's decision? If so, what action does he expect to come from what is the first case under the sixth directive and what action will he now take to ensure that, just as the French take the action that they feel is necessary, we in Britain will take the action that is necessary to ensure that British ship owners buy British, repair British and fly the British flag?
  If the Japanese can say that as long as there is an ocean to sail they will build ships to sail on it, if the French can take the view that they will take what action is necessary to protect their shipbuilding industry, and if the Germans, as they did a few months ago, can make money available from their defence and regional aid budgets to ensure that orders were made available to their own shipyards, Britain, the biggest island trading nation in Europe, a nation that lives or dies according to its sea-going trade—90 per cent. of our imports and 90 per cent. of our exports go by sea — should take the action that is necessary to ensure that existing yards are saved, that there is a full order book for them and that our shipbuilding skills and communities are kept in being and not put in jeopardy. I hope that the Minister will provide the money that is necessary to sustain in this country a vibrant merchant shipbuilding industry.
  5.53 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: It is a great privilege for me to make my maiden speech. As the Member for Torridge and Devon, West I have set myself the welcome task of serving my constituency better than any Member before me. That is a hard task to fulfil — some might say impossible, some might say impertinent — as I follow that much-loved former Member of Parliament, Sir Peter Mills. Peter was a rare Member of Parliament in that he was as much admired and respected in the House as in his constituency. Many hon. Members excel in their constituencies. Many dedicated Members of Parliament work all the hours that they can to look after their constituents, and earn honour and renown locally. Many other Members of Parliament shine brightly in the Westminster firmament. It is unusual to find a Member of Parliament as much admired and respected both in his constituency and in the House. Peter Mills was such a Member.
  558
  Peter Mills was an independent thinker. Although he was a loyal supporter of the Government, he did not shrink from disagreeing with the Government when his integrity demanded it. For example, he did not support the dairy inspection charge and, at the risk of incurring the House's displeasure in a future debate, may I say that he did not support the uplifting of the secretarial allowance for Members of Parliament. At the core of his work was his strong Christian faith, which I suggest helped him to overcome his recent illness, coupled with the excellence of the surgery and the nursing care that he received in Devon from the NHS and the strong support of his loyal wife, herself a former nurse. He has now entered a welcome retirement, when he will be farming.
  In Peter Mills' footsteps I am proud to represent a truly magnificent constituency, where the beauty of the countryside is excelled only by the outstanding people who live there. We encompass much of Dartmoor, our great national park. Surely the term "an area of outstanding natural beauty" must have been coined by someone while standing on Dartmoor. Preservation and conservation of those areas for visitors and residents to enjoy, and for wildlife to flourish in, is close to my heart. However, visitors bring traffic, and we have heavy transport locally. I welcome with relief the Okehampton bypass which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will open on Thursday next. It will bring income generation, not just to my constituency but to constituencies in Cornwall. For that reason, I will be urgently pressing for the widening of the next stage of the A30 leading to Cornwall, lest we create more vast bottlenecks to thwart our tourists and our local trade.
  The impact of road development on the surrounding countryside was much discussed in the House and the other place in the debates on the Okehampton bypass. Farmers care for 70 per cent. of our countryside and, in my constituency, rural prosperity depends on the successful continuance of the small family farm. Spending money in market towns, the relative success of small businesses and large industries, and trade in pubs and restaurants all rest on profits generated by the farmer.
  If we want to continue the pattern of country life that we love to see and, as holidaymakers, to visit and to enjoy, we have to help the small farmer in an era of over-production while he diversifies. Aside from tourism development—a crucial leisure industry—we have a famous rural arts community, the Beaford Centre. Last year the centre celebrated its 21st birthday. There, not to cut the cake but to unveil a tapestry woven for the occasion, was my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. Perhaps his great thoughts on the use of Government funding for the arts as the fly trap to attract the spider of much greater private funding started there. The centre has some public funding, but it was begun by private foundation money. Through the very excellence of its work, it attracts the outside finance that it deserves. I strongly support the Minister's new move.
  One would expect to find the arts, farming in beautiful countryside, tourism and a high retirement population in the south-west. What one would not expect to find—and the reason I speak in the debate—is shipbuilding. Appledore is no large yard. With 550 employees, it is a small yard both by world standards and when compared with other British Shipbuilders yards. In common with other British Shipbuilders yards, redundancies occurred last May. But—and I spoke with the managing director

  559
  yesterday—no more redundancies are planned. Of the 95 people made redundant, British Shipbuilders (Enterprise) Ltd. interviewed each one with positive results: 49 have now found employment; 19 have been on or are undertaking special retraining courses; 19 have started their own businesses; and eight are being assessed now for special help. I welcome the funding provided by the Government for British Shipbuilders (Enterprise) Ltd.
  Appledore may be small, but it is now stable. As a large employer in a seafaring place, it is a vital part of our community's prosperity. I welcome Appledore's successful move back into the dredger market. Dredgers have been built well and on time, and the order book is full until year end. We must give equal credit to management and the work force, as well as to the Government for their support.
  Price is of prime importance in securing orders, particularly with cheaper labour forces overseas. This is where the intervention fund comes in. However, high quality work and perfect timing matter just as much and that is why Appledore has secured orders for three ships over the past two years from just one owner, ARC Marine Ltd. I am confident that Appledore's reputation will place the yard in front when competing for further orders in the coming years.
  I am particularly proud that Appledore is developing Questor, the new general purpose research vessel. That should further strengthen the yard when it finds a market. The move by British Shipbuilders into the more complex sectors of the market shows, once again, the technical achievements of our yards. I suggest that that rests upon British Shipbuilders' achievements in the new technology, particularly computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture.
  I will be seeking strongly the restoration of assisted area status that my constituency so badly needs. New software would open the door to far swifter development than we can achieve without European Community funds. In Appledore, as in other British Shipbuilders' yards, we have outstanding hardware and software, designing our ships with line drawings on screen in depth. What happens then? All of that complexity produces a punched paper tape that is carried downstairs by hand and fed into the computer-aided manufacturing mechanism and the cutting begins. That is archaic in computer terms. My industrial background lies in computers. I trained with ICI. The link between screen and cutting should be electronic, not manual.
  More funding is needed for software development, funding that could come from Europe. Why allow our shipbuilders to be held back? Assisted area status holds no shame. It is a just recognition that some historic industries—shipbuilding is as old as man—cannot survive by market force alone and justify the taxpayers' suppport. That does not detract from our philosophy, which I most heartily share, that the free market is the fairest mechanism for the regulation of supply and demand and is the only mechanism that endures.
  However, intervention is needed where our society wants production to continue against the market force, to boost the old and to come into the era of our sunrise industries. The building of ships and the continuance of the small family firm fall within that pattern. Intervention creates a partnership between the private and the public
  560
  investor and between private enterprise and the state. The state should be able to take a dwindling role as private enterprise flourishes and grows.
  I welcome the continuance of development aid, which Appledore Ferguson Shipbuilding Ltd needs now for two tenders out to the developing countries.
  I support most strongly the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill. It is a crucial measure which will support our yards into the 1990s' upturn of demand.
  6.3 pm
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Devon, West and Torridge (Miss Nicholson) on an excellent maiden speech. She made a convincing case for public spending and I hope that her obvious analytical and intellectual skills are not totally wasted on the Conservative Benches. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I add my congratulations to those of others and say how pleased we are to see you in your new role?
  I would like to pay tribute to the previous Member for Redcar, Mr. James Tinn. Jim Tinn is a quiet man, well respected in the House and the constituency for the work that he has put in over 23 years representing the people of Redcar. I wish him well in his retirement. I would like to pay tribute to another Member from Teesside, Ellen Wilkinson. She made her maiden speech over 60 years ago, when she was the only woman on the Opposition Benches. She spoke powerfully about the problems of women in low-paid jobs, about the inequalities in widows' benefits and about the difficulties of the long-term unemployed. We are fortunate now to have 21 Labour women on the Opposition Benches but, sadly, many of the issues that Ellen fought for are still high on the political agenda today. Above all, she was a practical woman who liked to see things done. She liked to get results and I feel that I will have deserved the votes and support of the people in Redcar if I can work with the same energy and commitment as she did.
  This debate, the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill earlier in the week and the Gracious Speech have a common theme—the theme of division. There is the division between British shipworkers and those in Korea, the division between the north and south, the division of inequality and even the division between central and local government. However, there is another division which is in some ways greater than those I have mentioned—the division between fantasy and reality. There is the fantasy of the Government who believe that they understand the problems of this country and know the solutions to them and then there is the reality—the day-to-day reality that working people have to live with.
  The Government seem impelled by their own fantasy. They do not try to understand the real world. Nowhere are Government fantasies made more clear than in the legislation that they have proposed so far in this Parliament. I have always thought that censorship is a difficult and a complex issue but, having read the obscene fantasies in the Government's legislation, I am beginning to change my mind.
  I shall begin with the Minister's fantasy this afternoon. He said that the problems faced by British shipbuilding in the past 10 years had nothing to do with the Government's policies since 1979. He suggested that we should face the facts of the world market. The reality, as the people in my constituency know, is that if there had been intervention

  561
  funds and if there had been British orders for British firms, the position of Smith's Dock would have been thoroughly different. Last year, 1,300 people were made jobless when Smith's Dock closed. The dock was efficient even by the present Government's standards. It was efficient in that it had a superior computer-aided design and manufacture system. It was efficient in that it had the latest modular construction techniques in addition to the best labour relations in the past 20 years of many of the shipyards in Britain. The saddest thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (M r. Brown) mentioned, is that there was the possibility that multiple cargo ship carriers from Cuba would be placed at the dock, but the closure made that impossible.
  The saddest task that I face in my job as the hon. Member for Redcar is dealing with Smith's Dock park. That is the only piece of British Shipbuilders land left in the area. It consists of four football pitches and two cricket pitches that we are desperately fighting to keep in the constituency so that the ex-dockers living in Southbank, Grangetown and Dormanstown have something to do in their leisure time, along with the other 22·5 per cent. of people on Teesside who do not have a job to go to.
  The picture of what the closure of Smith's Dock has done is made worse by what has happened to manufacturing investment in the area in the past 10 years. On Teesside, 32,200 jobs have been lost. A total of 9,000 or so of those were in oil and chemicals, 17,900 were in metal, primarily steel, and 6,000 were in shipbuilding. That picture is not complete, because one has to add the jobs that have been lost in the past eight years in construction, which amounts to a further 10,600.
  People should sit and think about that. A total of 42,000 jobs in Teesside have been lost in the past 10 years, and that is without going into the detail of the skill base that has been disappearing, the lack of training opportunities for young people and the impact that that has had on the secondary economy, be it shops or small businesses. That is the reality of what has happened in Redcar in the past 10 years.
  Mr. Michael Fallon indicated dissent.
  Miss Mowlam: The hon. Member may shake his head, but that is a small indication of his inability to understand the real world. If we are going to reinvest, repair the economy and increase the manufacturing base, we have to work with the public sector, the private sector and local government. That investment must exist in an environment that is both flexible and stable. I am sure that is what we all want and I hope that the next two years will bring that flexibility and stability.
  Another Government fantasy concerns local authorities. In the Bill that we discussed on Tuesday, we were offered the fantasy that competitive tendering will in some way increase the efficiency of services in refuse and cleaning. In reality, the people of Redcar who receive or work in those services know that that change will mean more part-time, short-term, temporary sub-contracting. Services will become less efficient in the process.
  Another Government fantasy concerns their proposed legislation on industrial relations. The Government have the illusion that, by introducing such legislation, they will increase democracy in the trade union movement and increase choice in industry. The reality, as the people of British Steel and ICI Wilton know — even the
  562
  Confederation of British Industry acknowledges it—is that that legislation will not increase democracy. That legislation states that people can have a ballot — they can all vote, that is fine — but the Government can ignore the decision they reach. That is disfranchising people and taking away democracy. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that the Scottish people would fight hard to keep Ravenscraig open after August 1988, the deadline that the Prime Minister mentioned at Question Time today. We on Teesside will fight alongside the people of British Steel at Ravenscraig. We certainly will not have one plant played off against another.
  If any hon. Members intend to go to the races at Redcar this weekend, the only odds-on bet that they will be able to place is that, whether people work in the public sector or receive those services, the next four years will be horrendous. I hope that the Government realise that fantasies are for private indulgence and not public policy.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasant duty to be able to congratulate the two previous speakers on their maiden speeches. I do so with some sense of depression, because the more we hear speeches of such polish and self-confidence, the more we reflect on our own inadequate efforts some years ago.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke with eloquence and clarity, combining deep local knowledge with the subject of our debate. I believe that my hon. Friend has set herself a formidable task in seeking to follow Sir Peter Mills. However, having heard her today, we are in no doubt that she will succeed in that task.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) spoke with equal eloquence, but perhaps with even greater passion and urgency, about the problems of Teesside, and of Smith's Dock in particular. We admire her commitment. In the north-east we need such commitment if we are to promote wider understanding in this House of the deep-rooted problems that we face in the region. The hon. Member for Redcar has also set herself a formidable task in seeking to emulate Ellen Wilkinson. That will be some task, but if the hon. Member speaks on every subject with the same commitment with which she spoke on Smith's Dock, she will he listened to with great respect.
  Those of us who have spoken before on similar Bills—I recall Bills of 1983 and 1986—will, of course, have a sense of deja vu. Yet again we are upping the borrowing limit of the corporation and increasing the expendable maximum prescribed under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977. Some may believe that we return to this Chamber too often to increase those limits, but I believe that it is right that we should periodically debate the problems of our shipbuilding industry. It is also right that Parliament, conscious of the fact that shipbuilding is one of our great industries, and as protector of the taxpayer, should remind itself of the problems that that industry faces.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred, as I intended to do, to the fact that this debate falls almost exactly 10 years after vesting day. It marks the 10th anniversary of nationalisation. Therefore, this debate gives us more opportunity than the debates of 1983 and 1986 to look back over the decade since nationalisation to review progress.

  563
  That decade of nationalisation must be set against a continually deteriorating international background, an increasingly difficult world market for merchant shipbuilding and the fact that, in each successive year, prices are more and more depressed and orders more scarce and therefore harder to secure. The continuing depression of the world market must be coupled with the absence of any firm evidence that the serious structural over-capacity in Japan and South Korea will be reduced in the foreseeable future or that there will be any true change in the low-cost, high-subsidy regimes practised by those countries. Those regimes underpin that over-capacity. I shall return to that problem later.
  Given the international situation, I believe that three points should be emphasised. First, continuing support will be required for British Shipbuilders. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not make too much of the extent of financial support provided in the past. I can think of few industries that have enjoyed such support from the Government. The borrowing limit initially set in 1977 was £250 million. Today we are being asked to extend that borrowing limit to £1,800 million. Given that there is now a work force of just over 10,000, it is now running at some £150,000 per man.
  Secondly, it seems inevitable that British Shipbuilders must continue down its newly chosen path of specialisation. I hope that, however difficult the corporation's financial position may become, the product development programme will continue to be well funded. I trust that British Shipbuilders will continue to identify the niches in the market place from which added value and a sufficient return on capital can be derived.
  Thirdly, there is the continuing problem of overcapacity in the international market. Obviously, as my right hon. and learned Friend illustrated, it is a worldwide problem. It is not something that the Government can tackle alone. However, I believe that we are now beginning to make some progress, at least on a Community basis. The sixth directive is now in place and I believe that the importance of that directive is not simply in establishing uniformity among the state aids that are given to various member states, but also in introducing much stricter guidelines on the transparency of financial relations between member states and their shipbuilding industries.
  What I want to know from my right hon. and learned Friend is whether it would be possible for the Government to take the negotiating position that they adopted in Brussels during negotiations on the sixth directive on to a much wider forum, perhaps within the OECD. In that way we might be able to establish some internationally agreed code of transparency that would make it easier to identify the extent of subsidy within the Korean and Japanese regimes.
  I will leave that suggestion with my right hon. and learned Friend, but, in the meantime, I am happy to support this Bill.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I begin my speech by congratulating three people. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke about her constituency with a calm and ease that deserves our congratulations. Many of the issues that she raised are of
  564
  concern to me as an hon. Member representing a southwestern constituency, the dualling of the A30 through Cornwall being one example. I hope that we shall be able to work together to achieve that aim.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam). All hon. Members must have been impressed—some were possibly a little embarrassed—that, unlike her, we did not speak entirely without notes. That deserves particular congratulations.
  I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking the Chair. I hope that you will respect the importance of free debate by Back Benchers and, of course, minority parties and their role in debates.
  I do not claim to represent an area in which many workers are employed by British Shipbuilders. However, I represent an area in which the Merchant Navy, shipping and boat building are important. Above all, it is an area in which we can see only too clearly the effects of the decline in shipbuilding. A great number of large boats are moored in Carrick roads in my constituency—a rusting badge of honour for the decline of shipbuilding and the Merchant Navy.
  All hon. Members are united in the belief that it is absolutely necessary to continue to support British shipbuilding and to maintain it at its present level. It is clear that we must produce policies and support that will achieve that end. But I am afraid I must say that the Minister seemed to be struggling to justify his position, that he showed precious little verve or imagination to demonstrate that he saw a way of moving forward from the present situation. With the world now facing 40 per cent. over-capacity in its ability to produce ships, and Europe having only 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. of world trade, we are facing a crisis. We must decide whether we wish to continue to support the industry.
  Korea and Japan are dominating the market with, frankly, Korea deliberately producing below cost, on the basis of Government subsidies and, at the same time, expanding its capacity — an expansion of capacity of about 240 per cent. over the past 20 years or so. It is possible to argue — I encourage hon. Members to examine the argument—that Korea wants the far east to take control of the world market by effectively buying out its opposition through subsidised production.
  John Lister, who is newly appointed to the industry, has asked:
  "How can you compete with a country that trains its army commandos to bite the heads off live venomous snakes?
  Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but it is true that we have to face up to the reality that British Shipbuilders is not suffering purely from market forces or a shipbuilding depression. It is also suffering from a deliberate and well-thought-out strategy to undermine European shipbuilding to the point at which it is unable to compete effectively and at which, once again, there is an increased demand for British ships and ships throughout the world.
  Mr. Lister also asked how one can work productively under a Government that puts a man into office and tells him that his job is to
  "cost them less money and prepare the group for eventual privatisation?"
  Such a Government would not win prizes for motivation in the present circumstance. The truth is that it is not possible to prepare the industry for privatisation while we suffer the current cut-throat competition in world markets and the current challenges to shipbuilding in Europe. We

  565
  have seen not only three ministerial changes in the past year, but, in the past four years, four chairmen of British Shipbuilders. The changeover in personnel seems to be the one growth area in the industry.
  British shipbuilding is a vital industry, but we have seen a gradual depletion of the merchant fleet, with enormous trade and strategic implications and also implications for shipbuilding. It is predicted that, as we approach the 1990s, world orders for British ships will double, yet British Shipbuilders has been cut to a shadow of its former self, while Korean shipbuilding has expanded. That is why it is essential to increase borrowing powers. It is essential to maintain the basis to be able to meet the challenges of the 1990s and not withdraw from an industry that, sooner or later by its very nature, as the hulks rust away, will see a resurgence. The House does not want to face a far eastern monopoly that Europe cannot challenge and meet.
  That is why, going beyond the measures that we are debating tonight, it is important that many other measures are taken to help the British shipbuilding industry. It is important for jobs and, as we have heard, for the communities that are involved, but it is also important for the country and its strategic interests.
  The Government can and should look further than the limited matters covered by the Bill, towards responding, for example, to inquiries for selected product ranges that are backed by different European countries, so that, once again, the industry can gain the economies of scale that it risks losing at present. There should be more work on standardising equipment ranges in the interests of supporting shipowners and shipbuilders in their desire to compete internationally. There should be more use of the intervention fund to enable the United Kingdom to tender internationally. Therefore, it is essential to have stable exchange rates. To do that, we must join the European monetary system. I urge the Minister to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and forcibly argue that case on behalf not only of British Shipbuilders but of the industry in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  We need to examine a tax regime that is designed to encourage the construction of new ships. We must look at a scrap and build policy to support the shipbuilding industry and modernise the aging merchant fleet. Strong pressure must come from the European Community and the United Nations to end subsidised competition against our merchant fleet and growing competition from Comecon countries. Above all—it is directly within the influence of Ministers—we must ensure that all ships that are built with public money are built in United Kingdom yards.
  On top of the normal cyclical adjustments, we face a deliberate attempt to destroy the European industry. It places an obligation on the House and on the Government to rise to the challenge.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: Shipbuilding debates tend to follow the same pattern. I do not intend to go over the whole range of shipbuilding issues. They were covered comprehensively and competently by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). On this occasion, there has at least been a little variety in the debate. We have heard two maiden speeches by hon. Ladies. It is a pleasure to add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson),
  566
  who spoke of her predecessor, Sir Peter Mills, who was well regarded by hon. Members. She spoke extremely competently and confidently about the problems affecting her constituency.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) who spoke extremely well. She mentioned her predecessor, Mr. James Tinn, who was highly regarded by hon. Members. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend because she made what many maiden speakers do not make—a real debating speech, and she did so with hardly any use of notes. I look forward to hearing her in many shipbuilding debates. Unfortunately, the number of Members with an interest in shipbuilding is declining all the time as more and more yards are closed. That declining number is a reflection of the dreadful experience that the industry has had.
  I shall be speaking about my yard, Govan Shipbuilders. I was delighted with the Chinese order. I acknowledged at the time to the Minister's predecessor—and I am glad to acknowledge again — the help given by the Government to obtain that order. The aid and trade provision played an important part in the difficult negotiations. The main tribute for their success must go to the managing director of Govan, Eric Mackie, and various members of Govan who were part of the negotiating team. I am happy to pay tribute to them again. This is a most welcome order.
  However, the order does not provide for Govan Shipbuilders a permanently secure future, or anything like it. The number of people employed there is very small. It needs continuity of orders. Most of the people employed there have been laid off. Only in the next two or three months will recruitment begin again. Even so, it will not be possible to run Govan Shipbuilders on an economic basis. Although it is an efficient yard, it cannot be run economically without a sufficient order book to keep the facilities in operation. It desperately needs further orders.
  The Brittany Ferries order has been placed with a French yard, following intervention by the French Government. Govan put in the lowest tender—there is no dispute about that. The previous Minister took my view—that Govan Shipbuilders, in free and fair competition, had beaten off the competitors and put in the lowest tender with the best conditions for the obtaining of the order. What is more, there was every sign that Brittany Ferries wanted to place the order with Govan. It made considerable efforts, even when under pressure from the French Government, to put the order with Govan. However, the order went instead to a French yard following intervention by the French Government.
  The British Government have taken this matter to the European Commission, rightly alleging that the French Government have breached the sixth directive. This is the first real test of the sixth directive, which was signed only in December last year and came into operation only at the beginning of this year. I had a parliamentary question on that yesterday, but unfortunately it was not reached orally. Instead, I received a written reply today, which says:
  "As a result of our representations, the Commission has informed the French authorities that any aid for the Brittany Ferries order must comply with the new shipbuilding directive and that no aid may he given without the Commission's approval."
  That is all right as far as it goes, but if the order has been obtained improperly, or even illegally, I should like something to bedone to have the order cancelled, the

  567
  matter reinstated as it was and the order placed on the basis of genuine free competition. If the directive does not mean that, I am not clear what the point of it is. The great argument for the directive, which the Ministers used at the time when we were not satisfied with the level of aid that could be obtained as the maximum under the directive, was that it had advantages in terms of transparency. We agreed that that was an improvement. This is a real test as to whether the directive can be made to stick.
  What is happening? When will we get the report of the Commission? What are the Commission's powers? If the French Government do not co-operate, what will happen? Will they be taken to the European Court?
  This order was extremely important for Govan. It had it snatched from under its nose mot unfairly and improperly. I demand that the Government pursue this with the utmost rigour. I hope that we will get an assurance from the Minister when he replies to the debate. I hope that the order can still be retrieved for Govan. No other British shipbuilder was involved in this, so Govan is not squeezing out a British yard.
  The St. Helena order will not necessarily come to Govan Shipbuilders. Other shipbuilders are interested, including some in the private sector. However, I believe that Govan Shipbuilders has an excellent chance of getting the order. There has been a great delay in placing the order. It was first announced in May 1986 and I had correspondence with the Minister for Overseas Development on the matter in October 1986. I was told then:
  "The timing of the replacement of the vessel is well advanced and we hope to be in a position to make a decision shortly."
  I raised the matter in a similar debate in December 1986. The Minister said:
  "The Government have decided what type of ship to recommend to the Government of St. Helena. As soon as that Government's agreement has been received, the ODA will set in motion the competitive tendering arrangements for design and construction of the new vessel in a United Kingdom yard."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 142.]
  A few days later the Minister gave details of the type of ship that the Government had in mind and said that they were setting in motion the competitive tendering arrangements. We are now seven months further on and we still have not had a firm date for when the tender procedure is to be completed and an order placed. It is not good enough for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to say that the Government hope to place the order some time this year. The order should have been placed a long time ago, and certainly it should be placed within the next few weeks.
  If the Government want to persuade the industry and the House, and particularly Opposition Members, that they care about the shipbuilding industry, here is an order directly in the Government's gift. It is desperately needed by a British shipbuilding yard. I am confident that Govan will put in a competitive tender, so I hope that the order will come to it. It will in any case come to the United Kingdom. It has nothing to do with the world situation, South Korea, Japan or anybody else. It is a public sector order and I hope that we will hear a commitment to place it soon.
  Dr. Godman: The closing date for tenders for the St. Helena ferry is 25 August. Should not the period of assessment be reduced from three to two weeks so that the order can be placed as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Millan: Once the tenders are made, I hope that there will be no further delay. My hon. Friend knows the story of all the delays so far. I cannot understand the dilatory way in which this matter has been dealt with, particularly as it has been raised so frequently in the House by myself and other right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that we shall get something more specific and definite when the Minister answers the debate.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Bob Clay: The key to this debate is the point that has been made in every debate that I can remember—since 1983—which is that, although there may be a recession in world shipbuilding generally, this country has taken by far the greatest share of that recession in Europe, if not in the world. I can remember times when Ministers claimed in debates such as this that the Koreans were intending to cut back. Tonight, even some Conservative Members have recognised that Korea is still expanding capacity. On the last Lloyds register more than 30 per cent. of the tonnage waiting to be commenced around the world—30·2 per cent., in fact—is now held by Korea.
  It is worth making the point that those of us who have persistently pointed to Korea and described its ability to undercut countries such as ours in shipbuilding have maintained that that has had to do with the nature of its slave labour economy. Those of us who were denounced for saying that sort of thing about Korea can point to the events of recent weeks there. I received a letter complaining about something that I said on television about Korea. It was from a business man who spends a lot of time in Korea. He said that it was outrageous to describe Korea as a slave labour economy:
  "It is cheap and snide … The Koreans are a very hardworking and loyal race."
  We have seen how loyal they are to the oppressive and reactionary regime under which they have suffered for so long. I hope that recent events in Korea will lead to a position in which, if we had a sensible Government in this country, we could talk to Korea about more sensible arrangements for the long-term future of world shipbuilding. That would benefit the Korean working-class as well as our own.
  The Government must answer a simple question about the future of British shipbuilding. If it is true that there are now 538,000 gross registered tonnes that are more than 20 years old in what is left of the British fleet; if there are another 1,216,000 gross registered tonnes that are 15 to 20 years old; and if there are probably 6 million gross registered tonnes that will need repairing and replacing in the next 10 years, only three things can happen. That tonnage will eventually disappear, or it will be rebuilt abroad, or it will be built in this country. Even if only half of the tonnage of the British merchant fleet that needs replacing in the next few years was built in this country as a result of sensible scrap-and-build policies or other inducements—quite apart from orders such as that for St. Helena, which are in the Government's gift, or orders from developing countries—that would fill what is left of our yards to more than their present capacity. That demonstrates the disgraceful state of affairs that we are in.

  569
  Opposition Members warned for long enough that our merchant capacity was sinking to the point at which it would eventually be unable to survive. In some ways we have already reached that stage. There are already hints of the impossibility of certain orders because, if they were secured, we could not build them in British yards, That is how low our capacity has sunk.
  It is a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has left the Chamber, because he specifically referred to Sunderland in his opening remarks, and to the £50 million losses on contracts over and above subsidy and intervention. He pointed his finger at Sunderland as the main culprit in that respect. Clearly, there have been problems in Sunderland. They have been symptomatic of the attitude of British shipbuilders and of the Government's lack of interest in what is going on. It is quite extraordinary that, on the one hand, the management of British Shipbuilders in Sunderland — North-East Shipbuilders Ltd.—is saying that it is still necessary to make 205 redundancies, resulting in our facing, week by week, the nervous and worrying situation that compulsory redundancies will be declared, with their inevitable consequences; and, on the other hand, the management is saying that it will need an extra 240 workers for the next six to eight weeks, including the holiday period, to come either from the existing employees in Sunderland, who will work during their holidays, or by bringing workers from other British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries, or by subcontracting. So, on the one hand, capacity is being run down with enforced redundancies and, on the other, they are talking about bringing people in from outside as subcontractors. That is a measure of the state of what is left of the industry. How on earth can the Government or the senior management of British Shipbuilders expect to have sensible industrial relations and stability in an industry that is desperately fighting for survival while that kind of insanity is going on?
  I ask the Government to make inquiries at British Shipbuilders about a specific matter. Welcome as the ferry orders were in Sunderland—they were a lifeline that saved the yards there—some serious questions must be asked about what happened. The order for 25 ferries was a marvellous contract worth more than £100 million. However, at the time the order was signed we were told that the work was unsophisticated. Now we find that the standards required—57/50—are the highest in world shipbuilding. The management is continually saying that the programme is getting behind, and that the work content is becoming more and more complicated and that is why the unions have been forced to agree to double shift working and many other productivity measures. There is widespread feeling in Sunderland that the contract was negotiated in a way that would lead inevitably to the circumstances that I have described.
  Mr. George Parker, the chairman of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. at the time the contract was negotiated, then left British Shipbuilders in peculiar circumstances which have never been publicly explained by British Shipbuilders. He took a job with P.Z. Trading Company Ltd., which placed the order for 25 ferries with British Shipbuilders. That may be a pure coincidence, but many people in Sunderland are saying that some questions about what is happening must be answered. These events are typical of the type of arrogance, secrecy and hostility that
  570
  have been displayed to the work force—a feeling that there is a game of chess to be played, rather than getting on with the job.
  There has been a feeling of resentment among the work force over the continual tiers of management that they have experienced during the past few years. The turnover of managers in Sunderland in British Shipbuilders exceeds even the number of Government Ministers who have dealt with these debates, or the number of chairmen of British Shipbuilders at national level. How can one expect workers in a shipyard to feel any confidence in the future when they see managers come and go in—sometimes—extremely mysterious circumstances, and when, suddenly, contracts that were welcome turn into nightmares of double shift work and people being told to work in their holidays? Subcontracting often causes the hold-ups of which the Minister complains; work is sent out abroad, is then said to be substandard and has to be sent back abroad, and is then sent to another subcontractor. We have had a long history of that.
  There must be an inquiry into the way in which British Shipbuilders has been managed. We can survive if the Government seriously examine the policies for which we have continually argued, and which have been succinctly expressed from the Opposition Front Bench this evening. We need to take advantage of the sensible policies that could be available — scrap-and-build, greater efforts towards obtaining orders from developing countries and coming to more sensible international solutions. We need a more sensible way of running what is left of the British shipbuilding industry.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I can remember the considerable pride that was felt on Tyneside when Benton house was opened in my constituency as the national headquarters of the British shipbuilding industry. The north-east of England does not have many headquarters of national industries and it seems as if, since 1979, the Government have been set on closing the one national headquarters that we still have.
  In a superb maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) spoke about the pain and hurt that has been occasioned in her community by the closure of Smith's Dock. Similar stories could be told by hon. Members representing constituencies in Tyneside arid Wearside as well as Teesside. A lot of pain and hardship has been caused in our communities because of what has happened to the shipbuilding industry, and especially because of the Government's privatisation of the warship building yards and their cynical rundown of the merchant shipbuilding industry. That did not happen all at once in one great confrontation, but the Government chipped away a little piece each time. Then they come to the House and in debates just like this say that the industry will now be stabilised, that there is a world crisis but that at least there are some prospects for the future.
  In each debate, year after year, Ministers speak less about the prospects and more about the difficulties of the current situation. I intervened during the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's opening speech to ask about intervention funding. In response he tried to imply that I was seeking intervention funding for warship yards that was justly the due of merchant yards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  571
  Redcar said, one working-class community will not try to offset its hurt at the expense of another working-class community in the same position.
  If through intervention by the Minister's Department or as a result of the constraints that are put upon it because the merchant sector is now so small British Shipbuilders is refused work in a certain part of the shipbuilding industry, is it the Government's intention to allow the private yards to compete for that work with the same sort of intervention funding support that our European but not our far eastern competitors are allowed?
  Mr. Atkins: Give an example.
  Mr. Brown: The Minister asks me to give an example. The example that I have in mind is probably commercially confidential and I do not want to give it. The Minister grins, but it is a bit mischievous for his boss to say that he did not know what I was talking about.
  I can give an earlier example, of the Santa Rosa. It is an American-owned vessel and it was offered to British Shipbuilders, not for construction or reconstruction but for outfitting. British Shipbuilders declined to undertake that work. It was then offered to Swan Hunter in my constituency but the work could be undertaken only if Swan Hunter had intervention funding. I went to see the Minister's predecessor, solely on the principle of intervention funding. I will not discuss whether the contract was commercially viable. We discussed only the issue of intervention funding after British Shipbuilders had turned down the order. I was given a rebuff and I take what the Chancellor of the Duchy said today as a further rebuff. On behalf of the shipbuilding community in Tyneside, I urge him to reconsider.
  Two years ago the Government said that the future of the British shipbuilding industry lay in specialist work. They are now putting a whole range of specialist vessels outside the ability of our industry. That is a cruel, savage and terminal thing to do to the merchant shipbuilding industry, every bit as much as it is cruel, savage and terminal to do it to the warship building industry. The ability to make vessels is a strategic requirement for an island nation. For the Minister to allow a whole sector of that to vanish is grotesquely irresponsible and future generations will not forgive him for it.
  My hon. Friends have spoken about the reductions that our European competitors have made, or are supposed to have made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and our right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said, the statistics show that Great Britain has made its reductions and that our European competitors have not come with us. We have been playing cricket while others have been fighting with flick knives, and that story can be told about other industrial sectors. It is the duty of the Government to defend our interests, even if the overwhelming majority of electors in the shipbuilding communities show no intention of supporting the Government.
  While we are on the European situation, I should like to ask a few questions about the European social fund. That European money is to assist communities in preparing for the hurt and damage that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about. Such hurt and damage occurs in shipbuilding communities after the industry has gone. Requests for money from the social
  572
  fund cannot be made directly by communities, but have to come from the member state through its Government. The feeling in every shipbuilding community in Britain is that the Government are not doing their bit for those communities.
  Government spokesmen say that old industries must go and that new ones will come, but where are the new industries on Tyneside? They are not there and they are not on Wearside or Teesside either. The whole of the north of England has been hurt by the loss of jobs in shipbuilding and heavy engineering and has not been assisted directly by the Government through the creation of new jobs. The Government will not even go to Europe to try to obtain funds for the creation of new jobs. Financial assistance from the Minister's Department to the northern region shows a dramatic decline—it has been cut by almost half—since 1979. That is not the sort of thing that should be expected from the Government and they ought to help a region that is in difficulty because of structural changes in its industrial base.
  The Government do not have just one state-owned merchant shipbuilding yard; they have two. They have the one that hon. Members have spoken about, and the one that is in Belfast at Harland and Wolff. Many of my hon. Friends who represent merchant shipbuilding constituencies fear that, in a world where yards are fighting hard for orders, Harland and Wolff is on the inside track and is not subject to the same constraints, restrictions or cuts that are visited on our communities in the north-east of England and in the other shipbuilding communities on the mainland. It may be said that Swan Hunter has a particular grudge because of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel, and that is correct. The Northern Ireland Office fights hard in Cabinet for Harland and Wolff and the Department of Trade and Industry has a duty to fight hard for mainland merchant shipbuilding communities. So far I see no evidence at all that it intends to do anything of the sort.
  6.58 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have two British Shipbuilders establishments in my constituency, and for that reason I welcome this Bill.
  Before the Minister leaves the Chamber I should like to ask him a question about the Brittany Ferries order. Has the European Commission the power to rescind the decision of the French Government to place this order with a French yard? That is a critical question. If the French can get away with this flagrant breach of EC regulations, what kind of trust can we place in the Community in terms of a fair and reasonable shipping and shipbuilding policy? How can we expect to have a fair and reasonable system of cabotage if the French get away with this kind of behaviour? I listened closely to the two maiden speeches that have been made. They were good speeches, delivered with remarkable self-assurance and confidence. It is evident that I have many political interests in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam). However, I have a constituency interest in commom with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) because Appledore Ferguson is situated in both of our constituencies. One is not supposed to criticise maiden speeches, but I was becoming a little concerned about the use of the name Appledore. However, as the hon. Lady said, the company is called Appledore

  573
  Ferguson. We shall have to work together to defend the interests of the highly skilled people who work for that company.
  In my constituency I have two establishments, Appledore Ferguson at the Newark yard, and the marine engine makers formerly known as John G. Kincaid, now known as Clark Kincaid. Between them those firms employ fewer than 900 men and women. Kincaid employs about 500 people and Appledore Ferguson employs 320 people. Both companies are vital to the British shipbuilding industry and to the local community in particular because in the Greenock travel-to-work area, which extends slightly beyond my constituency, more than 10,000 men and women are unemployed. Male unemployment in Greenock and Port Glasgow is in excess of 26 per cent. The overall unemployment rate is about 21 per cent. Those are the Government's figures, not unofficial ones. That is a scandalously high level of unemployment.
  The importance of those two establishments is accentuated by the threat of closure that is hanging over Scott Lithgow. To a large extent, that threat has been brought about by the Ministry of Defence's refusal to place an order with the yard that was promised 17 months ago in the wake of the placement of a huge order for conventional submarines with Vickers of Barrow-in-Furness. It is the view of many of my constituents and myself that the Government have acted in bad faith towards Scott Lithgow and my constituents.
  On Tuesday I appealed to the Secretary of State for Defence to honour his moral obligation, which he acknowledged, to place those orders with Scott Lithgow. They would provide an essential breathing space and allow Scott Lithgow to look for other orders. I do not expect humility or political principle from this English Government, but that order must be given to Scott Lithgow; otherwise another 1,000 employees will be placed on the dole queue. Another 1,000 families will be pushed down to the poverty line because there will not be a great amount of money for redundancy payments.
  Those bleak developments are made darker by the decision of the Clyde port authority to close the Greenock container terminal. That is another example of bad faith being shown to my constituents. The CPA could not run a menage, let alone an ice-cream parlour. Its marketing skills are non-existent. What was needed to protect and promote the interests of the employees of the Greenock container terminal was a superbly orchestrated, worldwide marketing exercise to bring trade to Greenock. The CPA simply was not up to the job. It did not even have the nous to go to London, where there are maritime marketing specialists of a high calibre, to maintain work at the terminal.
  Have any discussions taken place between the Minister's Department, Vickers and British Shipbuilders regarding subcontract tenders for the construction of conventional submarines in Barrow? If Vickers wins the orders that it is pursuing overseas, with Government assistance, that yard, together with Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, may not have the resources and the high level of welding skills that are required, and it may have to invite tenders for subcontract work.
  I assure the Minister that in my constituency there are the yards and work force to do that work. Facilities in Greenock and Port Glasgow are disgracefully underutilised and there are thousands — this is not
  574
  hyperbole—of highly skilled shipyard workers who have been unemployed for some time who can do that work. If the negotiations on the subcontract work and the negotiations with foreign Governments such as Saudi Arabia were to be successful—I say this to the Minister, Vickers and British Shipbuilders—submarines could be built on the Clyde at Yarrow and Scott Lithgow. I should like to know whether those discussions have taken place.
  With regard to Appledore Ferguson, we have recently had good news from the Secretary of State for Scotland—the strong likelihood of the placement of an order for a Cal-Mac ferry. One is already under construction at Appledore Ferguson. I should like to hear from the Minister that the Government are giving every support to the specialist small vessel yards, such as Appledore Ferguson, and to the one remaining marine engine builder in British Shipbuilders' stable, Clark Kincaid. Both establishments desperately need orders. I appeal to the Government to ensure that any help that they can give goes to British Shipbuilders and those two companies so that they might survive or, better still, prosper in the future.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I have the privilege of representing part of Sunderland, which 30 years ago was the largest shipbuilding town in the world. At that time the Wear was lined with shipyards which had full order books. Today there is a little over 2,000 people employed there with more redundancies in prospect. Even eight years ago, when the Government were first elected, there were 7,000 men employed in the shipyards on the Wear. For every job that is lost in the yard we lose another two in subsidiary engineering industries, and that is in a town that has 27 per cent. male unemployment, and where a generation of skills are in danger of being thrown on the scrap heap.
  It is being suggested tonight — no sensible person would dispute this — that the world recession is the backdrop against which we discuss this subject. That is true, but there are other reasons for the dramatic—some would say catastrophic—decline in British shipbuilding in the last decade or more. First, history records that British shipowners are less willing than our main rivals to buy ships at home. In West Germany, for example, according to the last figures I saw, about 80 per cent. of ships were built in West German yards. In France, the figure was about 90 per cent. and in Italy virtually 100 per cent. But in the United Kingdom it was less than 50 per cent. In Japan, not a single ship ordered by a Japanese company has been built outside Japan since 1947, even though it would have been cheaper for those companies to go across the water to South Korea.
  History also records that even public companies have been less than willing to build in British yards. In 1983, the CEGB ordered a cable-laying ship from Korea, and three years ago Trinity House ordered a pilot tender from Korea—ships that could easily have been built in British yards.
  Sunderland has an additional problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has already referred. There is a bone-headed management in the yards in Sunderland. I do not suggest that that necessarily applies to the management of other shipyards, but in Sunderland the management is more interested in pursuing class war than in shipbuilding. It has

  575
  exploited the crisis in shipbuilding to inflict further humiliation on a work force that has already made great sacrifices. I give just one example. The management there is simultaneously subcontracting out work, not only to small engineering firms outside the yards but abroad, while calling for redundancies. At present it is in the process of demanding another 200 or 300 redundancies.
  Very often the work that has been subcontracted out has been substandard, and many weeks of delay have been endured while those mistakes have been put right. Those mistakes would not have occurred had that work been carried out in Sunderland in the first place.
  It has been said that British yards should concentrate on high technology and specialist ships. What then do we make of the decision by Graham Day some time ago to close the engineering and technical services only a year after new facilities for designing a marine engine had been installed? That was a crazy decision. The former chairman of British Shipbuilders, Sir Robert Atkinson, said:
  "It makes my heart bleed. When they start to kill a project like that, they will kill British shipbuilding".
  How right he appears to have been.
  The collapse of British Shipbuilders, if that is what it has been, has been paralleled by another development in shipbuilding—the flagging-out of a large part of the British fleet to Panama, Liberia, Outer Mongolia and goodness knows where else. Half the number of ships requisitioned for the Falklands war now sail under foreign flags. Our imports and exports are now carried on ships registered under flags of convenience, manned by crews recruited in the poorest countries of the world, and entitled to none of the rights that some of us quaintly associate with civilisation. Those ships were built in foreign yards. As other hon. Members have said, as an island nation 95 per cent. of our trade is carried by sea, but very soon we shall have no ships of our own or the means to build them. That cannot make sense.
  This is possibly the last chance for the British shipbuilding industry, or what remains of it. Let me commend to the Government several practical steps that they might consider. First, they should produce the combination of incentives, credits and, if necessary, compulsion to persuade British shipowners to buy British. Secondly, they should introduce the programme of scrap and build which the Tory Government of the mid-1930s produced in the British Shipping Assistance Act, which at 1935 prices gave loans of up to £10 million at interest rates of up to 3 per cent. repayable over 12 years on condition that two tons be scrapped for every one built. In Sunderland the result was a fourfold increase in tonnage launched on Wearside in the space of only two years.
  We should also take a leaf from the book of the United States—that home of market forces so much admired by many Conservative Members — and look at the provisions of the Jones Act, under which all domestic coastal traffic in the United States is restricted to United States vessels, under which 50 per cent. of all Government cargoes must be carried in United States vessels, under which all military cargoes must travel in United States vessels, under which 50 per cent. of United States grain exports must be carried in United States vessels, and under which 75 per cent. of grain food aid must be carried in United States vessels. What is to stop us taking similar steps?
  576
  Ministers should use whatever influence they have with the management of the two yards that remain in Sunderland to ensure that the workers are treated decently, to stop contracting out and to ensure that the work available is given to those who have given their lives to the industry. If we do not take some of these steps, we shall not have a debate such as this in a few years' time, because no shipyards will be left.
  In a debate on exactly the same subject not so long ago, the former right hon. Member for Taunton, Sir Edward du Cann, said:
  "During my time in the House I have watched the decline of many manufacturing industries and the extinction of others—motorcycles, television, radio, optical instruments, motor cars and so on. Too many have declined and too many have gone. We choose many fancy words to describe the process—and rationalisation is one. To me, it has been a history of industrial disaster … Future generations will never forgive us if we do not say that this process of attrition in British manufacturing industry has gone far enough. It is time to cry halt."—[Official Report, 21 May 1986; Vol. 898, c. 422]
  I and I am sure many other hon. Members echo those sentiments in relation to the shipbuilding industry.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milgavie): This has been a debate of much misery, and no hon. Member has brought much cheer to it. I cannot pretend that what I shall say will be any different, because what has happened in my constituency is a reflection of what has happened in the country generally.
  Twenty years ago, the QE2 was launched on the Clyde at Clydebank, and we knew at the time that it was the end of the era of sophisticated passenger liners. But we did not realise that it looked like being the end of an era for British shipbuilding. Unless the Government act with a coherent policy, it is difficult to foresee any shipbuilding persisting on the Clyde in 20 years time. Unless some action is taken, Clydebank's last tenuous connection with shipbuilding is likely to disappear shortly with the mothballing of the UIE shipbuilding yard—where the QE2 was built—as there is no work on the horizon.
  That is tragic on two counts. First, there can be no area more famous for shipbuilding than the Clyde, and within that area no yard more renowned than that of John Brown, where all the Queen liners were built. As a result, a town that came into existence as a result of shipbuilding looks like losing its raison d'etre.
  The second and much greater tragedy is that nowadays we talk not about a dinosaur industry but about a rig-building industry — which, as the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said earlier, is a sunrise industry. The yard has so adapted its methods and technology as to be universally admired. It is a yard in which last year the Queen launched a rig that is at the forefront of this frontier technology. Unfortunately, on the Monday after the launch, UIE and Bouygyes, the French owners, began laying off the work force, which has resulted in the fact that after the annual holiday in Clydebank only 41 workers will be retained.
  Clearly, we are only at the early stages of man exploiting the natural resources under the sea and the ice caps. It will be the developed world, not the emerging countries, that provide the technology and skilled manpower to make that possible. Do we want to be part

  577
  of that world or not? With the present policy—or lack of policy — Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole will not be part of that world.
  The Government are open to the justified criticism that they have squandered the resources of the North sea on bearing the cost of unemployment. They will now be open to the charge of squandering the technology and skills developed in the exploitation of the North sea by allowing the firms that responded to the challenge to disappear. If we allow UIE and other yards to disappear, we shall be throwing away an infrastructure of interlocking firms and suppliers which it will not be easy to reassemble. In UIE we have a nucleus work force with those essential skills, but it is rapidly being broken up. We also need to maintain research and development connections with places such as Glasgow and Strathclyde universities.
  What can and should be done? It is not enough to say that it is all woe. First, the skills of the work force could be nourished if the Ministry of Defence work was used much more constructively—not necessarily in the UIE yard but at neighbouring yards such as Yarrow. If we are supposed to be keeping a 50-warship Navy, why is the Ministry of Defence so remiss in keeping up the schedule so that there is planned work ahead?
  Labour Members may bitterly regret the work on Trident. We wish that we had won the election and persuaded the country to renounce those missiles. But if that work is to go ahead, submarine pens will need to be built at Faslane, and Scott Lithgow could be competing. However, the Government do not seem to realise the importance of keeping those skills together.
  What is the attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Energy and the Scottish Office, whose representative I am glad to see today, to shipbuilding and rig building. Surely those activities cannot be left to short-term market factors. Strategic decisions need to be taken. My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) referred to that. As a maritime nation, we cannot simply allow our merchant fleet to decline into nothing. We must take policy decisions about scrap and build. We cannot allow flags of convenience to rule the waves. We must step in and say, "This is simply not adequate."
  What is the stance of the various Government Departments about UIE and oil exploration? How do they envisage the industry developing? Do they want it to have a future? We know that we cannot leave these matters to short-term market forces if we are to be part of the future that the exploitation of the earth's resources will create, but it seems that the Government are doing exactly that.
  In all that I have said I have only echoed the report of the Select Committee on Energy, which said that the depressed rate of activity in the North sea would weaken the British offshore supplies industry so much that it would be unable to take advantage of a resurgence in activity if oil prices recover in the next few years.
  The problem is not peculiar to the traditional shipbuilding industry. The Government are also remiss about parts of the industry where they have encouraged development. I challenge the Government on their policies on the exploitation of the world's maritime resources. Are they going to formulate a coherent policy so that we can share in the future, or are they going to sit on their backsides?
  7.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): It is with some trepidation that I rise at the Dispatch Box to wind up this debate as, in the past, my interventions from a sedentary position have amused the House on occasions. I know that I am now a target and that hon. Members may do the same to me.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on his success in the shadow Cabinet elections and I congratulate Madam Deputy Speaker who graced us with her presence earlier.
  As one whose family have worked as shipwrights in the Royal Naval dockyards in Kent and Devon continuously for more than 100 years, I have more than a passing ministerial interest in the shipbuilding industry. I hope that the remarks made about the number of changes of Ministers will not apply to me — at least in the foreseeable future. It is particularly worth while to hear so many Members speak with real knowledge and experience of the industry.
  I hope that the House will join me in paying compliments to the two maiden speakers, who, in this case, were literally maiden speakers, if I can put it that way. The speech of the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) was eloquent and forceful, and we welcome her to the House. I agree with those hon. Members who admired her courage in speaking without notes, because I cannot.
  I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for participating in the debate. We are delighted that she has done so. She spoke glowingly of her constituency, which is obviously extremely beautiful, and of her predecessor, Sir Peter Mills, who is well known to the House. We wish him a happy retirement. My hon. Friend referred to Appledore Ferguson in her constituency, which plays a vital part in local industry. We welcome and thank her for her contribution.
  This debate has highlighted the concern felt by us all about the shipbuilding industry. We have had wide-ranging discussions and heard a number of views, although perhaps our conclusions will be different. I could spend a lot of time answering the points that have been raised, but, with permission, I should like to deal with only one or two and write to hon. Members on the detailed points.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East raised some points that can be answered reasonably quickly. He asked about the St. Helena order. I understand that the tender has been issued and bids need to be in to the consultants by 25 August. Therefore, the matter is now advanced although it has been delayed for some time—[Interruption.] We shall encourage it as far as we can.
  As hon. Members may be aware, the Cuban order has been put on ice. British Shipbuilders is now negotiating on a new specification, and it seems that the new order is some way off.
  A number of hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), referred to the Brittany Ferries order. That is a complex matter, and many hon. Members may not be aware of the detail of it. It is worth pointing out that Brittany Ferries is a company of complex structure, but that essentially it originates from and is owned by French farmers in Brittany. The yard to which the French hope that the order will go is, practically

  579
  speaking, owned by the French Government. If one adds to that the fact that the French Industry Minister represents a nearby constituency, it becomes clear that the pressures on Brittany Ferries have been substantial.
  I agree that it appears that Govan expected to get the order, but I am led to believe that the Dutch were not out of consideration and that it is likely that the aid that they offered is considerably less than that offered by us. Clearly, therefore, the pressures on us are substantial.
  I understand that the European Commission is examining the aid packages offered by all members states which have tendered for the order. We expect the Commission to decide shortly—possibly next week—to open formal procedures under article 93 of the treaty of Rome. Until that process is complete, no aid may be given. We have pressed and continue to press the Commission to act decisively. The Commission has power to prevent aid being paid or to require its repayment, if illegal, but it does not have power to frustrate a contract. We shall pursue the matter as forcefully as we can. The Commissioner concerned is sympathetic to our pressure and I hope that in due course I shall be able to write to hon. Members concerned in considerably more detail. The House should, however, be aware of our great concern about this matter.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East referred to foreign orders. He and all those closely involved will know that at present foreign orders are few and far between. If every shipbuilding country sought to keep its own orders in its own yards, as it is understandably suggested that we should, there would be even fewer orders and the whole situation would become worse. On the hon. Gentleman's other questions, perhaps he will allow me to write to him so that we can get the facts clear and right as they develop.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) called for an international investigation into transparent subsidies. The idea makes considerable sense. I will ensure that it is considered and will write to him in due course.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will appreciate that the matters that he raised are largely for the Ministry of Defence. I have heard him raise those matters before and I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence will be hearing of them again. The hon. Gentleman will know that Clark Kincaid is building engines for the China ships, and if we get the third order it will provide work until 1989.
  With regard to management and organisation, the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will understand that I have not yet had the opportunity to investigate the details. We expect to receive the corporate plan from Mr. Lister in the autumn. We shall then review the position in detail.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) raised matters which are largely the concern of the Department of Energy and of the Treasury. I am sure that he will continue to make those points where they need to be heard.
  As I understand it, the essence of the criticisms directed at the Government are, first, that we lack a co-ordinated policy and, secondly, that we have not done enough. Some Opposition suggestions, such as the idea of a task force, need to be considered. The Opposition have called for a coherent policy toward shipbuilding. We believe that we have such a policy, first, in the co-ordination of a maritime
  580
  and shipbuilding policy and, secondly, in the timing and volume of public sector orders. The Opposition will be aware that public sector orders are few and it makes little sense to order in advance of need, because, by the nature of budgets, other activities are bound to be displaced. Nevertheless, there are some orders and they undoubtedly help.
  Building is now going on of a research ship for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a fisheries protection vessel for the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and a larger ferry for Caledonian MacBrayne. Orders will be placed this year for another Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, a small ferry for the Shetlands and the St. Helena ship. Two small ferries for the Orkneys will come next year. A task force could do little or nothing to alter the number and timing of those orders.
  With regard to aid and financial packages to support our export orders, we have already done quite a lot, particularly in relation to China, to which the right hon. Member for Govan kindly referred as something that we have achieved with some pressure.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on his elevation to an important position on the Opposition Front Bench. With regard to Korea, I had intended to refer to a rather delightful quotation, but the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) pinched it. I shall not repeat it, but it sums up the view of many Members.
  Another point worth remembering about the idea of a task force is that it is irrelevant to the ordering needs of United Kingdom owners. They have to face difficult world conditions, and if they are not free to choose where to build the ships that suit them best they will be at a considerable disadvantage against competitors, thus putting other British jobs at risk. As it happens, their recent ordering record is quite good. Some 70 per cent. of compensated gross tonnage ordered for registration under the United Kingdom flag in 1986 was placed in United Kingdom yards. If we forced United Kingdom owners to buy here, what do the Opposition imagine would happen if other countries did the same?
  Our policies coincide with those of the European Commission, which provides the framework for merchant shipbuilding support. The new sixth directive, to which Members on both sides have referred, is much better than its predecessors. We recognise the problems with the French—from my former incarnation in relation to the aircraft industry, I know only too well how difficult the French can be — but we shall make certain that the Commission ensures that aid is fair. Hon. Members on both sides who have shipbuilding interests and know the issues well must not press me on the ingenuity with which we sometimes interpret the rules, as that would not be in anyone's interests.
  British Shipbuilders has experienced great difficulties in recent years and it continues to do so. There are three main reasons for this. First, there have been delays and alterations in specifications for orders received. Secondly, as we have heard in the debate, there have been customer failures. Thirdly, there has been poor performance in a variety of areas. As I have said, there is a new chairman—Mr. John Lister—and we await his presentation of the corporate plan in October or November this year. We shall consider that plan carefully and in due course report to the House.

  581
  This has been an interesting debate. I have learnt a great deal today and I shall continue to learn more. In the meantime, the Bill provides financial scope to fund British Shipbuilders for a further period, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill

    BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (BORROWING POWERS) BILL [Money]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) any increase in the sums payable out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 which is attributable to provisions of the Act raising to £1,550 million the limit imposed by section 11(7) of the said Act of 1977 and authorising the Secretary of State to provide by order for that limit to be increased or further increased up to a maximum of £1,800 million; and

    (b) the payment of any sums into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
  Order fir Second Reading read.
  7.37 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is before the House to authorise the construction of a new bridge across the Thames between Thurrock and Dartford, to take the existing two tunnels into the national road network, and to provide for the arrangements for financing the work.
  The history of legislation on this subject began in 1930 when the construction of the first tunnel was opposed on the ground that a steel bridge would be a better solution, especially as it would help employment in the north-east. There are now two tunnels, providing two lanes of traffic in each direction. They form the link between the M25 to the north and south of the river. The tunnels are owned and operated by Essex and Kent county councils. With the coming of the M25, the councils and others became concerned about the adequacy of the crossing and the Government commissioned a study of the problem.
  In 1985, the consultants' report predicted that in the early 1990s there would be serious congestion at the tunnels. The tunnels themselves would be the real problem, not the need to stop and pay a toll. The 24 toll booths now operating can cope efficiently with the highest possible flow of traffic across the Thames at this point. In 1985–86 the average daily traffic at the tunnels was 60,210 vehicles. With the completion of the south-east part of the M25, it was predicted that the average would rise to 67,500 in 1986–87 and 77,500 in 1990–91. In practice, the daily average last year was 69,000, despite the abnormal weather in January. The latest figures indicate a further increase. The daily average for April to June this year was more than 75,500—a 9 per cent. increase over the corresponding months in 1986.
  These figures reflect the success of the M25, which is keeping traffic out of London and off unsuitable local roads, and the economic growth we are experiencing due in part to this Government's prudent management of the economy. Extra capacity across the Thames is needed urgently. The Government have recognised the need and taken the action which results in the Bill before the House today.
  When my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment appeared in July 1985 before the Select Committee on Transport, he suggested that urgently required infrastructure of this kind—"infrastructure" is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I call roads and bridges—might he provided by the private sector.
  Mr. Roger Moate: And tunnels.
  Mr. Bottomley: Tunnels as well, but we are going for a bridge this time. Although the Committee disagreed with us on the merit of tolls, it noted with approval my right hon. Friend's suggestion and urged him to investigate it.
  Guidelines to intending promoters were published on 3 March last year. We left it to bidders to propose the appropriate engineering solution and asked for bids based on both public and private finance. Proposals for nine engineering projects from seven promoters were received by the closing date, 31 May. After careful examination of

  583
  the bids, on 29 September my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that the proposals of Trafalgar House to build a bridge with private finance, recovered from tolls paid by users, had been selected. To carry out its proposals, Trafalgar House and its financial backers formed a company, Dartford River Crossing Ltd., with which the Secretary of State concluded a concession agreement on 9 April.
  The bridge will carry four lanes of traffic southbound. The tunnels will then take all the northbound traffic. The bridge will be built just downstream of the present tunnels. Its main dimensions have been agreed with the Port of London Authority, which is responsible for navigation in the river. At approximately 450m, the main span will be one of the longest in the world for a cable-stayed bridge. We calculate that 5,000 man years of work will be provided, much of it in steel production and fabrication in Scotland and the north-east of England. DRC and the construction companies, Cementation Ltd and Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Ltd, have agreed a price of about £86 million, at October 1986 prices, for the design and construction of the bridge.
  We selected this project for a number of reasons. It offered an earlier solution to the problem than any other project. Its construction and predicted maintenance and operating costs, taken together, were lower than the other proposals submitted. The major financial risks would be borne by the private sector, which would relieve the road programme of the burden of paying for it. In this instance, we can use the money for other urgently needed road improvements. This reduces the risk of delay to the many schemes due to start in 1988–89 including, for example, the A1 Dishforth interchange and the A42 north of Castle Donnington, and the important bypasses of Robertsbridge on the A21 and Eye on the A47. These advantages could be obtained without extending the period during which tolls needed to be charged significantly beyond what would have been needed to recoup the cost if the project had been built and tolled in the conventional way by the Department. It does not make sense to have a bridge in one direction operated by one management and tunnels the other way run by a different body. We propose to take the tunnels into the national road network and lease them to DRC to operate them jointly with the bridge.
  I pay tribute to Essex and Kent councils, which have done excellent work for 50 years or more in getting these tunnels constructed and managing them with prudence and considerable success. We have assisted with grants for the 12 new toll booths and for widening the approach roads, but it is the councils and their staff that deserve most of the credit. The tunnels, which provide an essential link in the M25, should now be made a national responsibility. The counties accept this. They have been pressing us for some time to take this step, provided they are not left with residual liabilities. The Bill achieves that.
  The arrangements for financing the new crossing, the remaining costs of the tunnels and costs of maintenance during the toll period are innovative. DRC will finance expenditure which is not met from revenue by borrowing privately. The Bill proposes that it should be authorised to take tolls for a maximum of 20 years. Tolls should start at their present levels and be linked to the retail price index. If the revenue from tolls pays off DRC's costs within the 20-year period, the Bill requires the Secretary
  584
  of State to bring the toll period to an early end. We expect that to happen. On present assumptions, tolls should cease 14 to 15 years after the crossing is transferred to the Secretary of State.
  DRC will not pay dividends on its small equity capital of £1,000. The Trafalgar House construction companies will look to make a profit from the agreed price DRC is to pay them for building the bridge. They have taken on the major risks — costing of the design, delay in completion and unforeseen ground conditions — associated with this kind of project. If they have misjudged these elements, they will see their expected profits reduced. If costs go up for those reasons, the motorist will not have to pay for the increase through tolls. The lenders will receive the return specified in their loan agreements with DRC, but only if DRC's revenues are sufficient to meet them.
  The roads on either side of the tunnels are not part of the M25. During the preparation of the guidelines to promoters, it became clear that works to widen these approach roads to four lanes each way would be essential if we were not merely to shift the congestion problem at the crossing further down the road. We have kept the works in the Bill to the minimum necessary. The cost of the work to the approach roads will be met from the road programme, not from tolls.
  I think that the House will agree with me that the Government have acted quickly in planning for increased capacity at this important crossing of the Thames. This will be good news for the many people who use the crossing. They would like the crossing to be toll-free. I remind the House of the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) three years ago when some of these issues were considered at length by hon. Members, including me.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: What did the hon. Gentleman say?
  Mr. Bottomley: I went both ways, a bit like the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's Question Time today, sitting like a poached egg on a barbed wire fence and dribbling down both sides rather inelegantly.
  The Government reviewed policy towards tolls last year in the context of a well-researched report from the Select Committee on Transport which advocated the abolition of tolls on crossings forming part of the motorway and trunk road system. In our response we rejected this. While acknowledging the special problems of the Humber bridge board, the Government believe that, in general, they should not write off or discharge the debts of the tolled crossings because tolls are not unfair and because there are more pressing demands on public funds. We think that, where a crossing offers a substantial time and cost saving to users, and the existence of tolls would not cause congestion elsewhere or diversion to unsuitable roads, it is reasonable for users to contribute directly to the cost through tolls. What is more, the provision of a crossing free from tolls would interfere substantially with the rest of the roads programme.
  We are faced with this choice and so is the House in considering the Bill. Would it be better for the motorist who uses the crossing to avoid increasing delays and inconvenience by paying a modest toll for rather longer than previously expected and for others to get their bypasses, or would it be better to do the popular thing and

  585
  abolish tolls, but have fewer resources for the road programme? I am satisfied that levying tolls here is the more responsible and reasonable course.
  The fact that the Dartford crossing is to be privately financed demonstrates that infrastructure provision need not be a matter for Government alone. We are keen to encourage initiatives by the private sector for adding to the level of transport infrastructure whenever this is the most cost-effective way of providing it. The private sector has the opportunity to come forward with proposals for other projects. On a smaller scale, we are also interested in cooperating with the private sector to improve road access to new developments where this can be done safely.
  I turn to the Bill's provisions. A Bill is essential to carry out our intentions. No one can levy tolls on a highway without the approval of Parliament. We need a new tolls regime covering the tunnels and the bridge as a combined crossing. We must also repeal the powers and obligations conferred on the councils by the Dartford Tunnel Act 1984. We have to make clear to whom the tunnel undertaking is to be transferred and who will employ the tunnel staff. We cannot leave the counties' ratepayers to pick up the liabilities which are still outstanding from the building of the tunnels. It is necessary to confer on the Secretary of State the special traffic management powers which are necessary for public safety, particularly in respect of the tunnels, and which the Secretary of State does not possess for normal highways. He must also have power to delegate operation and maintenance of the crossing.
  We are therefore asking Parliament to approve the bridge and the essential approach road works in the Bill. Some of this work could have been authorised by different procedures under existing legislation. It would be inefficient and time-consuming to ask the House to approve a Bill containing some of the necessary powers and to deal with the remainder by external procedures. We are bringing the complete package to Parliament.
  In such a scheme full consultation with all those concerned is of utmost importance. At the outset, we consulted the county councils. When the guidelines to promoters were published, the local councils, Dartford and Thurrock, were kept informed. We have had regular meetings since with the counties at ministerial and official level and I have visited Thurrock and Dartford councils, in addition to contact at official level. The staff at the tunnels were told by our officials about the proposals on the day they were announced and their employers consulted the relevant unions very soon thereafter. In order to inform the public, we organised exhibitions in Dartford and Thurrock in January this year. They were well attended. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has arranged a further meeting between local residents and departmental officials. We have had extensive discussions with statutory bodies including the Port of London Authority and with private landowners fronting on to the river. We have already included in the Bill some protective provisions in schedule 7. We shall be continuing our discussions in preparation for the Select Committee. I am optimistic that we can settle all reasonable fears about the Bill. We have devoted some considerable time to consultation. It is time well spent.
  I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for his continuing help. It is important to keep local authorities and local people alongside our intentions. Many unreasonable fears can be dealt with and many
  586
  reasonable problems can be met with such links. Therefore, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has done.
  Those with an interest to be protected whom we have been unable to satisfy will, of course, have the opportunity to petition a Select Committee here or in another place. The committal motion is in the usual form for hybrid Bills. We are asking the House to set 20 July as the final date for petitions to be presented. Although that is only 10 days away, potential petitioners have had since the beginning of April to prepare a case. The time limit is therefore by no means unreasonable. We are advertising the final date for petitions locally with the provisio, of course, that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading and passes the committal motion. We have provided that the Select Committee can sit in the recess so that if its members decide that they want to sit then, they will be able to do so
  I now wish to describe the main provisions of the Bill. Much of the detail is technical and I do not want to detain the House with it unduly. If I miss points which hon. Members think I should have covered, I will try to cover them in winding up or in subsequent correspondence.
  Clauses 1 to 3 authorise the construction of the bridge and the approach road works and the acquisition of land for those purposes. Fortunately, very little extra land has to be taken permanently. On that land, we need to acquire only three occupied houses, and their owners will be compensated. We have been in touch with them for some time.
  The second part of the Bill, clauses 4 to 10, deals with the tunnels and the approach roads which are still run by the counties. This part of the Bill trunks the highways in the existing crossing and transfers the land in the undertaking to the Secretary of State, and the rest of the property to the person he appoints — DRC. It also relieves the councils of all the debts and outstanding liabilities related to the tunnels that they would otherwise have met from tolls. Those debts and liabilities will be met by DRC as a consequence of the relevant part of the agreement with them.
  We have made provision for the 220 or so staff working at the crossing. They will transfer to DRC. The House will know that staff matters in legislation have in the past raised difficult issues. The Bill provides that staff will transfer to DRC on terms and conditions, including pensions, which will be equivalent to those they enjoy at present.
  Part III of the Bill deals with the regime for tolls and the operation of the combined crossing. The tolling powers are at clause 11, revision of tolls is dealt with in clause 17 and clause 16 and schedule 6 deal with the way in which tolls come to an end.
  Our intention is that DRC should take over the tunnels on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That will be as soon, after Royal Assent, as everyone is ready to transfer the tunnels and to start building the bridge. The Bill provides that tolls will he levied at present rates and for present classes of vehicle. They will be adjusted to keep pace with inflation, using the tolls at 1 January 1986 as a base. Since tolls at Dartford last increased on I January 1984, there is a slight bonus to the motorist because two years' inflation will be ignored. DRC will stop taking tolls for itself after 20 years or when its costs are paid off, if that is sooner. That is the basic system. On present assumptions, we expect tolls to end in 14 to 15 years.

  587
  The Bill would give the Secretary of State a power to ask DRC to extend tolling for up to a year to provide a fund for the future maintenance of the crossing. He will be able to do that only if the period of extension can be fitted into the 20-year maximum period for tolling.
  The Bill must also provide for what happens when tolls come to an end. At that point DRC's appointment will be terminated. All the property at the crossing will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The staff will be transferred to him on their then existing terms and conditions. All this must happen instantly, since there must be no gap in the safe operation of the crossing.
  We do not expect these arrangements to fail, but the unexpected can happen. If DRC fails, the crossing transfers immediately to the Secretary of State. If, at that point—for example, because the bridge is incomplete—the Secretary of State faces costs, the Bill allows him to take tolls until he has recouped these costs. He is subject to the same maximum period for tolls, but he is allowed to come to the House just once for an affirmative resolution extending the tolling period by five years if more time is needed to recover public money which has had to be invested in the bridge. The Secretary of State is not allowed to take tolls if DRC's appointment comes to an end because he is in breach of contract.
  Clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to delegate the maintenance and operation of the crossing to DRC or, when tolling comes to an end, to any person, including a local authority. It is essential, if the scheme is to work, that whoever runs the crossing has all the powers and duties to maintain it.
  The remainder of the Bill is largely technical in content but I should draw the attention of the House to clauses 33 and 34, which provide for DRC's or the Secretary of State's accounts to be laid before the House, so that the House may have the opportunity to examine them.
  I should say a few words about the agreement with DRC, copies of which are in the Library. It is the first of its kind. Since it is providing the finance and taking many of the risks, DRC must be allowed as much freedom as possible in constructing the bridge, running the crossing and managing the affairs of the company. Nevertheless, the crossing will be a vital part of the public road network for which the Secretary of State is statutorily responsible. The agreement gives him powers to ensure that DRC builds the bridge that it has promised to build and that any changes of plan are shown to be necessary. He can make sure that DRC maintains the crossing properly and he has powers of intervention if it does not. In return, it can expect him not to interfere with what it is doing. The agreement rightly places on DRC all the risks that it has said that it will accept. If it fails in any respect its lenders could lose a lot of money. Equally, there are risks which I cannot expect it to accept and which will be borne by the public purse. An example would be a structural defect in one of the tunnels, which it did not build. I hasten to reassure the House that we have no reason at all to suspect that any such defect will become apparent. This is not the time to give a detailed description of the agreement. I expect that there may be discussion of it in Committee.
  We bring before the House a solution to a problem which must be solved urgently. The scheme is novel and we have acted quickly and decisively to present it to the House. I am convinced that, taken as a whole, it offers the
  588
  taxpayer and the motorist a good deal. I commend the Bill to the House and I trust that it will receive as swift a passage as possible.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Perhaps I should set hon. Members' minds at rest by making it clear that the massed ranks of Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill this evening. However, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, there are a number of issues of principle which apply not only to the financing of this project, but which extend over a wider range.
  I cannot remember a time—indeed, this is probably the first time—that the Government have proceeded with an entirely private-sector financing of what is essentially a public works project. We need to know how far that precedent will be followed in the future. There were vague hints in the Minister's speech that some other innovative or novel procedures might be followed in the future. He said that it was up to the private sector to come forward with different solutions, and perhaps that includes approach roads in various places. However, it is clear that the intention of the precedent set in the Bill is that more and more public sector works will be wholly financed by private sources. Will that policy apply only to bridges and tunnels, or will it be extended to road building? Will some of the bypasses not mentioned by the Minister today, or not yet on the programme, be built by the private sector? We must know what the strategy is and not operate on a purely ad hoc basis.
  Will the second Severn crossing be financed by the private sector? There are suggestions that Trafalgar House has already prepared plans for a second Severn crossing and would be prepared to build it on a basis similar to the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing. What is the Government's thinking on the east London river crossing? I will not enter the debate about that crossing, which is much more controversial than the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, because we are awaiting the report of the public inquiry, but we want to know whether it will be dealt with in the same way.
  Inevitably we must consider how the money should be recouped, and that introduces the dreaded word "tolls". Let me say at once that I have no quarrel with the Government's formula. The company has 20 years to recoup its money and if it does not recoup its money by that time it must bear the loss. If, as the Minister suspects, the money will be recouped in 14 to 15 years, the river crossing complex—the bridge and the two tunnels—will revert to the ownership of the Department of Transport. That is a good way to proceed. But if there is one issue in transport that unites every road user and every road organisation, it is the imposition of tolls and the paying of them. The Minister must ask the question: would the road user prefer to pay tolls and get the bridge more quickly or would he prefer not to pay tolls and wait longer? That question has been asked right from the beginning, when it was decided to build estuarial crossings and charge tolls on them. The clear difference here is that public money was involved in all the other crossings.
  I dare say that if a public opinion poll—I am not sure whether we are supposed to mention them nowadays—asked people, "Would you rather pay tolls and get your road tomorrow or not pay tolls and have to wait for 10 years?", the answer would be, "We are prepared to pay tolls." But if the road works were completed within a week

  589
  and exactly the same people were polled, they would give entirely different answers. There is a big difference between the theory of paying tolls and the practice.
  As the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee on Transport in the previous Parliament published a report on toll crossings in February 1986, and its recommendations appear at paragraph 103 on page XXXII. There were three recommendations. The first was that no tolls should be imposed on new estuarial crossings and that the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office should work towards the early removal of existing tolls. Secondly, it said that the debts owed to central Government should be written off immediately. The argument was that this was mainly a book-keeping entry. The money was being spent anyway, so they could simply juggle the books. In some circumstances, that is called creative accounting. The third recommendation was that local authorities' debt should be discharged by the Government.
  The Government know that, whatever the principles of tolls, before too long the Humber bridge will run into serious difficulty. It will cause immense problems to the local authorities in the area, and the Government will have to grasp the nettle. It would be appalling if, for reasons of crisis management, tolls were removed from the Humber bridge but left everywhere else. The Scots, Welsh and English would rise in revolt if that happened. The Government must have a more coherent policy, and perhaps they will reconsider their general policy as the Humber bridge crisis approaches.
  Today, and in their second special report of July 1986, the Government rejected the recommendations of the Select Committee. They will apply tolls to new estuarial crossings and they will not remove the tolls on existing bridges. They will not write off their capital debt and they will not discharge the debts of local authorities. But the question remains whether tolls on estuarial crossings, tunnels or roads will be dealt with in the ad hoc way which the Minister suggests. If a private company says, "We will build your bridge or dig your tunnel or provide your bypass," will the Government be persuaded that it is to their political advantage to make the public pay tolls to get those items earlier? The question must be posed not only to the road user but to the Government.
  We must also examine the implications for public expenditure forecasts and estimates. I have always thought that the debates on public expenditure and the terms under which such discussions take place have not properly addressed the issue. Often we have sterile debates along the lines that public investment is bad per se and private investment is good per se. That avoids the issue and is shown to be wholly fallacious in this case. This investment is necessary and desirable. Everyone wants it. The only issue is who should pay for it.
  In case anyone reads this speech—there is no one at my back listening to it — perhaps I could say this. Labour Members are sometimes told that we oppose private capital investment in essentially public services as a matter of principle, but at the end of the day it does not matter where the money comes from. If the Government borrow the money, which is their normal way of financing the provision of roads or infrastructure, it comes from the private sector anyway. It does not matter whether it comes directly from the private sector, as in this case, or through
  590
  the tortuous route of the public sector borrowing requirement. It is probably 99 per cent. private money anyway.
  The major question that must be asked is whether we are getting value for money. I shall not argue whether or not the Government have obtained the best value for money, or whether this is the cheapest way of building the crossing, but I would like the Minister to say whether, having examined all the financial implications, this was the best package.
  I am interested in the ingenious solution that has been found. It is ingenious because the Government have taken the cost of the bridge totally outside the public expenditure estimates, although it is a public provision. I congratulate the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), on winning what I suspect was a prolonged battle with his Treasury colleagues. He has established an important principle by lifting the cash limites on his departmental budget. All of us who have been interested in infrastructure expenditure have been trying to do that for many years, and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman achieved it.
  I hope that the present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), will examine this proposition in relation to other industries that are covered by his portfolio. I refer specifically to the example of British Rail. As an aside—an important aside—perhaps the Minister will tell us during his reply whether he and his hon. Friends have any intention of privatising British Rail. That may be too much to ask of him, but perhaps he will give us some indication of how he is thinking. British Rail's finances are governed by its external financial limits. The EFL, as it is known, is a cash limit. Under those rules, it does not matter from where British Rail gets its finances, it is only allowed to spend the figure specified in the external financial limit.
  Some years ago, the GLC, which is certainly remembered fondly by me, was willing——
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The GLC looked better from Aberdeen.
  Mr. Hughes: I do not think we should denigrate the GLC for the splendid work it did on transport. Its work in that area should he warmly received by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The GLC wanted to make money available to British Rail for the north London line, partly revenue for refurbishment and partly capital investment. I cannot remember what the EFL was for British Rail at that time, but for the ease of my mathematics I will suggest that it was of the order of about £400 million. Therefore, one would have thought that the offer of £20 million from the GLC—because £20 million was offered—would mean that British Rail had £420 million to spend. However, it did not. It had only £400 million, and by accepting £20 million, the British Rail was reduced to only £380 million of free capital. That clearly is financial nonsense. Yet all the efforts that we made to try to get that rule changed have been unsuccessful. Therefore, using the example of driving a coach and horses through the Treasury rules, there is a lot of sense in changing those rules in respect of British Rail.
  If local authorities want to make money available for capital expenditure in British Rail, they ought to be free

  591
  to do so. That ought not affect public expenditure forecasts and that ought not be counted against the EFL. This is not a fanciful issue. It is not a matter of pure theory or a debating point. It is a very real point because British Rail will have to do a lot of infrastructure development in marshalling yards or wherever to attract business to the Channel tunnel.
  The Minister has not anticipated the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I must not anticipate the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill. Let us assume that the Channel Tunnel Bill is enacted, that finance is provided and that it proceeds. British Rail might want to—I hope that it will—spend a lot of money on its infrastructure. I would not oppose that if the money was there, but supposing that British Rail wanted to go into a joint venture with private sector capital. That is a parallel to what the Government are doing here. It is almost a joint venture, although not quite, because the Government are putting some money into the roads expansion, but it is a partnership. Supposing there is a joint partnership of venture in which private capital is willing to add to British Rail's capital to get facilities to attract business and, of more importance, to ensure that there is service to the customer. Will the Government then say that private sector capital will be added to the external financial limit or cash limit of British Rail? That is a very important principle that ought to be considered.
  There is only one issue that is controversial about the bridge and that is its name. I do not wish to mock the people who have raised this with me, but I have had many serious representations about what it should be called. As a non-Londoner, it is perhaps dangerous for me to become involved in that. On the other hand, if it is a matter of great moment, and being a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, I am sufficiently far away to arbitrate on the matter. I offer to do so now for double the usual fee.
  I join with the hon. Gentleman in wishing the Bill a speedy passage, the early completion of the bridge and the complex for the benefit of the road users in the area.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Tim Janman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate because it is of much relevance and specific interest to my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in his maiden speech, gave a brief definition of the geographic whereabouts of his constituency. As the debate takes its course, I hope that all hon. Members will now know precisely where Thurrock is in the United Kingdom. It is opposite Dartford on the Thames, although outside the House one or two friends of mine have actually asked me if I represent a constituency in Scotland—Thurrock sounding rather Scottish.
  Thurrock is in the county of Essex. I am pleased to say that in the general election last month it elected its first Conservative Member of Parliament since the constituency was first formed in 1945. I gained the seat from Dr. Oonagh McDonald who worked very hard for the constituency over a period of 11 years. She was a respected parliamentarian on both sides of the House and was an Opposition Treasury spokesman of high intellect. Without meaning offence, she was a woman of some political cunning—an attribute that I certainly came to respect.
  592
  The constituency has a population of 67,000 people and stretches from the Hornchurch-Rainham area in the west through to Castle Point on the outskirts of Southend in the east, a distance of about 15 miles. It accounts for about two thirds of the population of the borough of Thurrock. The major towns are Grays and Tilbury. There is no such place as Thurrock. There is not even a hamlet called Thurrock. Hon. Members, if they wished, could go to West Thurrock or Little Thurrock, but they would find it difficult to go to a hamlet even called Thurrock.
  Thurrock is comprised of fairly old traditional industrial areas, in particular the docks in Tilbury and the industrial estates in Purfleet, where there are major employers such as the Ford Motor Company, Van Den Berghs and Jurgens, Thames Case and Proctor and Gamble. There are also picturesque villages in my constituency, such as Stifford and West Tilbury.
  The main issues in my constituency were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—although they probably did not realise it—and for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who both made eloquent maiden speeches, those issues being very high house prices and hardly any private rented accommodation respectively. In my own constituency those problems are compounded by above average unemployment, if the statistics are to be believed for the south-east, and a communications bottleneck in the form of the Dartford tunnel, which I shall refer to in more detail in a moment. Home ownership in the borough as a whole, which includes part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is depressingly low at only 42 per cent.—a figure that I hope will increase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham also mentioned the cost of living in the south-east. He pointed out that companies, and particularly the public sector, should acknowledge that not only is there a huge difference in the cost of living between London and the rest of the south-east, but that there is an increasing gap in the cost of living between the south-east, in a radius of up to about 40 miles outside London, and the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps employers should look at some form of south-eastern allowance as well as a London allowance to try to attract people down to the south-east, particularly to constituencies such as mine where there is an awful gap between the availability of public sector rented accommodation and the people owning their own homes, with a vacuum of private rented housing in between. I can give an example that has been drawn to my attention in the short time that I have been representing the constituency. Two young teachers, both having completed in one year their postgraduate course in education, were living in temporary accommodation provided by the local education authority. They now cannot find accommodation from the local borough council and are being asked to leave the accommodation in which they are living. On the salaries they are earning they cannot afford to buy much more than a garden shed in my constituency and, of course, there is no suitable private rented accommodation. This situation is causing great concern to the local education authority. Young professional people starting out on their careers are finding it almost impossible to come and make a contribution to the community in my constituency because of that factor.
  In terms of the geography of Thurrock and Dartford and the traffic flow on the bridge, it is clear that we should be talking in terms of the Thurrock-Dartford crossing

  593
  rather than the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. It is normal in the industry to refer to such things as bridges and tunnels according to the direction of traffic flow. As the traffic will be flowing only one way on the bridge, from north to south, it is clear that the name of Thurrock should always come first.
  The need for the bridge, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, is very urgent. Queues are developing that are anything up to 10 miles long. I am sure that some hon. Members have had the misfortune to be caught in such a queue. If one compares the traffic volume through the Dartford tunnel for the first quarter of the financial year 1987 with that of the first quarter of the financial year 1986, one can see that there has been a 9 per cent. increase in traffic volume. That compares with an annual average increase for the whole of the United Kingdom of only 3 per cent. Those statistics show how terrifyingly quickly the traffic volumes are building up through that bottleneck.
  I should like to add my congratulations to the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), on his imaginative initiative on the use of private enterprise to fund the bridge. It is clear that considerable benefits will emanate from it. First, the bridge will be built quickly. I believe that recently the Freight Transport Association, although not particularly keen on tolls in principle, has accepted that the highest priority is to complete the bridge and not worry about some small breach in the public sector borrowing requirement. Its slight change of attitude is a clear indication of the fact that the Government have got their priority right by using the private sector and tolls to get the bridge built. It will mean that it will not affect the rest of the road-building programme. The maintenance of tolls for up to a period of 20 years will mean, I am delighted to say. that the crossing will be able to continue to employ 220 people rather than only 130 people. That is good news for the people in my constituency and across the river whose livelihood depends upon the facility.
  The increase in the number of tolls from 12 to 24 will, I am assured by the Department of Transport, cope with the foreseeable increase in traffic volumes. The pay-back period of up to 20 years will include the existing debt on the current tunnels which, I believe, stands at about £50 million. The construction of the bridge has been guaranteed by the Trafalgar House group, the parent company of the Dartford River Crossing Ltd.
  I have only two mild concerns. My first concern is about the bridge that will be built further up the Thames, the Greenwich-Woolwich crossing. I believe that if that continues to be funded by the public sector without tolls it will provide unfair competition. I would like to see that bridge being funded by the private sector and having tolls as well.
  My second concern is that I am not yet convinced that we will have adequate electronic warning on the M25. It will be important that motorists can be warned as far in advance as possible of the need to take alternative routes if there has been an accident or there is some blockage on the crossing, either in the tunnel or on the bridge. Therefore, it would be a good idea if we could get effective advance warning systems on all the intersections of the M25 with major routes coming into it so that people can have advance warning of problems.
  I would like to see this imaginative initiative—the use of private capital on a major transport project in my constituency — followed up with the same sort of
  594
  imagination to get the private sector involved in the Fenchurch Street-Southend line. I seem to recall that some time ago a consortium was set up which was interested in buying the Fenchurch Street-Southend line. It was led, among other people, by my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I understand that it did not get the co-operation from British Rail that it should have had in order to obtain the information necessary to make a proper analysis as to whether there was a good business case for going ahead if the Government would allow the line to be sold off. That would be an excellent way of introducing some experimentation with privatisation on the rail network, perhaps along similar lines to what has been happening in Japan. Of course, I would also like to see private enterprise and private capital brought into Tilbury docks, which are in my constituency.
  I shall mention the point of controversy to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred at the end of his speech—the name of the bridge. Thurrock is an area of great opportunity for development at the moment, both industrial and housing development. There is the land, there is a forward-looking and cooperative borough council, and it is clear that the area needs to be put on the map. It needs a flagship. With respect to the Government, it needs more than a service station on the M25 to take its name from the borough. It needs the bridge to be called the Thurrock bridge. The argument that people will not know where it is because it is called the Thurrock bridge is facile. Clearly, people will be looking at a map knowing that they need to get from Darlington to Dover, for example, and that they need to cross a bridge that will be marked on the map. They will be able to find their way. It will become a major flagship for an area of the country which in the past few years has suffered some degree of depression and is now fighting hard to come out of the depression and has great opportunity. If the crossing were called the Thurrock bridge, it would be a great aid to that. I must stress that there is very strong local feeling in my community that it should be called the Thurrock bridge.
  I should like to reiterate something said by the Minister in his speech. There should be a quick and smooth passage for the Bill through both Houses. There is a particular reason for that. There is a need to start work on the bridge by early May 1988, due to divergence work on overhead power lines that needs to be done. That cannot be done in the peak periods for the Central Electricity Generating Board so it has to be done in the summer months. If the Bill is delayed, it could put off the commencement of construction by as much as a whole year. That would be frustrating to my constituents and to the millions of road users who want to obtain the benefit of an added facility on our road network. I am sure that hon. Members do not want to delay the date in any way because their own constituents get stuck going to the ports or may get stuck on their way to the Channel tunnel, if it is ever built. They do not want to delay the date to end the appalling queues in which their constituents are frying every summer. My constituents want the bridge, they want it quickly and they want it named after the borough of Thurrock.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: It is a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on an extremely competent and impressive

  595
  maiden speech. I think that we should also congratulate him on finding such a marvellous opportunity for a constituency maiden speech. Not many of us are given the opportunity of having an issue literally on the doorstep of our constituencies on which to address the House on the first occasion. I believe that all of us, however long we have been here, can recall the ordeal of our first speech in this place. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he survived that ordeal without any show of nervousness and was not one wit moved by the acres of empty Benches in front of him.
  I am sure that the House will have noted the hon. Gentleman's deft touch with his slightly barbed tribute to his predecessor. Perhaps we should be warned that, when he addresses the House on a more controversial occasion, he will exhibit that same sort of deft touch, but perhaps in a more controversial fashion. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman again when there are more hon. Members on both sides of the House to share that pleasure.
  The Minister introduced the Bill with his usual lucid presentation. He referred, on a number of occasions, to the impressive speed with which the Bill had been brought forward. I would not dispute that for one minute. However, I am bound to say, as generously as I can, that speed in relation to the matter of the third crossing at Dartford is not something that can be associated with his Department.
  There were many warnings by right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, warnings from motoring organisations and from all manner of people that every new complete section of the M25 would lead to a traffic build-up. They warned that the need for a third crossing at Dartford was evident and would grow. However, all those warnings were met with the same bland, dead-pan response from the Department of Transport. As recently as 12 November 1984 the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), then Minister of State, Department of Transport, blandly said:
  "The Dartford tunnel is the responsibility of Essex and Kent county councils but traffic flows are being monitored and the need for extra capacity will be reviewed as necessary."—[Official Report, 12 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 108.]
  No sense of urgency there! No sense of acceptance of what was inevitably coming down the track.
  In June 1985 the engineering study was announced, but, of course, before that got going the Secretary of State, in July 1985, devised the wonderful idea of involving the private sector. However, it was not until March 1986 that a formal invitation was issued to the private sector to take part. Even then there was no great burning sense of urgency on the part of the Ministers. For example, on 24 February 1986, the Minister of State said:
  "As to the bottleneck, I understand that congestion at Dartford is not likely to become serious before 1991–92."—[Official Report, 24 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 658.]
  I do not know what the Minister considers serious congestion, but I would have thought that a 10-mile tailback is fairly serious congestion whatever criteria one uses.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock has already referred to the report of the Dartford tunnel general manager. That report showed a massive increase in traffic in the past year—there was a 14·7 per cent. increase in traffic in the tunnel over that period. The M25 has produced a 100 per cent. increase in traffic through the tunnel in a four-year
  596
  period. The figures are staggering—the average daily throughput is 70,000 vehicles. It hits a summer peak of 90,000 per day. With the M25 complete, it is clear that that growth will not continue at the predicted rate. It has been forecast to grow at 3 per cent. a year, but, as the hon. Member for Thurrock has already reminded us, in the first quarter of this year the traffic increased by 9 per cent. That demonstrates the demand that exists.
  The report of the general manager of Dartford tunnel contained a clear warning:
  "With a continuing increase in traffic volumes the delays will continue and indeed worsen until a third crossing opens."
  It is against that background of urgent need that we must judge this Bill. I am sure that many motorists and motoring organisations feel that they are being blackmailed into accepting the continuation of the toll regime simply because we must have that extra crossing quickly.
  It is not just the question of people occasionally using the tunnel as a convenience. A number of my constituents have to use the tunnel twice a day to get to and from work. They resent paying £1·20 a day—£6 a week—for the privilege of getting to and from work. It may be all right for others to be persuaded that the savings that the toll will provide will enable bypasses to be built elsewhere, but it is not an extraordinarily popular view when presented to my constituents who pay that money each week.
  I always thought that it was absolutely illogical to have the whole, wonderful concept of the M25 as a major part of the trunk network, yet the only part that was not part of that network was under the river—the Dartford tunnel. I have always believed that that was a wildly illogical view. I am glad that, under this Bill, the tunnel and the bridge will become part of the trunk road network, subject of course to a system of private tolls.
  On the question of private tolls, it must be remembered that substantial interest charges on borrowed money must be recovered through the toll regime. I understand that the construction costs of the bridge have been put at £86 million and the leasing cost of the tunnels at £45 million. I do not know what the interest charges will be on those sums, but I suspect that they will be fairly substantial and they must be regained through the imposition of tolls.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock talked about unfair competition with the new bridge and that those who run the bridge would be extremely unhappy if people took their custom elsewhere. The concept of unfair competition concerning a river crossing is one that strikes me as rather different from unfair competition between supermarkets in a high street. However, there is the important point concerning diversion of traffic. There has been a good deal of evidence to suggest that tolling at Dartford has, in the past, encouraged some road users to transfer to the Woolwich ferry, which is absolutely free. The Minister has dealt with that because, since 1 April 1986, when he and Greenwich council took over responsibility of running that ferry, they have made such a God-awful mess of it that that ferry is no longer providing a reasonable, competent and dependable service. I am not sure that traffic will divert to the Woolwich ferry in such great numbers in future.
  There is also the problem of the east London river crossing. That project has hung over my constituency like the sword of Damocles for the past 20 years. That crossing would cause massive destruction in my constituency. I

  597
  believe that if we have a third crossing at Dartford—an untolled crossing—the case for building the east London river crossing would be substantially undermined.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the name of this great new crossing of the Thames. I understand the parochial pride with which the hon. Member for Thurrock approached this matter, but, as somebody whose background is based on the south side of the river, I cannot for one minute understand the logic of having two Dartford tunnels and one Thurrock bridge. That seems to be the height of confusion. That new crossing will be part of the M25 motorway, and I believe that the less we confuse people the better. As the traffic crossing Thurrock bridge will be crossing from Thurrock to Dartford, I would have thought that the logical thing would be to call it the Dartford crossing and have done with it. The whole thing—bridge and tunnels—is known as the Dartford crossing and, for the removal of confusion, that should continue to be the case.
  In conclusion, I can muster only two cheers for the Minister and for this Bill. Cheers, because at last we are going to get on and build this crossing which all of us have known we have needed for a long time. However, I have some regret that to get this crossing we must put up with the inefficient and archaic business of a toll crossing.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the proposed Dartford crossing and to support the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on his excellent maiden speech. It was particularly gratifying to listen to a non-controversial but nevertheless effective maiden speech in the best traditions of the House. I am sure that all hon. Members look forward to hearing from him in future, even though I think that he, unfortunately, represents the wrong side of the Thames.
  The present totally inadequate tunnel crossing of the river Thames at Dartford, which is located in the constituency of my neighbour and good friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), is only two miles to the east of my constituency boundary. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill will have positive and potentially far-reaching consequences for my constituents.
  My constituency forms the north part of the London borough of Bexley and is located along the Thames. Traditionally, the area has been one of the industrial areas of the borough and has been able to attract investment, jobs and factories. Recognising the potential of the area, the borough established an economic development unit to encourage and to help business to relocate in Bexley. The economic unit has had considerable success to date. With many green field sites and established industrial units available, many business men have been looking favourably at the possibility of relocation. With the local skilled work force and with low rates—all important considerations for industry and business—business men
  look favourably on the area.
  However, despite Erith and Crayford being only 12 miles from London and only five miles from the southern motorway network of the M2, the M20 and M25, it is totally inadequately served by river crossings. Good connections with Channel ports are all very well and essential and, thanks to the improving road network, communications with towns in the south are attractive and
  598
  useful to business and commerce. But, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich, the failure to be able to travel easily across the Thames to the north, to Essex and beyond, quickly, easily and uninterruptedly is a disincentive to people in business and industry coming into our area. That disadvantage has been growing for many years. One can look at the map and see the routes across the Thames. There are, we admit, several crossing points. apart from the Dartford one. Undoubtedly, there is the Woolwich ferry to which the hon. Member for Woolwich has already alluded. It is one of the more attractive ways of crossing the river, but it is also one of the least efficient and effective for a business man for whom time is at a premium.
  We are promised the east London river crossing. I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for Woolwich. We need it, and we need it soon. At the moment, its development seems to be stalled and delayed, and meanwhile traffic problems continue to grow.
  The Blackwall tunnel is further along the Thames. It is heavily over-used, and in peak periods has regularly been congested and sometimes subject to closure. It is worth remembering that the original Blackwall tunnel was a Victorian development, and the bends in it prove that point.
  Of course, we could go to the City and travel along the bridges, but no one, for environmental or many other reasons, would wish to take that route. For my constituents, local business, motorists and general transporation, we have to look for improvements in the crossing of the river at Dartford as the only way in the near future to improve our communications system in that part of London. The building of the new crossing at Dartford—I must take the view that it is known as Dartford, and it should continue to be known as the crossing at Dartford, so I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on this point—is to be welcomed. It will not only end the congestion that has caused many problems and improve traffic flow on the effective and worthwhile M25 and connecting motorways, but help to keep heavy traffic away from built-up areas in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. Therefore, for my constituents, the construction of the new bridge will have the wider impact of encouraging new firms to relocate in the area.
  Nationally, considerable job opportunities will stem from such a major construction. They must be welcomed by all concerned. The fact that we are to have a new bridge rather than another tunnel is also good news. The project will not only help to maintain the United Kingdom's large span bridge capability, but will take only two and a half years to build. That means that there will be a relatively short time before the bridge is in operation. That will benefit us all and is welcomed.
  The present operation of the Dartford tunnel is not satisfactory, as we have heard from other hon. Members. I have never been in favour of tolls on estuarial crossings that are maintained by public authorities. I have raised with the Government the matter of tolls on the Dartford tunnel and elsewhere on previous occasions. Yet this matter is quite different. We need a new river crossing, the cost of which, as we have already heard, is quite astronomic. It needs to be built now. Therefore, the Government are to becongratulated on their approach to the venture. On behalf of our constituents — the taxpayers—we must applaud and be grateful for the decision to allow private financing to construct the bridge.

  599
  The leasing of the two tunnels and the new bridge for a maximum of 20 years, with Dartford River Crossing Ltd. financing the cost of operating the tunnels and repaying the outstanding debt on them, is an imaginative solution to a difficult problem. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, the situation will continue until the DRC has recovered its costs. I accept that the costs will have to be recovered through tolls.
  I am pleased that we shall not see an escalation of tolls during the period when the DRC runs the complex and that the only increase will be in line with inflation. I still consider that tolls will slow down traffic flow, as the hon. Member for Woolwich said, despite attempts to encourage motorists to have the right change ready. Being against tolls in general, although they are justified in this case, I welcome the fact that in 14 or 15 years the Department of Transport will take over the management of the tunnels and bridge, and the crossing of the river Thames at Dartford will become toll-free. Of course, with the building of the bridge, there will need to be an improvement of approach roads. I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to do this in the near future. I hope that there will not be too much disruption. As my hon. Friend knows, south London has suffered only too much disruption because of recent roadworks and improvements. They cause motorists a great deal of frustration and delay and do not allow them to drive to the maximum of their capabilities.
  My only concern is a minor one, but none the less one that I must voice. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me on the matter. We have heard of other bridges in other parts of the country; for example, the Severn bridge. Weather conditions affect the availability of the bridge for use by motorists and businessmen. Standing on the Erith waterfront in summer, watching the river boats and so forth, is a most pleasant experience. Yet in winter it is not such a pleasant experience, with north-east winds blowing hard and the frequency of snow and ice. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—I am sure that he and his officials have done so—to consider the design of the bridge and consider how bad weather and high winds will affect traffic on it. We must make sure that the bridge is usable 'throughout the worst of the winter weather. I hope that my hon. Friend will allay the anxieties of some of my constituents who have raised that important point.
  I welcome the Bill and the future opportunities that it offers to my constituents and travellers on the M25. My constituents will be delighted to have a new crossing at Dartford. The bridge is long overdue. The sooner it is built, the better.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I rise with some trepidation partly because this is the first time that I have addressed the House, but also because transport is not a subject on which I am a specialist. I do so because this is a most important subject for the people of Gravesham whom I represent.
  I come here following Mr. Tim Brinton, who ably and meticulously represented the constituency of Gravesham for eight years. As I have borne witness over many years, he was meticulous in the way that he handled his constituents' problems, without publicity and with due attention to giving the assistance that they expect from
  600
  Members of Parliament. He was also meticulous in his devotion to the great passion of his life — the broadcasting industry and the media. It was no accident that, during his time in the House, he became chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench media committee, and all hon. Members who were here in previous Parliaments will remember the devotion to the cause that he showed.
  I shall make an unusual departure by paying tribute to Mr. Speaker, for it was as a student resident in his constituency that I first became aware of politics. It was Mr. Speaker who, as my Member of Parliament, fostered my ambitions to serve in this place. Mr. Speaker has set, for us all to see, a high standard of service to his constituents in Croydon, North-East, and it was that high standard that, for me, set an example for the way in which I hope to serve my constituency.
  The borough of Gravesham has longstanding river traditions. In its population centre of Gravesend, it is the point at which the River Thames meets the sea. and the people Gravesend have had a long tradition of supplying watermen to the River Thames, and sea and river pilots to the great port of London. At the moment the sea and river pilots feel aggrieved at measures passed in the House concerning their activities.
  Since the 14th century, Gravesend has been the landing place for people on voyages from all parts of the world into the River Thames. For example, King Edward VII knew Gravesend well. As Prince of Wales, he spent many days waiting there for the wind to be in the right direction to bring his fair Princess of Denmark to him, and their many years of happy marriage.
  For many years, the borough had the inspiration and service of "Chinese" Gordon, who was instrumental in reconstructing the fort at Gravesend. We also have a poignant piece of history because it was in the borough of Gravesend that the great Indian princess, Pocahontas, died of a broken heart, awaiting her captain.
  Gravesham borough consists not only of Gravesend. It stretches far to the east of Gravesend, to the historic parish of Higham, the home of Charles Dickens, and to the rural parishes of Shorn, Cobham and Luddesdon, which are some of the most beautiful parishes in the lovely county of Kent. We have a famous parish in Meopham, and many hon. Members have told me of their expeditions to Gravesham to play cricket on the famous green there. It has the unusual honour of having the longest village street in England, at seven miles long. It has an interesting distinction inasmuch as its parish council is the only one to meet in a working windmill. Whether that has an influence on its decisions, I shall shortly be finding out.
  The Cinderella of the borough is Northfleet, which was its powerhouse for many years, with heavy industry all along the water front. Northfleet, with its old urban district council, is reminiscent of many northern cities, and during the great recession at the beginning of this decade, like many other cities, it was badly damaged by the effects of the recession on heavy industry. We saw 6,000 people unemployed.
  It was a recognition of that hardship that brought the Conservative Government to grant to the borough of Gravesham two enterprise zones. The first, which is now fully in operation at Springhead, has brought success and hundreds of jobs. This success is due to a winning formula invented by this Conservative Government in the enterprise zone concept, used by the Conservative borough council, which carried out a co-ordinating role of

  601
  considerable achievement, and helped by the flexibility of the people of Northfleet and local areas in the way that they approached their work.
  Perhaps the most important factor to remember is the excellent communications provided to those enterprise zones by the A2 and the M25. They are the reason why we in Gravesham consider the Dartford-Thurrock crossing to be so important. My constituents know the misery of the traffic jams to which other hon. Members have referred, and which are particularly acute at peak hours. Those who drive up to London to the sound of Radio Kent remember only too bitterly how often it speaks of miles of queues. Those queues will get worse before this measure relieves them.
  Last year alone, the traffic crossing the Thames at this point increased by 14 per cent. Projections show a 3 per cent. per annum increase in the coming years, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) so ably pointed out, already in the first three months of the financial year, the volume is running 9 per cent. above the traffic rate seen last year. This process of congestion will, we fear, stunt the recovery of Gravesham, which is now dependent on light industry and commerce.
  In the old days, we would have depended on the national and county programmes for highway construction and we all know what happened to £86 million projects in such situations—they are squeezed into the future. That is why I commend this proposal to the House. It is the product of considerable imagination by the Government. The taxpayers and the ratepayers will have to shoulder neither the cost of either project nor the risk of escalating costs. The Government have not left the road user unprotected either. I note that they have written into the Bill the safeguard of linking toll increases with the increase in inflation.
  What I like about the Bill is that it releases the Government and the county road funds for other highway construction projects like the Thameside industrial route, which is so vital for job generation in north-west Kent.
  Two aspects of the Bill need attention. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), I believe that the construction of the bridge should take account of the need for adequate wind shielding. The four lanes of highway will be in the prevailing wind. That would cause closures to traffic that would cause immense congestion on the M25, so I ask the Minister to give some attention to that matter. I also ask for close attention to be given to the uprating of ventilation in the older, western tunnel under the Thames at Dartford. That tunnel will be used for northbound heavy vehicles, which will create problems of visibility and noxious fumes.
  I do not want to become involved in the local controversy over the name of this crossing. We in Gravesham know exactly what it is: the Gravesham upriver bridge. In our part of Kent it will be known with great fondness, as we drive across it, as the gulf. I support the Bill.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: It gives me enormous pleasure to applaud my Kentish colleague's maiden speech. We are not neighbours, but we miss by only a few miles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the
  602
  Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on his speech. He is welcome in the House and we look forward to hearing more from him in support of these Kentish projects.
  I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) who joins us in a seat that we have not held, as he said, since 1945. Although he verged on the contentious in his maiden speech, with all that business about the Thurrock crossing — we in Kent know exactly what it should be called—we shall forgive him that. I look forward to having him as a nearby hon. Friend on the other side of the river.
  I shall also take the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) in vain this evening. He cannot answer back and that is a good thing. I know that he would wish to be associated with many of the comments that have been made here tonight. His constituency is as intimately concerned with this project as that of my hon. Friend the Member Thurrock. They have a joint interest in the project, but it is an interest that spreads much wider.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said in his opening remarks, there is a long history to the Dartford tunnel, and I remember it from the time when the first tube—the west tunnel—opened in 1963. After a year's interim teaching, my first job was to work as a representative for Regent Oil company, and my first training in my first few weeks in December 1964 was helping tanker drivers deliver petrol from Canvey island into Kent. I well remember the enormous relief it was to them to have the use of this new tunnel, which saved them many miles going upstream arid back downstream with their loads. It came as an enormous relief to many people. One must remember that the nearest crossings of the Thames were the Woolwich ferry, which has been mentioned, and the Blackwall and Rotherhithe tunnels. The first bridge crossing was Tower bridge; so it was a huge journey to go from Essex to Kent in those days.
  It was no surprise that the tunnel was quickly congested. So many drivers used it, and there was the constriction from having to take hazardous loads through under escort in convoy, as still happens. The second tunnel, opened in 1980, brought considerable relief, but by the time that the sections of the M25 north and south of the Thames had opened it had already become obvious to most of us that the two narrow dual carriageway tunnels would be inadequte as the link between the M25 on the Essex side and the M25 on the Kent side. It was obvious to all except the Department of Transport, for, as recently as 1983, when the tunnels were heavily congested, it was still claimed by Ministers, speaking from the Dispatch Box, that the arrangements at Dartford would be adequate as part of the M25 link. I note that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) remembers those assertions. It was really a sort of conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus that finally brought the realisation that there would have to be more lanes across the river at Dartford.
  The present bores give rise to considerable concern. They are enormously heavily used, and I know that the joint committee is worried about ventilation on the west tunnel. A good deal of upgrading has been done during the past two years because the bores have become extremely shabby, and one was beginning to worry about their state. However, whatever one does to upgrade the present bores, the link will still be inadequate, consisting as it does of two narrow two-lane carriageways that are constricted both by the toll points and the need for the escorted crossings of lorries. I am told that there is also concern about the

  603
  adequacy of access for firemen from one tube to the other in the event of a major fire. I hope that all of those aspects will be examined during the general consideration of the building of the new link by my hon. Friend and his Department. This is one of the busiest short stretches of road anywhere in Britain.
  The new toll booths and the improved southern approach opened last year have helped in the taking of money, but the bottom line is still a small link between two high-speed three-lane carriageways on either side of the Thames. It is typical of our road planning, and especially of the planning of the enormously busy trunk routes in Kent, that we have this inadequate link.
  The Dartford tunnel is part of the main route from the Kent ports to the north and should have the eight lanes that are suggested in this proposal. It is on that that my interest in this proposal hangs, because running through my constituency is a small part of the inadequate M2 motorway. It leads to the Dartford tunnels. I look forward to the upgrading of the M2 that will come with the prospect of the Channel fixed link. I also look forward to the upgrading of the A20-M20 and the M25 that will also happen with the prospect of the Channel link. All those roads are at present heavily used and congested.
  In the autumn of 1985 I was invited to talk to representatives of the firm of John Mowlem. They put forward a most imaginative scheme for providing a third tube, which is what we were talking about at that time, and for taking over the extant debt from the joint committee in return for a time-limited toll regime. That seemed to be a most imaginative scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic said that it was a most innovative scheme. It was a most novel scheme for the provision of an important new link. I watched that scheme grow. When it was put out to tender by the then Secretary of State for Transport I was delighted to see that it attracted so much interest from the construction industry. It showed how much interest the industry had in this sort of scheme. It was the sort of infrastructure development that many hon. Members in all parts of the House had been calling for during my short time in the House.
  I congratulate Dartford River Crossing Ltd. on its success in being awarded the contract for the bridge scheme. I hope that when the bridge is constructed careful consideration will be given to the matter of high winds. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) spoke about that. It would be catastrophic if this bridge were not constructed in a way that virtually guaranteed its use for traffic on every day of the year. We cannot have that bridge closed, as the Severn bridge is closed, when there are high winds. I know that is one of the things that exercises the mind of Kent county council.
  As a Kent Member, I welcome the proposal to build this new crossing over the Thames. Perhaps it will be the beginning of a new era which will see the upgrading of the A2–M2, the A20–M20 and the building of the missing link. I find it quite extraordinary that my hon. Friend's Department should have chosen to upgrade those two roads at more or less the same point in Kent at the same time. There must be more cones spread down the A20–M20 and the A2–M2 than on any other road in England. Moving from west to east and from east to west in Kent is a very grim prospect.
  604
  In part, our underbuilding of the motorway network has been due to our reluctance to accept a toll road system. If we had followed the example of our friends in France and constructed an autoroute system or a motorway system with a toll regime, we would have many more roads than we have now. We should not shrink from using toll income to fund the new Dartford-Thurrock link. I hope that this represents a new era and that we shall see other schemes to build these immensely important links, bypasses and crossings. I welcome the fact that private capital will allow my hon. Friend to continue with many urgent and much needed schemes.
  I would be selling my constituency short if I did not put in a short plug for the northern relief road for the Medway towns and the third Medway crossing. That scheme is almost as big, in money terms, as the scheme that we are discussing. With the prospect of the Channel fixed link and the fact that the M2 is bound to be busy, the Medway towns will need that crossing. My hon. Friend must pay attention to other roads that are heavily congested in Kent; he must not focus purely on the Dartford link.
  I shall support the Bill during its passage through the House with unequivocal relish, and I welcome it being given a Second Reading tonight.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in congratulating our new Kent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), on an eloquent and forceful maiden speech. While Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made use of an ingenious device by paying the warmest possible tribute to you for the guidance and inspiration that you had given him in your constituency. If ever there was an ingenious ploy for ensuring that one caught Mr. Speaker's eye in future, that was it. Without that ingenuity, I am sure that we will listen to many eloquent and able speeches from him. We wish him every success and happiness in the House and we are sure that he will continue the traditions that were set by his predecessor, Mr. Tim Brinton, to whom he paid a warm tribute.
  I welcome the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) about the possibility of the principle contained in the Bill being applied to great effect to many other matters, particularly British Rail, the docks at Tilbury and so on. It is that point which makes the Bill so exciting.
  It is remarkable that a Bill which contains such an important principle has been received and accepted unanimously by everybody who has spoken. I welcome the generous comments by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) who paid tribute to the ingenuity of the scheme and to those who have engineered the project so far, particularly the previous Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore). It bodes well if the House can approach projects that harness private capital to major public sector projects in such a manner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, if we can do that by using public sector finance and tolls, we will progress and build many of the great projects that we so desperately need.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North rightly asked what that would do to each Department's borrowing requirement and to the external limits that are imposed.

  605
  I share with him a desire to see commercial activities in the public sector being allowed to utilise private sector finance. We had such an example many years ago when British Rail was allowed to lease much of its equipment and thereby extend its activities in a way that it could not otherwise do.
  However, particularly with regard to this bridge, we must apply the proper disciplines of the private sector to these developments, which is precisely what this project does.
  This is one of the most exciting projects and Bills that the House has had to consider for a long time. Thinking back, probably inaccurately, it was Sir Thomas Brassey, that great engineer and builder, who conceived the idea of an orbital road around London. It never happened, but it has happened now. In many ways that is an exciting development. We now have a £1 billion orbital road—the M25 — completed around London. That is a remarkable project. We are now combining with it this new bridge, which I believe will be one of the engineering projects of which this country can be proud in years to come.
  It really is exciting that in a relatively short time—a shortness of time made possible by the ingenious nature of this project and by private finance—we shall see one of the greatest bridges in England straddling the Thames. If I may be excused a pun, and as it is a road bridge that will straddle this waterway, perhaps we can call it our "Colossus of Roads".
  The Bill conceives a magnificent engineering bridge, and it will be built in the most ingenious way. I do not know who originally thought up the scheme, or who packaged it in such a way that it would work, but whoever it was deserves a great tribute, because it achieves so many things. First, we shall have a bridge in record time. Secondly, it will remove from the county councils the debt burden and administration of this tunnel, something that they have never relished, but have carried out with immense efficiency. Thirdly, for the first time it brings in private capital, without which the bridge would not have been built.
  As for tolls, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We should not be frightened of the principle of tolls. Many hon. Members and other people travel on the continent and readily pay—perhaps not with pleasure—substantial tolls for the privilege of travelling very much faster on the autoroutes and autobahns of Europe in order to get to their destinations much more quickly. Given the way in which our roads have developed, I am not saying that the introduction of tolls would be easy, but if they can be used to finance projects and to get them built more quickly, we should not hesitate to use them.
  The motoring organisations, understandably, do not like the idea of tolls, but this particular project demonstrates the sheer value of them. Were it not for the fact that it is to be financed by tolls, and given the competition for funds from all Departments, there is no way in which this bridge could be built in the way that is now planned.
  Mr. Janman: Does not my hon. Friend also accept that the benefit of having more tolls in the United Kingdom is that we would gain income from visitors to this country who use our roads, whereas currently they make no contribution at all?
  Mr. Moate: That is a strong point. It would be even more welcome if applied to the foreign lorries that cause such anxiety. If it were thought that they too were contributing, that would make it even more popular.
  Some people may subscribe to the theory of the bottomless pit, whereby any desirable project can be funded quickly. That is a popular notion but it is nonsense, for we know that 101 desirable projects are all competing for funds. No matter how necessary the third crossing is, there would have been little prospect of it getting as far ahead in the queue under those circumstances. In other words, tolls in this case have made it possible to have a bridge in our lifetime, and that demonstrates their value. We should therefore follow the logic of that, and wherever it can be done sensibly without causing much controversy, the Government should look at the possibility of using the toll principle and private sector finance in this way.
  I wholeheartedly welcome this proposed legislation and look forward with immense pleasure to the construction of this exciting venture. Above all, our constituents look forward to the ending of the queues that have now built up largely because of the sheer success of the M25, which have escalated even faster than the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) suggested.
  I congratulate those Ministers, Trafalgar House, the county council and all the others who have contributed to this great project. I end by suggesting an alternative name, because I shall not become involved in the DartfordThurrock controversy. It is a great bridge, so why not call it by a name that means a great deal to the British people? As it will be the first great bridge that people will see when they come up the Thames, why not call it the Trafalgar bridge, to solve the dispute between Dartford and Thurrock?
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will treasure the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) who said that he first took an interest in politics because of the way in which you served your constituency. He was one of your constituents, and he said that he would wish to follow your example in his work. In years to come, perhaps he will go on to follow you in the Chair and when he stands for election he may find that he does even better without the party label than he did before.
  My hon. Friend follows Tim Brinton and if his voice becomes as famous as that of Tim Brinton, he will be heard in the House with pleasure and by the country with interest. His speech showed that his constituents can bank on his international experience. If he continues to provide thoughts such as the idea of politicians sitting inside windmills, no doubt with the hot air driving the sails round, he may find that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy can make use of him. We look forward to his progress in this House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) made a remarkably competent speech. I think that it would be welcomed in his constituency because of the fair way in which he described the work of Thurrock council. As he said, it is not a Conservative council yet, but it is forward-looking in many ways. He went on to talk in detail about the ways in which further improvements and investment in transport facilities would be of great advantage. In a few words I cannot do justice to the whole of his speech, but he made the significant point that private

  607
  capital has a part to play—not necessarily an exclusive role, but a sensible role. He also talked of the need for a quick passage for the Bill to provide the extra crossing facilities as soon as possible.
  With the exception of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate holds a seat that 20 years ago was held by the Labour party.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Never mind the width, feel the quality.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman says, "Never mind the width, feel the quality." In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in 1984, "Newport Hughes" spoke. We have now heard "Aberdeen Hughes" and I believe that "Harrow Hughes" is here as well. Perhaps the tradition will continue if there are further schemes requiring legislation such as this.
  Arthur Bottomley, now Lord Bottomley, was invited by an engaging voice on the other end of the telephone to open the Conservative party garden fete in Thurrock. He explained that he was very fond of Thurrock but that he did not think that he was quite the right person to open a Conservative party garden fete. He was then told that the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—took a keen interest in those who opened Conservative garden fetes. Arthur Bottomley explained that he was a Labour Privy Councillor and that perhaps I might be able to do it instead. By doing that, he turned down the chance of running the last five miles of a marathon that was being held to raise funds for the Conservative party. I am delighted that all the investment that I put in on that occasion, as I watched the marathon runners coming by me, has been rewarded by the election of a Conservative Member. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to represent his constituency for many years to come.
  The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that the crossing should be called the Trafalgar bridge is likely to have crossed the minds of the Trafalgar group. The suggestion that it should be called the Thurrock bridge represents a marvellous campaign, which I expect Thurrock to continue at least up to the naming of the bridge and possibly beyond it if, as is likely, it is not called the Thurrock bridge. However, the campaign represents a chance to put Thurrock on the map as a place which people want to develop and where they want to build. The area south of the Thames will want to promote itself in the same way. I have no objection to the continuing campaign, although I would object if people thought it was the most important aspect of the bridge or that Thurrock had squatters' rights to the name of the bridge because it had been first to think of running a campaign. If Thurrock was too persistent, I had thought of calling it the Bottomley bridge, but a voice behind me suggested that it should be named after the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) — the tunnel could then be called Under Dunn and the bridge Dunn Over. I do not claim authorship of that, merely the courage to repeat it.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North sensibly did not give way to all the ideology of Conservative Members in relation to private funding, but he gave a generous welcome to the way in which the project has been put
  608
  forward. The arguments against tolling were put forward in detail in the debate in February 1984 and I am glad that they have not been rehearsed at length today. I appreciate the points that were made in that context by interested parties both within and outside the House.
  It could also be argued that charging is no bad thing. With the exception of the Woolwich free ferry, people using ferry services—for instance, to the Isle of Wight or to France — are used to paying charges for the journey. There is no special difference between a ferry service and a bridge or a tunnel, although there may be arguments about the most efficient way to raise revenue. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North invited us to consider the possibility of toll roads and we shall be happy to do so.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not invite the Minister to consider it. I asked him to state the Government's policy on it.
  Mr. Bottomley: Our policy is non-dogmatic. I think that that is the best way to put it. Even if the hon. Gentleman did not mean to propose it, it is a sensible suggestion and I shall do my best to consider it.
  As I made clear in my opening remarks, the general point about additionality is welcomed. One cannot expect any Treasury automatically to assume additionality, whatever ingenious scheme may be cooked up by the private sector or a Department of state. I should point out, however, that the GLC offering extra money to British Rail, as one public authority offering to add to the funds of another, could not be regarded as additionality in any way. Partnership may be useful, but if money is taken out of one taxpayer's pocket and passed across to another, there is no reason to regard it in a different way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham is right to say that we should do what is feasible and sensible rather than insisting that it can be done only by the private sector or only by the public sector. If we are looking for ways to expand commercial activities in the public sector by using private finance, in general the best way to do that is to privatise and to put the activity into the private sector. There are sometimes difficulties, however, because the one thing that the private sector dislikes is risk. In negotiations with the private sector it is worth recalling that the private sector always wants the public sector to take the risk and it is up to Ministers and their advisers to find the best way to ensure that the private sector accepts risk.
  Where the private sector usually gains is that it tends to react to possible cost overruns faster than the public sector and its mistakes tend to be more rapidly self-correcting. We certainly hope that the private sector and DRC will get the bridge built faster than we could have done. I hope that we are years away from the cost overruns of the Isle of Grain power station and other major construction projects, but if the private sector wishes to participate it must be persuaded to accept as much risk as possible so that we can achieve a regime of self-interest without selfishness on the part of contractors and operators in relation to projects of this kind.
  With regard to other ideas from the private sector, we are open to ideas from wherever they come and we reserve the right to respond to some private sector initiatives. For example, reference was made to the second Severn crossing. When the private sector offers us a location for the second Severn crossing in a place that does not meet

  609
  our proposals, it must expect us to say so in a straightforward way. Obviously, we were open to persuasion, but we wanted English Stones for the second Severn crossing. When we reach the stage of deciding whether to use private funding, we intend to have competition as well. Putting projects in the private sector and having competition between different contractors tend to have significant advantages.
  My neighbour and colleague, the hon. Member for Woolwich, and others referred to the east London river crossing. As hon. Members know, I have a constituency interest in that, so I am not able to go even as far as I did in the February 1984 debate. A public inquiry into a toll-free crossing was conducted, and I cannot go any further than that.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made me remember that road users pay for car parks and parking meters. There is no significant difference between paying for moving along a road and paying for the privilege of stopping on a road. I recognise, however, that those in the involuntary queues at Dartford and Thurrock prefer not to be charged; indeed they prefer not to be involved in the queues at all.
  Tributes have been paid to the ingenuity and innovation of the approach. Credit should be shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) for the responsibility they took. I pay tribute, too, to the officials of the Department of Transport. Perhaps it is best to do that now, before we are 15 years down the line and see whether tolls are lifted, as we expect. In their work until now, those officials have come forward with a major achievement in co-operation with the private sector—the hankers, lawyers, and so on. This shows the type of innovation which can be found and which the public service has been as good at providing as the private sector. Long may we continue looking for the same benefits to the public of high-quality service by the Civil Service as well as by those who are generally regarded, in theory, as being more enterprising. I say that as the son and brother of civil servants.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I referred to British Rail using private capital which might be added to the external financing limit. I want to make it clear that I do not mind if it is an addition, but the project should be carried out in partnership and certainly should not be used as an exercise in the creeping privatisation of British Rail. There would be nothing worse for the morale and service provided by British Rail than if little bits of BR's services were hived off to private enterprise on the ground that it was an innovative use of private sector capital.
  Mr. Bottomley: I thought that we had been getting on so well! The hon. Gentleman has put that point on the record, and perhaps we can leave it there.
  I was about to refer to the early warnings about the need for extra crossing capacity. I have quickly looked through the February 1984 debate and I am not sure from the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich that there was a reference to the need for extra capacity.
  Mr. John Cartwright: The demand was made well before then.
  Mr. Bottomley: In that case, I take it back. One of the major problems faced by the Department of Transport has
  610
  been the shortage of money. The greatest shortage occurred between 1975 and 1979 when, I vaguely recall, the hon. Member for Woolwich was in some way involved in Government.
  Mr. Cartwright: I was not involved in Government.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman was PPS to the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the unpaid side of the payroll. One of the biggest difficulties was the halving in real terms of new money for new national roads. It has taken the Government six or seven years to catch up with the backlog. For those involved in the construction industry, it is better to go for the slow and gradual improvement in actual sums of money rather than for great leaps and bounds in provisions, which might suddenly be cut because the IMF has come in, or because other things have gone wrong. No one can guarantee that we shall always be able to preserve that slow growth, but it is better to try to have realistic assumptions about the sums of money available and, when one can go sensibly for additionality, to do so.
  Mr. Cartwright: The Minister has made a fair point about the absence and shortage of money. However, with great respect, that was not the case that the Department of Transport made about the additional crossing at Dartford. It did not say, "Yes, we accept the case for a third crossing, but we are terribly sorry we do not have the money.- Instead, it said that it did not think that there was a case for a third crossing, and that is where I find it culpable.
  Mr. Bottomley: That may be right. However, I suspect that the reasons are probably mixed.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred also to the Woolwich free ferry. It is not my job to get involved with the agents who manage the ferry for us at the moment. However, it crossed my mind that if the hon. Gentleman was so good at doing that perhaps we should not have seen the result that we did in the Woolwich election and perhaps we should have had the most recent ex-leader of the Greenwich council here and the ex-ex-leader back there running the ferry better. However, I must confess to partisanship. Although I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here and that his Labour opponent is not, obviously, it would have been nice if the hon. Member for Woolwich had been a Conservative. However, given the choice and the way in which Greenwich council has been run recently, the ex-leader of that council should be left with his arduous repsonsibilities as mayor and perhaps he will help to tidy up some of the decisions that have been taken by the London borough of Greenwich in the past few years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) rightly referred to the need to improve the road network, as well as making a common point of agreement about extra capacity across the Thames. This bridge between Thurrock and Dartford is the only noncontroversial crossing of the Thames that has been put forward in history. Waterloo, Chelsea, and Battersea bridges and the other crossings were fought against for years by people with proper, but some with improper, interests to defend, or who had unnecessary fears. I am glad to have reached the stage of achieving common recognition that extra capacity is needed and I am sure that the Bill's future passage through the House will be

  611
  aided by the all-party approach that recognises the need for that extra capacity, although there are one or two points on which people will want reassurances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford also made the point, in words better than mine, about the need to keep heavy traffic on appropriate roads rather than allow it to drift off on to unsuitable roads. Through roads for through traffic must be the key to the road transport side of transportation. Indeed, I hope that that will spread further and wider.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, referred to wind protection, to the safety of the bridge in all weather conditions and to ventilation in the tunnels. Obviously, the road surface of this bridge will be treated in the same way as the surfaces of the motorway network.
  On the point about windshielding, there is a misconception about the Severn bridge. That bridge is rarely closed, although there are times when high-sided vehicles must be kept off and, of course, it was closed for a time earlier this year. However, that was when both men of Kent and Kentish men had some of their road systems taken out of action for a week or more. One should not have expectations above those for roads on land, for a road that is in the sky and part of a bridge.
  There is little experience of putting windshielding on high bridges. It is clear that the conditions between Dartford and Thurrock are substantially easier than those at the Severn. However, there is insufficient experience to be able to state precisely the type of windshielding that would work. From a proper investigation it is clear that some speed and lane restrictions may be necessary for about 24 hours per year. If that is the expectation, it is about the same as that for a cross-country motorway. To argue strongly for windshielding when the tests that would be needed to reduce the possibility, or even the probability, of the need to have restrictions on lanes or on high-sided vehicles for about only 24 hours per year takes our knowledge further than it is at present. It would also increase the investment that would be needed. Indeed, it would be rather like paying the police for more than the burglar is likely to steal. I think that is the simplest way of putting it. We believe that it might be necessary to close the bridge to high-sided vehicles for about six hours a year, and contingency arrangements will be made to deal with that. That reasoning led us to believe that the provision of windshielding on the bridge and approach viaducts would not be justified, but the matter can be discussed during the later stages of the Bill.
  It is accepted that there may be a problem with ventilation. A study is taking place. It will be possible to improve the ventilation if that proves to be necessary. We are aware of the problem, and we shall obtain information which should lead us further forward.
  I think that I have dealt with most of the issues that have been raised. I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The House will be doing its duty if it gives the Bill further consideration at its later stages and gets it through as early as possible so that construction can begin, we can relieve the capacity problems of the crossing between Dartford and Thurrock and the bridge, whatever it is called, can come into use as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 20th July, and

  (b) any petition which has being presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

  That is no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
  That three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill

    DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the extingishment of liabilities of Kent and Essex County Councils in respect of the principal of, and interest on, sums borrowed from the Secretary of State in respect of tunnel expenditure: and

    (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Durant.]

    DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the levying of tolls by the Secretary of State in respect of vehicles using either of the tunnels or the bridge;

    (b) the imposition of charges in respect of the use of the crossing by vehicles exceeding such dimensions or weight as may be prescribed and in respect of the removal or the repair, adjustment or refuelling of vehicles at rest in any prescribed part of the crossing or of the approach roads; and

    (c) the payment in to the Consolidated Fund of sums received or treated as received by or on behalf of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Durant.]

    EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. William Cash, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. David Knox, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Bowen Wells be members of the Select Committee on European Legislation.—[Mr. David Hunt]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. D. N.Campbell-Savours, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Ian Gow, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Michael Latham, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Michael Morris, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Allan Rogers, Sir Michael Shaw, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Mr. Michael Shersby be members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That the Lords message of 7th July be now considered.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Richard Alexander, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Willaim Cash, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. David Martin be members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Ordered,
    That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  Waldens Farm, St. Mary Cray
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In 1974, I drew the attention of the House to the problems caused for my constituents by a firm, Vemera Ltd., of Loughton, Essex, which bought a local farm on the fringe of the green belt, divided its 75 acres into 800 plots measuring 100ft by 30ft and then sold them individually as leisure blocks at a big profit. No planning permission for development being possible and boundary fences being prohibited, most of the new owners were unable to benefit from their land as they wished to. Some erected buildings of sorts, some cultivated their plots in a commendable way, but most of the land was abandoned to become like a rural slum. The local authority racked its brains to find a remedy. It enforced the planning law where it could, but on the whole, faced with hundreds of absentee landlords and purported tenants, few of whom put in an appearance on the site, enforcement was impossible, and 75 acres of prime agricultural land became a wilderness.
  When I raised the problem in the House—it was coupled with problems caused by similar actions by the same company, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) — I was told that central Government could do very little. I hope that I will not get a similar response this evening.
  About 25 acres of the land are covered by an orchard, which has been divided among 120 owners. During the night of 1 and 2 November last year, a convoy of over 50 vehicles with over 100 people — men, women and children of all ages and conditions — arrived and occupied the orchard. A family in a battered old bus had driven into the orchard a few days before, but otherwise the residents and the local authority were taken by surprise. The occupation was concerted among the so-called hippies and travellers who had previously been in the west country because many of the newcomers were armed with maps with Waldens Farm, St. Mary Cray, marked on them.
  Since November 1986, more vehicles and people have arrived to join the others. There have been many comings and goings, but in round figures about 80 vehicles and about 200 people have been the peak occupation of the orchard. There has recently been some exodus, presumably because of the attraction of the summer solstice at Stonehenge.
  The people concerned shun contact with local residents and are actively hostile to strangers they find on the site. The conditions in which they live are disgusting. They have access to the public water supply, as the main stopcock is on the farm. They have dug holes in the ground to meet their sanitary needs, they have stripped large areas of the orchard and have taken any timber they could find round about for firewood. Dogs and other animals roam freely. Most local people are afraid to venture into the area, but health visitors and midwives—heroines as always—do. Three children have been born there recently, the mothers refusing to go into hospital.
  It appears that they all live on supplementary benefit, collected from one of the three local DHSS offices. Drug trafficking is almost certainly going on and there have

  615
  been acts of violence against local residents. Property left out in neighbouring fields has been stolen and there have been a few ugly incidents involving packs of dogs. The people who own the plots covered by the orchard, insofar as they are aware of the situation, are powerless to do anything about it. Many of them appear to be Greek and residents of different parts of north London. They are willing to co-operate in legal action to remove the trespassers, but not if this involves expense.
  The law-abiding, peaceful, ratepaying, taxpaying, hardworking citizens of St. Mary Cray are up in arms about this plunder, devastation and menace in their midst. They demand to know why the council, the police and the Government will not protect them from the consequences of this illegal occupation of private land by people who obviously have not the slightest intention of respecting the rights of others.
  Bromley council—the local authority—prevaricates. The environmental health officers say that there is no present threat to public health while there is running water, earth closets and fires burning the rubbish. However, they do not live nearby and experience the daily stench. Other officers of the local authority say that it would be impossible to identify anyone on the site long enough to bring summons for breaches of the byelaws. The police say that they have the orchard under constant surveillance, that criminal law is being enforced and that, to their credit, they have tracked down the legal owners of the property concerned with a view to providing laborious evidence for possible civil proceedings for trespass.
  However, they seem reluctant, probably because of the hesitation at Scotland Yard or, more probably still, at the Home Office, to take action under the new Public Order Act 1986. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, will action be taken under that Act to evict those people and, if not, why not? The Act should surely be used against the intruders who have come on to the site since the Act came into effect, if not against all the malefactors. What happens if the trespassers, following civil proceedings taken by the outraged owners of the sites, move on to another local site?
  My constituents are very angry about the inactivity of the authorities concerned in dealing with this appalling state of affairs. The local residents cannot be expected to endure the strain of this continual squalid nuisance and to meet the expense of what might be long-drawn-out legal action to evict the trespassers. Bromley council is stymied. Even the remedy of a compulsory purchase order, which one might have thought would be a good solution to the problem, is unlikely to be effective for years. What are the Government going to do about it?
  9.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have great sympathy with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). He is quite right to bring the position of his constituents to the attention of the House at this time. I do not think that anybody could have put the position more clearly than he has.
  The problem stems essentially from the fact that on this plot of land there is multiple ownership. Because of that, it is more difficult than would otherwise have been the case to invoke the usual remedies. It might be helpful if I tell
  616
  the House what the usual remedies are in cases such as this. There are two. The first is to invoke the ordinary civil law under the cause of action of trespass. The second would be to seek to persuade the police to exercise the powers conferred upon them under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
  It might be helpful if I were to explain the circumstances in which each of the two remedies can be invoked. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is a distinguished lawyer and, therefore, as familiar as I am — perhaps rather more so—with the legal technicalities. However, I am sure that he will forgive me if, for the convenience of of the House, I identify those characteristics.
  What is trespass, I ask rhetorically? Essentially, trespass in unlawful occupation of another person's land without the authority or consent of the person entitled to possession. When a person trespasses on land, the person entitled to possession can go to the court for a remedy. The remedy is an injunction, a claim for damages, or both. However—this is the important point—the person who has the cause of action is the person entitled to possession. If many people are entitled to possession and some of those people cannot be identified, there is a problem in bringing the cause of action. The cause of action is complete, but one has the difficulty of identifying the correct plaintiffs. If the owners are not interested in bringing proceedings, clearly they will not be brought. That is one of the usual remedies and I have mentioned the difficulty about invoking it in this instance.
  The other remedy, provided by Parliament at the instance of this Government, is under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. It might be helpful if I reminded hon. Members of the nature of the remedy provided under section 39, which states:
  "If the senior police officer reasonably believes that two or more persons have entered land as trespassers and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and—

  (a) that any of those persons has caused damage to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or

  (b) that those persons have between them brought twelve or more vehicles on to the land,
  he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land."

  If the persons on the land unlawfully decline to leave, the offence is complete. However, we come back to the problem of multiple ownership. The police officer can ask the persons trespassing to leave only when he is satisfied
  "that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier".
  Once more we are faced with the problem of multiple ownership where there are many owners of land, some of whom are not identified, and some of whom may not care very much whether or not there is a trespass.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Has the Minister taken into account the considerable effect of intimidation on landlords and owners of land? Although the Minister has given the House a full picture of the remedies open to those in single ownership — therefore, there are no complications for the owner—has he taken full account of the effect of intimidation of owners of land by persons who may not subsequently be identified? Has he also taken account of the effect on the police force of the said

  617
  intimidation? That is especially relevant in my constituency. It is not enough to send one officer to talk to these people. The police may evict such persons, but they will come back. They can then cause wilful and malicious damage not only to property, but also to persons. Has he taken full account of that and are there adequate remedies in law?
  Mr. Hogg: I have no doubt that if the actions of the trespassers were intimidatory, it would constitute an offence. It might constitute an offence under the Public Order Act. However, there are a variety of other offences, contained both in common law and in other statutes, which might be committed. That is not the problem; the problem is whether or not the aggrieved persons can get such people off the land.
  Such action does not depend upon intimidation; it depends upon establishing a right that can be enforced either by the police or through the courts. I have identified the two remedies—the action in trespass and the powers to remove under section 39 of the Public Order Act—to highlight the problems in this instance. To use those remedies it is necessary to identify the owners of the land and to obtain their concurrence to the necessary action upon which everything else depends.
  I believe that the situation may be more promising than my hon. Friends believe. My understanding is that there is one owner of the land who owns a great majority of the land affected at Waldens farm. I understand that that person has instructed a solicitor to take proceedings in the High Court. I am further told that that person has secured the consent of the great majority of the other owners of the land who have now been identified. The majority landowner is thus able to go to the High Court on behalf of himself and of the great majority of the other landowners.
  If that is correct, I believe that the cause of action is complete. Clearly it would be wrong for the House or, indeed, a Minister, especially a junior Minister, to prejudge in any way the likely decision of the court. However, on those facts it would seem to me that there is a good prospect of a High Court judge making the injunction that my hon. Friend has in mind. Therefore, ordinary civil remedies may now apply in this case because the majority landowner has the consent of the other occupants.
  A different situation will obviously arise if the High Court declines to make an order of the kind that we have been discussing. The question that then arises is whether the police would be entitled to act under section 39 of the Public Order Act.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Mr. Hogg: The decision whether to invoke the powers under section 39 of the 1986 Act is a matter for the police. Again, it would be wrong for a Minister of the Crown to seek in any way to influence the police officers' decision because it is an operational matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will appreciate as much as I do that Ministers have no jurisdiction in that respect.
  Let us assume that the High Court declines to make an order in a civil action. Provided that the owners, by some collective action, can make it plain to trespassers that they, the trespassers, should leave—they can do that either individually or collectively——
  Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is making a face. It can be done by a solicitor, an association—they can set up an association — or it can be done in a variety of other ways. The owners must make it plain to the trespassers that the trespassers must leave. Provided that the police are satisfied that the other criteria set out in section 39 are fulfilled, they may decide to invoke the powers provided in section 39.
  Miss Widdecombe: As my hon. Friend has said, although there is a remedy by giving notice to itinerants and having it effected by the police, the fact remains that serving the original is up to individuals. Whether it is an individual landowner — in my constituency, we are talking about individuals, not multiple ownership—or his or her solicitor, the fact remains that it is an individual against 30 itinerant occupants., who are not necessarily at that point under the observation of law-keeping bodies such as the police. They must face such people and serve the original notice before the forces of law and order are brought in. Has my hon. Friend taken on board the effects of intimidation? What remedy does a single landowner have against itinerants?
  Mr. Hogg: I have contemplated the difficulties that can arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone must look at it from the point of view that it is obviously a necessary condition to the powers under section 39 of the Act that the landowner wishes the trespasser to leave. After all, some landowners might not care much one way or the other.
  Miss Widdecombe rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I shall finish my comments in this respect: and then I shall give way.
  Some landowners might be content to let trespassers remain on the site. Therefore, it is right in principle and in practice that the powers under section 39, which constitute a criminal offence, should arise only in circumstances in which a landowner wishes a trespasser to leave. That is a necessary precondition.
  The next question is this: what obligations are imposed upon a landowner to make apparent to the trespasser the requirement to leave? The answer to that is that it varies in accordance with the facts. There is no need to serve a formal notice. If one does not want to talk to such fellows in the field, one can get a bull horn, put it to one's mouth and say, "Get off my land." That is quite sufficient to require people to leave. For example, there is no need to go up to Mr. Speaker, shake his hand and say, "Mr. Speaker, I want you out of here." It is quite sufficient to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Mr. Speaker, I want you to leave." The communication of the notice depends upon the facts. If my hon. Friend's constituents arc alarmed about this, I suggest a bull horn, and I am not being frivolous.
  Mr. Stanbrook: Let me bring the debate back to the issue in my constituency and point out the difficulties of proceeding by way of civil action. We are talking about one third of Waldens farm—25 acres out of 75—which is occupied in this way. Some 120 landowners are concerned, and by dint of great effort and great expenditure by the local people, including, as my hon. Friend has said, one in particular, there will be a civil

  619
  action in the High Court to get rid of these people. What happens if the people concerned then move on to the other 50 acres where there are another 600 or 700 owners? Who will ask every one of them to finance a court action? The practical difficulties of civil actions are such that they are quite beyond private individuals to take action and we should not expect that of them. It should be a matter for the Home Office and enforcement of the Public Order Act.
  Mr. Hogg: It is not a matter for the Home Office in any circumstances. One must go either through the civil courts, which is not a matter for the Home Office, or through the police, which is not a matter for the Home Office. The Home Office is not directly involved.
  My hon. Friend is making a serious point. He is asking why we should use the civil remedy of an injunction. There is an advantage in using an injunction, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, which is that the injunction is permanent in character as it applies to the relevant piece of land, whereas the relief under section 39 is not permanent in character. My hon. Friend is asking what happens if either in civil proceedings the injunction is made, or under section 39 an order is made, and the trespassers leave the piece of land affected either by the order or the injunction and go elsewhere.
  That is a fair point, and I am afraid that the position will then be as it now is. Once again, the two remedies will have to be invoked. This is inevitable for this reason. It would be wrong in principle to give anyone the power to move people from private land unless it were obvious and clear that the owners of the land on which the people were squatting, if that is the appropriate word, wanted them to leave.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington may say, "Of course the landowners want the hippies to leave." However, we cannot be certain of that. The law cannot presume that. The powers under section 39, or the relief
  620
  available in a civil suit, must always depend upon the determination and desire of the landowners in question to assert their rights. That is an essential difficulty that flows necessarily from our respect for property.
  I have tried to consider whether there might be any way around this by taking indirect action. I have considered the Orpington Urban District Council Act and I suggest that my hon. Friend considers that as well. Bromley borough council has some powers under that Act that might be valuable in this instance. However, one again encounters the problem of the would-be trespassers moving from one site to another. I have also considered whether there is a breach of planning regulations and whether enforcement notices could be taken. The best advice that I have had is that that would not be a useful way forward. The same is true of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which I have also considered.
  Two remedies are available—one is the civil suit for an injunction and damages, and that is going forward. If that fails it may be—that is a matter for them—that the police will decide that they are in a position to invoke section 39.
  No one could put the case more clearly than my hon. Friend has done, and he has been extremely ably supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. I have not had the privilege of hearing her speak in the Chamber before, and I welcome her to it. Perhaps the civil suit will provide a remedy; I very much hope that it will.
  Mr. Stanbrook: A very unsatisfactory remedy.
  Mr. Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he must also bear in mind that we have a system of law that depends on proprietorial rights and not the exercise of coercive powers in respect of private property, unless it is clear that the owners of that private property want those coercive powers to be exercised. Personally, I believe that that is what the law should be.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENERGY

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Batiste
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many civil servants are employed by his Department in (a) London and the south-east, (b) the south-west. (c) the midlands and (d) the north of England: and what is the budgeted expenditure of his Department for the current year in each of these regions.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Civil servants are employed in my Department as follows:

  Region

  Number of staff employed

  Budgeted running costs for the current year

  £000

  London and the South-East

  836

  17,650

  The South-West

  6

  100

  The Midlands

  42

  670

  The North of England

  27

  330

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Executive
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what additional amount of money has been allocated to the Health and Safety Executive in order to enable it to carry out additional duties imposed by the Food and Environment Protection Act.

  Mr. Cope
  For 1987–88 Parliament has voted grant-in-aid for the Health and Safety Executive of £1 million more than was shown as planned provision in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 56 and this provision was intended to include the costs of the additional duties imposed by the FEPA. Planned provision for future years is currently under consideration.

  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the extra 12 agricultural inspectors required for the Health and Safety Executive to carry out responsibilities under the Food and Environment Protection Act to be appointed.

  Mr. Cope
  The Health and Safety Executive intends to meet its responsibilities for enforcing the Food and Environment Protection Act from within existing staff resources through a re-arrangement of priorities. It is hoped that further recruitment to the agricultural inspectorate will take place later in the year.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the latest unemployment figures for Erith and Crayford; and if he will make a statement.
  198
  Mr. John Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 May 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Erith and Crayford parliamentary constituency was 3,650.

  Parental Leave
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates he has of the cost to employers of implementing the European Economic Community proposed directive on parental leave.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no precise estimates available, but clearly the directive would be bound to add significantly to employers' costs.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he will consider widening the definition of parental leave to include family leave when implementing the European Community draft directive on parental leave; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects the United Kingdom to comply with the provision of the European Community draft directive on parental leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are opposed in principle to this directive, but as it is still at the draft stage no question of implementation or compliance arises.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will extend the rights to maternity leave to women working for firms with fewer than 10 employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no specific statutory right to maternity leave. However, an employee can earn an entitlement to statutory maternity payments for a period of up to 18 weeks for her maternity absence and. separately, a right to return to her former job.

  There is no exemption for small firms in the statutory maternity pay provisions. Firms with fewer than six employees are exempt from the obligations to reinstate, but only if it is not reasonably practicable for them to take the employee back. There are no plans to remove this exemption.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State tot Employment whether his Department has assessed the effects of the implementation of the White Paper. "Building Businesses—Not Barriers," on the rights to maternity leave of women employed at establishments with 10 or fewer employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no specific statutory right to maternity leave. However, an employee can earn an entitlement to statutory maternity payments for a period of up to 18 weeks, of her maternity absence arid, separately, a right to return to her former job.

  The proposals in the White Paper would affect the right of women working in firms with fewer than 10 employees to return to work, but not their entitlement to statutory maternity pay.

  It is difficult to estimate how many expectant mothers would subsequently fail to qualify for the right to return to work if these proposals were implemented. However, it

  199
  is likely to be few as only a small proportion of those who leave work to have a baby seek to return to their former job.

  The proposals in the White Paper are still under consideration.

  Wages (Arrears)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases the wages inspectorate took to court in 1985, 1986 and to date in 1987 in respect of arrears of wages; what was the age and sex of the low-paid employees in each case; and how many cases are in hand.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No civil proceedings were taken by the inspectorate for the recovery of arrears of wages in 1985. In 1986 two cases were taken, the first in respect of two female workers and the second for one female worker. So far in 1987, one case involving a female worker has been taken and three other cases are in hand.

  Records are not kept of the ages of workers for whom proceedings action is taken.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether his Department has any plans to seek to change the number of hours which must be worked by employees in order to qualify for current statutory employment rights; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether his Department has any plans to require applicants to industrial tribunals to pay a fee; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether his Department has any plans to seek to change the qualifying period of employment for the legal right of a statement of the reasons for dismissal; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether his Department has any plans to change the regulations regarding rights of employees to time off for trades union duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Proposals or suggestions on these matters were set out in the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" (Cmnd. 9794). They are still under consideration.

  "Building Businesses … Not Barriers"
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has assessed the effect of the implementation of the proposals of the White Paper, "Building Businesses—Not Barriers," on those employees at present working less than 20 hours per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The proposals are still under consideration. The position of existing employees will be taken into account when detailed proposals are drawn up.

  Home Trade

  Per cent. change (rounded)

  Foreign-going

  Per cent. change (rounded)

  1974

  57p

  + 10

  104p

  + 10

  1975 April

  64p

  1+12

  128p

  +23

  1975 December

  90p

  +40

  180p

  +40

  1977

  104p

  2+15

  208p

  2+15

  1980

  128p

  +23

  256p

  +23

  Job Splitting
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has considered what effect the implementation of the proposals of the White Paper, "Building Businesses—Not Barriers", will have on the practice of job splitting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government continue to be committed to removing those unnecessary regulations which serve only to hinder and stifle the enterprise that creates jobs. We believe that firms that are able to concentrate their energies on running their businesses efficiently and competitively, with fewer administrative burdens, will be much better placed to provide more employment opportunities, whether full or part time.

  Specific proposals of the White Paper are still under consideration.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the measures introduced by his Department to encourage job splitting; and what further measures he is considering implementing to encourage this practice.

  Mr. Lee
  The job-splitting scheme was introduced in January 1983 to help employers create more part-time job opportunities for people who would otherwise be unemployed. The scheme was improved and relaunched with the effect from 1 April this year. The main changes were:

  —to increase the grant available to employers from £840 to £1,000, payable in three instalments of £500, £200, and £300;

  —part-time employee places to be open to anyone claiming benefits at an unemployment benefit office;

  —to change the name of the scheme to jobshare, a title which more accurately reflects the principle behind the provision and the name most commonly used by the public when describing the job splitting scheme.

  As with all our programmes, jobshare will be kept under review during the coming year.

TRANSPORT

  Light Dues
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the rates of light dues in each financial year since 1974, the percentage increase in each year and the reasons for the increases in the present financial year.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The following are the light dues charges per voyage for each 10 tons net registered tonnage in the years concerned, respectively for home trade and foreign-going vessels:
  201

  Home Trade

  Per cent. change (rounded)

  Foreign-going

  Per cent. change (rounded)

  1981

  160p

  +25

  320p

  +25

  1983

  144p

  -10

  288p

  -10

  1986

  152p

  +5

  304p

  +5

  1987

  173p

  +14

  346p

  +14

  1 The maximum annual number of voyages on which light dues were payable by home trade ships was also raised from 10 to 12.

  2 The maximum annual number of voyages on which light dues were payable were also raised from 12 to 14 voyages for home trade ships, and from six to seven voyages for foreign-going ships.

  The increase in 1987 was needed to bring revenue into line with current operating costs and particularly to meet a new requirement to make provision for the costs of operating the United Kingdom transmitters of the Racal-Decca navigator system. This followed a long period in which light dues had been held well below the rate of inflation by drawing on the cash reserves in the general lighthouse fund.

  North-West Region (Road Accidents)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport to what factors his department attributes the north-west region's high child road accident victim rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not know why the overall numbers of child casualties per 100,000 population has been higher in the north-west in recent years than in other regions outside London.

  We shall continue in consultation with local authorities to develop initiatives which will help to protect vulnerable road users including children, throughout the country.

  Davenham Bypass
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the Davenham bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A533 Davenham bypass is a non-trunk road proposal for which Cheshire county council is responsible. The Department's involvement would be limited to considering confirmation of any statutory orders and any bid by the council for transport supplementary grant support.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will issue separate statistics for traffic or road accidents in which horses are affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Horses involved in personal injury accidents will continue to be recorded with animals other than dogs. Such accidents account for only ½ per cent. of all personal injury accidents.

  A41 (Banbury)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on the Warwick road, Ruscote avenue, Orchard way roundabout on the A41 at Banbury.
  202
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to complete the outstanding statutory procedures for the A41 Ruscote avenue/Orchard way improvement this autumn. This should enable work to start by about the end of the year.

  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of amended criteria for cost/ benefit analysis, his Department has looked again at trunk road schemes which had failed to achieve a net present value.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There were 14 COBA negative schemes in the trunk road programme. So far only one scheme has been reassessed following the new value of leisure time and casualty costs. This scheme (Louth) has been reassessed as positive. The others will all be reassessed in due course at the point where decisions concerning their development have to be made.

  Schemes for which decisions have already been announced will not he reassessed.

  Roads
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the total road length in each of the English regions is (a) trunk road, (b) dual carriageway and (c) urban motorway standard.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Percentages of Road Length for each English Region: 1 April 1986

  All-purpose trunk roads

  Motorways

  Dual carriageways (excluding motorways)

  Eastern

  3·3

  0·8

  1·8

  East Midlands

  4·4

  0·7

  1·3

  Greater London

  2·3

  0·5

  1·7

  Northern

  2·8

  0·4

  2·4

  North Western

  2·6

  1·8

  1·8

  South Eastern

  2·6

  1·4

  2·0

  South Western

  2·3

  0·7

  1·2

  West Midlands

  3·4

  1·1

  1·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·8

  1·1

  1·6

  England

  2·9

  1·0

  1·7

  Urban motorways are not identified separately, but principal road motorways, which tend to be in urban areas, constitute only 0·04 of 1 per cent. of total road length.

  Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the grants made for the installation of railway sidings under section 8 of the Transport Act 1974 in the Bradford area since 1979; how many of these are still in use; and if he will make a statement.
  203
  Mr. David Mitchell
  No applications have been received, hence no grants awarded towards the cost of work on this type of facility in the Bradford area since 1979.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a grant aid available for the construction of a standard railway link between the Bradford interchange and Bradford Forster Square station site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority is currently examining the feasibility of such a link, but I have received no application from the authority for grant for the project.

  Airedale Route
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bradford. South of 30 June, Official Report, column 53, on what estimate of rail costs he based his judgment that road-borne materials would be cheaper than rail for the construction of the Airedale route.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Officials had discussions with British Rail about the delivery of fly ash to the site of the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section of the Airedale route. Even with an existing railhead available at source, the overall cost markedly exceeded that of supply by road.

  Officials also had discussions with British Rail about the delivery of bulk materials to the site of the Victoria Park to Crossflatts section of the route. There was high additional cost. Qualifications attached to the use of the railway would have had further—and incalculable—cost implications.

  It was decided that the circumstances did not justify incorporating conditions in either contract about the use of railway for delivey materials.

  East Coast Mainline
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on whether the east coast route to Glasgow from King's Cross should go via Edinburgh-Linlithgow-Polmont-Falkirk or Edinburgh-Fauldhouse-South.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None.

  M25 (Iver)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the M25 service area at Iver.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, following the implementation of low cost/high return engineering schemes which do not qualify for transport supplementary grant on local authority roads, what proportion of each accident cost saved is of more than local significance in terms of expenditure; and what proportion is of only local significance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not have this information. Such schemes are the responsibility of the appropriate local highway authority.
  204
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish an annual report to Parliament giving details of all road accident remedial works implemented primarily for road safety reasons on roads for which he has responsibility.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department publishes regular reports about the motorway and trunk road programme. The most recent is the White Paper, "Policy for Roads in England 1987" (Cmnd. 125). Safety is a major objective of the whole road programme ranging from bypasses of busy urban areas to minor local improvements. I shall be happy to consider what further detailed information on road safety might usefully he included in future reports.

  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if a national definition of a hazardous location is available to agent authorities in planning accident investigation and prevention work.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Any location where vehicles and people conflict is potentially hazardous. The Department's accident investigation and prevention manual, its series of advice notes and leaflets and its programme of seminars in every region all seek to assist every local authority to be as alert and skilled as possible in planning accident investigation and prevention work.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce an amendment to the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982 to make it possible for people whose difficulty in walking is not regarded as being permanent to qualify for exemption from restrictions relating to the use of motor vehicles.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is one of many possible changes to the scheme that have been aired during our recent consultation. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the public inquiry into the route for the Newbury bypass to start.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We hope to start the inquiry in the first half of next year. Consideration of the representations and objections is taking longer than expected.

  Vehicle Test Certificates
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that the issue of Ministry of Transport test certificates is not being abused by unscrupulous secondhand car dealers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The vehicle inspectorate of the Department of Transport closely monitors the issue of MOT certificates and withdraws garages' authorisation where there is malpractice. Following a recent joint exercise with trading standards department they have identified a number of cases where disciplinary action is being considered against the garages concerned. Buyers of secondhand vehicles must themselves be careful. If they
  205
  have any doubts about the condition of a vehicle they should have it examined by an independent expert before agreeing to buy it.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Lord Rothschild
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Attorney-General when he expects to make a decision on the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild in relation to the Wright case.

  The Attorney-General
  Allegations made against Lord Rothschild and also against Mr. Chapman Pincher have been investigated by the police. The Director of Public Prosecutions has now decided that the investigation has not disclosed evidence justifying the bringing of proceedings against either Lord Rothschild or Mr. Chapman Pincher. The director has consulted me and I have agreed with his decision.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to arrange for the substantive answers to questions from hon. Members relating to policy and statistics on the Crown Prosecution Service to be published in the Official Report and not by way of letter to the hon. Member concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  That is and will continue to be my normal practice.

PRIME MINISTER

  Dufftown
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Dufftown.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Strathclyde
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Strathclyde region.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will now publish the names and numbers of Cabinet commitees and sub-committees.

  The Prime Minister
  There continue to be four standing committees of the Cabinet: a defence and overseas policy committee and an economic strategy committee under my chairmanship; a home and social affairs committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President of the Council; and a legislation committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. Attendance at these committees will vary according to the subject under discussion. Sub-committees of the standing committees will be continued or established as appropriate. Membership and terms of reference of the standing committees and their sub-committees will remain confidential.
  206
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will make it her policy to publish the names and numbers of special ad hoc committees and sub-committees of the Cabinet as they are established.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Venice Conference
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will give the total cost of her recent visit to the Venice conference and the number of hours she spent there.

  The Prime Minister
  The estimated cost of my visit to the world economic summit conference in Venice with the official party from my office is £5,500. I spent 17½ hours in Venice.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Prime Minister what proposals she made at Venice for concerted action to bring down unemployment; and what action was agreed upon to monitor and combat unemployment.

  The Prime Minister
  The Venice summit conference confirmed the need for sound finance to support non-inflationary growth. Those are the policies which in the United Kingdom have helped create the conditions for six years of growth averaging nearly 3 per cent. a year. more than a million new jobs since 1983 and, for the past 11 months, falling unemployment. I was also encouraged that the Venice summit agreed on the need for surplus and deficit countries to take action to correct their imbalances.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will repeat her instruction that, to preserve the confidentiality of hon. Members' correspondence with Ministers, acknowledgement cards will not be sent out naked, but enclosed in an envelope.

  The Prime Minister
  I am aware of the hon. Member's concern. I am looking into the matter and will reply as soon as possible.

  Engagements
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  Mr. Stern
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the Arab League.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts

  207
  he has had with the Secretary-General of the United Nations over the Cyprus issue; what progress is being made to bring about a lasting solution to that island's problems; what part Her Majesty's Government are prepared to play in bringing about a just settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last discussed Cyprus with the United Nations' Secretary-General in September last year. We also have frequent contacts with the United Nations at official level to discuss Cyprus. The Secretary-General's latest proposals have not yet been accepted by both sides, but he is persisting with his efforts to bring the two sides together. We believe that the Secretary-General is best placed to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, and we shall continue to give active support to his mission of good offices.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the countries which do not have diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  We do not have diplomatic relations with the following countries:

  Albania

  Argentina

  Cambodia

  Libya

  Syria.

  We do not have diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Bhutan but maintain friendly contacts and conduct official business with its embassy in New Delhi.

  We have only consular relations with the following countries:

  Andorra

  San Marino

  Monaco

  Liechtenstein.

  Blood Supplies (Overseas Citizens)
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made to make supplies of non-contaminated blood supplies for British citizens travelling abroad; and if these arrangements are being co-ordinated by British embassies abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In January this year we asked our posts overseas to consider, in the light of local circumstances, establishing a list of voluntary blood donors for use of local British residents and visitors in an emergency. A number of posts now have such a list and others may be drawn up if the situation requires it. This facility is entirely at the risk of those who use it.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to publicise the availability of non-contaminated blood supplies for British citizens travelling abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The travel inquiry unit in the consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can provide telephone callers with information, provided by posts abroad, about local arrangements for screening blood for HIV. Posts will also on request provide British 208
  visitors with names of local doctors, dentists and hospitals, and information about the availability of non-contaminated blood.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why a letter was not sent by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch until 2 July concerning the application of Mrs. Chacadben Patel for entry clearance to attend a wedding in Hackney on 27 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  The hon. Member will recall that he first wrote to me about Mrs. Patel's application for entry clearance on 5 May 1987, received in my office on 12 May. It was necessary to consult the post concerned and a substantive reply to that letter was sent in my absence, by my office on 10 June, in view of the wedding date. The hon. Member wrote again on 18 June. I replied on 2 July reiterating the position set out in the earlier reply of 10 June.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of European Economic Community directives which have been applied in the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 to 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dogs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were, during the most recent period for which figures are available, in the United Kingdom, of dog owners who allowed their dogs to foul the pavement or other prohibited areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  Prosecutions for dog fouling offences cannot be separately distinguished in the information collected centrally. The readily available data, which may be affected by variations in the completeness of reporting, relate to all offences covering dogs under local Acts and byelaws and show 69 persons proceeded against in England and Wales for such offences in 1985, and 176 in Scotland. Comparable information is not available for Northern Ireland.

  Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which airlines or shipping companies have been fined under the Immigration Carriers (Liability) Act; and what are the sums of money and numbers of passengers involved.

  Mr. Renton
  Since 5 March a substantial number of airlines and shipping companies have incurred liability under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. A comprehensive list is not readily available, their cases are still being processed. The total number of passengers
  209
  involved, at 26 June 1987, was about 1,500; this number will be reduced if carriers are able to show that the charge should not be imposed in particular cases. In each case the sum is £1000 per passenger.

  Women Prisoners
  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male warders now supervise women in prisons (a) nationally and (b) in Holloway; and what safeguards against sexual harrassment exist in view of the vulnerability of the women prisoners.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table shows the number of male prison officers, up to the rank of principal officer, currently serving in Holloway and other female establishments. These officers are deployed within establishments in such a way that their presence does not compromise privacy and propriety.

  Male Prison Officer grades serving in female establishments

  Holloway

  Other female establishments

  Discipline:

  Principle Officers

  —

  —

  Senior Officers

  7

  —

  Officers

  —

  —

  Specialists1:

  Principal Officers

  2

  5

  Senior Officers

  2

  4

  Officers

  9

  10

  1 Includes: Works. Catering and Physical Education Officer.

  Prisoners (Discipline)
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number and proportion of prisoners appearing on disciplinary charges before boards of visitors in each year since the Tarrant judgment who applied for and were granted legal representation.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information cannot be provided in the form requested. Since the Tarrant judgment in November 1983 legal representation is known to have been granted to over 300 prisoners appearing on disciplinary charges before boards of visitors.

  Year

  Monochrome

  Colour

  Total

  Convictions

  March 1983

  90,174

  183,758

  273,932

  341

  March 1984

  83,818

  192,553

  276,371

  574

  March 1985

  79,357

  199,055

  278,412

  645

  March 1986

  75,724

  194,941

  270,665

  736

  March 1987

  74,061

  196,539

  270,600

  818

  Mr. McCusker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many successful prosecutions against television licence evaders in Northern Ireland during the past five years have been taken as a result of information obtained from (a) detector vans and (b) search warrants;

  (2) how many search warrants have been sought during the past 12 months in Northern Ireland to detect television licence evasion.

  Mr. Renton
  Detector van equipment has not been used in Northern Ireland. One conviction for licence evasion

  Postal Voting
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the experience of the recent general election and the many complaints of hon. Members, he will review the whole operation of postal voting, with a view to introducing legislative. improvements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I said in reply to the Adjournment debate on 3 July at columns 809–16, that we were reviewing the absent voting provisions in consultation with electoral registration officers and the political parties, with a view to amending the Representation of the People Regulations.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of 5p concessionary television licences issued in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of those licences are held by pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  At the end of May 1987, 690,629 people benefited from concessionary licences, which are known as accommodation for residential care licences. Separate records are not kept showing how many are retirement pensioners or physically disabled or mentally disordered people, but the great majority are believed to be retirement pensioners.

  Mr. McCusker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black and white and colour television licences have been issued each year in Northern Ireland during the past five years; and how many successful prosecutions there have been in each year against licence fee evaders.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information relates to the number of general form television licences in force at the end of March in each of the years mentioned, and to the number of convictions in each year to that date:

  has been obtained in the last five years as a result of a search warrant; this was one of four sought in the last 12 months.

  South African Embassy (Policing)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis regarding the conduct of the policing of the round-the-clock picket of the South African embassy.
  211
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The policing of the demonstration outside the South African embassy is an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of officers in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The strength of the Metropolitan police on 30 June was 27,105.

  Police (Entry and Search)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester as to the reasons why the police have refrained from arresting Mr. Virji Mendis in the church buildings which he is currently occupying; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to issue any guidance to chief constables concerning their practice towards the arrest of suspects or persons who have committed offences and who remain upon church property in an attempt to avoid arrest; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to recreate a right of sanctuary from arrest in Church buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police may enter and search any premises for the purposes of making an arrest, including those used for religious purposes, in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The decision whether or not to use this power in the circumstances of a particular case is an operational matter for the judgment of the appropriate chief officer of police who will take account of all the factors which he considers to be relevant. We have no plans to call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester or to introduce legislation to create a right of sanctuary or to issue guidance to chief officers.

  South African Embassy
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what authority individuals have been prevented from peaceful demonstrations immediately outside the South African embassy; and why this was done.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the Commissioner directed that the demonstration be moved from outside the South African embassy to Duncannon street following an incident on 6 May when the embassy building was attacked and damaged. This direction was made under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of police services outside the South African embassy in each of the past three years; and what has been the cost since 6 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the additional cost to the Metropolitan Police of policing demonstrations outside South Africa House between 6 May and 5 July was about £10,000. Information for the past three years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  212
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning policing arrangements outside the South African embassy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials have discussions as necessary with the Metropolitan Police about the arrangements for the policing and protection of diplomatic missions, including the South African embassy.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made outside the South African embassy since 6 May; and what charges have been brought.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that since 6 May a total of 172 arrests have been made. Those arrested have been charged with a variety of public order and other offences, including criminal damage, assault on police occasioning actual bodily harm, breach of bail conditions and obstruction.

  Embassies and High Commissions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers on average are involved in policing duties outside embassies and high commissions in London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are a small number of officers permanently deployed on duties concerned with the security of diplomatic missions. Others are deployed as necessary. Their number will depend on various factors, including the size and nature of any demonstrations.

  Crime Prevention Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the progress made with crime prevention schemes in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are satisfied that good progress is being made in building up a wide range of crime prevention schemes and initiatives throughout England and Wales. The variety of bodies and organisations now actively engaged in crime prevention schemes both nationally and locally has never been broader. From members of the public who have now joined together in over 35,000 neighbourhood watch schemes through to an increasing number of authorities, organisations, companies and groups across all sectors there has come a welcome recognition that much crime is preventable and that the responsibility for preventing it does not only rest with the police. Local crime prevention initiatives which have taken a variety of forms have already proved their worth and we look forward to a further expansion in their numbers and their influence.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the crime prevention schemes set up in Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are 588 places on 27 community programme crime prevention initiative projects in various parts of Wales. There are 18 local Crime Prevention Panels, 1,666 neighbourhood watch schemes spread over the four police areas. In addition, one of the local crime prevention projects which make up the
  213
  "Five Towns" initiative is based on the Penlan Estate in Swansea: I understand that the project will shortly extend its activity to other areas of Swansea. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also introduced a number of other initiatives.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn
  Jones asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of funding from his Department for each crime prevention scheme; and whether such schemes are directly funded from his Department or are funded through agencies.

  Mr. John Patten
  Local crime prevention schemes may receive funding or support in kind from a variety of sources, but, as a general rule, they do not receive Home Office funding either directly or indirectly. However, from the beginning of January 1986 the Home Office has met in full the salaries and related expenses of the coordinators of the five local crime prevention projects in Croydon, Bolton, north Tyneside, Swansea and Wellingborough which together made up our five towns crime prevention initiative. The Home Office has also provided some financial support for local publicity for these projects. We estimate that when the five towns initiative ends in October this year, Home Office funding for these projects will have amounted to about £170.000.

  TV Licence Fee
  Mr. Budgen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deartment what conclusions he has reached on the proposal, contained in the report of the committee chaired by professor Peacock on the financing of the BBC, that the television licence fee should be replaced by a system of subscription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  In announcing my response to Professor Peacock's report, I said that I would be engaging independent consultants to examine the technical and economic feasibility of this proposal. Communications Studies and Planning International Limited, who are now merged with Booz Allen and Hamilton International (UK) Limited, were appointed to undertake this study, which they completed in May. 1 have today published their report and a copy has been placed in the Library. The findings of the report are those of the consultants, and do not necessarily reflect the direction of present Government policy. We would welcome comments on the analysis and conclusions contained in the study, and we have invited comments to be sent to the Home Office by 30 September 1987. Any decisions will be taken in the light of these comments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of unemployed under 21 years of age in the Province at the latest date.

  Mr. Viggers
  The number is 22,106 as at 14 May 1987.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of long-term unemployed in the Province at the latest date.
  214
  Mr. Viggers
  At 14 May 1987, 65,313 claimants had been continuously unemployed for more than one year in Northern Ireland, representing 51·8 per cent. of unemployed claimants in the Province on that date.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in the Province.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government continue to pursue a series of measures designed to reduce unemployment. These include the substantial measures to secure new jobs in Northern Ireland through the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit and through a unique framework of financial assistance distributed to that end. They also include an extensive programme of employment and training measures which include Action for Community Employment, Enterprise Ulster, the new workers scheme, jobclubs, restart, the new job training programme, the enterprise allowance scheme and the youth training programme.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures in the Province.

  Mr. Viggers
  At 14 May 1987 there were 126,105 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. representing 18·4 per cent. of the working population.

  The Government recognise the seriousness of the unemployment problem in the Province and continues to give a high priority to employment, training and enterprise programmes. Besides having a direct impact on the unemployment situation these programmes should also help to improve the conditions for economic growth in the Province.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of persons employed in the electrical and electronic industry in Wales at the most recent date; how this compares with the figure in September 1984 and in September 1981, respectively; and if he will make a statement on the significance of any changes.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest estimate of people employed in electrical and electronic industries in Wales was 34,400 in mid-1986. This compares with 33,800 in mid-1984 and 32,900 in mid-1981.

  Public Bodies (Membership)
  Mr. Murphy
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of all chairmen and members of public bodies in Wales for whose appointment he is responsible.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Roads
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn
  Jones asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of trunk roads there are in each of the counties of Wales; what proportions of those roads are dual carriageway; and of those what proportion is of urban motorway standard.
  215
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  County

  Trunk road mileage (including motorway)

  Percentage of trunk roads and motorways that is dual carriageway

  Percentage of dual carriageway that is motorway

  Clwyd

  125·7

  n/a

  n/a

  Dyfed

  238·0

  7·6

  17·0

  Gwent

  108·0

  58·3

  39·2

  Gwynedd

  208·8

  4·9

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  55·6

  65·9

  45·6

  Powys

  263·8

  1·5

  0·0

  South Glamorgan

  17·2

  100·0

  74·7

  West Glamorgan

  39·5

  68·5

  61·3

  n/a Not yet available.

  The above figures are as at I April 1987 and are provisional.

  Urban motorways are not identified separately.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the total road length in Wales is (a) trunk road, (b) dual carriageway and (c) urban motorway standard.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Provisional figures as at 1 April 1987 show that of the total road length in Wales(a)5·2 per cent. was trunk road (including motorway), (b)0·9 per cent. was dual carriageway (excluding Clwyd for whom no figures are available), and (c)0·4 per cent. was motorway.

  No data are available for lengths of roads of urban motorway standard.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has for the improvement of the A5 road from the Welsh border to Holyhead; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for the improvement of road links between north and south Wales between (a)Bangor and Carmarthen and (b)Wrexham and Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales 1985" contains details of planned improvements to these routes. In drawing up the road programme for the 1990s consideration is being given to further schemes to be added to the programme.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn
  Jones asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for further improvements to the A55 Chester to Bangor road; what is the projected expenditure on each of the stages of improvement; and when he expects them to be completed.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Three schemes (the Conwy crossing; Penmaenbach-Dwygyfylchi; Penmaenmawr bypass) are at present under construction at a total estimated cost of £230 million. The following schemes are in preparation:

  Estimated Gross cost at November 1986 prices

  £ million

  1. Northop Bypass

  11·328

  2. Llanfairfechan Bypass

  18·936

  3. Traveller's Inn Improvement

  3·789

  4. Pen-y-Clip tunnels

  28·174

  5. Rhuallt Hill Improvement

  8·312

  6. Aber Improvement

  7·850

  The upgrading of the A55 is expected to be complete around the turn of the decade.
  216
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure of his Department on roads in Wales at outturn and current prices in each year since 1977–78; and what is the projected expenditure for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Details of expenditure since 1977–78 are as follows:

  £000's

  Year

  Outturn Expenditure on Trunk Roads and Motorways

  Expenditure on Trunk Roads and Motorways at 1986–87 Prices1

  1977–78

  52,964

  113,969

  1978–79

  61,351

  119,284

  1979–80

  73,747

  122,695

  1980–81

  92,251

  129,391

  1981–82

  107,815

  137,702

  1982–83

  118,707

  141,362

  1983–84

  148,310

  169,075

  1984–85

  104,913

  114,684

  1985–86

  101,630

  104,687

  1986–87

  114,461

  114,461

  1The figures at 1986–87 prices have been calculated by the application of the GDP Deflator at market prices.

  Provision for trunk roads and motorways for 1987–88 is £124 million. It is currently estimated that in each of the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 expenditure will be in the region of £140 million. No firm decisions have however yet been taken on the apportionment of the Welsh block expenditure to individual services for the years beyond 1987–88. Planned provision for 1990–91 will be announced in the 1988 Public Expenditure White Paper.

  Integrated Operations Programme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to support the recent submission of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys county councils to the European Community under the integrated operations programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I understand that the local authorities concerned have yet to complete their work on the preparation of an integrated operations programme for this area but that a submission is expected shortly. Once the programme is submitted I, and my officials who are already in consultation with the local authorities on the initiative, will of course give it full and early consideration.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales which road improvement schemes in Wales, in each year since 1979. qualified for the transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Until 1982–83 transport supplementary grant was paid on local authority programmes of capital and current expenditure and from 1982–83 to 1984–85 on programmes of capital expenditure. Information on all individual schemes is not available.

  Since 1985–86 the only new expenditure accepted for TSG relates to schemes estimated to cost £5 million or more. The following have been accepted for grant:

  Year of Acceptance and Scheme

  County

  1985–86

  A534 Holt Farndon By-Pass

  Clwyd

  A484 Loughor Bridge and Approaches

  Dyfed/West Glamorgan1

  A4119 Mid Rhondda Access Road

  Mid Glamorgan

  1986–87

  Bridge over Wrexham-Bidston Railway

  Clwyd

  A467 Abertillery-Brynmawr Improvement

  Gwent

  Cardiff Central Link

  South Glamorgan

  Neath Urban Inner By-Pass

  West Glamorgan

  A4067 Glais-Pontardawe Improvement

  West Glamorgan

  1987–88

  Cardiff Butetown Link

  South Glamorgan

  1Joint project.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn
  Jones asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to lower the qualifying threshold for transport supplementary grants in order to make some trunk roads eligible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Transport supplementary grant is payable only on local authority road schemes. The trunk road programme is wholly funded by the Government.

  ADAS
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in Wales at present; and what was the corresponding figure in 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of ADAS staff in post in Wales on 1 April 1987 was 356 and the number in post on the corresponding date in 1979 was 493. These figures include staff at the experimental husbandry farms and ADAS headquarters staff outstationed in Wales.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in Wales in each financial year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is not possible to extract this information in the form requested.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has any plans for changes in the operations of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the future of the service.
  218
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The future organisation of ADAS in Wales is being discussed by my Department and MAFF in the light of the reorganisation which MAFF is currently implementing.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales which schemes for road improvements in each of the counties of Wales have received assistance from the European regional development fund since its inception.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  To date total ERDF assistance to road improvement schemes in each county in Wales is as follows:

  £

  Clwyd

  30,568,451·90

  Dyfed

  17,570,954·10

  Gwent

  25,756,626·00

  Gwynedd

  7,278,806·40

  Mid Glamorgan

  25,226,911·36

  Powys

  1,328,674·50

  South Glamorgan

  31,321,242·70

  West Glamorgan1

  14,853,374·00

  Total Wales

  153,905,040·96

  1includes a joint scheme with Dyfed CC.

  I will to the hon. Gentleman in due course with details of the schemes involved and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce the result of his Department's consultation on the need for new Welsh language legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 26 February at column 349.

  County Hospital, Panteg
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Gwent health authority to discuss the future of the County hospital, Panteg.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  The future of County hospital is a matter for Gwent health authority in the first instance. Any proposals to vary substantially the service provided at County hospital would be subject to extensive consultation. Should local agreement not be reached, the proposals would be submitted to my right hon. Friend for a decision. It would therefore be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend or me to enter into discussions with the authority which might prejudice any future role in this matter.

  Sheep Monitoring
  Mr. Raffan
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest results of sheep monitoring in north Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Monitoring shows that some sheep within the present restricted area continue to have readings above the action level. In addition a number of sheep with readings above this level have been found in an area of about 10 sq. miles to the west of Llanuwchllyn immediately outside the restricted area. In the light of
  219
  these results I have today made an Order to re-introduce restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep from this area. Some 17 producers and around 10,000 sheep are affected and will qualify for compensation arrangements under the existing schemes. Monitoring of sheep inside and adjoining the restricted area boundaries will continue and any action needed to protect public health and maintain market confidence will be taken if necessary.

  The monitoring results are being published and a copy will he placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle, sheep or other animals were killed or seriously injured by stray dogs worrying them in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the estimated cost of the damage.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Records of the numbers of farm animals killed or injured by dogs in Great Britain have not been collected centrally since 1978 because collection was considered to be an undue burden on the local constabularies, who were responsible for gathering the data. The statistics for 1978 based on police returns to local authorities, were as follows:

  Species

  Killed

  Injured

  Sheep

  3,951

  2,805

  Poultry

  1,760

  245

  Cattle

  11

  78

  Pigs

  12

  8

  Goats

  2

  7

  Domestic rabbits

  1

  —

  Horses/ponies

  1

  1

  TOTAL

  5,738

  3,144

  These figures exclude West Yorkshire, where returns were discontinued earlier.

  There is no estimate available of the cost of the damage resulting from these attacks.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent on maintaining European Economic Community food intervention stores in London by borough in each of the past four years.

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

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated number of farm bankruptcies in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Scotland,(c)Wales, (d)England, (e)Northern Ireland, (f)Dyfed and (g)Pembrokeshire, in each of the years 1980 to 1986, inclusive.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information that is available for the agriculture and horticulture industry is given in the table. I regret that no industrial analysis is available for sequestrations in Scotland (equivalent to bankruptcies) or for company
  220
  liquidations in Northern Ireland. No area analysis of company liquidations is available. For bankruptcies in England and Wales, although an area analysis of the total is available, there is no analysis of the area figures by industry.

  Insolvencies in Agriculture and Horticulture 1980–1986

  Number

  Bankruptcies1

  Company liquidations2

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1980

  50

  2

  34

  3

  1981

  70

  11

  56

  8

  1982

  78

  2

  55

  8

  1983

  98

  9

  74

  5

  1984

  155

  8

  77

  7

  1985

  3136

  7

  102

  4

  1986

  n/a

  9

  128

  6

  1Bankruptcies are of unincorporated businesses classified to agriculture and horticulture, deeds of arrangement are included.

  2Compulsory and creditors' voluntary liquidations.

  3Discontinuity in serious because of changes to monetary limits on petitions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (Open Enrolment)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to provide for more open enrolment to schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I intend to bring forward legislation to change the present arrangements for admissions to schools so that local education authorities and governing bodies, depending on who is responsible for admissions policy at any particular school, would be required to admit pupils up to the limit of that school's available capacity.

  I am today publishing a consultation document which develops the proposal I first announced in a public speech on 1 May. I shall be inviting comments by 16 September 1987. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  House of Commons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what tendering procedures works under the House of Commons maintenance allocation in the Supply Estimates which are carried out by private contractors or sub-contractors are subject to; and if he will publish the guidelines covering the awarding of maintenance work either in house or to outside contractors.

  Mr. Chope
  The parliamentary works office is responsible for the care and maintenance of the Palace of Westminster, including the parliamentary outbuildings. As part of the Property Services Agency it conforms to the rules of Government contracting designed to ensure the proper use of public money and to obtain good value for the funds expended. For maintenance schemes a variety of tendering methods are available, according to the type of service required.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Batiste
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many civil servants are employed by his Department in (a) London and the south-east, (b) the south-west. (c) the midlands and (d) the north of England; and what is the budgeted expenditure of his Department for the current year in each of these regions.

  Region

  Department of the Environment (Central)

  Property Services Agency

  Staff Employed

  Running costs provision

  Staff employed

  Running costs provision

  £ Million

  £Million

  London and the South East

  5,225

  119.7

  12,205

  213.6

  The South West

  595

  13.5

  2,463

  43.4

  The Midlands

  210

  4.8

  1,490

  26.7

  The North of England

  426

  9.7

  2,854

  50.0

  Total

  6,486

  147.7

  19,012

  333.7

  Note: The running costs provision for each region is calculated pro rata to staff numbers.

  Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when it is intended to bring into effect the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I hope that it will be possible to do so during the autumn as soon as the necessary supporting orders and regulations have been made.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to the London Docklands Development Corporation concerning public access to riverside land when giving consent to planning applications; and if he will instruct the London Docklands Development Corporation, when it considers planning applications, to provide for continuing public access to the river bank as part of development schemes.

  Mr. Trippier
  No guidance from my right hon. Friend is necessary. Development control in the docklands is guided by the provisions of the Greater London development plan, in which development control authorities are urged to give special attention to, inter alia, the creation of better public access with new and improved riverside walks, open spaces and viewpoints. The London Docklands Development Corporation, in its planning briefs on individual sites, aims to provide for greater public access to the river hank.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs have been incurred on the site of South Killingholme since the announcement that the Government were not going to use shallow tunnel disposal of nuclear waste;

  (2) what costs have been incurred on the site of Elstow since the announcement that the Government were not going to use shallow tunnel disposal of nuclear waste;

  (3) what costs have been incurred on the site of Bradwell since the announcement that the Government were not going to use shallow tunnel disposal of nuclear waste;
  222
  Mr. Ridley
  On 1 June 1987 my Department employed 6,486 staff in the Department of the Environment (central) and 19,012 in the Property Services Agency. My Department's estimates for 1987–88 include provision for £147·7 million running costs expenditure by the Department of the Environment (central) and £333·7 million by the Property Services Agency. The regional breakdown of the totals is:

  (4) what costs have been incurred on the site of Fullback since the announcement that the Government were not going to use shallow tunnel disposal of nuclear waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  £5 million is the estimated total of the costs that will be incurred at all four sites from the announcement on 1 May until the final reinstatement of the sites.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the contracts between NIREX and various contractors for the exploration of sites considered for nuclear dumping include penalty clauses if the contract is cancelled by either side.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Empty Dwellings (Copeland)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of empty dwellings, as at 1 April 1986, in the Copeland constituency, owned by (a) the local authority, (b) the private sector, (c) housing associations, (d) the Ministry of Defence, (e) the Home Office and (f) others in the public sector.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information available to my Department is for vacant housing within the borough of Copeland at 1 April 1986, provided in the council's 1986 housing investment programme return, which is in the Library. Any vacant housing owned by Government Departments is included in the category "other public sector".

  Community Charge
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of those living in metropolitan borough councils who will be liable to pay only the minimum 20 per cent. of the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  There are approximately 8·5 million adults living in the metropolitan areas. Of these, it is estimated that about 1·3 million, or 15 per cent. could receive the benefit of 80 per cent. rebates of their community charge.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. Bidwell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the working of the Housing Act 1985 as it relates to allegations of racial harassment and attacks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My reply of 3 July to the Hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred to the circumstances in which councils may seek orders for possession under grounds laid down in the Housing Acts 1980 and 1985. The Department is monitoring the operation of the provisions, but there has been little experience to date of their use in the courts in cases of racial harassment.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by his Department on (a) ministerial hospitality and (b) other official hospitality in 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Ridley
  Expenditure on hospitality in my Department was:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  Ministerial

  14,740

  13,650

  DOE(C) Official

  16,560

  17,470

  PSA Official

  10,520

  19,920

  Total

  41,820

  51,040

  Transport Museum (Low Moor)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the grant aid available for the development of a transport museum at Low Moor in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The site of the proposed West Yorkshire Transport Museum at Low Moor, Bradford, was reclaimed with the help of derelict land grant.

  Additional funds may be available through the urban programme, but the Department is able to consider grant assistance only on those projects which local authorities are minded to support.

  Assistance may be available from the European regional development fund, provided the scheme meets Commission requirements and domestic practices relating to trusts and scheme eligibility. The scheme must also have the support of the regional and English tourist boards.

  Contributions to museums and museum projects are also made through the Manpower Services Commission and organisations such as English Heritage and the English tourist board. Grants may also be available from the Musuem and Galleries Commission and the Yorkshire and Humberside Museums Council.

  House Building (Slaley, Northumberland)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for public inquiry the planning application to build 65 permanent houses in the green belt at Slaley in Northumberland.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The planning application made to Tynedale district council has been advertised by it as a224
  departure from the development plan because it involves residential development in the green belt. If the local planning authority is minded to approve the application. it may refer it to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) (England) Direction 1981. The Secretary of State will then consider the merits of the proposal before reaching any decision.

  Housing (Green Belt)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department is undertaking into the prospects for new housing in the green belt in each of the standard regions of England, respectively.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Green belt policy remains as set out in circular 14/84 and there must continue to be a general presumption against inappropriate development within green belts.

  Parrots
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Uruguayan proposal for a complete suspension of the international commerce in wild caught parrots for the pet trade, to be raised at the sixth meeting of the parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species in Ottawa in July; and who will be representing the United Kingdom at the meeting.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has not been notified by the secretariat of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora of any such Uruguayan proposal. The United Kingdom delegation will decide whether to support any proposal of this sort after considering the details of the proposal and in the light of the debate. The United Kingdom's general view is that, provided the species in question can sustain the trade, commercial trade in wild taken animals should not be banned.

  The United Kingdom delegation to the conference will comprise the head of the Department's wildlife division, the head of the endangered species branch and representatives from the Department's scientific advisers—the Nature Conservancy Council and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—the British high commission in Ottawa and the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong Governments.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered further the recommendation of the Widdicombe committee for an interim doubling of the limit on expenditure under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 for metropolitan district and London borough councils.

  Mr. Howard
  We are continuing our consideration of the Widdicombe committee's recommendations on discretionary spending by local authorities. I have, however, already reached the conclusion that this recommendation of the Widdicombe committee did not pay sufficient regard to the wide range of the other discretionary powers available to those local authorities. In many cases, not least in the area of economic development activity, expenditure attributed to section
  225
  137 should properly come under another power; and, in particular, section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 gives a wide new power to metropolitan district and London borough councils, outside the section 137 limit, for grants to voluntary organisations. I do not therefore consider that there should be a change to section 137 of the kind recommended by the Widdicombe committee.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the second rate support grant supplementary report 1986–87 will be published.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have laid this report before the House today.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced to the House on 2 March his proposals for teachers' pay under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. He promised that the Exchequer would make a significant contribution through RSG towards the extra cost that would result in 1986–87 and the current financial year.

  On 5 May the House approved of the first Supplementary Report 1987–88, which increased the expenditure provision by £460 million and block grant by £183 million to cover the extra cost of school teachers' pay in the current financial year. The purpose of this second supplementary report for 1986–87 is to honour the undertaking to make a contribution towards the cost in 1986–87. It will increase the expenditure provision for local authorities by a £111 million and block grant by £5 million. As usual, the report will make a number of changes to grant related expenditure assessments, and take account of the latest information available from authorities on total expenditure.

  Copies of the report and tables showing exemplifications of likely revised grant entitlements are being sent to all local authorities and the local authority associations. Copies are being placed in the Library and in the Vote Office.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered what action he should take following the High Court judgment in the case of Oliver v Northampton Borough Council that any information which a local authority held about its employees' personal affairs was open to public scrutiny at the time of audit.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed in the Library a paper which is being sent to the local authority associations, the Audit Commission, and other interested parties inviting comments on a proposal that at the next convenient opportunity amending legislation should be introduced so that all information which an authority holds about its employees would be excluded from public inspection, except information about gross pay, allowances, bonuses and overtime payments which would continue to be open to inspection at the time of audit.

  LDDC (Canary Wharf)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to submit for further review the price agreed by the London Docklands Development Corporation and the developers of Canary wharf; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 July 1987]: When the LDDC sells land it is required to obtain a certificate from an independent valuer that the land is not below current market value and, if that is unobtainable, it needs specific consent from the Department to the disposal of its land at a lower price. The Department is keeping the terms of the whole agreement, including the land price, under continuing review as negotiations proceed with the aid of independent financial and legal advice.

  Derelict Land Grant
  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.

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  AVON

  Bath

  —

  3,572

  1,786

  —

  5,358

  —

  3,572

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  25,892

  13,176

  19,101

  20,689

  Kingswood

  4,822

  3,733

  1,618

  1,618

  2,251

  1,618

  1,618

  Wansdyke

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,496

  —

  —

  Woodspring

  —

  —

  —

  20,348

  1,814

  —

  BERKSHIRE

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,577

  19,154

  9,577

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,708

  959

  959

  759

  955

  959

  959

  BEDFORDSHIRE

  North Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,755

  6,245

  Luton

  2,438

  2,438

  7,142

  2,438

  2,438

  2,438

  2,438

  South Bedfordshire

  34,552

  4,936

  4,936

  4,936

  4,936

  4,936

  4,936

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,836

  4,972

  9,636

  CAMBRIDGESHIRE

  Peterborough

  1,376

  1,840

  2,127

  5,292

  2,127

  2,127

  2,127

  CHESHIRE

  Congleton

  24,854 (75)

  162,704(100)

  68,799(100)

  109,817

  6,690

  —

  236,632

  35,453

  413(75)

  Chester

  —

  27,082

  565,196

  18,600

  35,339

  6,217

  —

  Crewe and Nantwich

  217,594

  85,725

  413 (75) 11,044(100)

  56,621

  266,107

  1,322

  32,415

  Ellesmere Port

  52,664

  34,465

  25,175

  1,887,594

  2,698,821

  1,023,635

  354,961

  Halton

  20,567 (85)

  13,287

  239,435 (100)

  570,774

  592,921

  823,907

  1,033,011

  842,537

  775,075

  Macclesfield

  834,673

  169,204

  793,283

  536,979

  616,055

  1,112,272

  350,133

  Vale Royal

  952(85)

  3,017 (75)

  —

  5,112(75)

  371,931 (100)

  —

  14,882

  30,402

  40,764(100)

  136,511 (100)

  750 (75)

  Warrington

  64 (75) 91,784(100)

  1,397 160,321

  599,465

  474,350

  1,815,468(100) 1,320(75)

  442,150

  2,627,749

  Cheshire county council

  47,492

  47,087

  664,115

  433,547

  862,622

  1,946,593

  2,034,154

  CLEVELAND

  Hartlepool

  11,387(85)

  2,172

  1,610,146(100)

  245,195

  268,580

  340,036

  340,172

  —

  69,443

  Langbaurgh

  6,349 (85)

  101,389

  19,203

  7,738(100)

  1,655

  3,970

  58,006

  395,649

  1,138,858

  484,056

  Middlesbrough

  150,000

  110,848

  53,732

  —

  262,901

  —

  679,122

  Stockton-on-Tees

  35,700

  —

  42,759

  19,049

  199,728

  139,618

  11,201

  Cleveland county council

  —

  1,028(85)

  215,995(100)

  154,971 (100)

  115,620

  12,543

  852,390

  566,889

  5,818 (85)

  CORNWALL

  Carrick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  762,754

  441,418

  792,794

  Kerrier

  1,970

  —

  731 (85)

  369(100)

  8,974

  2,478

  2,145

  182,984

  North Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57,088

  2,321

  Restormel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,711

  —

  —

  Cornwall county council

  46,562

  3,435

  10,371

  8,365

  100,997(100) 991 (85)

  55,217 6,641

  33,005

  CUMBRIA

  Barrow-in-Furness

  —

  10,898(85)

  2,839

  13,529

  3,709

  355,440

  244,573

  65,088(100)

  47,097

  Allerdale

  116,502

  26,622 (85)

  39,275

  —

  104,669(100)

  613,953

  361,662

  35,212(100)

  28,224

  95,460 (85)

  2,380

  Carlisle

  —

  —

  —

  20,425

  44,634

  40,092

  10,829

  Copeland

  27,178

  94,075

  47,062

  1,873,411

  1,275,791

  482,096

  72,943

  Eden

  —

  —

  3,656

  —

  46,261

  49,853

  68,242

  South Lakeland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,216

  Cumbria county council

  2,377 (85)

  87,909

  7,764 (85)

  431,882

  288,846

  3,433,939(100)

  4,658,228

  342,459(100)

  149,329(100)

  29,730 (85)

  6,392

  228
  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 55] Amounts of derelict land grant paid to individual authorities for each year since 1979 are given in the following table. Figures are not yet available for 1986–87, nor is it possible to split the figures between category A and category B projects. In any event, this categorisation has not been applied to schemes approved since 1985.
  229

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  DERBYSHIRE

  Amber Valley

  —

  —

  —

  349,232

  351,733

  545,795

  557,746

  Chesterfield

  527

  527

  527

  527

  527

  527

  527

  Derby

  —

  45,341

  5,322

  11,710

  1,893

  —

  —

  North East Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,448

  —

  —

  South Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,950

  780

  —

  West Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  191,732

  —

  111,324

  Derbyshire county council

  221 (50)

  982,564(100)

  1,302,435

  1,240,787

  978,681

  12,997(75)

  9,109

  23,939

  1,632(75)

  1,215,693(100)

  1,143,078

  258,426

  1,576(50)

  DEVON

  East Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,091

  Exeter

  —

  —

  28,000

  —

  2,413

  5,648

  8,100

  North Devon

  —

  49,818

  24,389

  5,832

  25,967

  —

  —

  Plymouth

  21,696

  16,780

  —

  10,252

  16,865

  9,889

  14,781

  South Hams

  —

  —

  —

  —

  119,155

  —

  —

  Teignbridge

  —

  15,183

  366,553

  —

  231,166

  37,902

  —

  Torbay

  7,265

  14,926(50)

  7,397

  17,636

  66,570(100)

  97,691

  10,744

  66,842 (100)

  6,195

  7,397

  7,397 (50)

  7,397

  7,397

  West Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,300

  —

  —

  Devon county council

  —

  —

  5,050

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DORSET

  North Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,111

  151

  —

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,226

  —

  —

  West Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,846

  —

  Weymouth and Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,406

  Dorset county council

  3,509

  2,649

  68,764

  2,649

  2,649

  2,649

  4,279

  EAST SUSSEX

  Hastings

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,936

  —

  11,899

  East Sussex county council

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  DURHAM

  Chester-le-Street

  7,704

  38,589

  78,497

  30,691

  622

  3,359

  6,121

  Darlington

  252

  196,666

  19,709

  262,152

  585,939

  419,480

  363,492

  Derwentside

  2,025 (85)

  15,085

  623,433 (100)

  1,184,445

  501,578(100)

  2,578,129

  43,073

  128,813(100)

  488,785

  182(85)

  2,283

  Durham

  301

  —

  —

  717,780(100)

  15,849

  3,657

  —

  44,548 (85)

  24,291

  Easington

  1,267,888

  291,014

  250,291

  25,864

  483,305

  82,814

  160,606

  Sedgefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51,452

  —

  13,044

  Teesdale

  —

  26,158(85)

  16,810(100)

  36,920

  10,306

  82

  —

  1,232

  Wear Valley

  26,189(85)

  —

  —

  19,794(100)

  63,024

  51,852

  125,887

  44,313 (100)

  21,132

  56,360

  2,910(85)

  Durham County Council

  81,451 (85)

  31,255

  39,306

  121

  1,579,101 (100)

  1,204,621

  939,789

  791,539(100)

  831,560

  1,409,089

  245 (85)

  13,249

  -618

  24,812(50)

  (repayment 861)

  ESSEX

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  4,197

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEREFORD AND WORCS

  Hereford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,880

  —

  —

  Leominster

  —

  313

  —

  626

  —

  626

  313

  Wychavon

  4,320

  960

  480

  480

  480

  480

  480

  Wyre Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,608

  —

  —

  HUMBERSIDE

  Beverley

  —

  —

  —

  45,052

  —

  2,264

  —

  Booth Ferry

  136,187

  2,285

  10,996

  —

  —

  12,584

  1,466

  Cleethorpes

  6,939

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glanford

  —

  —

  8,166

  —

  460,963

  622,078

  591,531

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  25,965

  —

  —

  —

  91,491

  Holderness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,452

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  —

  333,246 (75)

  1,078,594

  314,092(100)

  429,278

  32,425

  —

  —

  516,766(100)

  —

  16,115(75)

  —

  —

  —

  230 231

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  (North Wolds) East Yorkshire

  2,717(75)

  —

  —

  3,352

  —

  1,215

  —

  2,217(100)

  Scunthorpe

  25,240

  55,459

  58,554

  9,337

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside county council

  18,398

  —

  18,235

  —

  75,025

  450

  139,436

  WARWICKSHIRE

  North Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49,586

  337,304

  16,755

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  3,444

  4,172

  13,800

  48,178

  778,193(100)

  327,903

  328,122

  —

  —

  —

  7,723

  8,779 (50)

  8,779

  8,779

  Rugby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,705

  —

  —

  Warwickshire County Council

  14,949

  28,985

  31,293

  8,277

  302,721 (100)

  190,384

  642,536

  23,333

  23,333

  28,989

  KENT

  Canterbury

  4,029

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  24,207

  17,252

  8,109

  8,109

  8,109

  8,109

  8,109

  Swale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,115

  —

  969

  Kent County Council

  6,756

  —

  2,126

  1,270

  3,922

  —

  11,942

  LINCOLNSHIRE

  Boston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,019

  11,063

  22,126

  East Lindsey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,783

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire County Council

  —

  —

  1,875(75)

  1,342

  —

  —

  —

  2,273 (100)

  LEICESTERSHIRE

  Leicester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,590

  10,944

  Leicestershire County Council

  21,049

  39,824

  23,443

  —

  9,572(100)

  8,605

  3,973

  37,497 (50)

  7,851

  14,387

  WILTSHIRE

  Thamesdown

  731

  731

  731

  731

  731

  731

  23,953

  Wiltshire County Council

  —

  47,880

  —

  3,420

  3,420

  3,420

  3,420

  WEST YORKSHIRE

  Bradford

  654

  654

  654

  654

  26,111 (100)

  7,603

  975,183

  654 (50)

  654

  654

  Calderdale

  320 (75)

  913(50)

  913

  422,456(100)

  4,952

  222,730

  115,201

  913(50)

  2,871 (75)

  —

  656 (75)

  25,225

  1,466

  21

  20,201 (100)

  53,210(100)

  733

  913(50)

  913

  913

  913

  Kirklees

  5,579 (75)

  2,084

  1,413

  216,048

  361,710

  268,195

  436,775

  117,738(100)

  30,984

  379,894

  Leeds

  904

  904 (50)

  904

  64,005

  115,711

  91,918

  114,817

  169,294(100)

  152,946

  904

  904

  904

  904

  Wakefield

  54,833 (100)

  495 (50)

  495

  46,899(100)

  104,793

  28,665

  185,976

  495 (50)

  227 (75)

  27,938(100)

  495 (50)

  495

  495

  495

  833 (75)

  142,015(100)

  West Yorkshire county council

  27,468 (75)

  69,605

  17,802

  839,575(100)

  595,433

  842,275

  693,881

  372,768(100)

  452,476

  169,102

  3,456 (75)

  19,635

  1,981

  2,757

  LANCASHIRE

  Blackburn

  92,282

  242,085

  311,427(100)

  412,170

  118,782

  789,469

  9,750 (75)

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  564,341

  —

  3,991

  Burnley

  28,998 (75)

  43,921 (75)

  118,593(100)

  173,273

  75,053

  142,523

  173,296(100)

  224,496

  193,866(100)

  2,981 (75)

  Chorley

  46,870

  39,862

  262,117

  140,863

  360,848

  123,531

  100,484

  Hyndburn

  25,284

  14,363

  14,505

  33,824

  224,052

  39,603

  172,440

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  3,650

  468,134

  1,509,301

  1,219,707

  822,683

  Pendle

  305 (75)

  118,407 (100)

  179,947

  165,138

  127,171

  43,022

  98,237

  75,632 (100)

  Preston

  29,071

  4,371

  —

  19,531

  2,421,900

  2,595,274

  1,124,400

  Ribble Valley

  —

  120,429

  256,986

  199,740

  23,204

  3,000

  158,196

  Rossendale

  93,163(100)

  522 (50)

  522

  214,422(100)

  289,958(100)

  674,061

  534,896

  522 (50)

  118,980(100)

  131,177

  9,443 (75)

  522 (50)

  522

  522

  522 (50)

  South Ribble

  21,636

  —

  378,169

  262,633

  316,815

  121,031

  156,256

  West Lancashire

  —

  —

  3,561

  —

  833,332

  187,700

  100,505

  Lancashire county council

  156,430(100)

  2,081 (50)

  2,081

  569,204(100)

  738,249(100)

  536,289

  486,503

  2,081 (50)

  662,898(100)

  430,921

  2,789 (75)

  2,081 (50)

  93 (75)

  2,081

  1,976(75)

  2,081 (50)

  2,081

  WEST SUSSEX

  Arun

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,488

  —

  1,870

  Chichester

  487

  487

  487

  487

  487

  487

  487

  Mid Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  Worthing

  744

  1,488

  744

  744

  744

  744

  744

  West Sussex County Council

  2,972

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GREATER MANCHESTER

  Bolton

  46,960

  74,589

  149,646

  139,343 (100)

  162,497

  228,771

  291,408

  3,563 (75)

  232 233

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Bury

  120,321

  64,406 (75)

  2,545

  —

  179,109

  116,416

  705,350

  4,000 (100)

  118,060

  Manchester

  515,875

  88,313 (75)

  441,090

  273,439

  2,090,783

  762,459

  931,046

  354,129(100)

  Oldham

  4,425 (75)

  2,749

  5,402

  215,012(100)

  547,849

  792,926

  314,882

  56,134(100)

  268,246

  234,988

  1,102(75)

  11,591

  Rochdale

  118,926

  110,817

  323,418

  169,733

  17,682

  250,680

  369,577

  Salford

  12,452(75)

  26,589

  10,333

  450,708

  2,707,956

  1,886,726

  877,166

  11,289(100)

  87,756

  345,366

  Stockport

  7,984

  3,350 (75)

  171,892

  56,797

  257,080

  149,734

  158,542

  118,991 (100)

  Tameside

  126,003

  4,002 (75)

  17,709

  466,926(100)

  538,175

  233,105

  512,840

  391,966(100)

  531,119

  2,377 (75)

  Trafford

  15,498

  4,567

  52,147

  13,188

  4,482

  227,450

  1,031,333

  Wigan

  325,461

  —

  14,788(75)

  437,679 (100)

  599,551

  1,024,056

  481,083

  1,276,455(100)

  48,530 (75)

  Greater Manchester County Council

  31,868(75)

  15,861

  27,285

  2,474,679(100)

  1,992,143

  2,135,935

  1,682,112

  669,664(100)

  1,029,972

  1,053,322

  11,449(75)

  9,232

  40

  9

  NORFOLK

  Great Yarmouth

  —

  4,822

  6,660

  8,453

  8,533

  7,695

  15,390

  South Norfolk

  361

  2,279

  361

  361

  361

  361

  2,049

  West Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,651

  —

  —

  Norfolk county council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,867

  5,466

  MERSEYSIDE

  Knowsley

  14,311

  191,013

  767,389

  889,993

  Liverpool

  531,250

  191,077

  615,992

  30,094

  650,229

  137,726

  —

  St. Helen's

  333 (85)

  5,719(85)

  374,678(100)

  866,642

  373,942

  1,391,389

  109,110(100)

  101,325

  377,585(100)

  3,599 (85)

  Sefton

  57,277

  19,623

  140,553

  68,998

  149,194

  501,991

  349,142

  Wirral

  —

  1,375

  —

  —

  34,260

  117,277

  436,411

  Merseyside county council

  660,685

  406,651

  690,220

  705,654

  2,021,795

  3,318,020

  2,164,399

  GLOUCESTERSHIRE

  Cheltenham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,441

  —

  —

  Forest of Dean

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,255

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,382

  —

  HAMPSHIRE

  Eastleigh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,081

  8,080

  4,040

  New Forest

  —

  —

  —

  1,005

  2,375

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,227

  —

  Hampshire county council

  304

  304

  8,085

  544

  1,969

  1,969

  1,959

  SURREY

  Elmbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,007

  —

  —

  Guildford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  920

  —

  1,424

  Reigate and Banstead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71

  Waverley

  2,939

  —

  —

  1,303

  —

  —

  6,099

  Surrey county council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,948

  SUFFOLK

  Ipswich

  260

  260

  260

  260

  260

  260

  260

  Mid Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,495

  St. Edmundsbury

  1,266

  1,266

  1,266

  1,266

  1,266

  1,266

  1,266

  Suffolk Coastal

  —

  4,896

  2,448

  —

  —

  7,342

  —

  Suffolk county council

  2,719

  716

  431

  433

  433

  433

  433

  NORTHUMBERLAND

  Alnwick

  —

  —

  —

  4,188

  4,143

  —

  —

  Blyth Valley

  —

  31,950

  —

  2,113

  —

  —

  —

  Castle Morpeth

  —

  —

  —

  32,808

  —

  —

  —

  Wansbeck

  1,509

  —

  —

  —

  12,582

  —

  2,596

  Northumberland county council

  314,267(85)

  147,870

  46,706

  940,579(100)

  914,800

  545,360

  1,166,870(100)

  1,008,586

  489,190

  188,708(85)

  60,263

  64,032

  321,907

  NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

  Corby

  —

  —

  1,260,937

  1,508,424

  4,312,397

  2,209,342

  2,125,948

  Kettering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,158

  7,377

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,170

  —

  —

  Wellingborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,992

  514

  GREATER LONDON

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,120

  —

  Barnet

  2,567

  2,694

  —

  11,121

  2,836

  4,458

  6,839

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,094

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,681

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  19,703

  5,578

  7,619

  18,922

  17,400

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  3,633

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  4,163

  10,028

  4,370

  46,903

  Enfield

  —

  13,524

  4,508

  —

  7,478

  10,694

  13,340

  Greenwich

  —

  5,989

  21,910

  29,769

  261,261 (100)

  17,602(50)

  (96,095) (100)

  37,196(50)

  (17,602) (50)

  234 235

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Haringey

  1,115

  1,115

  1,115

  1,115

  7,531

  1,115

  6,427

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,024

  Hillingdon

  19,870

  19,675

  —

  45,894

  —

  25,220

  71,921

  Hounslow

  13,454

  8,340

  13,375

  11,767

  37,934

  15,211

  15,211

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,318

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,384

  6,384

  6,384

  Lewisham

  2,472

  5,941

  2,431

  7,108

  376,280(100)

  8,996

  9,536

  7,720 (50)

  25,375

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  9,365

  687,376

  120,573

  164,566

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,233

  1,233(50)

  1,233

  1,233

  1,233

  4,746

  1,233

  Southwark

  51,419

  783,890 (100)

  —

  560,456(100)

  129,927

  35,688

  61,057

  —

  57,419 (50)

  8,313

  46,961 (50)

  119,590

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  4,720

  2,205,873(100)

  1,059,507(100)

  26,118

  —

  —

  79,386

  —

  41,244(50)

  60,549 (50)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,690

  2,845

  2,845

  Greater London County Council

  8,563

  8,563

  8,563

  8,563

  296,333

  320,306

  1,143,830

  TYNE AND WEAR

  Gateshead

  16,201 (85)

  4,760

  299,383

  155,656(100)

  275,096

  425,206

  1,042,393

  86,110(100)

  148,907

  —

  3,044 (85)

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  81,955

  14,161 (85)

  39,038 (85)

  239,272

  221,998

  202,829

  734,821

  —

  9,953(100)

  217,881 (100)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  89,122

  1,584(85)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99,763(100)

  45,933

  282,186

  441,612

  399,219

  322,106

  South Tyneside

  20,712(85)

  2,078

  21,647

  370,889

  715,412

  355,915

  245,871

  194,558(100)

  48,663

  118,613

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  82,163(85)

  19,183

  —

  582,883 (100)

  675,943

  1,279,255

  587,406

  254,402 (100)

  273,272

  502,972

  405 (85)

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear County Council

  27,672 (85)

  141,582

  37,652

  1,049,424(100)

  1,251,570

  3,137,747

  230,718

  214,310(100)

  2,001,158

  660,528

  52,850 (85)

  95

  —

  —

  WEST MIDLANDS

  Birmingham

  13,650(50)

  32,149

  11,418

  106,735(100)

  410,869(100)

  87,388(100)

  23,360

  499,397(100)

  50,850

  102,106

  80,578 (50)

  23,360 (50)

  23,993 (50)

  Coventry

  —

  3,674

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley

  60,933 (50)

  18,122

  14,656

  483,098(100)

  838,797

  1,031,274

  2,252,229

  250,423(100)

  92,146

  187,020

  3,529 (50)

  16,639

  17,387

  44,098

  Sandwell

  23,333 (50)

  72,890

  32,283

  129,314(100)

  381,486

  596,247

  1,050,670

  24,258 (100)

  82,239

  318,890

  32,283 (50)

  32,283

  32,283

  32,283

  Walsall

  22,944 (50)

  42,126

  18,366

  237,604 (100)

  372,540

  912,570

  1,718,835

  23,005(100)

  57,094

  131,857

  3,640 (50)

  20,325

  52,021

  26,265

  Wolverhampton

  19,231

  58,838 (50)

  33,183

  221,605(100)

  81,877(100)

  293,353

  328,504

  99,615(100)

  26,702

  12,493(50)

  12,493 (50)

  12,493

  12,493

  West Midlands county council

  15,853(50)

  43,906

  13,678

  1,185,493(100)

  2,352,640

  2,394,745

  1,500,009

  710,393(100)

  764,370

  988,786

  4,777 (50)

  16,080

  28,954

  22,362

  SHROPSHIRE

  Oswestry

  190,495

  31,982

  4,874 (73)

  19,618

  —

  —

  6,500

  29,358 (100)

  The Wrekin

  4,184

  11,646

  10,658

  9,715

  27,293

  21,317

  24,814(100)

  19,361 (50)

  Shropshire county council

  308,024

  48,758

  132,995

  52,457

  35,418(100)

  41,339

  393,011 (100)

  43,815(75)

  4,914

  19,799(75)

  10,548(50)

  4,012 (AONB)

  133,270(50)

  OXFORDSHIRE

  Oxford

  —

  9,777

  10,239

  10,239

  10,963

  10,963

  10,963

  South Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,168

  —

  Oxfordshire county council

  29,533

  —

  66,286

  49,096

  —

  —

  —

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE

  Ashfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  146,284

  —

  —

  Bassetlaw

  34,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,768

  Gedling

  11,273

  15,008

  —

  43,163

  393,615

  116,590

  43,527

  Mansfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  191,919

  —

  87,631

  Newark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,860

  82,440

  124,710

  Nottingham

  134,671

  442,719

  203,366

  247,798

  115,452

  37,409

  58,227

  Nottinghamshire county council

  493 (50)

  493 (50)

  493 (50)

  493 (50)

  1,733,381

  1,728,536(100)

  5,002 (75)

  746,619(100)

  1,313,183(100)

  423,813

  3,419(75)

  733,443(100)

  468,974(100)

  493 (50)

  493 (50)

  493 (50)

  NORTH YORKSHIRE

  Craven

  20,692

  —

  2,453

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Harogate

  4,583

  —

  868

  180

  3,196

  —

  —

  Richmondshire

  —

  —

  —

  14,835

  —

  3,594

  471

  Ryedale

  1,636

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scarborough

  —

  —

  —

  80,122

  68,780

  —

  371,437(100)

  6,508 (50)

  Selby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,272

  —

  —

  York

  180

  —

  —

  119,484

  48,202

  250

  —

  North Yorkshire county council

  —

  11,644

  1,197

  —

  —

  —

  550

  236 237

  Local Authority

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  Grant paid

  SOUTH YORKSHIRE

  Barnsley

  42,017

  18,639

  54,882

  1,521

  81,191

  306,575

  202,948

  Doncaster

  52,016(100)

  1,010(50)

  1,010(50)

  1,010

  104,218(100)

  44,708

  12,087

  5,785 (75)

  117,206(100)

  118,100(100)

  1,010(50)

  1,010

  1,010

  1,010(50)

  Rotherham

  1,768 (75)

  768,720(100)

  143,212

  22,427

  96,987

  17,873

  78,461

  72,549 (100)

  Sheffield

  47,955

  20,457 (75)

  38,619

  21,674

  4,017(100)

  5,030

  141,122

  42,549(100)

  586 (75)

  South Yorkshire county council

  549 (50)

  549 (50)

  549 (50)

  771,357(100)

  532,123(100)

  389,949

  377,642

  6,369 (75)

  134,480(75)

  2,744 (75)

  9,935 (75)

  12,682(75)

  549 (50)

  549 (50)

  706,835(100)

  1,025,229(100)

  480,099(100)

  549 (50)

  SOMERSET

  Sedgemoor

  16,930

  3,071

  3,071

  3,071

  3,271

  3,071

  3,071

  West Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,580

  —

  Yeovil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,192

  1,196

  1,196

  Somerset county council

  2,050

  1,564

  1,993

  1,993

  1,993

  1,993

  1,993

  STAFFORDSHIRE

  Cannock Chase

  5,257 (50)

  4,586 (50)

  12,532(50)

  65,191 (100)

  386,982(100)

  1,696,026

  799,966(100)

  6,957(100)

  102,456(100)

  75,525(100)

  4,749 (50)

  2,500 (50)

  4,284

  9,190(50)

  East Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,750

  —

  —

  Lichfield

  —

  —

  100,292

  —

  199,361

  156,879

  186,591

  Newcastle under Lyme

  1,341 (75)

  5,343 (50)

  851 (50)

  245,277(100)

  161,287(100)

  82,103

  273,784(100)

  815(50)

  715(75)

  13,819(75)

  851 (50)

  851

  851 (50)

  304,649(100)

  110,493(100)

  39,272 (100)

  South Staffordshire

  —

  1,052(50)

  274,772 (100)

  355,318(100)

  591,734

  170,281 (100)

  158,568(100)

  742,771

  3,120(50)

  526 (50)

  526

  526 (50)

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  —

  6,106

  21,388

  —

  47,563

  317,126

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  18,128(75)

  33,020

  17,174(75)

  1,738,823

  2,727,262

  4,122,980

  1,882,420

  751,581 (100)

  535,272(100)

  537,219(100)

  1,440(75)

  1,327(75)

  15

  Tamworth

  2,532

  4,802

  1,226

  11,458

  40,427

  6,955

  15,205

  Staffordshire county council

  5,711 (50)

  52,837 (50)

  20,063 (50)

  255,898(100)

  134,259(100)

  879,316

  236,542

  922 (50)

  255 (75)

  157(75)

  70,651 (50)

  2,385 (75)

  31,125

  482,863 (50)

  281,583(100)

  186,505(100)

  13,905(50)

  70,356

  Note: Figures in brackets represent the percentage where there is more than one grant rate paid.

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total average waiting time for National Health Service in-patient treatment in each surgical specialty in each hospital in Scotland for 1986.

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery

  Ent. surgery

  Opthalmology

  Urology

  Neurosurgery

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  Plastic surgery

  Oral surgery and medicine

  Paediatric surgery

  Gynaecology

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Crosshouse

  59

  83

  193

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112

  —

  86

  Ayr County

  53

  145

  287

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (216)

  Heathfield

  —

  —

  —

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafield Sick Children's

  154

  39

  194

  —

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballochmyle

  24

  123

  293

  —

  59

  —

  —

  —

  42

  —

  54

  Borders

  Peel

  35

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Clyde

  Dunoon and District General

  53

  (266)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Victoria Rothesay

  90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102

  West Highland

  18

  (98)

  164

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  —

  —

  Vale of Leven District General

  55

  53

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  Victoria Infirmary, Helensburgh

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  Inverclyde Royal

  133

  227

  103

  167

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  53

  Hawkhead

  —

  (1)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  Royal Alexandra Infirmary

  113

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Alexandra Annexe

  —

  123

  156

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Victoria Eye Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thorn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85

  238
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information for 1986 is not yet available. The table gives the mean waiting time (in days) for patients admitted from the waiting list and discharged from surgical specialties during 1985. The figures do not include emergency admissions; those in brackets are based on less than five cases.
  239

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery

  Ent. surgery

  Opthalmology

  Urology

  Neurosurgery

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  Plastic surgery

  Oral surgery and medicine

  Paediatric surgery

  Gynaecology

  Fife

  Victoria Kirkcaldy

  184

  130

  192

  67

  124

  —

  —

  —

  38

  115

  33

  Adamson

  276

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  St. Andrews

  155

  494

  —

  —

  137

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial

  129

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunfermline and West Fife

  88

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  41

  Maternity Hospital, Dunfermline

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Greater Glasgow

  Canniesburn

  —

  —

  —

  140

  —

  —

  —

  201

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow R I

  64

  75

  82

  —

  63

  —

  51

  10

  63

  —

  31

  Stobhill

  63

  75

  56

  60

  27

  —

  —

  —

  54

  —

  38

  Mearnskirk General

  9

  5

  149

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  —

  —

  Philipshill

  —

  158

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital for women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Victoria Infirmary

  58

  —

  161

  —

  94

  —

  —

  —

  222

  —

  41

  David Elder Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  Elder Cottage

  —

  (24)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern General

  82

  103

  —

  135

  103

  28

  —

  —

  148

  —

  32

  Gartnavel District General

  42

  82

  100

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  R H S C, Drumchapel

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  —

  R H S C, Yorkhill

  —

  60

  187

  43

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  117

  —

  Western Infirmary

  39

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  29

  Highland

  Dunbar Hospital, Thurso

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71

  Bignold

  86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lawson Memorial

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  R N I, Inverness

  32

  19

  65

  91

  —

  —

  —

  235

  —

  —

  —

  Raigmore

  45

  161

  90

  113

  —

  —

  —

  359

  74

  —

  35

  Belford

  17

  —

  221

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mackinnon Memorial

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial

  44

  103

  144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  Monklands District General

  22

  22

  26

  —

  21

  —

  —

  26

  14

  —

  20

  Cleland

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law

  62

  134

  120

  —

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  126

  27

  Hairmyres

  54

  77

  —

  —

  36

  —

  22

  —

  29

  —

  49

  Stonehouse

  61

  69

  68

  59

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  64

  148

  196

  —

  74

  42

  27

  —

  86

  —

  99

  Woodend

  74

  112

  —

  209

  —

  —

  —

  157

  —

  —

  85

  Royal Aberdeen Children's

  —

  57

  62

  161

  —

  —

  —

  166

  40

  65

  —

  Aberdeen Maternity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Huntly Jubilee

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  Chalmers

  45

  125

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87

  Dr. Grey's

  20

  —

  —

  201

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  —

  —

  Turner

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leanchoil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  210

  Orkney

  Balfour

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  Beechmount

  4

  (7)

  —

  4

  3

  4

  —

  —

  (1)

  —

  7

  Eastern General

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  East Fortune

  (5)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leith

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  —

  Roodlands General

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Western General

  69

  162

  —

  —

  70

  36

  —

  —

  —

  40

  54

  Astley Ainslie

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (12)

  —

  Bruntsfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  45

  Chalmers

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City Edinburgh

  (19)

  —

  96

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deaconess

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Longmore

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  P M R Orthopaedic

  —

  128

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  R H S C, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  133

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110

  —

  129

  —

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  51

  13

  —

  101

  57

  (24)

  17

  (26)

  74

  —

  49

  Bangour General

  37

  47

  90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  149

  —

  —

  26

  Tayside

  Ninewells

  96

  —

  152

  97

  194

  —

  —

  —

  21

  118

  52

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  —

  190

  —

  —

  101

  48

  —

  74

  53

  —

  —

  Bridge of Earn

  23

  98

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  36

  —

  —

  (12)

  —

  —

  —

  66

  67

  —

  36

  Blairgowrie and Rattray Cottage

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meigle Cottage

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86

  Forfar Infirmary

  78

  156

  (30)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  Strachthro

  24

  228

  —

  —

  —

  (13)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  240 241

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery

  Ent. surgery

  Opthalmology

  Urology

  Neurosurgery

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  Plastic surgery

  Oral surgery and medicine

  Paediatric surgery

  Gynaecology

  Forth Valley

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  107

  121

  32

  49

  61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  55

  115

  58

  58

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62

  29

  Clackmannan County

  64

  260

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  Western Isles

  Lewis

  28

  —

  186

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  26

  52

  Daliburgh

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Cresswell Maternity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  126

  Dumfries and Galloway R I

  93

  82

  114

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172

  89

  117

  Garrick

  78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  Gilbert Bain

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland Summary

  66

  123

  118

  47

  67

  37

  33

  139

  78

  96

  47

  Prison Population
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average age of the prison population for each Scottish penal establishment for each year since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average prison population for each Scottish prison for each year since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The 1986 figures are set out in the table. Figures for the earlier years have been published in Appendix 1 of the annual reports "Prisons in Scotland", of which copies are available in the Library.

  Average daily number of prisoners or inmates

  Establishment

  1986

  Prisons

  Aberdeen

  180

  Barlinnie (inc. Special unit)

  1,270

  Cornton Vale

  166

  Dumfries

  144

  Dungavel

  135

  Edinburgh

  776

  Friarton1

  41

  Greenock

  147

  Inverness

  109

  Low Moss

  345

  Penninghame

  69

  Perth

  578

  Peterhead

  182

  Shotts

  60

  Young Offenders Institutions

  Castle Huntly

  103

  Cornton Vale

  22

  Glenochil

  365

  Noranside

  74

  Gross Expenditure (£'000)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Penal establishment

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Aberdeen

  178

  1,432

  397

  1,419

  227

  1,497

  164

  1,586

  155

  1,704

  Barlinnie

  200

  6,085

  447

  6,750

  645

  7,195

  908

  7,758

  1,327

  8,121

  Castle Huntly

  60

  916

  145

  927

  38

  1,003

  42

  1,106

  43

  1,170

  Cornton Vale

  9

  2,370

  20

  2,493

  330

  2,643

  146

  2,833

  269

  2,839

  242

  Establishment

  1986

  Polmont

  378

  Detention Centres

  Friarton1

  15

  Glenochil

  146

  Remand Institution

  Longriggend

  280

  1 Friarton changed use from detention centre to prison during 1986; the figures shown are average figures for each use calculated over the year.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of women committed to Scottish prison systems for each year since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following is the information:

  Female receptions to penal establishments 1982–86: Scotland

  Type of reception

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Remand

  807

  886

  907

  897

  993

  Under sentence

  773

  907

  791

  1,204

  1,200

  Civil prisoner

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  1,581

  1,793

  1,698

  2,102

  2,194

  Prisons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure for each Scottish prison for each year since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:
  243

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Penal establishment

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Dumfries

  184

  1,301

  78

  1,435

  345

  1,578

  81

  1,683

  44

  1,751

  Dungavel

  51

  1,099

  73

  1,189

  68

  1,280

  58

  1,233

  20

  1,284

  Edinburgh

  1,143

  4,273

  771

  4,666

  550

  5,302

  496

  6,882

  402

  7,119

  Friarton

  43

  659

  16

  643

  40

  769

  130

  846

  91

  890

  Glenochil

  75

  4,874

  194

  4,904

  417

  5,231

  259

  6,101

  140

  6,562

  Greenock

  885

  197

  587

  195

  1,202

  244

  1,835

  768

  379

  2,280

  Inverness

  41

  1,032

  170

  1,094

  168

  1,142

  60

  1,254

  23

  1,387

  Longriggend

  50

  1,652

  163

  1,848

  366

  1,927

  145

  2,284

  142

  2,333

  Low Moss

  122

  2,118

  46

  2,575

  84

  2,432

  102

  2,363

  83

  2,317

  Noranside

  62

  840

  53

  950

  185

  988

  201

  1,094

  124

  1,072

  Penninghame

  84

  574

  89

  593

  92

  599

  24

  692

  31

  689

  Perth

  422

  3,638

  642

  3,945

  1,538

  4,256

  500

  4,832

  220

  5,287

  Peterhead

  340

  3,337

  521

  3,683

  308

  4,215

  269

  4,566

  138

  5,061

  Polmont

  659

  3,005

  551

  3,240

  1,228

  3,627

  708

  3,852

  176

  4,097

  Shotts

  83

  1,045

  24

  1,275

  55

  1,441

  34

  1,557

  1,430

  1,800

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of mentally-handicapped or mentally-ill persons at present in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1986 medical attention was required for 3,434 inmates suffering from various forms of neurosis or mental disorder. Only 63 inmates, however, were diagnosed as suffering from psychosis and five inmates found to be mentally handicapped.

  Traffic Flows
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has made of the effects of slow moving local traffic flows daily crossing dual carriageway roads which carry fast moving inter-city traffic; what effects this situation is estimated to have on accident rates; and what is his policy with regard to avoiding such situations in new dual carriageway construction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Studies have been undertaken over many years by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and the Department of Transport on the aspects of design which influence the capacity and safety of junctions. The benefit of this research is contained in a technical memorandum (SH/82) used by roads authorities.

  All trunk road manoeuvres create some hazard. Excessive speed of traffic on the trunk road and inexperienced drivers, who have difficulty in negotiating junctions, are the main causes of accidents. Accident rates on new stretches of road tend to drop once drivers have become used to the junctions.

  In the design of new dual carriageways the policy adopted is to minimise the frequency of junctions and, where possible, to concentrate traffic crossing, joining and leaving the dual carriageway at the minimum number of locations.

  Pupils and pupil-teacher ratios in education authority schools

  Island authorities/Scotland

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  Primary schools

  Number of pupils

  Orkney

  2,000

  1,923

  1,886

  1,910

  1,910

  1,866

  1,825

  1,826

  Stracathro Hospital
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the latest year for which figures are available the number of reported accidents and fatalities on the road at Stracathro hospital: and what safety measures have so far been taken.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between January and December 1986 1 fatal and 1 serious accident occurred on the relevant stretch of the A94. Between January and May of this year there has been 1 fatal accident.

  Safety measures already taken include additional advance direction signs at half mile distance on both carriageways, together with the blue "H" hospital sign; on the hatching within the junction two arrows have been painted on the carriageway indicating the path to follow; and further warning signs have been provided indicating "dual carriageway ahead" on the exit from the hospital.

  Prisoners (Educational Qualifications)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list educational qualifications gained by prisoners who began their studies in prison, in each Scottish prison for each year since 1982, including SCE awards, GCE awards and Open University awards, and so on.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing (a) the total number of pupils on school rolls and (b) the pupil-teacher ratio for primary and secondary schools in each islands council area in Scotland for each academic year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for local authority schools is set out in the tables:
  245

  Island authorities: Scotland

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  11986–87

  Shetland

  2,711

  2,705

  2,681

  2,564

  2,478

  2,388

  2,386

  2,387

  Western Isles

  3,681

  3,529

  3,435

  3,346

  3,198

  3,119

  3,155

  3,000

  Scotland

  545,161

  518,492

  492,645

  467,971

  448,009

  437,538

  435,454

  433,459

  Pupil/ Teacher ratios

  Orkney

  17·3

  17·2

  16·9

  17·2

  16·7

  16·0

  15·9

  15·8

  Shetland

  16·8

  15·7

  15·0

  14·3

  14·4

  14·0

  14·4

  13·7

  Western Isles

  17·1

  16·5

  16·7

  16·4

  16·2

  16·7

  17·3

  16·8

  Scotland

  20·3

  20·3

  20·3

  20·4

  20·3

  20·4

  20·4

  20·4

  Secondary schools

  Number of pupils

  Orkney

  1,496

  1,541

  1,521

  1,496

  1,464

  1,443

  1,414

  1,376

  Shetland

  1,618

  1,631

  1,702

  1,715

  1,797

  1,760

  1,740

  1,709

  Western Isles

  2,549

  2,727

  2,777

  2,752

  2,793

  2,732

  2,639

  2,583

  Scotland

  410,242

  407,844

  404,575

  399,075

  390,368

  376,071

  360,645

  344,369

  Pupil/Teacher ratios

  Orkney

  13·0

  13·2

  12·9

  12·5

  12·0

  12·0

  11·7

  11·7

  Shetland

  13·2

  12·5

  12·5

  11·5

  11·5

  11·0

  10·5

  10·0

  Western Isles

  12·1

  12·4

  12·2

  11·6

  11·3

  11·0

  10·7

  10·4

  Scotland

  14·4

  14·4

  14·4

  14·3

  14·0

  13·7

  13·5

  13·2

  1Provisional.

  Health Care
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the revised document setting out priorities for health care in Scotland will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report of the working group set up to review health authorities' priorities for the eighties and nineties (the SHARPEN report) was received by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council at its meeting on 10 June. I understand that the council considered it desirable to seek comments from interested bodies on the report's recommendations before itself forming conclusions. I expect to receive the council's proposals shortly.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the final conclusions of the study by the Information Services Division of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service into the incidence of leukaemia in Scotland will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The full results of the study have been published in the May edition of the health bulletin issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the Scottish Home and Health Department (Vol. 45 No 3). I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. The results have been referred to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for guidance on the need for further investigation.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how much defence land has been sold, or returned to former owners since 1979; how much land has been
  246
  acquired; how defence land holdings compare today with holdings 10 and 20 years ago; and what proposals there are for extra acquisition of land for the Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Records are not held in a form which would allow sales and acquisitions to be readily identified in the form requested without disproportionate cost. However, on 1 April 1979 defence estate holdings stood at 621,118 acres. By 1 April 1987 this had fallen to 591,376 acres. Comparative figures for 1 April 1967 were 654,274 acres and for 1 April 1977 625,583 acres. The Department's main acquisition proposals concern the purchase of land for training purposes. There are also a number of other proposals designed to meet specific requirements.

  Warrant Officer Ross
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis Warrant Officer Ross, serving in the British Army, was involved in the training of private persons in shooting at a privately-organised training exercise held at an Army shooting range in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Former Warrant Officer Ross retired from the Royal Marines in 1984. It appears that while on 28 days terminal leave, and acting in a private capacity, he helped arrange for a security firm to hire the Bisley range, which is managed by the National Rifle Association. The last 28 days of service may be taken up in civilian employment under MOD regulations.

  Nuclear Defence Policy
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will conduct a review of the Government's nuclear defence policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  No. Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the policies of successive Governments in maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent and
  247
  supporting NATO strategy. The Government believe that possession by the United Kingdom of an independent nuclear deterrent will remain fundamental to the maintenance of this country's security for the foreseeable future.

  Browning Ammunition
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for defence what is his policy with respect to the supply of 0·5" Browning ammunition from (a) United Kingdom suppliers and (b) foreign suppliers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Our policy is to secure the best long-term value for money on a national basis in procuring the equipment that the armed forces need. We buy British whenever it is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations to do so and acquire from overseas only when the advantages of cost, performance and timescale outweigh the longer term benefits of procuring the British alternative. We have recently invited bids from five companies, two of them British for the supply of this ammunition in the quantities required.

  Nuclear Submarines (Waste)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what exploratory work is now in progress, and where, to find sites for the dumping of waste from nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No exploratory work is in progress to identify sites for the disposal of reactor compartments for decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  Mr. Richard Branson (Rescue Costs)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost to public funds of the armed forces' rescue of balloonist Richard Branson and his pilot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of the recent support and rescue operation for Mr. R. Branson and his balloon pilot; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The armed forces stand ready to provide assistance when required if there is immediate danger to life. The Virgin Flyer rescue was such an example. The estimated cost is £34,000, which covers the rescue of Mr. Richard Branson and his pilot and the recovery of the Virgin Flyer from the sea.

  Items allocated since 1 January 1987

  Item

  Conditions or wishes expressed

  Recipient institution

  Portrait of a Man by Roger van der Weyden

  Conditional

  Trustees of Home House Society on behalf of the Courtauld Institute

  Mother and Child by Sir Jacob Epstein

  Conditional

  Birmingham City Art Gallery and Museum

  Archive from the Dukes of Portland and Newcastle

  Unconditional—Wish expressed that the Archive be allocated to the five institutions holding the respective parts at the time of the offer

  Nottingham University Library; Nottinghamshire Record Office; Bodleian Library; British Library. Hampshire Record Office

  Trident
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about progress with development of the Clyde submarine base required in support of Trident.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State in matters of design and construction, is today letting a major contract for construction of a shiplift, berthing and other support facilities at Faslane. This is a very significant step in the development of facilities to support Trident, and it marks the beginning of the main construction phase at Faslane, where site preparation and advance works have been under way for some 18 months.

  By the late autumn we expect to have let three more large construction contracts for Trident facilities at the armament depot at Coulport, the PSA will have invited tenders for the floating explosives handling jetty. When that contract, too, is awarded the great bulk of the development of the Clyde submarine base will be under way.

  The contract announced today is worth some £120 million, but with further work for sub-contractors still to be settled the value of the overall package will rise to around £150 million. Construction of the shiplift brings with it some 600 jobs to the west of Scotland as well as important orders for suppliers of equipment and materials in other parts of Britain.

THE ARTS

  Objects in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will specify the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects preeminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; whether he will list the works of art or museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective date of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax or capital transfer tax; and whether the customary press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the information given in his reply.

  Mr. Luce
  The information is as follows:
  249

  Item

  Conditions or wishes expressed

  Recipient institution

  Girl on a Sofa by Philip Wilson Steer

  Conditional

  Ipswich Museum and Art Gallery

  Apotheosis of Delacrox by Paul Cezanne

  Conditional

  British Museum

  Portrait of Jean Genet by Alberto Giacometti

  Conditional

  Tate Gallery

  Madonna and Child by Giovanni Bellini

  Conditional

  Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

  Sidereal clock by Matthew Boulton

  Unconditional—Wish expressed that it be allocated to Birmingham City Art Gallery and Museum

  Birmingham City Art Gallery and Museum

  Items awaiting allocation

  Item

  Conditions or wishes expressed

  Date of acceptance

  Deux Pierreuses by Henri Toulouse-Lautrec

  Unconditional

  7 April 1987

  Portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence

  Conditional on its remaining in situ at Sledmere House

  9 April 1986

  Portrait by Sir William Beechey

  Conditional on its remaining in situ at Norton Conyers

  25 July 1986

  Three Flemish still-life paintings

  Unconditional—Wish expressed that they are allocated to the National Gallery

  21 August 1986

  Clark Archive

  Unconditional—Wish expressed that it is allocated to the Tate Gallery

  7 May 1987

  A press notice covering this information is issued today.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half-year ended 30 June, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was eventually exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; whether he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case (a) the valuation and

  Description of Item

  Valuation

  Outcome

  £

  A painting, "La Rue Mosnier aux Paveurs", by Edouard Manet

  7,805,000

  Decision deferred for six months until 2 September 1987. Licence granted following a review of the situation after six weeks.

  A painting, "Alexander III, King of Scotland rescued from the fury of the stag, by the intrepidity of Colin Fitzgerald", by Benjamin West

  575,627

  Decision deferred for three months until 2 June 1987. Purchased by the National Galleries of Scotland.

  A painting, "Virginia Woolf", by Vanessa Bell

  30,000

  Decision deferred for 2 months until 2 May 1987. Purchased by the National Portrait Gallery.

  A painting "Sunflowers" by Vincent van Gogh

  25,087,500

  Decision deferred for six months until 23 November 1987. Licence granted following a review of the situation after six weeks.

  A group of four marble statues known as "The Judgement of Paris":

  1,350,000

  Decision deferred for six months until 4 December 1987. Licence granted following a review of the situation after one month.

  (a)Venus removing her sandal

  all by Joseph Nollekens

  (b)Minerva

  (c)Juno

  (d)A 16th century Italian marble statue of Paris

  250
  (b) the relevant time limit; and whether a press notice will be issued from the Office of Arts and Libraries covering the comprehensive information given in his reply, in accordance with established practice.

  Mr. Luce
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted my recommendation following consideration by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art to defer making for a specified period a decision on an export licence application in respect of the items listed. Details of the items listed were given in press notices issued at the time the Secretary of State decided to accept the recommendation; however a further press notice will be issued.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest Rates
  Dr. Bray
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the current level of real short-term interest rates in the United Kingdom by comparison with those in the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Lawson
  Real short-term interest rates in the United Kingdom are currently about ½ per cent. higher than the average of the seven major industrial countries.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).

  Privatisation
  Mr. Stott
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of receipts from privatisation for the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  £5 billion.

  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies, with how many employees, have been transferred from the public sector to the private sector since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the sums which will be received as a result of the sale of public assets during the present and in each of the next five financial years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As shown in the 1987 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56-I), the estimate of receipts from the privatisation programme in each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 is £5 billion. No estimate has been made of proceeds in later financial years.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Wilkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the growth of economic output in the United Kingdom since 1983 compares with that of other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Major
  Since 1983 output in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any other major European economy.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the growth of economic output in the United Kingdom since 1983 compares with that of other major industrialised countries in the same period.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the growth of economic output in the United Kingdom since 1983 compares with that of other major industrialised countries in the same period.
  252
  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).

  Mr. John Hunt
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of the output in the economy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of output in the economy.

  Mr. Major
  Measured at 1980 prices, the average estimate of gross domestic product at factor cost is provisionally estimated to have risen by 3½ per cent. in the year to the first quarter of 1987.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current projected deficit in manufactured goods compared with the estimates at the time of the last Budget.

  Mr. Major
  The performance so far in 1987 has been better than implied at Budget time; in the four months to April the trade deficit in manufactures fell by £1·1 billion compared to the last four months of 1986. A new forecast will be published in the usual way at the time of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent statistics for the growth of manufacturing industry productivity in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Summerson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. friends to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. (Mr. Thompson)

  Non-North Sea Companies
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the net real rate of return for non-North sea companies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  8 per cent.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of general Government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of general Government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Major
  General government expenditure represented just under 43 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1986–87.

  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of central Government expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product.
  253
  Mr. Major
  The normal measure for assessing trends in public spending is general government expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The latest estimate for that in 1986–87 is 43 per cent. The figure for central Government expenditure is 32 per cent.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much self-employment has grown in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend, the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson).

  Oil Prices
  Mr. Salmond
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's current assessment of the impact of lower oil prices on the United Kingdom's economy.

  Mr. Major
  Individuals and companies are benefiting from lower fuel costs and the manufacturing sector is already responding to the competitiveness gains which have occurred.

  EC (Finance Ministers)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Finance Ministers of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Brooke
  The next meeting of European Community Economic and Finance Ministers is scheduled for 13 July.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer. what representations he has received regarding the reform of personal taxation.

  Mr. Lamont
  Following the publication of the Green Paper "The Reform of Personal Taxation" responses were received from around 70 organisations and about 400 individuals. Although a majority of those who expressed a preference favoured the introduction of a system of independent taxation of husband and wife with transferable allowances, the total number responding was low. In these circumstances we did not yet feel there was sufficient support to go ahead with so far-reaching a reform. We are exploring the possibility of finding a halfway house to the Green Paper approach. Ministers continue to receive correspondence on the issues discussed in the Green Paper.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce value added tax on children's clothes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for changes in the scope of value added tax.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).
  254
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce value added tax on books; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Madden
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about extensions of value added tax paid in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend received a number of representations in the run-up to the election urging him not to extend value added tax to various items currently zero-rated.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the Civil Service dispute on value added tax refunds affecting small businesses.

  Mrs. Gorman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to mitigate the effects on traders of the current value added tax dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 2 July at column 167.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new company value added tax registrations there were in 1986.

  Mr. Baldry
  askd the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new company value added tax registrations there were in 1986.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the operation of recent changes in the regulations governing the collection of value added tax by the Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Brooke
  Regulations about the implementation of the default surcharge and the repayment supplement were effective from 1 October 1986. Their operation, together with other value added tax measures arising from the Keith Committee recommendations enacted in the 1985 Finance Act, will be reviewed before the 1988 budget. More recently, the Finance Act 1987 provided authority for schemes of cash and annual accounting. A copy of the draft regulations for the Cash Accounting scheme was placed in the Library on 24 April. Draft regulations for Annual Accounting will be provided, on the same way, closer to the mid-1988 date of introduction.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will provide an estimate of the cost of unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Major
  I regret that regional figures for benefit expenditure on the unemployed are not available.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement for 1987–88.
  255
  Mr. Major
  The figure is £3·9 billion, or 1 per cent. of GDP—as published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1987–88.

  Budget Proposals
  Mr. Allen McKay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further representations he has received on his Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The proposals in my right hon. Friend's Budget have been widely welcomed.

  Inflation
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of inflation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increase in retail prices for the 12 months ending May 1987 was 4·1 per cent.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of net United Kingdom assets overseas.

  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of net United Kingdom assets overseas.

  Mr. Major
  Net United Kingdom overseas assets are estimated to have increased from about £80 billion at the end of 1985 to about £110 billion at the end of 1986. This is equivalent to 28 per cent. of GDP, the highest recorded level since the war.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received seeking regulations of the credit card industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Very few. Credit card agreements are subject to the Consumer Credit Act which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Director General of Fair Trading has asked the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate credit card services.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figure on the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figure of the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Butler
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figure on the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The joint Treasury and Stock Exchange survey carried out in January and February this year estimated that there were 8½ million shareholders, 19½ per cent. of the adult population, roughly three times the equivalent figure for 1979.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about the United Kingdom joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend discusses aspects of the European monetary system with his European colleagues from time to time.

  Greenhouses (Capital Allowances)
  Mr. Hind
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change capital allowances for owners of greenhouses in the nursery industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Industrial Production
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of industrial production.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).

  Unit Labour Costs
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of unit labour costs.

  Mr. Major
  In the fourth quarter of 1986, wages and salaries per unit of output in the whole economy were 5·2 per cent. above the corresponding period of 1985. In the manufacturing sector, in the three months to April 1987, wages and salaries per unit of output were 0·9 per cent. above the corresponding period a year earlier.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the present level of real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children compared with 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay is estimated to have risen by 21·6 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1987–88 for a married man on average male earnings with two children.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets the Governor of the Bank of England and international economic issues, including developing country debt, are amongst the topics they discuss.

  EC (Financial Contributions)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net financial contribution made by the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community in each year from 1979 to 1986.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 22 April 1987 at columns 577–78.

  Museums (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the grant aid, showing the amount in each case,

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £

  £

  £

  1. Area Museum and Art Gallery Service for Yorkshire and Humberside

  388,088

  424,800

  424,400

  2. Science Museum

  National Railway Museum

  1,157,480

  1,267,500

  1,066,780

  National Museum of Photograph, Film and Television

  909,450

  995,900

  1,167,940

  3. Museums and Galleries Commission

  Capital Grants

  10,000

  57,000

  23,000

  Conservation Grants

  22,400

  NIL

  22,200

  Post abolition transitional grant

  N/A

  N/A

  129,550

  4. Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme Awards

  25,000

  9,000

  3,734

  (1984)

  (1985)

  (1986)

  5. Urban Programme

  5,300

  15,000

  124,500

  6. Derelict Land Grant

  NIL

  NIL

  103,500

  7. Local authority expenditure from rate support grant

  252,973

  199,953

  N/A

  Tax Law (Repeal)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of repealing section 37 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1987, c. 83]: This would depend on the levels of allowances available to husbands and wives, the rules of distinguishing a wife's income from that of her husband, and any transitional provisions following the change.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Maternity Grant
  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women claimed maternity grant in the last month of availability (a) nationally and (b) in Preston; and how many women have had social fund payments for maternity in the first month of availability (i) nationally and (ii) in Preston.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on the numbers of maternity grant claims made in Great Britain in the calendar month immediately preceding 6 April 1987 is not readily available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost. Between 4 March 1987 and 31 March 1987, the Department's child benefit centre at Washington received, from local offices, 9036 maternity grant claims. The numbers of maternity grant claims received at the Department's local offices at Preston, North and Preston, South between 6 March 1987 and 5 April 1987 were 113 and 227 respectively.
  258
  given to museums and museum projects in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Luce
  I have been asked to reply.

  Central Government supported expenditure on museums and museum projects in Yorkshire and Humberside are included in the table.

  Contributions to museums and museum projects are also made from central Government funds through museums and galleries commission local museum purchase grants, the Manpower Services Commission and organisations such as English Heritage and tourist boards.

  Between 6 April 1987 and 5 May 1987, Social Fund payments for maternity expenses in Great Britain numbered 11,248 including 65 at Preston, North and 38 at Preston, South local offices.

  Drugs (Prices)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the prices negotiated for National Health Service drugs include an allowance for the risk of drug damage for which the company would have to pay compensation.

  Mr. Newton
  Costs of pharmaceutical companies accepted for the purposes of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, and thus reflected in National Health Service medicine prices, would include a due share of the cost of a company's product liability insurance premiums.

  Drugs (Clinical Trials)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what rules are laid down by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in respect of the inclusion of old people in clinical trials for drugs which will he used extensively by old people.

  Mr. Newton
  The current guidelines are given in annex IVB of "Guidance Notes on Applications for Product Licences (MAL 2)", a copy of which is in the Library. These guidelines are issued by the licensing authority after taking into consideration the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Eli Lilly
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many drugs are supplied to the National Health Service by the firm Eli Lilly; and if he will list them
  259
  Mr. Newton
  This company produces a wide range of branded medicinal products, details of which may be found under the names of Dista Products Limited and Eli Lilly & Company Limited, in the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry data sheet compendium 1986–87. A copy of the compendium is held as a reference volume in the Scientific and Defence Section of the Library. Doctors may prescribe any of the products mentioned for National Health Service patients, apart from any which appear in schedule 3A of the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment Regulations, 1985.

  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what way, and to what extent, his Department checks the warnings given by drug manufacturers about the risk of adverse reactions.

  Mr. Newton
  Any medicinal product which is promoted to doctors must be accompanied by a data sheet, which must be consistent with the product licence and must include an accurate account of the uses of the drug and its contra-indications and warnings. Data sheets submitted with licence applications are scrutinised to ensure that they reflect the data supporting the application.

  The Committee on Safety of Medicines promote and monitor the reporting of adverse drug reactions. The adverse reactions group of CSM's sub-committee on safety (ARGOS), operates a prospective monitoring scheme to look every month at recently reported adverse reactions to selected new drugs. In addition, a team of doctors in the Department with appropriate experience carries out a fortnightly surveillance of all recently-received individual patient reports. The international published literature on adverse drug reactions is scrutinised by the Department and by ARGOS. The aim in each case is to identify new or increased hazards. As fresh information about adverse reactions becomes apparent officers of the Department may discuss revisions to the data sheet with the licence holder, or the CSM may advise the licensing authority on courses of action including measures to secure compulsory variation of a data sheet.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what severity of reaction is understood by his Department to be indicated where a pharmaceutical company warns of a mild adverse reaction; and whether such a reaction is understood to include photosensitivity;

  Mr. Newton
  In the medical sense, mild carries the same connotations as in lay usage. It specifically excludes all reactions which are fatal, life-threatening, disabling, incapacitating or which result in or prolong hospitalisation. Photosensitivity can be mild, moderate or severe.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what approximate period of time is understood by his Department to be referred to where a pharmaceutical company warns of a transient adverse reaction in connection with a drug.

  Mr. Newton
  In the medical sense, transient carries the same connotations as in lay usage. However, the significance of a transient reaction can be considered only in relationship to the drug and reaction in question.

  Opren
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people are estimated to be still suffering from photosensitivity as a result of taking Opren; and how many people are estimated to be suffering from a liver condition as a result of taking the drug;

  (2) what information he has as to how many people aged over 65 years took part in the clinical trials for Opren, and as to the average length of time that such people took part in the trial;

  (3) how many people are estimated to have taken the drug Opren; and how many of these were aged over 65 years;

  (4) if he or his officials have had any discussions with Eli Lilly about the possibility of the company establishing a structured compensation scheme for the alleged victims of the drug Opren;

  (5) how many people are estimated to have died as a result of taking Opren.

  Mr. Newton
  These questions concern matters contained in current legal actions before the High Court against both the licensing authority and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. I am advised that they are therefore sub-judice.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in each calendar year since Opren received a product licence, how many adverse reaction cards relating to it have been received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and how many in each year indicated a death.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures are not readily available in the form requested. I refer the right hon. Member to the debate in the House on 27 January 1983, at columns 1098–1122 and to the Committee on Safety of Medicines' update in the British Medical Journal of 3 May 1986 volume 292 pages 1190–1191.

  Drugs (Damage)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will examine the possibility of making it a condition of a pharmaceutical company receiving a contract to supply drugs to the National Health Service that, in the event of that company paying any compensation for drug damage, British citizens would receive equal treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  Compensation questions fall to be determined between the parties or failing that by the courts in the light of the circumstances of the case. We have no plans to associate compensation arrangements with the supply of medicines to the NHS.

  Benefits
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children, on the latest available figures, are now living in households dependent on social security benefits in (a) the Leeds Central constituency and (b) the Leeds metropolitan district council area.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is not possible to provide statistically valid estimates of the number of children living in families receiving supplementary benefit in Leeds Central constituency.
  261
  The Department's quarterly administrative statistics for February 1987 indicate that in the Leeds Metropolitan District, some 32,000 dependant children lived in families where the head was receiving supplementary benefit.

  Geriatric Wards (Women)
  Ms. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given to regional or district health authorities concerning the practice of placing patients of both sexes in overnight geriatric wards in mental hospitals; and what safeguards exist against physical harassment of vulnerable women patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  The principles which should govern the provision of mixed sex wards were conveyed to area health authority chairmen, at a meeting in 1980 chaired by the then Secretary of State, to the effect that patients' dignity and privacy must be respected, any arrangements whereby men and women share bedrooms is unsatisfactory, and sanitary facilities should give complete privacy. The desirability of a male and female nurse always being present in a mixed day area, and of nurses of both sexes being on call during the night was emphasised.

  Mixed wards managed on this basis can be of positive therapeutic value to elderly people who are mentally ill. They can provide a setting for social contact, and may encourage improved social behaviour, personal hygiene and appearance.

  Carers (Holidays)
  Mr. D. E. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will consider plans to extend the opportunities of carers of elderly, handicapped or ill relatives to take holidays; and jibe will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We recognise the value to family carers of relief from the burden of continual care and the part respite care services can play in this. However, responsibility for these services rests with local social services and health authorities. These authorities are best placed to assess local needs and to decide within the resources available what provision to make.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. D. E. Thom
  as asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to increase the value of invalid care allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We are pledged to maintain the value of invalid care allowance in line with the movement in prices and, since coming to office in 1979, we have more than done so. My right hon. Friend will be making the usual annual statement in the autumn about benefit upratings.

  Nursing Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether it is his intention to privatise the provision of nursing services in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  NHS (Private Contractors)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about difficulties
  262
  experienced by hospital administrators or health authorities in enforcing the terms of contracts in respect of hospital cleaning services which have been granted to private contractors.

  Mr. Newton
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to monitor the performance of a contractor to ensure that the service delivered meets the standards specified in the contract. Day-to-day management information of the sort requested is not collected centrally.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Ms. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many complaints have been received from citizen's advice bureaux and other organisations over the last three years about difficulties and delays in obtaining departmental leaflets for distribution to the public;

  (2) if he will give more resources to his departmental leaflets unit in order to reduce the problems presently experienced by citizens advice bureaux and their clients in obtaining such leaflets.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not record the number of such complaints. Demand of departmental leaflets has recently increased sharply and regrettably there has been some delay in processing orders. I am considering a number of options to improve the situation.

  Genetic Screening
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the funding of the investigation of genetic screening for common inherited diseases at Cardiff, Manchester and London.

  Mrs. Currie
  A special medical development at these locations has been funded by the Department for three years to enable a full evalution of the service implications of the application of DNA technology to genetic services. The current period of support ends in December 1987.

  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if additional funding is to be made available to regional health authorities for the investigation of genetic screening for common inherited diseases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for health authorities locally to determine the allocation of resources for genetic services within the overall resources available to them. We have no current plans to allocate resources to regional health authorities specifically for genetic services.

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be publishing a White Paper on primary health care following completion of discussions on his Green Paper (Cmnd. 9771), on the same subject.

  Mr. Newton
  We shall announce our conclusions on the primary health care review as soon as possible.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received the report from Sir Raymond Hoffenberg and his committee about proposals to introduce a required request procedure in hospitals where organ donors arise.
  263
  Mrs. Currie
  The working group, chaired by Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, is examing various ways of increasing the availability of donor organs for transplantation. The group has not yet submitted its report to the conference of royal medical colleges and their faculties. We understand that the report will be sent to the Department when it has been considered by the conference.

  Hours of Work
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is his Department's policy towards issuing guidelines to each health authority in England and Wales governing the hours to be worked by junior doctors in general hospitals;

  (2) what guidelines his Department issued to area health authorities on the hours of work of working parties; and if he will make a statement on their future;

  (3) whether his Department has reviewed rota arrangements for junior doctors, in view of the agreement reached between his Department and the British Medical Association in 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The issue of guidance to health authorities in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Departmental guidance to authorities in England on the hours of work of junior hospital doctors and dentists is contained in circulars PM(82)37, AL(MD)3/83 and PM(85)1, copies of which I have placed in the Library. This bans regular rotas requiring a practitioner to be on duty, on average, for more than one night and one weekend in two. It also asks authorities to aim for a target maximum commitment of one in three or better, where practicable, and to set up local professional working parties to recommend means of achieving this.

  Following reviews undertaken in consultation with working parties betwen 1982 and 1985, it is estimated that the number of rotas more onerous than one in three fell or was planned to fall from 5,000 to 3,500, representing 18.4 per cent. of junior posts. In addition, the average weekly contracted hours of juniors have fallen in every year since 1979, from over 90 to 85.7, and surveys commissioned by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration show that the average weekly

  Number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 by grounds and gestation period. Residents and non-residents. Annual and first quarter, 1982–1986

  England and Wales

  Grounds

  Gestation period in completed weeks

  under 20

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24 and over

  1982

  All

  159,276

  1,262

  623

  854

  477

  462

  1 (with any other)

  662

  5

  1

  3

  1

  2

  5 (alone)

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1983

  All

  158,186

  1,322

  651

  936

  451

  505

  1 (with any other)

  523

  6

  2

  2

  1

  11

  5 (alone)

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1984

  All

  165,563

  1,550

  695

  938

  619

  532

  1 (with any other)

  586

  2

  1

  3

  —

  4

  5 (alone)

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  264
  hours actually worked have also fallen, from 58·3 in 1981 to 57 in 1985. We expect authorities to keep the need for the remaining rotas more onerous than one in three under review, and it is open to them to convene working parties for that purpose.

  The Department is currently collecting further informtion on practitioners' hours of work which it has undertaken to discuss with the profession's representatives.

  Diseases Classification (Data)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to encourage regional health authorities to use the most recent version of the international classification of diseases code to improve the quality of HAA and HIPE data with a view to resolving current problems of inferior quality of data for record linkage purposes.

  Mrs. Currie
  All the regional health authorities used the most recent version of the international classification of diseases to code their hospital activity analysis data. We have not received any reports that the hospital activity analysis data are of inferior quality.

  Abortions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many abortions have been performed under the Abortion Act 1967 in each of the last five years for which figures are available on pregnancies of (a) under 20 weeks, (b) 20 weeks,(c) 21 weeks, (d) 22 weeks, (e) 23 weeks and (f) 24 weeks or more; and how many of the abortions in each case were performed under (i) ground 1 and (ii) ground 5 of the Act;

  (2) how many abortions have been performed under the Abortion Act 1967 in the first quarter of 1987 and the first quarter of each of the five preceding years on pregnancies of (a)under 20 weeks, (h)20 weeks, (c)21 weeks, (d)22 weeks, (e)23 weeks and (f)24 weeks or more; and how many of the abortions in each case were performed under (i) ground I and (ii) ground 5 of the Act.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the tables. Data for the first quarter of 1987 have not yet been processed fully.
  265

  Grounds

  Gestation period in completed weeks

  under 20

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24 and over

  1985

  All

  167,413

  1,475

  835

  904

  724

  494

  1 (with any other)

  520

  1

  2

  3

  3

  5

  5 (alone)

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1986

  All

  168,168

  1,389

  753

  876

  880

  204

  1 (with any other)

  479

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  5 (alone)

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  First Quarter (March)

  1982

  All

  42,208

  331

  141

  221

  147

  120

  1 (with any other)

  169

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  5 (alone)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  All

  42,332

  346

  160

  229

  114

  137

  1 (with any other)

  162

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  5 (alone)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  All

  43,244

  372

  169

  208

  140

  143

  1 (with any other)

  158

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5 (alone)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  All

  43,006

  391

  222

  228

  183

  145

  1 (with any other)

  188

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5 (alone)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  All

  42,671

  332

  181

  204

  195

  77

  1 (with any other)

  103

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5 (alone)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  Notifications with unknown gestation period are excluded.

  Ground 1: the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  Ground 5: in emergency, to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  Tabulation categories as in OPCS published data (series AB)

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of a nurse's take-home pay is related to accommodation costs; and whether he has given any consideration to assisting nurses with their housing costs in areas such as Berkshire where rents are generally higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  A nurse's take home pay depends on his or her individual circumstances, as does the proportion of that pay which is devoted to accommodation costs. Nurses' average earnings have risen by 30 per cent. since 1979, after allowing for movements in prices, including housing costs. The NHS Management Board is encouraging a number of experiments to develop schemes which could be used by health authorities in areas where housing costs are thought to be a contributory factor in staffing shortages.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the planned annual rate of increase in treatment for new renal patients, regional health authority by regional health authority, for 1987–88.

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

  Histopathology (Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received representations from the British Society for Clinical Cytology asking for further consultant histopathology posts to be created; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are not aware of representations from the British Society for Clinical Cytology in this respect.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has estimated the number of new medical laboratory scientific officers who will be needed to deal with the extra work load created by the planned three-year recall cervical cytology programme.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for the individual health authorities to estimate the type and number of staff they need in the light of their local arrangements for laboratory examination of cervical smears.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many pathology laboratories in England and Wales undertake the processing of cervical cancer smears within the National Health Service; how many of these laboratories are equipped with a computer to assist them

  267
  in the processing of smears; and how many of the laboratories have a computer linked directly with the FPC computer which issued the initial call.

  Mrs. Currie
  A total of 214 pathology laboratories in the National Health Service in England and Wales processed cervical smears in 1986. Information on the number of laboratories equipped with a computer and how many have computers linked with the family practitioner committee computer is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which district health authorities are using private laboratories to process cervical cancer smears; and which companies are being used.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is for health authorities to decide how to obtain satisfactory processing of cervical smear tests. Some health authorities have sent cervical smears to private laboratories, particularly where backlogs arose following the sharp increase in the number of smears taken in the last two years. Comprehensive information on which district health authorities use private laboratories, and which companies are used, is not collected centrally.

  Social Security Records (Police Access)
  Mr. Wells
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out his policy on the disclosure of information from social security records to the police; and whether any measures have been taken in respect of the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments that information may be disclosed on request to the police in a case which involves a serious crime or a missing person under age 18. The information is given orally and in confidence and in respect of specific named individuals only. The Department will also provide information, including a written statement, to the police where they are investigating alleged offences in which the Department has an interest, for example benefit fraud.

  This policy will continue under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 when it comes fully into force in November 1987. In accordance with section 3(3)(d)of the Act, the police have been registered with the Data Protection Registrar as a body to whom we may wish to disclose personal data.

  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; and if he will return documents included in correspondence to Mr. P. J. Johnson; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 45]: A reply was sent to Mr. Johnson on 7 July enclosing the documents he requested.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Credit Registry
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to create a national credit registry.

  Mr. Maude
  No. I consider that the existing credit reference agencies perform a valuable service and I welcome current moves to expand information on debtors into more comprehensive credit registers involving a wide range of lending institutions.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to prohibit the importation into the United Kingdom of CS gas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer of CS gas canisters in Great Britain is already strictly controlled under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 and requires the special written authority of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Secretary of State for Scotland as appropriate. Import licences are required before such goods may be imported and are granted only to those similarly authorised.

  House of Fraser plc
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what instructions on reporting within a specific time limit he has given to the inspectors appointed to inquire into the acquisition of House of Fraser plc by the Fayeed Brothers.

  Mr. Maude
  Inspectors were appointed on 9 April 1987 under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc. It is not the practice to instruct Companies Act inspectors to report by a specific date.

  News International Ltd.
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions he has visited News International Ltd. at Wapping during the past three months.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have never visited News International Ltd. at Wapping.

  Mr. Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions he has met Mr. Rupert Murdoch on official business during the past three months.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  So far as I can recall, I have never met Mr. Rupert Murdoch on any occasion, official or private.

  "Today" (Takeover)
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what time, and on what day, News

  269
  International Ltd. and Lonrho Ltd. deposited with his Department the financial and other information necessary for him to consider his responsibilities under section 58 of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Letters from News International Ltd. and Lonrho plc. were received by my officials at approximately 4.45 pm on 30 June and on behalf of News International Ltd. at approximately 11 am on 1 July. Further information was provided at a meeting between my officials and representatives of Lonrho plc. News (UK) Ltd. and its auditors at 11.30 am on 1 July, and shortly thereafter they supplied some additional information. What was important to the Secretary of State in reaching his decision was the nature to the information provided, not its timing.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at what time, and on what day, he met representatives of (a) Lonrho Ltd. and (b) News International Ltd. to discuss the financial background to the takeover of the Today newspaper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Neither the Secretary of State nor I personally met representatives of either Lonrho plc. or News International Ltd. at any time on any day to discuss the financial background to the takeover of the Today newspaper.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will deposit in the Library a memorandum of the financial and other material upon which he formed his judgment not to refer the takeover of the Today newspaper to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  270
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I will deposit in the Library such material as can be made available subject to the normal limits of commercial confidentiality and the requirements of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Origin Marking
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, pursuant to his reply of 30 June, Official Report, column 58, to the hon. Member for Bradford, South, he will take steps to enable consumers to know when the criminal offence of misleading consumers about the origin of goods has taken place.

  Mr. Maude
  I have no plans to do so. However, as my predecessor indicated on 13 May during the passage of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, we believe that it will be possible to introduce a successor regime to the 1972 Trade Descriptions Act. This Act, which requires origin marking of imported goods where they are supplied in the United Kingdom bearing a United Kingdom name or mark, has to be repealed for reasons of Community law. We are now considering the terms of a draft order to provide For a successor regime.

  The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 already prohibits the application to goods of false or misleading indications in respect of a number of characteristics of goods including their place of manufacture or production. Enforcement of the Act is a matter for local authority trading standards departments.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

EC Transport Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 dates have been arranged for future meetings of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, meetings of the Transport Council have been arranged for 26th October and 7th December 1987.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether we may take it that the liberalisation of air transport and the necessity for some urgent action will be included in the discussions on those dates? Can the noble Lord also clear up a point from last week? Does the Minister recall that on 2nd April he told the House that the Commission had decided that if the Council of Ministers had not reached agreement by 30th June it would withdraw the exemptions from the competition rules? Has this been done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope that air transport will be back on the Council agenda on 26th October. This must, of course, depend upon whether the Commission and the European Parliament complete the new procedures required for the Single European Act by then. On the second point made by the noble Baroness about the offer of exemptions by the Commission, this is, of course, a matter for the Commission. However, I understand that the Commission does not intend to withdraw its proposal for group exemptions but instead is likely to put all its efforts into a new attempt to secure adoption of the package by the Council including the group exemptions.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I regret that on the last point I became rather muddled halfway through. Is the Minister telling the House that the Commission has done what it said it would do and withdrawn the exemptions from the competition clause or is it still hedging, and has not done so?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, at this stage it has not withdrawn its proposal for group exemptions.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Transport Ministers' Council deals with matters besides aviation, can the Minister tell the House, particularly in the light of our debate next Wednesday on Britain's mercantile marine, whether there is any intention by the Council of Ministers to discuss the policies of certain Community countries with regard to the help that they give to their merchant navies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, indeed there are at the moment proposals before the Commission as part of the second stage. The noble Lord will be aware that the first stage of the shipping policy was agreed last December. The Commission is currently working on proposals for a second stage of the common shipping policy; the proposals are aimed at harmonising aids which are given by Community governments to their merchant fleets and, indeed, strengthening the position of Community shipping industries in world markets. That might also arise in the course of discussions.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten the House as to what steps the Government are proposing to take between now and 26th October, which is some three months away, so that we might hope for some action then? May I return to what the Minister has just said? Is he aware that I find it quite unbelievable, and I hope the House finds it unbelievable too, that apart from making no progress in Brussels, we now apparently have the Commission reneging on what it said before.
May I repeat and ask him whether he recalls telling us on 2nd April that the Commission had said that if the Council of Ministers did not reach agreement by 30th June, it would withdraw the exemptions which it had made to the competition rules? Do I understand the Minister to say that the Commission has done nothing about it, that the Government do not intend to press the Commission about it; and does he wonder that we have got nowhere on these matters after three years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, dealing with the first point made by the noble Baroness, between now and 26th October the Government will be working very closely with the Commission to bring the package back to the Council in its present form. We shall be doing all we can to resolve the problem over Gibraltar. I hope the House will recognise that the room for manoeuvre is limited. We shall also be exploring with other EC countries the possibility of new bilateral arrangements based upon the political agreements reached in Luxembourg.
On the point concerning the Commission not withdrawing exemptions, it has been fairly clearly stated that that would happen if the Council of Ministers failed to reach agreement. The Council of Ministers did reach agreement on the package and the Ministers of all 12 states were behind the package with the single exception of the Spanish position on Gibraltar. The best way forward is to try to get the Gibraltar issue sorted out rather than go into court, which could take two years or longer and with uncertain results.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the House is very patient but what is one to do? Somebody has to go on. Is the Minister aware that it is no use saying that the Council of Ministers reached agreement because they did not reach agreement? I am not concerned with the reason, but they did not reach agreement on this package. I am asking whether the Commission is now going to take the action which it said it would take, or is it not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hate to enter into an argument with the noble Baroness, but agreement was reached on the package with the single exception of the issue of Spain and Gibraltar. Therefore, I think the Commission feels that the best way forward is by agreement with the Council in sorting out the problem of Gibraltar rather than embarking upon court action through Article 89. That procedure would be lengthy and the results uncertain.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since I have been a Member of this very important House, which is just over two years, I have heard nothing but Questions on the same subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry? Will the Minister do us all a favour and kick the Council of Ministers right in the rear place so that we can stop listening to all this rubbish?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot take up the noble Lord on his last suggestion. The noble Baroness and the Government are at one in wanting to achieve liberalisation of European air transport and I am merely trying to explain what we think is the best way forward to achieve that.

Disabled Persons Act 1986: Implementation
3.9 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 timetable for the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultations and Representations) Act 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled plans to meet the local authority associations shortly to review progress on discussions now taking place on the implementation of the outstanding sections of the Act.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that brief statement and I am glad that he is talking to the local authorities. Is he also going to have consultations with the voluntary organisations, which feel very strongly that they have hardly been consulted at all?
Is the Minister aware that there really is very deep concern among the organisations representing disabled people that such a vitally important
734
Bill—probably the most important since the 1970 Act, known as the Alf Morris Act—has led to such little action, if any, by the Government? Were we not assured by the Government that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, dealing with disabled school-leavers, would come into operation when they left at the end of this present term? How can the Government justify their failure to take action on a Bill which was so warmly welcomed in both Houses and on all sides?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware that this Act came up through the channel, as it were, of the voluntary bodies. I am also aware that on Second Reading, both in this House and in another place, the Government made it clear that those sections of the Act which have significant resource implications would be implemented only when the necessary funds could be made available. The major consultation must be between central and local government, particularly on costs and implementation arrangements. However, I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled intends to write shortly to the steering committee established by the interested disability organisations to discuss implementation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us a little more about the resource implications? Surely, the only requirement in Sections 5 and 6 is that local education authorities should collect certain information and pass it on to their own social services departments to see whether young people leaving school or further education require further service in the community. That does not seem fantastically complicated or expensive. Will he say what the implications are?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has put his finger squarely on the point. It is that the local authorities have changed their minds on this issue. We are now advised that the additional costs arising from the implementation of Sections 5 and 6 would be about £30 million to £50 million a year. There would be a further £20 million in respect of Section 7. If the whole Act were brought into effect, it is now estimated that by the time it was fully operative, it would cost some £150 million a year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the mentally handicapped form the largest single group of disabled people? Will he confirm that Mencap will be kept informed of the consultations as they proceed and given further opportunities to make representations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I say to my noble friend that I am sure that he is absolutely right about the numbers, but I am afraid that I cannot confirm them. I am already committed to discussions and to telling Mencap what is going on with regard to this issue as a result of a conference which my noble friend and I attended about a fortnight ago.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is also informed about what is going on?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I can write letters to particular organisations, but I have said that there will be discussions through the steering committee. I have given a particular commitment on the subject of MENCAP to my noble friend.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister know of any health district which has discharged long-stay patients without full assessment, and does he agree with me that if that is happening it spells disaster?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I most certainly do not know of any health district or region which has discharged patients from long-stay hospitals into the community without making certain that satisfactory arrangements are made in the community. If the noble Baroness or any other Member of your Lordships' House would like to give me evidence, I shall certainly look into the matter because I regard it as a most serious point.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is damaging to the prestige of Parliament if a Bill debated at great length in both Houses, finally receives Royal Assent and then nothing appears to happen to the beneficiaries under the Act? Is it not unfortunate that this nearly always happens in relation to the disabled or the mentally handicapped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if a Bill receives Royal Assent under false pretences, then I would agree with the noble Lord. But, on this occasion, it was made clear that there were resource implicatons. I do not therefore think that false pretences apply.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's answers that disabled children who leave school this year will not be subject to the Act's provisions and that another year of their lives will be wasted? On the question of resources, how does he justify expenditure of; £164 million on advertising and fees for the privatisation of British Gas—and we learn this week from the National Audit Commission that £40 million of that was wasted—when the total cost of the implementation of this Act is £150 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my honourable friend the then Minister said that he would like that part of the Act to become operative by this summer for school-leavers. I have explained about the discussions with local authorities, and why that has proved to be impracticable. I suggest that the point about different blocks of money is a different question.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, when could a Bill recieve Royal Assent under false pretences? I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that this Bill was an example of that. Can he give us an example?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I could not give the House an example of that. I was pointing out that this Act was not an example.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, does he understand that I find his replies
736
to questions from myself and from other noble Lords grossly unsatisfactory? Does he understand that I am aware that this Act—because it has resource implications—needs to be implemented stage by stage? At present, not even stage one has been introduced. When he talks about resource implications, what sort of priority is set on the needs of disabled people, be they represented by MENCAP, MIND or RADAR? Why does the emphasis in terms of resources go to those who are upwardly mobile as opposed to those who are often immobile?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not believe that that is true, knowing, as I do, that we abolished the invalidity trap benefiting over 50,000 disabled people and that we increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by about 75 per cent., after allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion. I can go on and on. I do not think that the noble Lord has a case.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke about the implementation of the Act depending upon the availability of funds. Can he give any indication what funds are available at present for the implementation of part of the Act?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are in the middle of a financial year. Beyond saying that, I should not like to make any prognosis.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when the Bill was going through the House, the Government must have assumed that some money was going to be spent on it, even if it now proves to be more than was expected. Could not that money be allocated now?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand the position, it was deemed extremely unlikely that the Act would be implemented immediately.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do not understand that answer, and I expect that other noble Lords have the same difficulty. Is it not the case that every Bill has on it a notification of the resources involved, and that Parliament is fully aware of that at the time the Bill is passed? Is the Minister telling us that the Government allowed a Bill to go through in the full knowledge that they did not have the resources to carry out the will of Parliament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can only repeat, as I think I have done twice so far during this Question Time, what my noble friend the then Minister said in another place on Second Reading of this Bill: that it would be implemented when resources were found.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is normal for those who wish to get things into a legislative vehicle, such as an Act of Parliament when it is available, to do so in the knowledge, and with the agreement of the Government, that the measure will not be implemented until funds are available, and that what is being pointed out is not an extraordinary matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. With regard to a public Bill he is absolutely right. This was a Private Member's Bill, as the noble Lord will confirm. Therefore the situation, although analogous, is perhaps slightly different.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not unfair to suggest that the significance attached to a Private Member's Bill is different from that attached to a government measure? If the measure is passed by Parliament surely it has the same authority of Parliament.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but that is a totally different matter. I was saying that my noble friend was absolutely right but that this was not a public Bill. That was the only point I made.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is well known in the House that Mr. Alfred Morris, the sponsor of this Bill, had been working hard over a long period of years to get this Bill on to the statute book. Eventually the Bill became law without the opposition but with the approval of the Government of the day. In these circumstances, and in view of the importance of this Bill and of the fact that years have gone by since it became law, will the noble Lord (with whom we sympathise in the difficulties confronting him now in the House) give an undertaking that he will speak seriously to his right honourable friend to see whether some move can be made to enable a certain sum to be available for what is in the view of the entire House one of the best possible causes?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my right honourable friend is already seized of this point. If it is the demand of the House, I shall "re-seize" him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I give the Minister an opportunity to make a correction in something which he no doubt inadvertently said? if I heard him correctly he said that the Bill under discussion was a private Bill, whereas it is a Private Member's Bill. If he agrees that that is the case, does he also agree that, as it is a public Bill, it has the same status a government Bill? The only difference is that is has been introduced by a private Member. There is just as much obligation on government to implement the provisions of Private Member's Bill as there is to implement a government Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Lord, with all his experience, is trying to tie me into knots, and indeed has succeeded in doing so. However, I am well aware of the feeling on this matter. Both Private Members' Bills and government Bills—if that is the right expression—are sometimes delayed in their implementation while resources are found to implement them. This is such a case.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is right to put on record that the Bill was originally introduced by Mr. Tom Clarke in another place and not by Mr. Alfred Morris, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said inadvertently.

EC Budget Deficit
3.25 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 what is their attitude to the European Commission's request for further budget to be provided towards the deficit in the Community funds forecast for the current year.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government have made it clear on several occasions that there is no question of providing additional resources above the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling to cover this year's prospective deficit. The European Council agreed on 29th and 30th June that the prospective overspend in agricultural guarantee expenditure this year should be offset by adjusting the system for advance agricultural payments from the Community budget. The Budget Council has subsequently established a draft supplementary and amending budget to cover the rest of this year's deficit of some £1.5 billion within the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that part of the 1987 deficit envisaged consists of some £527 million inherited from a deficit on the 1986 budget? Is he further aware that the book-keeping device of postponing payments by some three months in order to achieve a book-keeping balance is one that will deceive very few people and has already been condemned by the Court of Auditors? While the noble Lord is talking of budget discipline—and on this we on these Benches most certainly agree with Her Majesty's Government—is he aware that the 1988 expenditure projected in respect of the CAP is some 17.8 per cent. higher than that for the current year?
Lord Young of Graham: My Lords, there can be few in your Lordships' House who would be unaware of the simple fact that we are striving mightily in order to restore a sense of discipline within the European Community budget.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that another record crop for cereals in Europe is now forecast? What positive steps are the Government proposing to the Commission and to the Council to stop people growing cereals? Should not the plan already propounded by the Government be forced into effect to pay people to transfer their land into some crop other than cereals?
Lord Young of Graffham: There can be little doubt that the common agricultural policy is in need of reform. That is a matter which is being discussed at almost every meeting of the Community.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord take this opportunity of reminding his noble friend the Leader of the House that there is a letter still outstanding from him to me explaining the

739
burden on the British Treasury arising from the 1987 budget? It is always such a pleasure to receive letters from the Leader of the House. If his memory were jogged I should like to hear from him.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when I next see my noble friend I shall so remind him.

Housing Benefit: Alarm System Costs
3.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: 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 reconsider their proposal in paragraph 1(c) of Schedule 1 to the Draft Housing Benefit Regulations deposited in the Library, that charges in respect of the provision of an emergency alarm system should not be eligible to be met by housing benefit "except where such a system is installed in accommodation specifically intended for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled persons".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. The draft regulations for the reformed housing benefits scheme to be introduced in April 1988 merely carry forward existing policy for meeting the costs of alarm systems through housing benefit.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government realise that alternative sources of funding for those on low incomes, such as charitable donations and local authority finance, take a long time and are complicated to organise, with no guarantee of success? In view of the fact that the Government are quite rightly committed as far as possible to care in the community for the elderly and disabled—of whom there is expected to be a very large increase in the next 20 years—will they not agree that to cheesepare over the cost of these alarms is a false economy and will also defeat their own ends?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lady is absolutely right. This should be part of community care policy and not part of housing policy. The draft regulations should not result in any loss of benefit, provided local authorities are awarding housing benefit to meet the costs of alarms systems where they are provided because of the type of accommodation rather than because of the individual's personal needs, and those individuals could lose some financial support to which they have never been entitled. In those circumstances we would expect the local councils to make up the difference.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, except in the most short-sighted accountancy terms, to give people alarms so that they can stay in their own houses, which is what a great many of them do instead of having to be moved into public housing, would be a very great economy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I have already said that—but not through the housing benefit.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not right that people who are disabled and elderly ought to be able to feel secure in their own homes? The charge on housing benefit is surely quite appropriate. Does he agree that it is elderly and disabled people who are not living in sheltered accommodation who are the most vulnerable? Usually people living in purpose-built accommodation for the elderly and disabled have some kind of supervision which will make them feel safer. Can he not look at this again? I understand that the regulations do not come before Parliament until the autumn. There is a strong feeling among voluntary bodies about this.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has answered her own question. The answer is, as she knows full well, that the community care budget is the one that should pay in these circumstances. I have undertaken to use my best endeavours to see that it does.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware—by his answer to the Question I feel sure that he is—that this is an all-important aspect from both humanitarian and economic angles? It is a great way of saving money. It is a way that has been invented just recently and I am sure he will help to see that it is made greater use of in the community.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I have been privileged to open such schemes in various parts of the country and I am well aware of the importance of them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government have pledged help to the inner cities? Will the Minister agree with me that there are many isolated elderly and severely disabled people in the inner cities? Brixton and Tower Hamlets care associations for the elderly and disabled are particularly worried about the problem. Is the Minister aware that a severely disabled person recently left the door open to get help and was murdered?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; I most certainly was not aware of the last point the noble Baroness made. Speaking more generally, local social services authorities already have a duty under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide disabled persons with various forms of assistance in the home where need has been determined. The House knows that very often in these cases the need would be determined and therefore the provision of an alarm system could be made under these provisions.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as we know, there is a shortage of sheltered housing and therefore many old people have to live in ordinary homes. Do not the Government think it would be wise to save money and to help those people who live on their own by letting them have emergency alarm systems in ordinary houses as well as in sheltered homes?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am advised that the department knows of no case where these facilities have been denied to anyone through inability to pay.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is no barrier to prevent people on low incomes being assisted under the housing benefits scheme with expenditure for these alarms? That is what the situation has been until now. Is the Minister aware that people who receive this assistance are very carefully assessed by local authorities and by others who organise these schemes before they are recommended for such assistance?
It would seem to me that this announcement of a cut—for cut is what it is—in this benefit, an attempt by the Government allegedly to close a loophole, could not come at a more inopportune time when all the voluntary organisations, the local authorities, the police and others are at this moment encouraging campaigns deliberately designed to get elderly people to participate in the alarm system and, by the use of the housing benefit scheme, to give them some financial assistance.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, to cut that off now makes a nonsense of community care. Will the noble Lord reconsider the matter, because there will be no opportunity to amend the regulations when they come before this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we must be careful to distinguish between the two types of alarm. As I understood the noble Lady, in her Question she was talking about a neck alarm, whereas I have made it quite clear that the fixed alarm would be eligible under the housing benefits scheme.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on child abuse in Cleveland.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords I beg to introduce a Bill to reduce the period of pregnancy which for purposes of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is evidence that a woman was pregnant of a child capable of being born alive. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:

Beswick, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Cawley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Fletcher, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Teviot, L.

Thurlow, V.

Wise, L.

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

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 8) be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 8) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The Report was as follows:
Appointment of Sub-Committees
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees:

(a) Library Sub-Committee

V. Davidson

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

E. Ferrers (Chairman)

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. McNair

L. Rea

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

743

(b) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill (Chairman)

L. Boyd-Carpenter

L. Dean of Beswick

L. Denham

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Moran

B. Phillips

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(c)Works of Art Sub-Committee

L. Ardwick

B. Birk

M. Cholmondeley

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

L. Gibson (Chairman)

B. Hooper

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(d)Computer Sub-Committee

E. Ferrers

E. Halsbury

L. McIntosh of Haringey (Chairman)

B. Nicol

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(e) Staff of the House Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

B. Seear

V. Whitelaw (L. President)

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(f) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(g)Administration Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

E. Cathcart

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

B. Fisher of Rednal

L. Gibson

B. Hylton-Foster

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Before I proceed, I have a word of explanation as to how it comes about that I am doing what I am doing this afternoon and at this time. I agreed to
744
substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom your Lordships will recall moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 26th February with his customary clarity and skill. I agreed to substitute for him on this occasion at very short notice because a minor medical problem threatened his attendance. I am sure the whole House will join me in being delighted he is in his place. At the same time, perhaps the House is less delighted that I am doing the job that he was expected to do.
I have to pay a warm tribute, and I am sure the whole House will join me, to the Select Committee not only for an obviously carefully prepared and comprehensive special report but also for its labours in sitting for 13 days in hearing evidence and a further full day considering detailed views of the alternative bypass routes, the exchange lands to be given by Hampshire County Council and the village traffic and New Forest environment. It is good that the chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will be speaking later in the debate, as will the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, a member of the Select Committee. We are indeed grateful to them.
I supported the Bill on Second Reading and during my comments then I indicated my specialist knowledge of the area which is affected by the proposed bypass. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, and on reading the special report of the Select Committee I find that I am reinforced in that support.
Rather than take your Lordships through the special report section by section, I should prefer to pick out a few of the principal features. I shall start at paragraph 5 of the special report, which makes clear that the issue has been one between the village and the forest environment. I quote from the last sentence of that paragraph:
"In short, what is at issue is the difference in interests of the residents of Lyndhurst, who would like to see a bypass route as far away from the village as possible, and the interests of those concerned with the New Forest who wish to see as little encroachment on the Forest as possible".
That is the principal cause of contention in connection with the Bill.
The next issue is covered by paragraph 11. The committee—indeed, even the opponents of the Bill—early in the committee proceedings were at one that a bypass is indeed required, some would say urgently. I quote from paragraph 11 as follows:
"The Committee therefore accepted, at an early stage of the proceedings, that a bypass for the village is required. None of the Petitioners challenged this conclusion".
I come to paragraph 12 which tells us succinctly at its beginning:
"A bypass for Lyndhurst was first contemplated 50 years ago".
At a later stage I may have something to say about that but suffice it for me to say now that since 1971 the county council has been seeking to find an agreed solution to these problems. One route was rejected in 1974 after a full planning inquiry and since there have been at least two further public inquiries into alternative routes and several public consultations or exhibitions. Have we not become slightly sated with consultations, public inquiries and so on? At some stage there must be an end to deliberation, and I

745
think that the time has come for decision. The route in the Bill has planning permission and the implicit blessing of the Secretary of State for Transport in his declining to order a further public inquiry earlier this year.
I do not want to take too long at this stage but I shall direct your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 41 and 47 of the report, which deal with two legal and constitutional matters. I confine myself to saying that the county council has clear advice that any bypass, inner or outer, requires special legislation of the present kind to authorise a bypass that is to be fenced. This is an important point—a bypass has to be fenced. A bypass that was unfenced would be useless in the forest and animal environment in which it will be set and accordingly the Bill is right to set this matter beyond doubt. As to the point in paragraph 47 about the propriety of a Private Act avoiding the veto of the verderers, that has the appearance of being a rather wistful backward glance at preceding passages in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, which clearly indicate that the committee was fully satisfied about the propriety of the Bill, both constitutionally and on the fencing aspect. I shall quote those passages because they are important and deserve to be on the record.
Paragraph 21 states:
"Erskine May states at page 907 that 'No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill is itself an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or seeks for some powers which the general law does not afford'".
I now direct your Lordships' attention to the end of paragraph 22, which says:
"The Committee would merely state that, in their opinion, an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the Verderers without legislation. As for the question of precedence, what is an appropriate course of action in one intransigent and difficult case, may he entirely inappropriate in another".
I come now to the second sentence of paragraph 23:
"Under the provisions of the New Forest Acts, roads other than trunk roads may not be fenced without legislation…In the Committee's view therefore the County Council have acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme in this case".
I know that there is disquiet and anxiety about the propriety of the constitutional origins of this Bill. We heard at Second Reading words of great wisdom from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who will address us again this afternoon. The Select Committee has given as its view that the Bill is a perfectly proper Bill being brought forward in a proper manner.
I should like further to reassure those who are concerned about the question of propriety and the way in which the Bill has been brought forward as a Private Bill by the county council, bearing in mind that it has the support of the New Forest District Council and the parish council. As I stated during the debate at Second Reading, it is an important point that there are here three local authorities in agreement about what is difficult and what has proved to be an intrasingent subject.
I conclude at this stage by conveying to your Lordships three points which have reached me in a letter from the Hampshire County Council. The letter is over the signature of the county secretary. The three points are as follows:
746

"1. If this Bill becomes an Act it will not be regarded by the County Council as a precedent whereby private legislation is used to construct bypasses elsewhere in the New Forest without the consent of the Verderers. The County Council considers that the Verderers perform a vital role in the New Forest and the Bill has only been promoted because of a particular unusual combination of circumstances that are most unlikely to be repeated.

2. The Verderers will obviously wish to be consulted about the detailed design of the bypass and the accompanying landscaping proposals, and the County Council will take active steps to involve the Verderers at early stages in the design process if Parliamentary approval is obtained for the scheme. There is a common objective for the County Council and the Verderers in obtaining the best possible scheme for the approved route.

3. It was acknowledged by the petitioners against the Bill that the County Council"—

the Hampshire County Council—
"has environmental and conservation policies that are second to none amongst local authorities generally (see paragraph 33 of the Special Report). In particular, the strictest planning policies have been steadfastly enforced for many years as respects housing or other development in the Forest. In line with those policies the County Council has recently abandoned longstanding proposals for two bypasses in the New Forest at Brockenhurst and at Burley. However, whilst the County Council believes that the need for a Lyndhurst Bypass cannot be evaded and this can only be provided by private legislation, it foresees no need for any further bypasses in the New Forest.".
I hope that those undertakings will reassure those who harbour doubts and anxieties concerning the question of precedents which is so uppermost in the minds of so many I know. With those comments I shall conclude my opening address. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Congleton.)
3.49 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman reported on 6th May, having, as the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, has just said, taken evidence for 13 days. It concluded that the outer route is the right route for the bypass and that therefore the Bill should be allowed to proceed. We found the questions very hard to decide but considered that the issues could not have been presented with greater fairness and clarity.
I do not propose to go over the report, which many of your Lordships have read, but merely to pick on one or two salient points, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. The Committee did not consider that it was for it to decide whether a Private Bill should be promoted to settle this matter. However, its opinion was that an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the verderers without legislation.
Moreover, legislation would be required in any event to permit fencing and the exchange of land. If legislation is required for some purposes it is in accordance with past practice to come to Parliament for powers to undertake the whole scheme. Therefore, in the committee's view the county council had acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme.
I shall now touch on only two points which seem to me to be of particular importance. The committee was particularly interested in and concerned about Bolton's Bench. This, as many of your Lordships will know, is an area of particular beauty. It is a supreme

747
village green for Lyndhurst. It is also perhaps the finest entry to the New Forest itself.
The outer route would pass to the east of Bolton's Bench through a cutting and would not in any way affect the unity of the village and this splendid natural area. It is true that those who are visiting the New Forest and come out from Lyndhurst on to Bolton's Bench, if they wanted to proceed further would either have to go over a bridge or through a tunnel in order to get to the main area of the open forest.
On the other hand, the alternative, the inner route, requires a road immediately to the west of Bolton's Bench, severing it from the village, and over an important stretch bringing in an even greater volume of traffic than exists on any of the roads today. It was the committee's opinion that this was an overwhelming objection to the inner route.
I should now like to mention timing. The alternative route, which was much discussed and was termed 6A as opposed to the outer route, 5A, was at the time of our investigation no more, in effect, than a line on a map. It had not been fully engineered. Even the line itself was not firmly established. If this were to be adopted it would require a full inquiry, with all the vagaries and uncertainties which that would bring. There would be opposition from the residents of Lyndhurst to such a route and it could mean that Lyndhurst would have no bypass for the foreseeable future.
These were the two most important factors in my mind at any rate when the committee recommended, as it did, that the Bill should proceed. I hope that your Lordships will give this favourable consideration.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Manners: My Lords, I am the Official Verderer of the New Forest, and the verderers, together with others, petitioned against the Bill. The Verderers' Court was set up originally by Parliament in 1877 to protect and look after the rights of those living in and around the forest whose main interests at that time were the right to graze animals in the open and unenclosed forest.
In 1949, after an exhaustive report by Mr. Justice Baker, Parliament enacted the New Forest Act 1949, which virtually reconstituted the Verderers' Court and conferred various powers on the verderers to enable them to protect the open forest not only for the benefit of the commoners but also for the general public at large. Even as far back as 1877, Parliament enacted provisions to preserve the forest, and further provisions were contained in the 1949 and 1964 Acts. In consequence, the verderers are regarded by those who care for the forest as its protectors.
Before I refer to the report of the committee, I should like to thank the committee for giving those who petitioned against the Bill a full and fair hearing. In particular I should like to thank all members of the committee for the courtesy they have shown to me personally and to thank them for undertaking a long, arduous and difficult task.
Although there is much in the report that I would certainly not dispute and that is helpful, I cannot
748
agree that the conclusion is right in the interests of the forest. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to members of the committee that a great many people who live in and around the forest, including residents of Lyndhurst, are very sad and disappointed that the committee recommends that the Bill should go ahead.
These are people who love the forest, its beauty and wild life. They appreciate that it is the largest area in the south of England over which the public has unrestricted access on foot and horseback. These people, through their societies or individually, in small and large amounts, contributed voluntarily a sum in excess of £25,000 to enable the verderers and those supporting them to be properly represented by counsel before the committee. This they were willing to do because they see the forest being gradually eroded before their eyes. They realise that unless the forest is given the strictest protection little will remain for future generations.
The committee has acknowledged that the county council in promoting a private Bill has adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway and one which avoids the veto of the verderers, which Parliament, in 1949, regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest. Until 1949 the highway authority had no power to construct roads across the forest.
I accept the committee's view that a bypass on route 5A, being the route included in the Bill, which must be fenced in the interests of road safety, cannot be built without some form of legislation. However, the committee concluded that it was for the House and not the committee to decide whether there was sufficient reason to set aside the provisions of the 1949 public Act passed after an exhaustive inquiry.
The petitioners fear that any weakening of the 1949 Act would lead to further demands on the forest, and this fear has since received confirmation. It was stated on evidence to the Select Committee that the only bypass incorporated in the structure plan was the Lyndhurst bypass and that plans for other bypasses had been dropped.
In evidence I pointed out to the committee that the forest was under severe pressure and that any relaxation of the existing legislation enacted by Parliament would lead to a dangerous precedent. I assured the committee, and again I assure the House, that the forest is threatened on all sides.
Even since the committee sat, three important proposals have come to threaten the forest. The first is a proposed bypass for the village of West Wellow which crosses one of the northern commons within the perambulation of the forest. The northern commons are identical with the forest in all appearances. Because there have been a number of fatal accidents within the past year or 18 months, and because the villagers suffer a continual stream of heavy lorries, the verderers would be reluctant to oppose this bypass. However, they feel that the route should be discussed with the county council in order to try to minimise damage to the forest.
This case is very different from that of Lyndhurst where there have been no fatal accidents. Even the county council acknowledges that the roads through Lyndhurst are not extensively used by heavy lorries.

749
However, the residents of Lyndhurst suffer from traffic congestion at weekends in the summer. I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is severe from now until the end of September.
The second threat to the forest is the fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board has plans to build another coal-fired power station within half a mile of the edge of the forest at Fawley. That is bound to have a considerable effect on the roads on the eastern side of the forest, and some environmental effect on the sensitive flora and fauna of the forest.
Thirdly, British Gas is seeking planning consent to explore for oil at Boldre immediately adjacent to the forest. I believe that bore holes will be running under the forest. If oil is found and exploited the infrastucture that this entails must have a serious effect on the forest. If these proposals go ahead, the verderers, as is their duty, will try to protect the forest and will make use of such powers as Parliament has given them so to do. Should any conflict or disagreement arise, these powerful and wealthy boards will not hesitate to seek private legislation to further their ends, particularly if they feel that there is the smallest chance of success.
In fairness to the committee, the threats to the forest were not mentioned because, at that time, I was unaware of them. However, I feel that it is proper that the House should realise how threatened is the forest, and the difficulties that face the verderers in exercising the duties placed on them by the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1964 to preserve the forest, its beauty and wildlife. After all, the forest is the only true national park because it is owned by the state and the public have almost unrestricted access over it.
The verderers and those who petitioned in their support are saddened that the committee should not have given more weight to the views of the Countryside Commission, which also petitioned against the Bill. This was not a decision of the officers of the commission but of the commissioners themselves, who took the trouble to come down to the forest. They spent two days there considering not only the Lyndhurst bypass but also the problems that the forest faced in general. Perhaps it was easier for them to take an overall view than it was for the committee, which was concerned only with two possible routes for a bypass.
In my view, it is inconceivable that these distinguished and knowledgeable commissioners, appointed by the Government for their expertise, should not have taken into account the effect that an inner route would have had on Boltons Bench, the village and its residents when they decided to petition against the Bill. I agree with the committee that it would be entirely wrong to decide such an important issue as that of a bypass for Lyndhurst merely on the basis of whether a route running along the full edge of the Alder Carr, or whether one crossing it, was less damaging. However, in its evidence the Nature Conservancy Council stated that on balance, and taking into account the damage to the environment of the rest of the route, the inner routes 6 and 6A would be preferable. Again the Nature Conservancy Council, which also petitioned against the Bill, is the Government's independent adviser on conservation matters.
750
The evidence of the county council's nature conservation expert was almost entirely directed to possible damage to the Alder Carr. In its report the committee states that it reached its decision on the basis of what it regarded as the most important evidence; namely, the immediate environmental benefit of route 5A to the village of Lyndhurst. That differs not only from the views of the Countryside Comission but also from those of the distinguished inspector at the 1983 inquiry. He spent weeks in the forest, not merely one day, and heard much of the evidence and arguments put before the committee.
The inspector stated that conservation of the New Forest is internationally important. Protection of its character is a dominant aim in the structural plans and policies. In implementing a proposal to improve the primary road network and to relieve the village centre of adverse environmental effect through traffic, a route minimising the damage to the habitat and least detrimental to the forest character should be preferred, and any enhancement of the village environment arising from such bypass was, in his view, incidental.
I view with a concern shared by the verders and their supporters the fact that the committee should regard village environment as the most important, or only, factor. Other villages in the forest suffer considerable traffic congestion during summer weekends and might be encouraged to seek further bypasses across the open forest. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the committee in realising that it faced an extremely difficult decision. It certainly has my sympathy.
People in the forest have expressed to me their great dissappointment about the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture in whom the ownership of the forest is vested. In 1971 the then Minister issued a mandate, subsequently restated in 1982, in which it was stated that the New Forest must be regarded as national heritage and that priority must be given to conservation of its traditional character. The Minister regarded the conservation of the forest as of great importance. This was welcomed by the people in the forest, who then believed that the Minister was committed to the conservation and preservation of the forest.
The Forest Commission, which managed the forest on behalf of the Minister, has done much that is good and laudable. It is well known locally that its officers in the forest would prefer an inner route such as has been suggested by the petitioners. The Bill not having been opposed or reported against, the people who love the forest feel seriously let down. People are equally puzzled that the committee should have attached such importance to the effect that an inner route would have on one private residence. Are the interests of thousands or even millions of people who visit and enjoy the forest to be rejected for the interests of one individual? I am told that in any event the house is now on the market and for sale.
The inner route as suggested by the petitioners will have the effect of relieving the centre of the village of traffic congestion and will satisfy the needs of the ordinary motorist, who has suffered inconvenience, and would undoubtedly do much to improve the

751
environment of the residents of Lyndhurst. At the same time it would save some 80 acres of open forest.
The residents of Lyndhurst are fortunate to live in an almost unique area where they can wander at will. One can do that hardly anywhere else in the South of England. I admit that, by accepting an inner route, the residents will be making some sacrifice, but those of us who love the forest and care about it feel that it is not unreasonable for them to make some sacrifice for the sake of everyone in view of the advantages that they enjoy.
I wonder whether the routes selected by the county council will be as effective as has been suggested. The people who know Lyndhurst may well not use route 5A, which is far longer and more circuitous, but like myself, they may go through Lyndhurst. In fact, my average time for getting round Lyndhurst is two minutes.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with great sympathy and care to the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and appreciate how difficult it is for the holder of a very ancient, historic and honourable office with great and important duties for the protection of one of our great national assets to deal with the problems that arise in connection with other activities, and in particular with the interests of people who live in villages in the area. It is a difficult feat of balance.
I do not propose to go over the whole argument, first because I inflicted two speeches on your Lordships on Second Reading, but more importantly because, as your Lordships will recall, your Lordships' Select Committee gave this matter the greatest and most careful attention. It heard evidence, it was addressed by learned counsel on both sides, and the matter was fully and carefully thrashed out, as matters always are before your Lordships' Select Committees. Your Lordships will recall that at the end of the day after a very full hearing the Select Committee has recommended that the Bill should go forward as proposed.
I should like to take up a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Manners, said towards the end of his speech about the particular route chosen. Route 5A in the Bill is a compromise. Those whose interests are mainly with the welfare of the 3,000 people who live in Lyndhurst wanted to see the road further out into the forest, taking the traffic well clear of the village or little town. The noble Lord, Lord Manners, wants to take the bypass inside the village a slightly paradoxical description perhaps of a bypass. He wants to go for a route which, while admittedly minimising even more than the route proposed in the Bill any interference with the forest, would create considerable nuisance at times of traffic congestion for those who live and pass their time in the village.
Your Lordships will recall that the villagers of Lyndhurst have been extremely patient. It is some 50 years—before the war—since the first proposal for a Lyndhurst bypass was put forward. Proposal after proposal has been put forward and discussed fully and carefully with all concerned, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Manners, I am sure will agree, the verderers.
752
An enormous amount of work has been done in an attempt to secure the construction of a bypass which causes the minimum of offence to the various conflicting interests concerned. The route in the Bill is a compromise one—not as far out as the villagers would like and not as far in as the verderers would like. That compromise route has stood detailed examination throughout the discussions, including full discussion before your Lordships' Select Committee and examination by learned counsel for the verderers. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that, while no one would say that the route chosen was perfect, there is overwhelming evidence that on the whole it is most satisfactory and causes the least trouble for the various parties concerned.
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Manners, introduced at this stage the alleged threat of two other incursions—I gather that one was not into the forest but into adjoining lands—which he said were on the horizon. These were never suggested to the Select Committee and have never been suggested to your Lordships. With respect, their introduction at this stage of the Bill is, I think, a rather difficult procedure to follow. In any event, I suggest that your Lordships should not worry too much about them.
Your Lordships will recall that that noble Lord, Lord Congleton, read a letter from the county council that said in plain terms that, if your Lordships and Parliament passed this legislation, it would not be taken as a precedent in other cases. I therefore hope that your Lordships will dismiss from your minds the idea that, if the Bill which has now reached this advanced stage comes to be put into operation, that will let into the forest a whole flood of other dangers.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Manners, that not only the county council, which is strongly behind this scheme, the New Forest District Council, which is strongly behind the scheme, and the Lyndhurst Residents' Association with 1,200 members, which is strongly behind the scheme, but those of us, I think without exception, in your Lordships' House who are supporting the Bill have the deepest affection and admiration for the forest and do not wish to see it damaged in any way whatever. For my part, I have very early memories of it. I was at a preparatory school on the edge of it and I have happy memories of it. I think that is true of many of your Lordships.
Therefore we really have to look at this as a judgment as to whether we should expect the citizens of Lyndhurst to go on under conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Manners, himself admitted on summer weekends—and, I suggest to your Lordships, far more frequently than that—are exceedingly unpleasant from the congestion of ever-growing traffic from which they suffer right up against their homes. The one-way systems which have been introduced make it difficult even to get across the street. Noise, pollution and fumes have turned this lovely village, which perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Manners, is known as the capital of the New Forest, into a not very pleasant place for considerable periods of the year. At long last, after long proceedings and long discussions, legislation has reached the penultimate stage and it

753
would be a real tragedy, which I think would be deeply resented by the inhabitants of Lyndhurst, if at this stage this legislation were to be blocked. That is really all I want to say to your Lordships.
The technical point as to whether the county council should have proceeded as it has, by Private Bill rather than procedures under the verderer Act 1949., is one that I do not propose to touch on as I understand it is going to be dealt with by a far higher authority than I can muster: by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But it is my understanding, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Manners, to admit it, that legislation is required if the bypass is to be fenced—and plainly it must be fenced. I suggest it is also required if some compensating land is to be given by the county council to the verderers to make up for the land taken. Both those cases, I understand, require this legislation. Therefore I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the advice given to us by our own Select Committee is the advice that we should accept.

Child Abuse in Cleveland
4.23 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"I will with permission make a Statement about child abuse in Cleveland. The House is already aware of certain action which has been taken by the authorities there in response to the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere. The Northern Regional Health Authority has set up an independent professional panel to provide a second opinion on cases already subject to investigation. It has also established a special group to consider future cases. On Tuesday the Cleveland Social Services Department agreed with the police and the health authority about medical examinations where child sexual abuse is suspected. I hope, as will the whole House, that these steps will go some way to overcome the problems which have arisen.
"However, having studied the reports for which I asked last week from the regional health authority and the Social Services Inspectorate, together with representations by honourable Members and the material they have made available to me, we have concluded that there should be a full inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland in recent months.
"We propose therefore to establish a statutory inquiry headed by a High Court judge. The judge will be assisted by a panel of three assessors: one with medical experience, one with social services experience, and one with experience of police work. It will be necessary to ensure that there is no risk of conflict between the inquiry and litigation presently arising from individual cases. It will be for the judge to determine how best to carry out the inquiry but 1 can say now that its report will be published.
754
"Important as it is to resolve and learn from the situation which has arisen in Cleveland, it is no less important to carry forward the work already set in hand to improve our capacity to tackle the problem of child abuse wherever it may occur.
"Draft guidance on the way in which different authorities should work together in this field was issued last year, covering for the first time the specific issue of sexual abuse. Preparation of the final version of this guidance is being pressed ahead with a view to issuing it as soon as possible after taking account of any relevant lessons from Cleveland and the current inquiries into the deaths of Tyra Henry and Kimberley Carlile. Meanwhile, I am asking the Social Services Inspectorate to check with all social services authorities that proper co-ordinating arrangements have been made in their areas.
"As envisaged in the draft guidance, we shall arrange with local authorities for the collection of national statistics on child abuse. I shall be discussing with the NSPCC, whose director I met this morning, the contribution it can make from its special experience in maintaining child abuse registers in various parts of the country.
"The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has been asked to prepare guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. Practical guidelines are also being prepared for social workers and for nurses, including health visitors. The professional groups concerned are being asked to aim to complete this work by the end of the year.
"The House will also be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment published yesterday on five cases from the United Kingdom, has found inadequate our legislation on parental access to children in local authority care. These cases pre-date legal changes made in 1983 and 1986 to strengthen parents' rights, but we fully accept the need to make further changes to reflect the court's findings.
"We shall be studying the full judgment in detail in relation to the proposals of the White Paper on child care law published earlier this year. In framing legislation we shall also wish to take account of the lessons of Cleveland and the other inquiries to which I have earlier referred, but our aim will be to bring such legislation forward at the earliest practicable opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first I warmly thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place on child abuse in Cleveland. I have no doubt at all that an inquiry is necessary into those events, although I think it is a matter for question as to whether a further inquiry, dedicated purely to events in Cleveland, is necessary, quite apart from the Northern Regional Health Authority's independent professional panel and the Cleveland Social Services Department's inquiry to which the Secretary of State made reference.
I want to say straight away that I believe a most important opportunity has been missed by not

755
establishing an inquiry with terms of reference much wider than simply to look into the situation in Cleveland. I am aware of the draft guidance referred to in the sixth paragraph of the Statement and the additional guidance that is now being prepared for the medical profession. But so much has happened since the drafts were prepared that I believe it is necessary to have an inquiry that looks across the board at some of the major problems which are disturbing not only the professions, parents and of course the children but also, I think, the whole of society. There is hardly another issue which creates for us greater concern and a sense of moral obligation than this.
There are several groups directly involved. We think of the parents, and I welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State in relation to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Here there were five cases in which British parents were denied access to children who had been committed to local authority care, nor were they informed of arrangements for the children's adoption. It was concluded that such action was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. A disturbing picture is revealed, which could be part of the broader inquiry for which I am asking. It is the essential right of parents to be involved and to know what is happening to their children.
I also have a great deal of concern for social workers who find themselves right in the middle of family problems. All too often, whether rightly or wrongly, the press has most ferociously attacked social workers who appear to have failed in their obligations when they knew, so it is said, about most disturbing situations within the family. Social workers have been criticised for not stepping in and taking action. Now they are criticised because they did step in and take action. The danger, the difficulty or the dilemma facing social workers is that it is easy to dither and do nothing, but that is the worst thing that can be done.
I am aware of the problems faced by doctors and I am concerned about the methods used by some psychiatrists to get alleged victims of child abuse to make confessions. I recognise that sexual abuse is far more difficult to diagnose than is physical abuse and doctors need to be given advice.
The fourth group about whom I am concerned is the children themselves. First, children stay far too long in care. Specifically, however, looking at the present issue, one encounters the problem of the ability of children to draw a distinction between reality and pretence in situations in which they are greatly confused, sometimes very frightened and sometimes inclined to say what they think the interviewer wants to hear. I am much attracted by the proposals for video interviews undertaken privately with children immediately after certain situations, which could be used as evidence in courts without the necessity of the child being present and having to go through the attendant miseries. Let me say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I was delighted to see in the press the support that he gave today to family courts.
756
The Minister will have seen the Starred Question on the Order Paper put down in the name of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. It is only fair to her, and to me, to say that we have discussed this subject and that simple Question in a sense reflects the rather longer proposal that I now make to the Minister following the Statement. I do not believe that the two matters are necessarily in conflict. I am not asking the Minister to cancel the arrangements for this inquiry specifically into the events at Cleveland, but I think that there ought to be a parallel inquiry to deal with the broader issues of which I have spoken and covering not just sexual abuse but physical abuse as well.
I should like to direct to the Minister three questions about the situation in Cleveland. First, when has the Secretary of State asked for the report to be presented? How long must one wait for the report? Secondly, while I very much welcome the Secretary of State's discussions with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose work I greatly admire, I should be interested to learn whether other organisations, such as Barnardo's, which has invaluable experience, have been consulted. Finally, has the Minister any idea when we may expect the promised legislation which perhaps flows from the report five years ago of the Social Services Select Committee in another place of which at that time I was a member?
Lord Winstantey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the Minister for repeating that very important Statement. We on these Benches believe that it is absolutely essential for all these tragic cases to be investigated as soon and as thoroughly as possible. However, whatever form the investigation may take, we support the proposals made in the Statement. I say whatever form the investigation will take, but we believe that we shall never know the full truth behind all these unhappy cases, which must mean that some unfortunate parents may have been wrongfully accused of abominable offences and thus be scarred for life. On these Benches we believe that it is absolutely essential that everything possible should be done to protect children from molestation or abuse of any kind. At the same time we believe that it is equally important to ensure that parents are not wrongfully accused of horrible crimes which could have a lasting effect upon their lives.
We hope that when handling cases of that kind in the future greater efforts will be made to preserve the integrity of the family than seems to have been made so far in some of those cases. In so far as the Statement mentions medical examinations and guidance for doctors, I hope that we can somehow ensure that a child is not repeatedly examined by different doctors, because that too can be a very traumatic experience.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I note with pleasure that the Minister is working closely with the NSPCC whose record in this field is admirable and whose wise judgment can be relied upon. I also welcome the fact that the report of the inquiry will be published. Perhaps on that occasion we may seek an opportunity to debate it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I think that I go straight to the heart of the matter when I pick up the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that what we are talking about is a balance between the rights of children and the rights of parents, usually but by no means always with the social services department in the middle striving to maintain that balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that clearly an inquiry was needed because we want to know what has happened, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, supported him. I agree with both noble Lords that we need the Bill. However, if we were to have the broad brush inquiry requested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, inevitably the time taken would be very much longer. This small specific inquiry, high-powered though it is, has been asked to report by the end of September which means that not only can the guidance to which the noble Lord referred be amended as soon as amendment is proved necessary, but that in the meantime the guidance can be used—as indeed it has been successfully used, so I understand, in many parts of the country, even though it has only been in draft form for the last six or nine months.
The noble Lord also asked about the role of other organisations apart from the NSPCC, which was referred to in the Statement. My honourable friend intends to consider this matter, but the NSPCC is the only voluntary organisation to hold child abuse registers, so it was quite right that he should have gone originally to the NSPCC. I do not know whether he will widen his consultation, but I will, of course, put the point to him.
The judgment of the European Court, as the Statement says, was made on the basis of old legislation. It will clearly be right for the Government to consider very carefully whether the new legislation needs further amendment as a result of that judgment. We have received the judgment only in the last 24 hours, and it would be silly if I were to commit the Government to anything so drastic as that at this moment.
Finally, I say that, of course, we are not talking only about sexual abuse. We are talking about any abuse of children whatever their age. I am sure there will be lessons to be learned from the inquiry concerning physical abuse as well as sexual abuse.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can I put one specific point to my noble friend? While I feel sure that his colleague in the other place is correct to go for a narrow rather than a broad inquiry of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, there is a specific point I should like to put concerning that inquiry. Will my noble friend convey to his right honourable friend that the true episode of this somewhat disturbing series of events may lie outside Cleveland, although it may have given rise to the Cleveland episode? Will he particularly draw to the attention of his colleague, and perhaps ask that the learned judge, when he is appointed to the chairmanship of the inquiry, be briefed, concerning a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Ewbank earlier
758
this year, which was to my mind very disturbing? There are in fact two such judgments, but one was reported briefly in The Times and I know the Lord Chancellor's department has a full transcript.
The judgment concerned the methodology adopted by a section of the medical profession in seeking to discern whether abuse had in fact taken place. The suggestibility of children, it was very clearly suggested, was taken advantage of with the result that false conclusions of fact were likely to be arrived at. I can put my noble friend in possession of the transcript because I have a copy. I should like that point to be clearly understood and ask my noble friend to see that those in charge of the inquiry have the point clearly in front of them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his wise advice. Most certainly, I shall pass his comments to my right honourable friend. However, not quite answering his question, perhaps I may make the point that the regional health authority has set up a second opinion panel with six doctors from Leeds, Oxford and from the region. The panel is headed by a child psychiatrist. Therefore, the allegations which are certainly around, namely, that there is medical malpractice going on, is something which by no means has been proven. Certainly, the rights of the children in this particular respect are being looked after.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I also thank the Minister for the Statement? Will he agree that there are two issues, the here and now and the future. As regards here and now, the Statement states very clearly what is happening, and that there is to be the inquiry and consideration of the law in the next Session. I look back to the time in 1948 when Denis O'Neil died in a foster home, and the Curtis Committee was set up. I suggest that besides looking at the here and now situation—which must be dealt with here and now—we should also look at much broader issues and the framework under which child care is carried out in this country.
First, I believe that we need a different juvenile justice system. Secondly, I believe that the training of social workers needs to be looked at with much more help being given. Thirdly, there is need for a much improved structure of co-ordination between departments. While the Minister mentioned various people, he did not mention education and the teachers, who have a contribution to make. Not sufficient has been said about their contribution.
Therefore, while welcoming what is happening now and the inquiry which is being carried out, may I also ask that consideration be given not to a Royal Commission but to the whole structure of administration and justice and also how social workers may be helped.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking from the depth of her experience in this matter. Of course, family courts have exercised the minds of two of my noble and learned friends over a considerable length of time. I know that my noble and learned friend currently on

759
the Woolsack is considering this matter in great depth, and I hope at some speed.
As to the inter-agency agreement, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is one of the most worrying factors of the Cleveland situation, and certainly, it will have to be looked at. As regards the training of social workers and a better structure generally, my noble friend knows that we published a White Paper on this subject. We have also promised a Bill—a promise reiterated in the Statement today.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I respectfully ask the noble Lord to reconsider his use of the word "malpractice" when replying to his noble and learned friend in relation to doctors? Surely, "malpractice" is not what he meant when we are talking about faulty methodology. Will the noble Lord consider that matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It was a bad use of English and I apologise.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I welcome the Statement and the news that there is to be an inquiry. I should like to put one specific question and one general question. I do not understand from my reading of the newspapers why the parents of the children concerned in the Cleveland case were never allowed to put their case before losing their children. My second and more general question is to ask whether the Minister agrees—as, unhappily, more and more cases of child abuse come to light—that the whole procedure following discovery of such cases must be reassessed? Otherwise, there is a real danger that a child will be doubly abused. A child will be abused mentally under the very cruel procedure whereby a child is examined and cross-examined on various occasions before the court procedure takes place.
I hope that the Minister will take notice of an interesting project in Bexley. A video tape is taken of the child who describes the experience immediately after the event once a discovery has been made. The tape will then be used as evidence during the court proceedings. I believe this particular experiment is worth very serious consideration by the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must confess that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I do not understand either. I am advised that according to law the time at which parental rights are actually taken away is not the place of safety order stage but the interim care order stage, which is usually about a month later. Therefore, I do not know the answer to that question. I hope that it is one of the points the inquiry will establish.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is it not the case that we, and particularly the press, should refrain from making accusations in any direction until the reports are published, and until we know the facts? I do not think that we should cast aspersions in any direction.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I go further and say that this excitable reporting has done nothing but damage an already delicate situation.

Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
4.49 p.m.
Third Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend Lord Manners was most enlightening and comprehensive and I should like to congratulate him on it. I hope that the House will consider most carefully the several points that he made. Like my noble friend, and indeed the verderers and others who petitioned against the Bill, I was disturbed that the Select Committee should regard the village environment as the most important factor.
In the course of his speech my noble friend Lord Manners mentioned that the verderers were there to protect the New Forest and thus the interests of those who live in and around it and the interests of those who come to enjoy and visit the forest. The Court of Verderers is an imposing body. It was brought up to date by the 1949 Act. I wish to tell noble Lords something of that establishment. The court numbers 10 verderers; five are elected and five are appointed. The elected verderers are elected by the commoners and it is normal for those elected to possess a special knowledge of the forest.
The verderers are elected for a term of three years at two separate elections; two at one election and three at another. The five appointed verderers comprise one who is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture (the New Forest is vested in the Minister and he is the landowner of the forest); another one is appointed by the Forestry Commission, which acts as agent for the Minister. A further verderer is appointed by the Hampshire County Council, which is the local planning authority. One important verderer—although they are all important—is the amenity verderer, who is elected by the Countryside Commission. The fifth verderer is appointed by the Monarch, who is the official verderer and who is by custom the chairman of the court. That body has a lot of weight and a great deal of knowledge.
I was astonished and rather disturbed to learn that the landowner of the New Forest, the Minister, never consulted his appointed verderer. I queried that and I have seen the Minister's correspondence with the official verderer. I also saw the Minister's reply and I was, to put it mildly, disturbed and rather shocked by it.
As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Manners, the Minister's reply conflicts with his predecessor's mandate in 1971. As my noble friend said, that mandate was brought up to date in 1982. The mandate stated that the New Forest must be regarded as national heritage and priority must be given to the conservation of its traditional character. The mandate also stated that the wishes of Parliament as set out in the 1877 Act should be carried out.

761
The Countryside Commission spent two days in the New Forest. It was not just the officers of that body who visited the forest but the members themselves. I am uncertain as to how the Select Committee deals out its time, but unfortunately its members spent only one day visiting the New Forest. That means that they virtually spent only a portion of the day visiting the forest because of the travelling time involved. They hardly saw the New Forest. As it is a vast place of roughly 100,000 acres, they remain forcedly somewhat ignorant of the forest. As can be seen from its report, the committee's only concern was concentrated on the town of Lyndhurst and on the house "Oakfield-, which is believed to be on the market anyway.
As your Lordships will know, the Countryside Commission has always argued that the New Forest should be treated as though it were a national park and that the principles of dealing with roads in such areas should be applied to the New Forest. Those principles demand that in the first instance avoiding damage to the countryside should be a major factor in the selection of any route. Accordingly the Countryside Commission argues that the bypass should avoid the open forest; in other words, landscaping the wrong route does not make it the right route. I am of course referring to paragraph 45 of the Select Committee's report, where it states that route 5A (the outer route) can be made into the right route by sensitive engineering and landscaping. Because of the wisdom of the Countryside Commission that undoubtedly is a mistaken policy, on the wrong route.
Again your Lordships need no reminding that the Countryside Commission is the expert on amenity and is appointed by the Government. It is therefore surprising that there is no mention of the commission in the Select Committee's conclusions, when the national importance of the New Forest was one point on which there was agreement between the promoters and the petitioners.
Finally, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the verderers and the petitioners appreciate the need for measures to relieve the traffic at Lyndhurst. They feel that the route proposed by the Bill cannot on amenity grounds be justified and they have put forward a suggestion for an alternative route which could be more acceptable environmentally.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, in this case the report of the Select Committee is much to be welcomed. I express the gratitude of the House to the members of the committee, who have heard arguments presented sincerely and clearly by counsel on either side. As a result the following matters are clear. First, a bypass for Lyndhurst is essential. That I think is agreed on all sides.
Secondly, a decision as to which route it should be is essential. Noble Lords will see in the last observations in the report that the members of the Select Committee have decided in favour of what may be called the compromise route. Paragraph 44 of the Select Committee's report states:
762
"The Committee have, therefore, concluded, on the basis of all the evidence they heard, that Route 5A is the right route for the bypass".
There is the decision made. A decision is essential. I ask myself what the consequences will be if that decision is rejected. It does not mean that the alternative route is accepted at once. Who if you please will promote another Private Bill to put forward this alternative route to Parliament? I doubt whether Hampshire County Council will. I doubt whether anyone would present to Parliament the alternative route with all the expense, investigation and so on that that would entail. I am afraid that if the route which the Select Committee has recommended is rejected by the House today, there will never be a bypass for Lyndhurst.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend permit me to interrupt him? I think that he is wrong in saying that there will be a necessity for legislation if either route 6A or 5A, the inner route, was adopted. That was made clear in the report of the Select Committee.
Lord Denning: My Lords, my noble friend has anticipated me. I am sure that that paragraph in the report is quite wrong. The alternative route would require legislation. The relevant paragraph is not in the findings of the committee but rather in the summary of the petitioners' cases in paragraph 41, which says:
"The final advantage of an inner route was that it would not require legislation".
My answer is that it would require legislation. I say that both as a lawyer and as a Member of this House. I shall come on to that point. One of the earlier passages in the report dealt with the need for a private Bill to deal with that matter. The committee says that that is a matter which it leaves to the House. I have looked into that and perhaps I may tell your Lordships how the legislation came to pass.
In 1949 we had a most important statute, the New Forest Act, which brought the verderers and everyone else up to date. The subject of that legislation was a report of over 100 pages by an expert committee led by Mr. Baker in which the verderers were considered, along with many other things. The roads were also considered. The committee considered the two trunk roads, the one which goes from Cadnam to Lymington and the one going through to Ringwood, and said that they would remain. But it went on to add in that same paragraph that it regarded a north-south bypass to Lyndhurst as essential. When the Bill went through Parliament, it did not include that bypass. The trunk roads were included but the bypass was not included. I suggest that that was done because everyone realised that further legislation would be needed to prescribe the route of that bypass.
The 1949 Act laid down the trunk roads and laid down provisions for roads other than trunk roads. It only laid down provisions for unfenced roads. As we all know, fencing is absolutely essential in these motoring days for the protection of motorists and of the ponies themselves. Section 17 dealt only with unfenced roads. If the highway authority wished to make, an unfenced road, that could only be done with

763
the consent of the verderers. The verderers' consent could not be unreasonably withheld. That was for the protection of the commoners. If a fence was put up, commoners by a right going back centuries could throw it down because it would interfere with the free grazing of cattle and ponies. Section 17 dealt only with unfenced roads. The statute, by design, did not deal with the fencing of new roads. Fenced roads require a Bill to come before Parliament and it must be a Private Member's Bill.
The Select Committee quoted part of the Erskine May Report and perhaps I may refer to the whole of that part. At page 907 it states:
"No rule, however, has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill is itself an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or seeks for some powers which the general law does not afford and the fact that it provides for a repeal or an amendment of public Acts is far from always being a fatal objection to its being introduced as a private bill. The provisions of some public general Acts relating to public health are regularly amended, in some degree, with regard to particular localities, by means of private bills".
Your Lordships will know of such public health Bills. We have general Acts and then perhaps a private Bill from Manchester and Merseyside and the like.
As regards the constitutional position, I believe it is perfectly proper and necessary for a private Bill such as this one which the Hampshire County Council has promoted to secure the addition to the public Act in respect of Lyndhurst itself so that there can be a fenced bypass road around Lyndhurst. That is essential. As I said, if it is suggested that the inner route should be used without legislation, so far as I can see that is absolutely wrong. There is nothing in the Act or anywhere else to permit it. Those are the legal points with which I wish to deal.
Paragraph 47 of the report states:
"The Committee conclude by drawing attention to the fact that in allowing the Bill to proceed, they have done so in the knowledge that the County Council, in promoting a private bill, have adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway"—
and that may be true—
"and one which avoids the veto of the Verderers which Parliament in 1949 regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest."
I do not regard the 1949 Act as giving any veto to the verderers in respect of a newly fenced road. In 1949 Parliament left that for further legislation.
I suggest that the report of the Select Committee should be accepted. Otherwise, Lyndhurst will not have a bypass in the foreseeable future.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it may seem strange to your Lordships that I have risen to speak about Lyndhurst in the New Forest when I normally speak about Scotland. However, my interest in the subject goes back to immediately after the last war when the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Manners, gave to me, as chairman of the National Association of Youth Clubs, one of the most beautiful houses in the New Forest, namely, Avon Tyrrell. It was to be used by young people for holidays, conferences and so on. It has been an outstanding success and has made an enormous difference to hundreds of thousands of young people. Although I am now too old to go there for such
764
activities, I have always been grateful for that marvellous donation and the fact that it has meant that many young people have been able to go to the New Forest to learn about it and to walk and ride about in it.
I have read with some interest the report we are discussing today and I have one or two queries which I should like to make. I do not understand why the county council promoted a Private Bill for the Lyndhurst bypass which make it impossible for the oldest and most important organisation in the New Forest—the verderers of the New Forest—to be consulted. It seems to me that that is a curious way to carry on.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I am informed that there were considerable and prolonged consultations with the verderers; with the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and others. I very much reject the suggestion that there was no consultation.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am very sorry if I have made a mistake, but it seems to me from reading the report that the verderers were overruled.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is very desirable that the House should be told whether there was consultation with the verderers particularly on route 5A. I understand that there was not.
Lord Manners: My Lords, the consultation that I originally had with the county council was right at the outset and the council told me that it proposed to adopt route 3 as being the cheapest and most economical route and the one which best suited the environment of the forest. It was only subsequently that the county council changed its mind, I think at the request of the district council, and then started to press for route 5A. I admit that I had two meetings with the chairman of the county council at which I made representations, but there were no discussions as such.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I think that that perhaps answers the noble Lord. In any case, I was only reacting to what I had read in the report and the conversations with my noble friend Lord Manners. I also understand that in 1983 the planning inspector proposed another route and not the one which the Select Committee is suggesting. I wonder why that advice was not taken.
I have also received, as I expect have most of your Lordships, letters from the Countryside Commission saying that it is opposed to route 5A. The Commission is anxious to support the verderers in their case. The Countryside Commission is a very influential body and it is one that we are all deeply concerned about. It stresses for not only the New Forest but for many other parts of the United Kingdom the importance of the countryside and its preservation. Therefore it is important to take some account of what the Countryside Commission has written, and I am sorry that that does not appear to have been one of the matters which was considered or in any way influenced the decision.

765
This is a debate which many people know more about than I do, and I am therefore only supporting my noble friend Lord Manners and the verderers because I know of the great importance of the New Forest, its preservation and all that it stands for. I hope very much that we may consider this as a matter of just as much importance as the bypass for Lyndhurst, which we are all in favour of. It is the way that it is done that matters, and I understand that the verderers have a better suggestion than that put forward. I am prepared to back the verderers in this matter.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, as the second member of your Lordships' Select Committee, apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, our very able chairman, to speak, I should like to say a few words to your Lordships about our consideration of this Bill.
First, I should like to say, in answer to my noble friend Lady Elliot, that during the 13 days in which we sat in this committee we heard evidence from the Countryside Commission at quite considerable length. Therefore it cannot be said that, in the end, our report did not agree entirely with the Commission; but neither can it be said that we ignored it.
Most of us on this committee, certainly myself, at the start knew very little about Lyndhurst in particular and not a great deal about the New Forest. I certainly did not, However, I believe that to be right because it meant that we had no preconceived opinions about the situation in Lyndhurst and we had no axes to grind. Nevertheless, we very soon became aware that whatever recommendations we made at the end, they would make us very unpopular with a lot of people.
I should like to comment very briefly on and underline the committee's reasons for rejecting the proposed route of the objectors—route 6A. It has been commented upon by my noble friends Lord Manners and Lord Malmesbury that we were only there for a day. In fact, we were there long enough to see Boltons Bench and to stand on it. On the ground, the proposed route 6A seemed to be disastrous to the peace and well being of the people of Lyndhurst and, incidentally, to the people who visit Lyndhurst.
I am open to correction here, but the proposal was for a fenced road with a roundabout about 20 yards or so from Boltons Bench. It would go through, and in my opinion it would effectively divide the village from its principal recreation ground. It seemed to me also that however cleverly designed this road, and however many underpasses and bridges and so on that were incorporated, it would be very difficult for even an able-bodied person easily and without effort to cross from the village to Boltons Bench. Certainly he would be unable to cross without encountering a lot of noise, traffic, and so on.
A little beyond Boltons Bench I observed that the bypass would actually pass within 50 yards of the worst point of congestion in Lyndhurst high street. That does not seem to me to be a bypass at all, or to
766
make very much sense. The proposed bypass is only 50 yards from the present congestion. A further point is that further north the route cuts through a minor recreation ground. I cannot remember whether it is a cricket ground or an athletics ground, but it is called the Paddocks. To the south it would destroy a very beautiful and well-kept private garden and the Okefield. On this point I should like to say to my noble friends Lord Manners and Lord Malmesbury that it seems to be totally irrelevant whether or not this house is now for sale. It was the beauty of the garden itself and of the house that concerned us and not the financial situation of the individual who happened to own it at the time we looked at it.
At any rate, I came to the conclusion that no bypass at all was the only alternative to route 5A proposed by the county council. We established fairly early on that there would be no question of our recommending that there should not be a bypass. In these circiumstances, and after 13 days of listening very carefully to many different opinions, it appeared to me and obviously to my colleagues that route 5A was the only viable option. It is a little late for anyone to come up with something better, and frankly I do not think that anything better could be found.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the officers of Hampshire County Council, who I do not think have yet received any congratulations today. They presented their evidence very well and they were very fair. I congratulate them on carrying out a thoroughly thankless task.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, on the point that it is late in the day to debate this issue? This Bill has to go through another place with all the same procedure. It is important, therefore, that if there are points of disagreement this House should make them known on Third Reading so that when the matter is debated in another House and goes into Select Committee there, it will be realised that this is, as the committee makes clear, a difficult issue.
Although I wish to disagree with the committee on certain matters, I am bound to say that I am immensely impressed by the effort, ingenuity and fidelity that the members of it brought to discussing what is, speaking socially, a very complicated issue in a very difficult part of the world.
My interest is that I have lived in the New Forest off and on for nearly 50 years. I have never exercised common rights, but I have had common rights attached to my house. I am bound to say that the Official Verderers, the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, have had the most difficult job in the world. I know of no area where there is more contention. They are poised among the commoners, the Forestry Commission, the county council and the visitors. They have to preside over the Court of Swainmote. I still remember the problems that arose in 1949 when Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who was the Member of Parliament, tried to get the 1949 Act through the other place, where I was a Member. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, remembers that.

767
It was my view at that time that we had arrived at a settlement, that Clause 17 would provide protection, and that that would be that. It has been made abundantly clear that it is possible for a private Bill to override public legislation when it is considered, in this case by the committee, to be the right thing to do. However, the committee leaves to the House the judgment on whether it is the right decision.
We could get into a semantic argument here. We are strongly advised to take the Select Committee's advice. However, at the same time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has told us that there is one important paragraph in its report; namely, paragraph 41, which is wholly wrong. That is a matter which will need to be further considered. I do not know whether the noble Lord who chaired the committee so admirably wishes to argue with the noble and learned Lord. He is a great friend of us all and he has been kind to me. I know that he likes an argument.
The point is clear. The committee states:
"The final advantage of an inner route was that it would not require legislation. The Verderers had indicated that they would be prepared to agree the permanent loss of certain land from the Forest. Since the land taken out of the Forest would have to be fenced out, legislation would not be required for fencing as was required for the present route proposals. Therefore the implications of a private Act undermining the provisions of a public Act"—
we agree that it does not undermine it; it is correct to have a private Act—
"would not have to he faced".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, he will have observed that paragraph 41 of the Select Committee's report to which he has referred is not part of the committee's conclusions; it is part of the summary of the petitioners' case.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the committee does not go out of its way to disagree with the point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Or accept it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, that is a point of interest. This is not a Committee stage, though it is tempting to treat it as such. I believe it is the view of the Official Verderer that legislation would not be necessary and that an agreement on fencing could be achieved without difficulty. However, that is a point for further consideration.
Elsewhere in the report, there is a reference to the inspector of the 1983 inquiry who rejected route 3 and found route 5A preferable to route 1. The route which is now recommended is described as a compromise. I do not regard it as a satisfactory compromise. The inspector suggested that another route should be considered in detail. That became route 6, which subject to alterations at its southern end became route 6A, and is the route now favoured by the forest's interests. Was it considered by the county council? I do not believe there is evidence that there was any consideration.
I must now be critical of the county council. We all know that county councils work extremely hard. I know that the opinion of some county councillors is
768
that their county council is not always sufficiently concerned with the very special nature of the New Forest. The New Forest is unique, and only those who understand it realise how-special it is and how important it is to protect it. If I may use a rather far-fetched analogy, it is a little like the Antarctic: we do not want people mucking it up unless it is necessary.
However, the county council was prepared to allow Shell to drill in Denny Wood, a beautiful wood. It was only because the Minister called in the planning application and there was an inquiry that there was a change. There are disturbing proposals. There is a proposal for drilling near Boldre, not far from where I live. However, that does not bother me. The well that Shell has drilled will only be of significance if a battery of wells is drilled. That will be necessary to prove that there is oil. The other place will need to give careful consideration to this matter.
I regret the fact that the committee did not take the view of the inspector that the amenities or environmental interests of Lyndhurst were of less importance than those of the forest as a whole. The county and the committee did not share that view. We are grateful to the committee. I should be interested to know whether it would be possible to have route 6A without an Act of Parliament. It would be infinitely cheaper and would save legislation. That may be something that can be considered in another place.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, may I comment on that point? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, paragraph 41 was part of the case put forward by the petitioners. The committee's conclusions start on the opposite page. The committee concluded that routes 6 and 6A were not a satisfactory solution to the problem. If they were not satisfactory solutions, it does not matter whether or not they need legislation.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, at the risk of making a different point, the noble Lord is saying that legislation would be irrelevant as the committee was against the route. The noble Lord is not saying that it could be done without legislation.
5.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with great care to the arguments on both sides on whether the Lyndhurst bypass should follow the line proposed in the Bill or should take another route. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, who chaired the committee so skilfully, has already told your Lordships, the Select Committee came to the conclusion, after a lengthy hearing and after a visit to Lyndhurst, that the route selected was the best one. I think that your Lordships should give due weight to the committee's decision.
I wish to refer to a matter which is mentioned in the committee's special report and to which some of your Lordships have referred. It is the question of whether it is right that a public Act of Parliament—namely, the New Forest Act 1949—should be set aside by the promotion of a private Bill. I fully endorse what is so clearly set out in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the

769
committee's report; namely, that private Bills often repeal or amend the general law. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord confirm that. I respectfully agree entirely with what he said on that subject.
Lord Shackleton: Hear, hear.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, agree with that point. One of the main purposes of private legislation is to confer upon the promoters of private Bills powers which they cannot obtain under the general law, or to allow them an exemption from the restrictions of the general law.
One of my duties as the Chairman of Committees in the Unopposed Bill Committee is to examine, with the aid of my counsel, all Private Bills which come before Parliament. I can tell your Lordships that many of them seek the amendment of public Acts. The Unopposed Bill Committee examines each case with care but where on the merits it is appropriate that public legislation should be amended that power is certainly granted.
I think that it is very important to put on record the fact that, as Erskine May confirms, it is normal for a Private Bill to amend public legislation. Whether or not it is right to accept such amendment in any particular case is of course a matter for Parliament to decide.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the permission of the House. I was one of five Members of your Lordships' House appointed to this Select Committee. I should like to stress that the matter of consultation—which has been touched upon but not dealt with in detail—was a matter of great concern to me. We spent almost a day dealing with the question of consultations.
I was in no doubt after hearing the evidence that the county council—over a period of almost six years if my memory is correct—had set up exhibits, consulted with relevant bodies, and placed advertisements in the press requesting submissions. There was also an obligation on bodies which have a statutory duty to inquire into conservation and other matters to submit evidence. We therefore had every reason to believe that every opportunity was given for adequate consultation with all interested persons.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I was a Member of the Select Committee. Perhaps I may say a few words to try further to explain paragraph 41 which concerns the need for fencing.
The need for fencing arises provided that the animals have access to the roadside. The verderers had recommended an alternative route for the purpose of which they were prepared to give up certain lands. They were prepared to fence the animals out of those lands; the animals would therefore not have access to the route of the road. That would eliminate the need for the road to be fenced at that section.
770
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, this was only part of the petitioners' case. However, the Committee accepted that it was a fair point. If it had not, it would not have raised the matter in the report or it would have made its own comment about it.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. It deals with a part of the country with which I am not familiar. However, I listened to much of the Second Reading debate, and I have listened to this debate. I read with great care the Second Reading debate and the report of the Select Committee. I now believe that I have a certain affinity with the area, although I have a long way to go to be anything like as familiar with it as almost everyone who has spoken in the debate so far.
Perhaps I may make a minor criticism of the Select Committee report. Coming as I do from an area far removed from the New Forest I should have been happier if the plan appended to the report had been rather more detailed so that I could have looked at the general area of the ubiquitous Bolton's Bench, which is not mentioned in the plan, or The Paddocks, or Okefield private house, or many of the other important landmarks which appear to be so familiar to so many of your Lordships. I went to the Library yesterday and today to try to orientate myself with the area of Lyndhurst and its relationsihip to the New Forest. I was not able to obtain a great deal of material. Since the debate started my noble friend Lord Blease has shown me some of the material that was available to the Select Committee. The whole area is now much clearer to me.
The plan, with its accompanying text, illustrates very fully the dilemma that any committee faces. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, was absolutely correct: whatever decision it made would have created enemies. It is not an uncommon dliemma in similar circumstances.
When I read the report of the Second Reading I was struck by the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, both of whom seemed to be familiar with the area as it was a long time ago, long before anyone had thought in terms of the traffic of the late 20th century, although from reports it was beginning to get rather crowded in the early 20th century. The village was never built for such traffic. Any attempt to accommodate this traffic and to make life more bearable for the people of Lyndhurst offends the very ancient rights in the New Forest. The county council therefore had a duty to find an answer, although it knew that, whatever the answer, it would be impossible to please everyone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, we are only at the beginning of this issue. The Bill has to go through the other place, although I do not know whether it will go through exactly the same procedure; I do not know whether they will ask for a Select Committee to look at it or whether they will decide that Route 6 with 6A added, compared with the old Route 3, will be better than the route suggested by the county council. This is an issue which only the other place can ultimately decide.

771
However, I believe that the debate today, and that at Second Reading, and the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, will be of considerable help in assisting the other place to make up their minds.
This is a Private Bill. There is a completely free vote if the matter goes to a vote. Having seen some of the pictures of the very considerable traffic congestion in the town of Lyndhurst, I believe that the quicker we have this bypass—as outlined by the Select Committee and the Hampshire County Council—the better.
5.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene very briefly on behalf of the Government. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made it clear that the Government took the view that it is for the promotors to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified. I was interested in and enjoyed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. I realise that the verderers have a heavy and increasing responsibility in these days when the pressures upon the area for which they are responsible become greater and not fewer.
I need to answer one point. My noble friend Lord Manners was critical of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for not becoming involved in this matter by taking a definite line. I should like to say in reply that the Government are convinced that any encroachments on the forest of the kind we have been debating today should be very carefully considered. Given the apparent consensus that a bypass in some form is urgently needed, the Government's view is that in bringing this Bill before Parliament the promoters provide an opportunity for petitioners and others to set out their case fully to the Select Committee. We believe that this procedure provides the best opportunity for arguments from either side to be properly weighed and judged not by the Government, but by Parliament.
Having said that, I appreciate the strong feelings held by the promoters, the residents of Lyndhurst and those who have petitioned against the Bill over the proposed route. The Select Committee has considered all the issues very carefully and we must be grateful to it. The Bill has been allowed to proceed, but with the clear expression of view that the inner route, that is route 6/6A, really will not do. It is now a matter for Parliament to decide.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to conclude the debate on this Third Reading. We have heard a number of extremely interesting views from distinguished minds. Let me say at once that I am not a legal person and I am not qualified to enter into complex arguments or to give a view about what seem to me to be complex legal and constitutional points.
I remind the House that we have heard that the Countryside Commission spent two days in the New Forest and that the Select Committee, to whom we are very grateful, spent a day in Lyndhurst. For 19 of
772
the first 25 years of my life I was a resident, on and off, in the parish of Minstead, two and a half miles from Lyndhurst. Therefore I claim with reason to speak with some knowledge of the area covered by the provisions of the Bill.
We have heard from the noble Viscount, the chairman of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee reported that route 5A was the right one and it was correct because all other routes seemed to converge on Bolton's Bench; routes 6 and 6A, for all that they may or may not need fencing, still converge on Bolton's Bench. That has to be borne in mind and is an important point.
We hear a lot about ecology these days, do we not? When I was an undergraduate years ago, the word "ecology" occurred once in my biological textbook. There may have been a chapter on it and that as the heading, but it did not say much about ecology. It is a new science. If I understand it correctly, the science of ecology is a branch of the general science of biology. It is concerned with the interaction of living species one upon another. It is so often assumed that the only species which matter are the non-human species. We hear about the birds, the fish, the large animals, the small creatures and so on, and the plants. We sometimes forget—and even the scientists are guilty of this from time to time—about the human species upon whom the birds, the beasts and the fish have an effect; and the human species have an effect in the opposite direction. It seems to me that the Bill is very much concerned with trying to decide where the least damage can be done to the natural environment around Lyndhurst. The human environment of Lyndhurst has been so grossly distorted over the last 30 or 40 years as to make life very difficult and pretty unpleasant on some occasions for those who live there. I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind when coming to a conclusion on this matter.
It is perfectly true that minimal damage—it will be minimal damage—is likely to occur if the route of the bypass follows 5A. I am sure we all accept that, but it seems to me that the Hampshire County Council leant over backwards to instruct us, to try to reassure us that the works concerned with the building of a bypass, the route to be followed, the reinstatement work and the monitoring of all these things will be done to the highest degree possible with consultation and advice from terrestrial ecologists and with the verderers. I read earlier today a letter from the verderers which gave that reassurance. It is important to the Hampshire County Council that if the Bill becomes an Act and the route follows 5A there will be close and strict consultation with the verderers who are important.
One cannot have lived for 19 years as I did in the New Forest without understanding the importance of the verderers. The Official Verderer, the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, and my family have been friends for many years. I was disturbed to read a report in The Times on Monday which used the words "acrimony" and "bitterness". Let me assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord that there is no acrimony and no bitterness in my soul on these matters. I take a different view and that is all it is. I

773
am quite certain that that view is reciprocated by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord in terms of acrimony and bitterness—there is none. I see the problem from a different angle. I wanted to make that point because I was disturbed to read the report in The Times that there was acrimony and bitterness. There is none here, my Lords, where we conduct our affairs in a different spirit, and quite right too.
The noble Lord, Lord Manners, mentioned "We who love the Forest's beauty and wildlife" as if the petitioners against the Bill were the only ones who loved the Forest's beauty and wildlife. It is not so. Again I refer to the fact that I lived 19 of the first 25 years of my life in the New Forest and I love the forest, its beauty and its wildlife. I am quite satisfied that what is contained in the Bill will do minimal damage to the area of the forest within the immediate environs of Lyndhurst. It is not only petitioners against the Bill who may be counted among the lovers of the New Forest.
We heard about the West Wellow bypass and my goodness they need a bypass. I use that road two or three times a week journeying from south Wiltshire to Southampton. They need a bypass at West Wellow because the road is dangerous. We heard about the coal-fired power station at Fawley. My mind goes back to 1942 or 1943 when there were proposals to build an oil refinery. It so happened that a member of my family was then chairman of the rural district council in the New Forest. A great fight was put up. The whole thing was called in by the Minister of the day. He is a Member of your Lordships' House, but he has left the Chamber. The refinery went ahead in the teeth of opposition from local interests. I am speaking, as it were, on behalf of my family in the matter because I feel it is possible to take a different view about different things at different times.
I am grateful, as we all are, to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose place I have usurped here today. I apologise to him for that, but it seemed to be the best way of going about it. With his usual clarity and skill he brought out many points in his intervention in favour of proceeding with the Bill.
I have talked about ecology and Lyndhurst. If I do not refer to some speeches it is not because I have no comments to make about them but simply because of the time factor. I turn now to the robust, if I may use that word, address of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He said, and we all agree, that the Select Committee reported that a bypass is essential. There is no difference among us about that. A bypass is essential. He said, and we all agree, that the Select Committee report carries the recommendation that it is route 5A that should be followed. Then the noble and learned Lord asked the question: What is the consequence if the Bill is rejected? Throughout the proceedings on the Bill—the Second Reading, the determinations of the Select Committee and now this Third Reading debate—we have used the expression that "controversy has raged", or something like that, for 50 years. It may interest noble Lords to know that I received a letter the other day from one longstanding resident of the New Forest which makes it quite plain to me that the first acquisitions of land in order to secure a route for a bypass around
774
Lyndhurst—it is the old route through Pike's Hill, Emery Down and coming in at Swan Green—date from 1928. That is 60 years ago bar six months. So I come back to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. What will happen if this piece of legislation is now rejected? Is everybody to hang about for another 60 years?
There is the question of the legal and constitutional respectability of the Bill. That has been thoroughly aired and debated and I think we must accept that the Bill is respectable. But I leave it there. We heard from the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading; the question is dealt with in the special report of the Select Committee; and we have heard again at Third Reading today from the noble and learned Lord. If anybody is still questioning the legality of the Bill, there is nothing that I can say that will dissuade him from an alternate view.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who said that in his view it was route 5A or nothing at all. It is a persuasive view. I think that I could go along with that. The noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, referred to Route 6A and said that he would like to have another look at it. It would not require fencing, or it would require fencing but it would be legal if it was not fenced—it becomes very complicated at this point. The danger is that this will go on and on. Route 6A converges on Bolton's Bench again. We are back to Bolton's Bench and that is no good. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that it was legally all right—another view about the legality of the Bill.
We have heard many speeches. I invite your Lordships to contribute to a lessening of the—I was about to say "horrors"—inconveniences and discomforts of the people of Lyndhurst who for years now have suffered from an overdose of traffic. I invite your Lordships to contribute to a lessening of the discomforts for the motorists, the car travellers, who suffer on a steaming Saturday or Sunday morning. Go and have a look at them, my Lords. Between 11 o'clock in the morning and 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon families become overheated, cars become overheated, and the language becomes overheated. It is not much fun and no progress is made. It is uneconomic for them and destroys their enjoyment.
I have said enough. I hope that we shall not have to wait another 60 years. I fervently hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EC Fourth Environmental Action Programme
5.54 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report Session 198–7, H.L. 136).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There could scarcely be a greater contrast between the debate which I have the privilege to initiate and the debate which your Lordships have

775
just concluded; and yet there is a relationship. The debate which has just concluded dealt with a very precise problem concerned with what should be done in the best interests of the environment and of the social and economic consequences of the proposals made. The debate which I have the privilege of opening here is of quite a different character. It relates to what programme would be appropriate for the European Communities to undertake over the next five years, and that raises broad questions of what views should be taken and what priorities should be accorded to that programme.
This Fourth Environmental Action Programme relating to the period 1987–92 sets out an agenda or programme for action over that period in the same way as the previous three action programmes did. This Fourth Action Programme may be said to continue the policies set out in the third action programme. There are, however, important distinctive features which arise in part from recent developments in the Community. One of these is the ratification of the so-called Single European Act, which constitutes the first amendment of the Treaty of Rome. We thought it would be a convenience to your Lordships if the relevant portion of that Single European Act were set out in an appendix to the report where it may be found.
The Single European Act includes a chapter on the environment. It is particularly significant that one of the provisions—Article 130 R 2—includes the following sentence:
"Environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies".
Thus environmental policy has moved to the centre of the stage instead of being at the periphery, an agreeable "add-on" to other policies. Instead it has become an essential element, a motivating force.
In recent years there has developed within the Community and elsewhere growing public demand for improved standards of environmental protection and for environmentally friendly goods. Public awareness of environmental matters has developed both within the Community and elsewhere. Many factors have contributed to this. The publicity given in Germany to the death of the forests from acid rain deposition had a great impact. Over the past few years there have been a number of major accidents such as that at Bophal and the disaster at Chernobyl; and then of course, more recently still, there has been the Sandoz disaster resulting in extensive damage to the Rhine. So the proposals in the action programme related to nuclear safety, and, more generally, the insistence on high standards of environmental protection reflect widespread public concern.
The original draft Council resolution, which will be found in Appendix 3 of our report, summarises the topics covered in the action programme and identifies 19 priority areas. Initially, the committee thought it might usefully produce an order of priority in which these should be addressed. We concluded, however, that to do this it would be necessary to carry out a study of each of the priority areas. It soon became apparent that the presidency was keen to proceed with the action prgoramme urgently. Accordingly, within the time available for publication of a report
776
which would be useful, this was not practicable. We therefore decided to study three general themes relevant to the proposed action programme—namely, implementation, research and agriculture.
In March, this year, after the committee made that decision and commenced the study, the original list to which I referred was considerably revised and expanded by the Environment Council. It gave greater emphasis to the themes which the committee considers in its report, in particular agriculture which appears on the list of priorities for the first time.
The committee considers that implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority. More than 100 Community directives have been made on environmental matters. Failure to implement them is not only unsatifactory in itself but, where implemented in some countries but not in others, distorts the conditions of competition within the Community. Above all, failure to implement laws which have been made undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates. There is a growing gap between standards of implementation in some member states and in others. The time has come when there should be a complete review of the progress of implementation of existing directives and that there should be restraint in the creation of new directives where these are not urgently required and essential, until the backlog has been cleared.
We accept of course that new directives will probably be required urgently in respect of major new problems such as those arising out of reforms of the CAP. Implementation of directives, is required at two levels: first, by the making of appropriate national legislation in each member state to carry out the objectives indicated in the directive; and, secondly, the establishment of appropriate machinery to implement that national legislation within the member state itself. Priority should be given to identifying the most important directives which have not been embodied in national law and implemented there.
The Seveso directive is a good example. It will be recalled that this directive followed the disaster in northern Italy at Seveso. It requires that manufacturers who handle certain dangerous substances should draw up a plan of action which in the case of an accident would safeguard not only persons but the environment. It required compliance by January 1984. Yet to date only Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom are in formal compliance with it. Luxembourg's legislation is still at the draft stage and proceedings have been instigated at the Court of Justice.
This is an enormously important directive dealing with a matter of the greatest public concern. It has been said that had the arrangements set out in this directive been in force in Switzerland, the Sandoz disaster would not have taken place. Rectifying failures such as these to implement directives which have been made is clearly a matter of the first priority.
There is a close relationship between implementation of Community environmental legislation and the scientific basis for it; for legislative measures to protect the environment fall into disrepute if they are not justified—and appear to be justified—on a clear scientific assessment of need.

777
The committee has in previous reports expressed doubts about the adequacy of the scientific basis of directives and believe it is of the first importance that this should be clearly expressed in the legislation itself.
Implementation by education of the public is bound to fail where that need is not clear, and enforcement through the courts or otherwise inevitably tends to bring the Community into disrepute where the need for the legislation is not manifest. As the committee has indicated in previous reports, there are circumstances where the course of prudence dictates in the light of evidence available that environmental legislation is required as a precautionary measure. Where this is so this should be made clear and the reasons for it.
The committee is concerned that DGXI is not adequately equipped to define the scope of research which it requires, to supervise it and to evaluate its results. The research which is necessary in relation to an environmental programme does not relate only to scientific matters such as investigation of the chemical, physical or biological consequences of certain types of pollution but may also relate to the social, economic and political consequences of environmental programmes.
Whatever the nature of the research required, however, it is in our view essential that those responsible for formulating and implementing environmental policy should be equipped to define the scope of the research it requires to supervise it and to evaluate its results. DGXI must acquire suitable people to take these responsibilities and its resources be appropriately increased.
The committee is much concerned that the profound environmental impact of changes now taking place in the common agricultural policy have received scant consideration in the action programme. The lack of an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the action programme is regrettable. It seems to us that the profound consequences throughout the Community of the reform of the CAP have not been considered in sufficient detail, and we are concerned indeed that they have not been fully comprehended.
During the course of our study some members of the committee visited Brussels to take evidence from representatives of the European Communities. We found much of this evidence was encouraging in that it indicated a line of thought and an approach similar to our own. One of those who gave evidence to us was Mr. L. J. Brinkhorst, director general in DGXI. The main burden of his evidence which is published with our report, relates to the connection between high environmental standards and a competitive economy. He pointed to the success of the Japanese in so many competitive fields of trade and industry while at the same time Japan has over recent years adopted some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world.
I recently came across the relationship between the two on a visit to the United States. Tobacco imported by Brazil from the US was said to contain unacceptable traces of pesticides. The Brazilian authorities wished to reject it on public health grounds. Some months previously I heard about a
778
similar problem concerning the import into the United States of malting barley from West Germany which was said to suffer from the same defect.
A similar problem has recently been encountered in this country in relation to dieldrin, which has been banned for use in this country as a sheep-dip for several years; yet certain rivers were recently found to be polluted by it. It came from washing wool imported from Australia; so the question arises whether those imports should be banned. So high environmental standards seem more and more to be a necessary condition for successful export trade.
It is sometimes thought that the environment consists of wild forests and mountain streams, auks and eagles and hedgerows filled with wildlife and flowers. It comprises all these, but also juggernauts and railways, power stations and coal mines, houses and factories and their processes and products. Between them all there is constant interplay, constant friction. The task of environmental policy is to reconcile conflicting demands of one upon another in the constantly changing scene. That policy and the way we implement it moulds the world in which we live.
This is the context in which the Action Programme has to be considered. I believe, despite the criticisms we have made, that this Fourth Action Programme provides a sound basis for action in the coming years. Indeed, the formulation of such an Action Programme is perhaps a task which Her Majesty's Government might undertake for this country to provide an agenda for the direction which environmental policy should take—a context for determining priorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report, Session 1986ߝ87, H.L. 135).—(Lord Nathan.)
6.8 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has introduced this important debate with such an admirably succinct review of our substantial report, and even more substantial Fourth Action Programme. I am going to limit my remarks into one field. It is a major policy statement which the EC produces every fourth year, and it is to be recognised as a document full of enthusiasm for the mammoth task of improving the European environment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, the programme identifies 22 priority aims. That might be considered rather a lot of priorities. It depends of course on changing the mental outlook of the citizens of Europe in the 14 member states and in some respect their way of life. Most of the objectives cost money, and some of them a great deal. As the noble Lord has already said, there are already more than 100 directives dealing with aspects of environmental improvement which member states must legislate. Nobody can doubt, least of all myself, that the immense effort by the Commission is conceived for the benefit of all.
In my short speech I shall refer to only one of the 22 new priorities mentioned in the programme. It is

779
a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already referred: the implementation of existing directives. The noble Lord has made some cogent comments on this matter and I should like to add to them. There are signs that the implementation of some directives in some member states is no more than perfunctory. Our report observes that even a directive as dramatic as the Seveso directive has not yet been implemented in the majority of states. There are strong indications that many less spectacular directives have, in some instances, been virtually ignored.
The action programme suggests that a Community environmental inspectorate might be set up. Our report advises against that solution on the grounds that, in our judgment, the arrival of an EC inspector on the ground of an offending site would be more likely to raise tempers than co-operation. On the other hand, the Commission's innovation of visiting offices of the Commission to discuss with officials of member states at government level the measures being taken, or not being taken, to implement directives is, evidently, a useful and constructive step which our report supports.
However, I believe that the time has come to go further and to make a directive requiring member states to draw up a complete review of all directives already made. Here I go beyond our report; but the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was going some way in this direction. It would require each member state to make a report within a set period of, say, a couple of years, first, of the legislative action taken to implement each of the 100-plus directives which we have already; secondly, the enforcement action taken to ensure observance of the laws, including the penalties; and, thirdly, the measure of environmental improvement achieved in each case. Recently-joined states will need some dispensation before conformity can be expected.
The review may well show a serious measure of failure to implement existing environmental directives. However, it could be the basis for a major effort by all members of the Community to strengthen their policies and actions in this important field. If we continue on the present line we shall reach the position of the Emperor's new clothes. That would be most damaging to all of us; we should be among the naked.
I should like to make three subsidiary points in that connection. The first is a point which has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but it is worth repeating. It is that the Commission should take even greater care to ensure that the scientific basis for a new directive is soundly based. Evidently, some directives have been based on an incomplete assessment of the problem concerned. I give as a good example the directive regarding the dumping of waste in the North Sea. Apparently that was made without consideration of the major source of North Sea pollution from the River Rhine, which is gigantic, and other North German rivers. It therefore totally failed to carry scientific conviction.
In that connection, our report welcomes the Commission's intention to keep an up-to-date
780
register of scientists in all member states working on particular subjects in order to ensure that the Commission can readily obtain reliable scientific information on all new topics under review. The scientific basis for a directive must be beyond question but at present that is not always the case.
Secondly, it must be learnt that when the Council of Ministers come to consider a directive submitted by the Commission, it is not provided with the scientific basis for the directive laid before it. Our report recommends that that is essential for a proper assessment of the merits of the directive, and that in future the scientific basis should always be laid before ministers.
My third and final subsidiary point is that the economic implications of directives is often substantial; for instance, directives relating to the prevention of pollution of water, both fresh and sea water. At the present time in this country there is a national campaign (which has been in existence for several years) to conform with the directive of water quality on bathing beaches. It costs water authorities in this country several hundred million pounds each year. That is reflected in increased charges for water treatment. That in turn is paid for by industry and all householders. However, for industry it is a significant extra cost to production.
On the other hand, it would be a rare exception to find similar action on the Mediterranean beaches, which some of us know well, of Italy, Greece, Spain or France, where existing effluents are in most cases discharged untreated into a sea where tides are small and currents slight. In those countries industry is spared the additional cost but conditions of competition between states are distorted in favour of the defaulters. Thus failure to implement a directive is given a valuable economic incentive.
I conclude that failure by the Commission to achieve general implementation of directives is not only losing the environmental benefits which each is designed to achieve, but it is having side effects which endanger the credibility and authority of the Commission. It is in the interest of all member states that top priority action is taken to strengthen the implementation of existing directives. If our report helps in that direction, it will have done a useful job.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, as well as providing a most valuable analysis of the contents of the action programme, the report is welcome as a reminder to the European Commission, to governments and to us all of the range of factors which we should have in mind when discussing the environment. I suppose that now we are all environmentalists. Be that as it may, it is easy to be carried away by the sometimes passionate singlemindedness of the environmentalists. That is not to deny the need to take fully and properly into account the environmental considerations when making decisions about industry. All around us we see the results of ignoring those considerations. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has reminded us, those decisions must also take account of the realities of the industrial and employment situations.

781
I was struck by the statement in the action programme that high standards of environmental protection have become an economic imperative. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has reminded the House that it is proposed to amend the Treaty of Rome itself to require that:
"environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies".
Those are high claims indeed for one factor, albeit important, in decisions about industry. Selecting environmental protection requirements for unique treatment comes perilously close to elevating environmental considerations above all else—above output, competitiveness and employment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government in examining the action programme will keep firmly in mind the possible effects on output and employment of conceding all the claims of DGXI and of the environmental lobby.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has referred to the claim made by the Commissioners' witnesses in evidence that environmental measures would generate jobs by increasing competitiveness. I should like to think that that was so. To be frank, I do not find it very persuasive when the only instance quoted was the Japanese motor industry in relation to the effect of improving exhaust emissions. It is of course highly desirable that emissions should be improved. No doubt that makes a contribution to the competitiveness of Japanese motors at a cost. I take leave to doubt whether that factor can carry the weight that the Commissioners' witnesses sought to put upon it.
We need to look rather to market analysis, planning, design, engineering, dependability and the involvement of the workforce in these matters rather than to the improvement of exhaust emissions as the way in which the Japanese motor industry has made great strides in recent years. No doubt it would be possible, as is claimed, to create some jobs by tighter environmental controls. For example, if we decided to pull down or seal off nuclear power stations, that would provide a fair bit of work for a few years but with the consequence of many fewer jobs being available in British industry because of our lack of competitiveness.
The report, at paragraph 18(ii) on page 8, quotes the conclusions of the working party on the environment at the 1982 economic summit at Versailles, which gives a more balanced view of policy development. Even that says:
"long term economic growth is possible only if we protect and conserve the environmental resources which underpin prosperity".
That is fine, but it is at least equally true that we need to recognise that economic growth itself is essential if we are to generate the resources that we need to protect and improve the environment. No growth analysis may appeal to Merrie Englanders. I do not find it a very attractive scenario, nor, do I think, would most employees.
I believe it is crucial, therefore, that these broader considerations be kept firmly in focus by those who make the decisions. That can best be done by improving the consultative processes between those deciding about environmental matters and industry,
782
by which I mean employers and trade unions. The environment starts at the place of work. If we have the right measures to prevent industrial accidents and noxious emissions and to restrict noise pollution, we should already have gone quite a long way to protecting the external environment.
In my view we need the explicit incorporation in Community instruments, including the directives, of explicit requirements for national governments to consult representatives of employers and unions at national level. We need also explicit requirements for the Commission to consult representatives of employers and trade unions at the Community level.
I share the view of the committee and of the Government that implementation is better pursued at national level. So far as I am aware there are reasonably satisfactory arrangements for access by industry to civil servants and to Ministers in our own country, although one might have a look at that in consultation with the inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that there are no gaps.
However, the impression that I get from the evidence given to the committee, and indeed from my experience as a former member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community, is that access to Community bureaucrats is very patchy and often unsatisfactory. It is so much easier for civil servants to draft directives in the quietness of their own offices or in their own official committees than it is to have to engage in nitty-gritty arguments with representatives of industry about the need for particular measures and about the form that directives can most practically take. If the result of more consultation were fewer directives, there might be a positive gain in present circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, reminded us that more than 100 environmental directives are in operation already.
The director general of DGXI on environment informed the committee in evidence:
"I have been struck to see that DGXI has moved up to the No. 3 position in the number of directives not being implemented".
I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether top or bottom of that league wins most Brownie points in Brussels.
Consultation of the kind that I am urging provides two-way benefits. It gives industry a chance to tell the Eurocrats what is possible within available resources and what are the best and most practical ways of protecting and improving the environment. On the other hand, it gives the Eurcrats the means of putting more effective pressure on industry to make the changes that have been established as necessary.
I very much agree with the Committee's conclusion:
"Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority".
If it had said "top priority", I should have agreed even more strongly.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing the report in such clear terms. I

783
welcome its conclusions and the way in which it has been presented to us. I believe that all of us who are interested in the environment have been immensely heartened by the inclusion in the Single European Act of an environmental policy as a component of other European Community policies. Many of us have been fighting for this for years.
I congratulate the committee on looking at the fourth directive and concluding that its report should be based on three themes, all of them important and having an impact on most activities within the Community.
Like other speakers, I regard the implementation of already-existing directives as the most important of all. I am in complete agreement that member states should introduce legislation within their own nations to fulfil the requirements of the directives. On the whole, this seems to have taken place, albeit sometimes very belatedly or even too late. They have introduced legislation. But the question of enforcement produces a completely different answer. As already stated and as all of us know, the existence of a law which is not enforced puts that law into complete disrepute.
I do not believe that we can expect DGXI, with its limited staff, to contemplate large-scale monitoring of what goes on within each Community state. I would therefore strongly support the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that reports from each nation should be called in to DGXI. At the moment, reports are often inadequate and not always submitted regularly. We should be very careful to avoid the position whereby every time a nation fails to fulfil its obligations under directives it is taken to the European Court. I realise that Luxembourg has been taken to the European Court over the Seveso directive. But one cannot contemplate the Commission taking all the other nations to court in turn. It is one of the great problems of how we manage to enforce legislation as a Community.
I am glad that the report mentions the importance of voluntary organisations. If we go back in time—a long time—it was largely voluntary, non-governmental organisations that began the work of alerting us to the dangers inherent in disregarding the impact of our way of life on the environment. That remains so, and it will fall to a great extent on voluntary organisations within each nation to act as watchdogs in regard to non-implementation. Their contribution to furthering education on environmental matters must not be underestimated. In fact, voluntary non-governmental organisations are admirably placed to take their own governments before national courts when they fail to implement legislation within their country.
I welcome what the report says on the question of lack of research funds in DGXI. I welcome the setting-up of a register of scientists working on particular environmental problems. We all know that voluntary organisations, universities and scientific bodies are engaged in research. A large number of expert scientists all around Europe are working on these problems. It would be lunacy, in my view, to create large sums of money for research at DGXI
784
without first drawing on the research that is already being carried out. This cannot happen without the setting-up of a register to make certain that all the different types of research are pooled in one centre.
That is not to say that I believe it is right that the research money at present available to DGXI should have been reduced. That is a tragedy. Even with a pool of knowledge coming into DGXI, it will have to be analysed. And that has to be done by research personnel. However, it is important when we look at these questions to avoid duplication of work and to make use of the knowledge that already exists.
One point I welcome particularly in the report is obvious to everyone, I think. I welcome the recommendation for closer co-operation between DGVI and DGXI. It is impossible to imagine that someone can believe that the impact of agriculture on our environment is not one of the most important. In view of proposed changes in the CAP, we need to look at the environmental impact of set-aside and large-scale afforestation. I welcome particularly the suggested setting-up of an independent body like the Nature Conservancy Council to advise DGIV and DGXI. I think this report will be a valuable document, and I thank the committee for it.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as a member of the committee, may I thank the noble Baroness for thanking us? However, really all the congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has so ably chaired that committee for the past four years in a very decisive, clear and helpful manner; and he has turned his attention to the very wide range of different environmental subjects that have been brought before us. I have been constantly astounded by the depths of his learning and the speed with which he manages to research each subject that comes before us. He has served the committee extremely well during his period of chairmanship and there will be many of us who will be sorry to see him "rotated". That happens to the best of us from time to time. I also congratulate him on the extremely capable way in which he ranged over the full scope of the committee's report.
I shall not attempt to do the same myself. I simply want to bring some emphasis to two points. One of them has been repeated by most speakers so far: that is, environmental research. The second is the small but important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already drawn to your Lordships' attention. It appears in paragraph 103 of the report.
First of all, I want to talk a little about the scientific base of community legislation. During the hearings of the Select Committee, it was somwhat startling to hear Mr. Waldegrave say—as recorded in paragraph 58 of the report—that the scientific basis for proposed directives is not presented to council and that council Ministers do not insist on scientific evidence being made available to them.
It is in the environmental field that this evidence is of paramount importance. Pretty well every environmental directive that is framed by the Commission is based on science and scientific research. Scientific evidence is taken of the damage that pollutants do to the environment, the

785
concentrations at whch those pollutants are damaging and the concentrations at which they are adjudged to be safe. That scientific information forms the very basis of the standards laid down in the directive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, emphasised and as the report declares in paragraph 91, it seems absolutely essential that this information should be available to decision-makers. If I can urge anything on my noble friend who is sitting on the Front Bench it is that he will always insist on having a scientific adviser at his side or accessible when he is in the smoky hinterland of decision-making at the ministerial meetings.
However, I recognise that there are other considerations, as Mr. Waldegrave himself accepted (Question 380). First, no scientist would claim that science itself is free from dispute. On the basis of the most rigorous evidence, scientists can and do disagree. It then falls to my noble friend to make a political judgment. There is also a second set of circumstances, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has laid emphasis in his speech, which I found extremely interesting and thoughtful; namely, that at the socio-economic level there must be other factors that weigh more heavily in the opinion of policy-makers than the straightforward scientific indications themselves.
I think that all environmentalists must accept that there are times when those factors will appear to be of overriding weight and will influence decisions to the detriment perhaps of the environment. However, I believe that in such circumstances democratic government absolutely requires that the conflict between science and politics must be exposed and made explicit. So once again I urge on my noble friend that when a decision appears to be in conflict with scientific evidence, perhaps on grounds which I can broadly call socio-economic, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, it must be openly stated from the very beginning, and pseudo-science must not be used to justify the decision.
I should like to emphasise and draw attention to paragraph 89 of the report which states that the budget for environmental research is too small. The Commission of the European Communities itself wishes to enlarge the budget for scientific research. At the time of the Select Committee's visit to Brussels, what is now called the "framework programme" was in an early stage of consideration—I refer your Lordships to Question 285 in the evidence of Dr. Bourdeau, which is appended to the report. Since that time the discussion has reached the Council, and Her Majesty's Government find themselves in a somewhat isolated position in insisting on a standstill budget rather than an expansion for which the Commission hoped.
I do not claim to speak for all British scientific opinion but it is undoubtedly true that scientific opinion in this country strongly supports the Select Committee is urging the importance of and the essential need for expanded support for research in the environmental field. However, as your Lordships can see by reading somewhat between the lines of the evidence of the Natural Environment Research
786
Council in this report, there is a body of scientists somewhat averse to having extra resources directed exclusively to Brussels for onward redistribution.
One point that was mentioned by the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council is that inevitably—and one must recognise excusably—there is a certain amount of what one might call financial friction because some of the money is necessarily absorbed in overheads.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the suggestion that there should be a register of scientists, but there are also other ways in which the role of the Commission can be enhanced in improving direct liaison between scientists, national research centres and scientific institutions of member states. I see the role of liaison along those lines as being important in two ways in particular: first, in order to avoid the duplication of research effort in national centres; and secondly to encourage joint programmes of the nature that the Commission seeks, but programmes which are funded by national sources when national interests are clearly identified and seen to he involved in a joint exercise.
Were I to be asked for examples, I should cite the current European Geotraverse, which is organising seismic research from Norway through to Iberia and possibly as far as Yugoslavia, and which is being co-ordinated by the European Science Foundation. I feel that there is perhaps a role for the European Science Foundation or some other body of senior politicaly-uncommitted scientists as a referral and cordination body in overseeing the Commission's environmental research or at least being used as referees for it.
I turn to my second topic which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is clear from the evidence of the senior civil servants—for instance, Mr. Rowcliffe in Question 3 and the Minister himself in Question 371—that there was considerable effort within the Government machinery to assemble a multidepartmental response to the action programme. Inevitably that must have forged links. People who did not normally speak or write to each other must have done so. I believe that when such linkages are established they represent a real and important resource in any administrative machine and should be preserved.
In itself that is one argument for presenting in the form of a published response the Government's own forward programme for the next five years to match the Community's action programme. I believe that the action programme itself deserves a national mirror. It would set priorities for expenditure and establish targets against which progress could be measured. As an example I draw my noble friend's attention to what in the Netherlands is called the "Indicative Multi-Annual Programme", which in effect is a rolling five-year forward plan for environmental action. In that plan the Government's aims for pollution control in all media—air, land and water—are integrated and exposed for national scrutiny. I believe that that is a good model which could be followed to advantage by our own Government.
Evidence from practice in the Netherlands suggests that it has an important additional value other than

787
that which I have already mentioned. It has value to industry in focusing interest on the issues, raising the level of discussion inside big companies and attracting the attention of senior management and those who have to plan the forward budget. Such a rolling five-year forward plan would also be valuable to research councils and other scientific institutions, including universities, which in many cases are also working to corporate plans with a three-year to five-year forward look and whose own planning systems would be strengthened by clear evidence of the Government's intentions.
I believe that that would improve the outsider's perception of the Government's environmental concern, indicate to industry where investment on pollution control should be concentrated, and prepare the scientific research community to put forward its strength at the right time and for the right causes.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee on the excellent report that they have produced, which deals sensibly and sensitively with a wide range of environmental issues. I should like to deal briefly with some of the agricultural issues that arise from the report of the Select Committee and also the Fourth Action Programme.
When I looked at the Fourth Action Programme—and here I enter a small note of dissent from other speakers—I began to feel that the problem of introducing a Community-wide agricultural environmental policy may be even harder, if that were possible, than the problem we face in having a Community-wide agricultural support policy. I notice that the Select Committee noted that there was "surprisingly little reference to agriculture" in the action programme. I wonder, perhaps suspiciously, if those who had to draft the action programme recognised the difficulty that I have just described.
Regarding specific agricultural issues, first, there is a great danger if we mix up the problems of the environment; of social structure and of price policy. Such problems relate to each other and obviously have a knock-on effect. I believe there is a great danger in piece meal solutions which isolate different areas of the problem, and also in attempting, for example, to solve a structure problem through the price policy. This also applies to environmental problems.
I believe there is an overlap between environmental and rural structure problems. There are particular dangers in this for the UK because we have larger farms with a better structure in agriculture than the rest of Europe. We must remember throughout the effect on rural employment. There are references in the Report of the Select Committee to the larger farms. But it is the larger farms which provide the jobs in British agriculture. Somehow the idea of making large farms smaller may sound great in theory, but is almost impossible to put into practice. To pick up a phrase used by my noble friend, Lord Murray, farmers may say "We are all environmentalists now". I am afraid that is not really
788
true. The majority of farmers I know are much too busy earning a living at the moment to worry too much about conservation issues. But it is a fact that it is the larger and more prosperous farms which, in the main, have planted trees and protected flora and fauna and led the efforts in the countryside on environmental issues.
Referring to the problem of pollution mentioned in the reports, we must remember that some farms are victims of pollution. Those who farm on the urban fringe find that their crops and animals suffer from industrial pollution. In some cases, people are also a problem. On one of the farms with which I am connected we farm up to the garden fences of a large urban area. The problems in the part of the farm which is nearest to the houses mean that we are not able to put livestock on the land, and the household items that pass through our equipment are interesting and curious. Obviously, in the report there are mentions of nitrates, pesticides and the handling of organic waste. There is a problem, and it is largely one of definition.
Concerning the problem of nitrates, for example, there is reference to the fact that the polluter should pay, and also to be fair, the report mentions the difficulty of deciding who is the polluter. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a school of scientific opinion which holds that some at least of the nitrates which are now in our water result from the ploughing up of grassland in the War to grow arable crops. It has taken a long period for this to leak out into the acquifers. If that is the case which polluter will pay? I suspect the answer may well be that we will have to install plants for denitrification, to deal with the problem—perhaps that is the only answer. In that case who will pay for such plants? As a side issue, when the Government produces its prospectus for the privatisation of the water industry I shall be interested to see how they propose to deal with this particular problem.
As far as pesticides are concerned we have to be realistic and practical. At the moment farmers are being squeezed unmercifully on prices. If we are asked to restrict the use of pesticides and thereby reduce our yields, then there must be some form of compensation. I shall refer to that matter later.
There is a mention in the report of the ideas for set-aside and afforestation. The Set-aside idea, in my view, is a palliative. It may be only a temporary answer to a long-run problem. I should like to discuss less intensive farming—it is a phrase used in the report. What does it mean? We have had something like 40 years of production-oriented farming in this country. We are used to thinking in terms of producing more and more which is the policy we have been encouraged to follow. But there is a problem of definition for example, I was involved in the organisation of a conference and we wanted to make the title "Low Input Farming". We asked ADAS to help us and to speak. They refused to do so unless we altered the title to "Lower Input Farming", and not "Low Input Farming". It is a connoisseur's distinction, but it was important to ADAS at the time.
In my experience it is not necessarily true that less intensive farming is more 'inefficient'—a phrase used in the report—even in terms of return on capital. I

789
will make a forecast that it will be the low cost farmers who will survive the current recession in agriculture. Successful farmers have an unsophisticated business plan: they intend to be the last one to go broke.
Less intensive farming will be good for the environment; it will mean reduced production and will help to deal with the problem of surplus. However, it is much harder technically. It requires a very high level of technical competence not to reach for the sprayer or the syringe when there is a problem on the farm. Very little work has been done on the techniques and the economics of less intensive farming. A firm direction of research and development is needed to show farmers how to farm less intensively and still remain profitable.
As I said, we have had 40 years' of production-oriented farming. This has fed through into farmers' attitudes. To take a small example, there is the pejorative and slightly contemptuous description used by farmers of organic farming as "muck, mystery and magic".
I am attracted to less intensive and low input farming. I think we should do a lot more work in research in this area, but the problem is actually how to farm less intensively. There is a good idea which the NFU mentioned in their evidence to the Committee of a contract conservation. A farmer would contract to product environmental benefits. For example, on the farms with which I am connected we have had ADAS prepare a land management plan. They have done a superb job of identifying the footpaths, the areas for tree planting, the hedgerows, the flora and fauna and many other aspects of conservation. It would have been comparatively easy to link into that land management plan a conservation plan which showed how to reduce production on our farm. We would not mind doing this so long as we are paid a premium to make up for lost production if we are doing it for the benefit of the community as a whole.
There must be specific research and development directed to low input systems. In my view, most farmers would welcome such systems. Successful farmers have a rooted objection to spending money and they would be very attracted to low input systems and methods.
It is a matter of general agreement in the European Community and on all sides of politics that the environment belongs to us all. I am delighted to note there is now general acceptance of a good socialist argument. Everyone now believes in interventionist policies to protect the environment. As an aside, it will be one of the nicer political ironies in coming years to see free marketeers in this and in the other place queueing up to support substantial interference in the operation of the free market and perhaps agreeing with plans to pay farmers to produce less.
There is a simple point; if the environment belongs to us all then we all have to pay for its protection. We have been encouraged for a number of years to expand production; and we have created a substantial capital base to enable us to do that. The whole community has to share in the cost of adapting to the new pressures. The whole cost must not fall on
790
the farmer but I am afraid that I have a nasty suspicion that it well might. To sum up the argument on compensation, I shall quote from a publication by Green Europe entitled Environment and the CAP:
"The Commission's new guidelines acknowledge that the role played by agriculture in protecting and improving the quality of the environment can and must continue. If this objective is to be achieved, attitudes must develop in two ways. In the first place, farmers must realize that certain constraints on the development of their activities are indispensable not only because of market forces but also because the natural environment in which they work is a vital asset which must be safeguarded for future generations. Secondly, the consumer and the taxpayer must realize that special services are rendered by farmers in the safeguard of the environment and that these services, where they entail constraints encroaching on incomes, must be properly remunerated".
There is another fundamental problem which must be faced by the farmer and the conservationist. It is the problem that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. One might he called in as an adviser to a farm or an estate where the fields are small, the crops are full of weeds, the hedgerows are overgrown, and the land is crawling with rabbits and other vermin, and where the trees which are growing are all in the middle of the fields. In that situation, what would we do? We would make the fields larger. We would straighten out the hedgerows. We would take out trees but for every one tree taken out we would plant two. The two would be planted in the corners of fields or in the hedgerows. We would have to destroy the vermin but, at the end of that period, I would regard the farm as more beautiful and more pleasing to the eye.
I have discussed this matter with some conservationists who take completely the opposite view. They argue that the weed-filled crops contain a variety of species and that the overgrown hedgerows, provide the habitat for a number of species of animals and insects. There is a fundamental divide here which we would do well to face and not to ignore.
I conclude with a true story. Recently, we visited a deprived rural area on holiday. I looked out over the water from a jetty on a lovely evening. On the jetty there was a group of lads who did not have much to do. It was, as I have said, a deprived rural area. I waxed rather lyrical about the beauty of the place and how they were fortunate to live there. There was some puzzlement until one lad said "That's fine, Mister, but you can't eat a view." We might well keep that profound observation in mind when considering these important issues of the environment and conservation.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee for their excellent report, I wish to emphaise the importannce of the European Community as regards legislation which affects all countries of the Community. Surely, in regard to the environment the law should be harmonious and equal throughout all the nations of the European Community. This is the European Year of the Environment. And this very month—on 1st July—the Single European Act has come into force. Article 130 R in the Select Committee's report states the action that the Community should take on the environment. It states:
"In preparing its action relating to the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data; environmental conditions in the various regions of the

791
Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action; the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions".
What a programme for the European Community to develop! The Select Committee has reported on the Community's present legislative machinery and on the weaknesses and drawbacks that need to be remedied. The great value of the report is, I hope, that it will draw to the attention of those Eurocrats in Brussels—that is the right word—those weaknesses and those drawbacks which at present exist so that they may remedy them.
Very few people know the system of legislation which exists in the Community and which applies to the whole of Europe. Fortunately, it is summarised on pages 10 and 11 of the report. However I refer back to Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome which shows that nearly all the legislation is enforced by means of directives which are issued in Brussels. The treaty states:
"A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods".
A directive is prepared and made binding in its result by a department of European civil servants in Brussels. It does not go before any Parliament or any democratic society. Those civil servants have to collect information from all the countries they can on science and research and also on the economic effects of the directive on countries of the Community. Is that done properly?
Already 100 directives have been issued. They are supposed to be implemented within a couple of years. Let us see what the report says in regard to the Seveso programme and all the remedies that should be contained in it. The report states:
"The date set for compliance with the Directive was January 1984, yet only four of the twelve Member States are in full formal compliance with the Directive: Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom".
None of the others has implemented it at all. It is only when we implement it that it becomes binding on the people. That is the next stage. The directives are passed in Brussels but we have to pass them here by regulations or statutes. We have to pass the legislation and implement it, and only four countries have done so at the moment. What about the others? The first stage is important. Not only should the directive be properly prepared after it has been fully investigated by scientists and others but then each member state must pass its own legislation so that the directive is uniform throughout all of them. Every state must do its job.
It is one thing to pass legislation and make our regulations about bathing beaches or pollution to comply with the directive and make them binding on the people. But the next stage, having passed the laws is to enforce them. The European Commission has no possibility of enforcing legislation. The enforcement depends on each member state. The legislation is passed and then we have to have inspectorates, police or constables to implement that legislation and see that people obey the law. How many countries do that? As is pointed out in the report, it is the job of the national governments to take their obligations seriously. Are the laws enforced in all these countries?
792
Those are the drawbacks to which the committee drew attention. Not only must each member state implement the directives but each member state must enforce them on the peoples of its country. That is the whole objective. If countries do not implement the directives or if, when they are in place, countries do not enforce them, the whole structure falls down. There is nothing worse than having a law which is not obeyed.
I have spoken at this length because this is an important matter for the whole Community. I hope that we in England play our part. When there is a directive, I hope that we will implement it by legislation or regulation. When we have the legislation or regulation, I hope that we will enforce it. However, it is also important that other countries do the same. Otherwise we can be free of pollution in England but when we go to other countries we will find pollution because the laws are not enforced.
I have said as much as I have in order to thank the committee for drawing our attention to these important matters. I hope and believe that the measures going forward from this House will enable the people in Brussels and in the Community to see what ought to be done in the future to remedy the drawbacks to implement the directives properly.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the committee for what is a most interesting report. I was particularly interested in the third theme discussed on page 9 of the report concerning the relationship between agriculture and the environment. I speak tonight as a farmer.
I think that there is sometimes too much antagonism between conservationists and farmers. It is true that sometimes their interests clash. More often I think that they can be brought together by discussion and by planning. Whereas in past years the target for agriculture was to produce as much as possible regardless of anything else, today the reverse is true. Some products are largely overproduced; some are not. I was particularly interested in the description by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of farming on lower production rather than higher production.
In paragraph 61 of the report the situation is put clearly:
"The most urgent problem facing agriculture in the Community is excessive production, which results in stockpiling of food and unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of the Community".
That has been hammered home over and over again. The report describes how the 12 nations of the EC are affected by agriculture. In 1985, 10·4 million people were employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. Agricultural employment in the Community accounted for 8 per cent. of civilian employment. The extremes of employment are given in the report. In the United Kingdom, 2 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, whereas in Greece the figure is 29 per cent., in Italy it is 11 per cent., in France it is 7 per cent. and in Germany it is 5 per cent. That variation underlines the difficulties the Community has in coming to any satisfactory conclusions in the matter.

793
However, the report makes various suggestions which I think could be followed up. It suggests changing production to find out what the public want to buy. That is one of the first priorities. How much this is being done in Europe is hard to say. In the United Kingdom, many farmers are experimenting and changing their production. I know dairy farmers who are turning milk into yoghurt and hill farmers who are raising deer for venison; and we all know the success in many places of pick-your-own fruit and vegetables. Forestry is being explored by farmers. In some sheep areas, goats are being raised for mohair and sheep are being raised for merino wool.
All of those things, whether they succeed or not, are efforts at alternative production. The difficulty is how to make money on which to live and preserve the countryside at the same time. Foresty is much talked about at the moment. We import 80 per cent. of our timber. However, one cannot live off trees. There is no return on trees for 20 years or more. Every farmer who gives up selling agricultural produce every year would have to have considerable grants until the timber he is growing becomes saleable. That could take a long time if hardwood and broadleaved trees were planted.
The United Kingdom has inaugurated the environmentally sensitive areas programme. Those are grant-aided and supervised to cover the cost. That policy has been a great success and I think that it will protect both the farmer and the environment. The plan for woodland development can help in cutting down overproduction in agricultural produce in certain ways.
The report has an interesting account of scientific research in agricultural production which could have an effect on environmental policy, economic activity and employment. But this is a very big proposal and I think that the committee was wise to postpone the study until some immediate actions are taken.
Coming back to my original remarks, we need more efforts to find out what the consumer wants to buy and to try to produce it, better marketing of produce, encouragement of farmers to try new production and closer co-operation between the environmentalists and the agricultural community. I think those interests can very often work together. This report is full of excellent suggestions. They affect all the countries of the EC and I hope that the report will have a very wide circulation in Europe as well as in this country.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the right honourable William Waldegrave, when he was Minister of the Environment, was indefatigable in his addressing of various meetings and lectures. He made his point the necessity for a logical approach if we are to make progress towards the type of improved environment which we all desire. He described that approach as holistic. I think he realised that any sudden change in a particular sphere might well have serious secondary repercussions in another sector and that it would be necessary to make progress slowly.
When the agricultural industry catches a cold, a large number of subsidiary industries get terminal pneumonia. My own experience of over four decades spans the time of tiny fields, manually cultivated by
794
men, women, children and horses, up to the present day where a man and his son operate a thousand acres, barren of hedgerows, using massive machines and huge imputs of fertilisers with regular dressings of chemicals and pesticides to match. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I cannot agree with him that we have created a situation of better or more employment, although I do not think we should go back to the original time to which I have referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I did not say that we have created more jobs. However, if we start with the situation as it is now, it is the larger farms which employ fewer workers.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, it would be true to say that where our best soils are concerned—and I agree with the report of the Commission—we have reached the point of saturation. There are very definite fears that we can go no further and we must now think about reversing the situation.
For 40 years the gospel according to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, landlords and the agricultural colleges has been one of more, more and more. Taxation demanded it, higher rents compelled it and the great god economics decreed it. The momentum has been built up steadily and remorselessly and what we are now saying is, "Forget it all and back to the drawing board".
Farming is a long-term process, and if the momentum has to he stopped and reversed the holistic approach, as the Minister stated, is the realistic approach and not jumps of 20 per cent. which will have undesirable repercussions. Realistically, I believe that the programme should be over a much longer period with the accent being on the rehabilitation of the rural areas with proper rotation and conservation as the top priorities. If this step-by-step approach is taken on board, it is the only way that the aspirations of those who wish to see a greener and possibly happier environment may be fulfilled. It has to be tackled.
Finally, I associate myself totally with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his great contribution to this report.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I also begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the way in which he has presented this report. As always, he leaves very little for other Members of the Committee to say. I therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence if I repeat some of the remarks that he made.
In company with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe our greatest concern must be about the implementation of directives. I take as my text the very first sentence of the very first paragraph in the opinions of the Committee and I remind your Lordships that it states:
"Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority; for law which is not implemented undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates."
I think that that says it all and much of what we have been discussing tonight supports it.

795
I want to take up and develop that theme just a little. What have we all been saying tonight? We have actually said in different ways that the long-term success and acceptance of Community law will depend on the practicality of the laws which are created and their relevance to their subject. This in turn depends upon the credibility of the organisation—that is, organisation with a small "o"—behind the creation of the legislation, about which we have heard a great deal, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Nugent, made clear as did very eloquently the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It also depends upon the validity of the research upon which it is based and the public perception of the aims and relevance of the whole exercise.
In paragraphs 82 to 93 the report draws attention to existing deficiencies and confusions in the organisation within the Community and attaches great importance to the need for proper research. Paragraph 94 highlights the crucial role of monitoring the effects of directives. This Front Bench agrees with all these opinions of the Committee.
As the report indicates, some member states are not complying with Community law to the detriment of us all; but I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that each member state must oversee its own implementation. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made that point, too. However, to a certain extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there has, at some stage and in some way, to be an oversight between nations on how the laws are being implemented. I cannot make a suggestion as to how that can be done, but I do not go along with the full-time inspectorate which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, prescribed. That would lead to an unnecessary degree of bureaucracy.
On 27th January the committee discussed with the Institute for European Environmental Policy the desirability of member states acting with awareness of each other's methods and progress. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was eloquent on this point and emphasised the need to avoid duplication between research efforts and other areas of activity. I fear that that desirable situation is a long way ahead. In the meantime, we in this House can do little about those erring members other than to press our representatives to take action when possible and where appropriate. What we can and should do is ensure that our own country meets its obligations under Community law and shows a responsible approach to the discussion of problems at the pre-legislative stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray that implementation is best left to member states, as I said earlier, and that anything else is unlikely to be effective, but to begin with we should play a large part in the creation of that legislation.
There is not time this evening to cover the whole range of environmental problems where action is required, but I shall point to some areas where a more positive approach by our Government could have been expected. I make these cricitisms and in the spirit of this debate I preface them by saying that if the Government feel that they are unjustified,
796
perhaps they should look at the lack of real information which is available to us when we ask questions on the Government's actions and overall intentions. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made a plea that the Government should state their intentions ahead and I fully support that. His plea was more eloquent than mine but the end result would be the same. We need more information and we need to be taken more into the confidence of the Government about what it means.
Starting with air pollution, Britain has been persistently unco-operative in the fight to reduce SO2 emissions from power stations, despite mounting evidence of the damage caused. Britain has delayed and reduced action to clean up vehicle emissions to the point where not only must we endure a continuing threat to human health and to the environment, but also an effect on the development of our pollution control industry. We are falling behind the rest of the developed world and we shall pay a price economically as well as environmentally if this is not corrected. It may already be too late.
My noble friend Lord Murray feared that environmental protection may cost jobs, but there are many jobs that can be created in environmental protection. The one I have already mentioned in the motor industry can create many jobs and, in fact, work is already going ahead on catalytic converters and on other measures which are in some degree awaiting the Government's actions. I give another smaller example—water treatment works create jobs; and so does the manufacture and installation of carbon filters and the manufacture of equipment for chemical analysis. Those are small examples which point to the way in which the whole business of environmental protection and pollution control creates real jobs which are ongoing.
Britain has been less than co-operative on the control of chlorofluorocarbons—CFC for short. Questions in this House have failed to produce clear answers. The predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was known to be concerned about this problem. It is a world problem with global effects. In parts of the United States and Scandinavia the use of CFCs has been banned. My latest information is that the United Kingdom has begun to press for a 20 per cent. reduction in Europe. but if, as we hear, West Germany carries out its plan to ban CFCs, this percentage reduction would be achieved within the Community without any concessions from Britain. I hope to be convinced by the Minister when he replies that we would not be party to such a cynical exercise. Can the Minister tell us in plain language where Britain stands on this issue? We know that at the end of April there was a conference in Europe on the matter. I have completely failed to find out what happened at that conference.
I turn now to water pollution. Increasing pollution of our water supply is a mounting anxiety. I should in this context discuss pesticides and nitrates but my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, fully covered the agricultural side of the discussion. Perhaps I can say how right the committee was to regret that there was not an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the programme that we are

797
discussing. I firmly believe that the potential for co-operation between agriculture and the environment is as great as the potential for conflict. I hope that given the right approach we shall explore the potential for co-operation rather than conflict.
I wish to highlight the problem of pollution from aldrin, dieldrin and endrin—drins for short—as they are currently the subject of a proposed directive. Those highly toxic substances appear in our waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, as a result of a number of industrial activities; for example, wood preservatives and the treatment of imported wool fleeces. There are permitted limits which are considered safe to be found in our water although they are sometimes exceeded by accidental discharges. The long-term danger is that the drins are, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in a memo last September to the Select Committee, "Toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative". By the time they have penetrated the food chain by a few stages, they are dangerous to fish, to birds and eventually to man.
I understand that the present method of monitoring drins is to measure their presence in water, with no account being taken of deposits in sediment or the bioaccumulative effect. In response to the comments of Sub-Committee F, which I understand will soon be published, the Minister's predecessor at the Department of the Environment said:
"In implementing the directive, this Department will take careful note of your comments regarding the remaining uses of drins and will be considering what further action might be taken towards eliminating pollution by these substances, with particular regard to inputs from diffuse sources".
Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in his department on those promised considerations? Time grows short, and I have not even touched on the enormous problem of waste disposal or the bathing-beaches directive. Those and other topics must be left for another day.
In conclusion, I want to take your Lordships back to the policy paper on the fourth environmental action programme which is the basis of our report. Paragraph 2 of the introduction states:
"The natural environment is still deteriorating in the Community, as in other parts of the world. Intensive crop farming is sapping the soil. Some water courses are still little cleaner than sewers. Air pollution is wreaking enormous damage. Ever increasing amounts of non-recyclable waste are being generated. Industrial hazards too are mounting. Many inner-city areas need extensive redevelopment. In short, natural resources—the lifeblood yet at the same time the limit for all economic and social development—are not being properly used. Public concern is rising unabated".
The report recognises those concerns. I hope that in his reply the Minister will show that Her Majesty's Government intend to respond to them.
7.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is fitting that the first environment debate in this House in the new Parliament should be on the subject of the European Community's fourth environment action programme, the key policy document guiding the Community's environmental protection activities for the next five years. The concluding remarks of the noble Baroness show what important subjects of
798
concern are raised in this whole general context. A glance at the contents page indicates the scope of the activities covered by it and, to look on the bright side, shows how far we have come since 1972 when the Community first took an interest.
There are now over 100 environmental directives, ranging in subject from water pollution to the protection of wild birds, from the disposal of waste to the control of asbestos. We now have an environment chapter in the EC treaty, brought about by the entry into force on 1st July of the Single European Act, and so for the first time, protection of the environment is explicity recognised as a Community policy. This is an important development which the Government welcome.
Faced with the broad scope of the document and its 19 detailed recommendations the Select Committee might have been forgiven for skating superficially over the whole field. Instead, under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, your Lordships took the eminently sensible view that to do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter, it was desirable to have a selective approach. They therefore concentrated on three main themes—the implementation of EC legislation, the scientific basis for legislative proposals, and the relationship between agriculture and the environment. With infallible judgment, they lighted on the three areas of particular concern to the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred critically to the insufficient contribution made by the United Kingdom to the Community's legislative process, and asked some questions which I can perhaps come to in a moment. I shall give a rather general answer. Your Lordships may wish to know the state of play in Brussels on the programme. The United Kingdom has played a constructive part.
The Environment Council had a preliminary discussion in November 1986, during the British presidency. At our instigation, the Council adopted a welcoming resolution commending the programme for further study. Discussions continued in the early part of this year and culminated in a draft resolution agreed in principle at the March Environment Council. This resolution, which will be published in due course, emphasises the importance of the effective implementation of environmental measures, and urges the integration of environmental considerations, into other areas of Community policy.
At the United Kingdom's request, there is an explicit reference to encouraging agricultural practices that are environmentally beneficial. I believe that the text reflects the concerns of the Select Committee. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is now appropriate for the United Kingdom to lift its parliamentary reserve. The European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee have both delivered their opinions on the programme, so the resolution can be formally adopted very soon.
The Government agree with the committee that implementation of Community legislation should be given high priority. There is clearly little point in constantly pressing on with new measures if the

799
existing legislation is not being implemented effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others of your Lordships made the point that it is important to distinguish between formal implementation and practical implementation.
There seems to be a view prevalent elsewhere in the Community that provided a given directive has been transposed into domestic legislation, that satisfactorily completes a member state's obligation. I exaggerate, but not greatly. We should be concerned with improving the environment, not with counting up the number of directives that we have managed to negotiate in Brussels. As my noble friend Lord Nugent added, non-implementation can carry with it on some occasions unfair economic advantages to industry in a defaulting nation. There is a tendency, we feel, in the Commission to take a purist view of implementation. In certain cases they seem to be eager to take infraction proceedings for theoretical reasons with scant regard for the practical aspects of implementation. To give one example, there are a number of directives about the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The due date for implementation is long past and no member state has been able to implement the measures because there is no Community definition of "waste".
The Commission, to give it credit, recognises that an agreed definition must be found and has arranged expert meetings to discuss the problem. Nevertheless, it is simultaneously pursuing infraction proceedings against all member states. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in her speech stated that she could not envisage the Commission taking all member states to court. I think that the example I have just given—which is not altogether an isolated one shows that the noble Baroness was absolutely right. It is ludicrous to my mind to have a situation of the kind that I have just related, which to my mind undermines the credibility of the Community in monitoring and enforcing Community legislation. Incidentally, this approach seems also to be at odds with the Commision's evidence to the Select Committee that infraction proceedings are used as the ultimate recourse. I have to say that in our experience that is not the case.
The committee also made a number of detailed points on this theme. Your Lordships want a complete review of the progress of implementation of all existing directives and recommend that the Commission should identify the most important directives and concentrate on them as a first priority. This is a matter for the Commission to consider in the light of the resources that it has available. If it decides to follow this up, I give an assurance this evening that it will have the full support and co-operation of the United Kindgom Government although we hope that any such review could be carried out with the minimum load on member states. A welcome development is the planned meeting of the Commission and member states tomorrow to discuss the implementation of water direct ves. We think that this could be a useful approach.
My noble friend Lord Nugent went further and recommended that each member state ought to
800
review their implementation of directives and report on the results which the member state had achieved. I am due to attend the Environment Council in about a fortnight's time on behalf of the Government. I think I had better find out what effect my noble friend's recommendation has had on members of the council and report back to him when I return home.
The Committee also noted that reports from member states on implementation are often submitted late or not at all. Here I think that the United Kingdom takes this obligation seriously and we have a good record which is, in the Commission's own view, better than that of any other member state. We shall continue to keep up the good work. Without such reports is is virtually impossible for the Commission to carry out its monitoring functions effectively and to ensure that directives are being implemented throughout the Community. This will be particularly important with regard to the Seveso Directive, so rightly mentioned by many noble Lords in the debate this evening.
The Fourth Action Programme touches also on the possibility of a Community environmental inspectorate. I should like to say, although this has not figured very much this evening, that we share your Lordships' view that such an inspectorate is unnecessary and would lead to additional bureaucracy without additional benefits. The committee recommends closer co-operation between national inspectors. This already happens to some extent but we would welcome some further development. We can all learn from each other in tackling common environmental problems and establishing common monitoring standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, advocated not just that, but more communication between those who produce and implement the directives and those who work in industry. I should like to say that we are carefully examining recent Commission proposals for a scheme of demonstration projects in the field of environmental protection which should also have a positive effect on employment.
Perhaps I may move a little further back in the process of making Community laws to the second area of the committee. I welcome the stress laid by your Lordships on the need for Community enviromental legislation to have a good scientific basis. That is a matter mentioned in particular in the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, at the beginning, and by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. This means wide consultation of experts and will help to protect the reputation of the Community as an environmental policy-making body. It will also avoid wasteful use of resources in meeting unjustifiably stringent environmental criteria.
I should like to respond to my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Cranbrook by saying that we eventually would wish the Commision to attach to legislative proposals the scientific case for action as well as an assessment of the costs and benefits of accepting or of not accepting its proposals. I believe that if this could be achieved it would go some way to meeting the concerns of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook about avoiding pseudo-science in decision taking.

801
Intimately connected with this is the need for the Commission Environment Directorate General, DG XI, to be closely connected with formulating and evaluating research so that its results are used to inform Community policy proposals. In fact we believe that DG XI ought to be the customer for the bulk of Community enviroment research. This does not necessarily imply any overall increase in staff resources but rather, I suggest, a transfer of resources from DG XII (research) to DG XI as recommended in the evidence to your Lordships' committee of Mr. Waldegrave, my predecessor.
Perhaps I may strike one discordant note. It is about the only one on your Lordship's extremely comprehensive report. I do not think the Government accept that environmental research is underfunded in the Community. The Community programme represents only a very small percentage of total spend in member states. The Community cannot hope to substitute for these national programmes but should complement them. The best way to do this is by co-ordination of national effort—concerted action, as it is called—only funding research where there are gaps in the knowledge needed to underpin Community policy. Better value for money is obtained by contracting-out research to teams in member states than by using the Community's own joint research centre. On specific points raised by your Lordships' committee perhaps I may say that the Community funds research on waste recycling—in the materials programme—and research on clean technology demonstration projects under the ACE (Action by the Community relating to the Environment) regulation which is administered by DG XI.
I should like to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we should take account of a pool of scientific knowledge in member states before we allow DG XI to set up new machinery which duplicates what is already being done. That is a point on which we feel very strongly in Government. I was very glad that the noble Baroness made that point.
Improvements are in sight in the way that Community research is conducted. I welcome the evidence which I read from the witness from DG XII who pointed the way towards a sharper definition of research needs. Flexibility to reallocate funds to emerging new priorities has been urged on the Commission by the Department of the Environment. Multinational teams are now the norm in Community environment research and this should surely help reach scientific consensus on environmental issues.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned in this general context of this part of the report the framework programme. Perhaps I may say that the framework programme, of which environment is only a small, although very important part, limits the total expenditure and content of community R&D for five years ahead. This was discussed by the European Council on 29th-30th June. Intensive negotiations are now proceeding in Brussels aimed at securing agreement to a programme which will preserve important research, but also respect budgetary discipline.
802
Finally, there is the third area, the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Here I welcome the fact that this third theme was brought out so clearly by the committee. I agree with the two noble Baronesses, my noble friend Lady Elliot and Lady Nicol, when both said that there should not be antagonism between environmentalists and farmers. Indeed in recent years there has been a real attempt to achieve greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies.
Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 now gives statutory backing to the agriculture department's practice of seeking to integrate wider environmental, social and economic objectives with agricultural policy. The farming and rural enterprise package announced by the Government on 10th March comprises a number of new policy initiatives designed to assist the rural economy while conserving the countryside. The agricultural publication in that package sets out the Government's proposals for encouraging farmers to adjust their output to changing patterns of demand. The Government have also been active in pressing for greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies in Brussels. One well known example to your Lordships is that of environmentally sensitive areas, which was pushed through entirely by the United Kingdom. Applications from farmers in the first five English ESAs cover some 78 per cent. of the total area which is considered suitable for participation in the ESA scheme. By any reckoning that is an encouraging start and preparations for an extension of the scheme, as your Lordships will know, are now under way.
But this is only a beginning. Still more needs to be done. I agree with your Lordships' committee that perhaps too little attention has been given in the Fourth Action Programme to ways of integrating environmental and agricultural policies. The committee looked in particular at the socio-structures regulation, now formally agreed, and especially at its provisions for incentives to farmers to reduce production of surplus products. Member states have a fair degree of flexibility on how they may implement the extensification scheme of the socio-structures measure in their territories. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that a good deal of consideration will have to be given to the environmental effects of set-aside. I agree with the noble Baroness and the Government will be consulting widely. But we believe that measures to divert land from cereals production, and which complement a realistic price policy, ought to be able to make a positive contribution to reducing agricultural surpluses, while allowing us to protect the environment.
Meanwhile other things are being done and my noble friend Lady Elliot gave us some interesting examples of different enterprises on farms in the ceaseless search for non-surplus production.
The report of your Lordships' committee raises the question of how in practice the Commission should provide for the integration of policies relating to agriculture and the environment. Your Lordships stress the need for close collaboration between DGVI and DGXI. I agree it is essential in formulating policy proposals that the two directorates work closely

803
together. It is for the Commission to consider how this can most effectively be achieved and the necessary scientific advice obtained.
Your Lordships also referred in the report to the directive on environmental impact assessment. As many of your Lordships will know, the directive will require systematic assessments to be carried out for certain types of major project which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. That directive is due to come into force on 2nd July 1988. The Government are fully committed to its implementation, and our preparations are well advanced for projects such as planning controls. We published draft proposals for consultation last year and have had a helpful response. We shall be coming forward with the necessary draft legislation later this year. Other work is also in hand and I understand that our preparations are very much in line with those of other member states.
I was very interested to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the agricultural aspect of the report. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to the noble Lord's particular plea in his speech for more R&D into low input farming, although I think the noble Lord is probably well aware that a great deal of thought has been put into that in the Ministry of Agriculture, and work is also going on. Nonetheless, the noble Lord made an important point and I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.
The noble Lord also spoke about the problem of nitrates and the polluter pays principle. The Government accept that it is not always possible to apply the polluter pays- principal directly. In considering who should meet the bill for resolving the nitrate problem, we shall have in mind the contributions that can equitably be made by farmers on the one hand and consumers through the water industry on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, towards the end of her speech, mentioned CFCs and the problem of the ozone layer. We are continuing to work closely with our Community partners during negotiations on a CFC protocol to the Ozone Layer Convention. I believe that work will be completed in time for the diplomatic conference which is planned for the month of September. We expect to agree further international controls on the basis of a production freeze to be followed by specific reduction of CFCs with provision for systematic scientific and economic reviews. It is not true, as I know has been said in public from time to time, that the United Kingdom is at odds with our Community partners on this. In fact the truth on CFCs is that we are leading the way.
The noble Baroness said just a few words about air pollution. Perhaps I may equally briefly make the point that we are accepting the need for a continuing reduction on both sulphur dioxide and in nitrogen oxide. I think it is fair to say that we are among the leaders of European countries in taking positive action to try to reduce emissions. We have endorsed plans by the Central Electricity Generating Board to retrofit control technology—a matter which the noble Baroness mentioned in passing—at a cost of
804
some £1 billion. Three major power stations will be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment to remove SO2 emissions.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the very difficult matter of the drins—as they are called. That is, aldrin and dieldrin, etc. The directive on discharges to the aquatic environment of this very difficult group of pesticides (known collectively as the drins) which has been agreed by Community environment Ministers recently is based so far as is possible on sound scientific judgment. It has to be acknowledged however that it is extremely difficult to establish practical and soundly based environmental standards for
these substances.
However, because there are no authorised discharges of these substances in the United Kingdom, the standards incorporated in the directive do not in any case have any practical force here. What is particularly important is that any remaining use of these substances should be very tightly controlled in order to prevent any discharge to water by unauthorised, accidental or diffuse means. I like to think that this is very much in keeping with the conclusions of Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' House in considering the Commission's proposals on the drins. This is something at which the Department of the Environment will be looking further, despite the fact that the directive makes no provision for actions to control use.
Your Lordships made a suggestion (which the chairman of the committee mentioned at the end of his speech) that the United Kingdom might develop its own multi-annual rolling programme similar to the Fourth Action Programme. We shall certainly wish to consider that idea further. Our initial reaction is that it would have the advantage of enabling the Government to set out their objectives for the further improvement of the environment and the steps by which we aim to achieve them. Against that however a large part of the United Kingdom's activities in this area are already bound up with Community action and it might be difficult to divorce the two. But we shall certainly give the recommendation of the committee further thought.
Finally, perhaps I may express my thanks to the Select Committee for a most comprehensive report and for the stimulating ideas it contains. It has been a very great help to the Government in clarifying our own thinking on these important issues and I hope that others will find it equally useful. Our debate today certainly suggests that this is already the case.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, my task at this hour of the evening is to thank those who have participated in the debate and that I do wholeheartedly. Perhaps I may say to those noble Lords who were kind enough to refer to my period as chairman of Sub-Committee F, which was formerly Sub-Committee G, how grateful I was for their kind remarks about the time I had held the chair. It has been an interesting and sometimes exhausting time, not exhausting because of people but because of the subject which was sometimes difficult to grasp. It has been an interesting period of four years. Now the time has expired, I shall watch someone else taking over that burden. I have greatly

805
enjoyed it and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your kind remarks.
In thanking noble Lords who took part in the debate I would point out—I was personally very glad of this—that they included a fair representation of those on Sub-Committee F. They also included a member of Sub-Committee D, the sub-committee of the Select Committee concerned with agriculture; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who assisted us in this inquiry. Three members of Sub-Committee D assisted us and their names are mentioned in an annex to the report. Their attendance and help were greatly appreciated.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is a long-standing member of Sub-Committee F. He speaks with enormous authority on water and on almost anything relating to the environment. The point he was making, I believe, is that each state must report what it is up to and how far it has gone along in doing what it ought to have done. There is one addition to reports by member states on what they have done about adopting national legislation and the enforcement of that national legislation. I refer to the effect upon the environment of having done so. This is enormously important; but it is certainly not done and is extremely difficult to measure. It would be interesting generally to have some indication of whether the effects of our labours are beneficial. I hope so. We get very little monitoring of results.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised an interesting point about employment and industry. It linked closely with that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, relating to the balance between the scientific evidence, which may lead one in one direction, and the economic, social and perhaps political factors, which may lead one in another. I am sure that the answer, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, particularly mentioned, is that we must be clear about what we are doing and not fudge the issue and reach a conclusion without really knowing what we are doing and why. I am certain that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, must be brought into the equation—ostensibly and visibly so.
The Japanese motor industry to which the noble Lord referred is an example. I had in mind in referring to Japan—the director-general Mr. Brinkhorst had it in mind also—that because of the high environmental standards the Japanese have adopted, they have a considerable industry for the development of pollution-control equipment which they are presently licensing—the know-how and perhaps patents too—to European undertakings, including, to my knowledge, this country. So that factor might be brought into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has so much experience in these matters, spoke of the part which voluntary organisations could play not only in being a goad to implementation, scaring government into doing something, but also, as she pointed out, in educating the public. That point was well taken. To a large extent, many of these matters could be resolved if the public were aware of the consequences, most of all and most obviously with regard to litter where education could have a substantial effect.
I was delighted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to the suggestion I put forward,
806
which was also supported by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about the United Kingdom environmental programme. I am glad to know that the Minister will give that matter consideration. I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, especially the point about work on less intensive farming which must be profitable. This was the heart of what we were saying in the report. We did not say so explicitly but our view was that "set aside" has not been thought through. That was a polite way of saying that we did not believe that this would work. We thought that afforestation had not been thought through in that we had received evidence that in certain circumstances afforestation could be environmentally disastrous, that is, from the point of view of the farmer. There is a high degree of common view on that matter, and I hope that we may progress in the requisite research on the less intensive farming aspects.
It is always a privilege to find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has participated in a debate. He was very much concerned about a matter which has concerned me over many years—that the making of directives is an indication of virility, if that is the right word; the more you make the better you are doing. What we are saying in this report is, "Just hold steady and let us see where we are going before we have too many more". I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, about the ESAs which, I believe, have been such an enormous success. That success is growing. I hope that that will prove to be a successful way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, a member of the committee, who has given great assistance over the years, made the interesting point that you should not change overnight vast programmes of agriculture throughout the Community. I think he would be inclined to say—I do not know whether he actually said it—that to reduce agricultural production in certain areas by 20 per cent. overnight would be quite disastrous, not just to the environment or to farming but also to the industries underlying both. I am sure that that is right. It is another reason why one feels that the whole programme of reduction of the CAP requires much more research and consideration on environmental and other grounds than has been given to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, assisted us in this inquiry. She was at one time a member of Sub-Committee G and we were sorry to lose her to Sub-Committee D. But she rejoined us in that capacity for this inquiry. It was interesting that she laid stress on the dieldrin situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replied. That seems to me to be one of the areas where we really have to act. She also laid stress upon the necessity for the directives to be practical and relevant to our needs; otherwise, just as with directives which have no less an adequate scientific basis and fall into complete disrepute, you will not be able to get people to go along with them.
As I have said before to the Minister in other contexts when he was there in other capacities, it is gratifying to find such a positive and understanding response to the report that we have produced. On the point that he made (with full justification, of course, with regard to the process of enforcement through the courts) that this was not a satisfactory way of

807
proceeding and that there is a mass of litigation going on, I think that the tone has changed. At least that is the impression I got as a result of our going to Brussels and taking evidence there. We shall have to wait and see. Certainly the impression I got from being there was that they would regard litigation as the last resort and an indication of failure on their part. That, practically speaking, quotes the evidence we were given. That seems to me—and I speak as a lawyer—to be a positive approach.
The other point which struck me in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the need for adequate science for a reason different from that given by any others in this debate; that is, that if you have inadequate science you have unjustifiably stringent standards with which you have to comply. That seems to me to be unsatisfactory. Again from the evidence we took we gained the impression—at least I did—that the attitude to the scientific research required at least in the environmental field in DGXII has changed for the better. It is a much more positive approach than hitherto.
I conclude by saying that I am most grateful for the substantial support from so many of your Lordships in this debate, and I am grateful to your Lordships for being here at this hour and giving that support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987
8.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships on 30th April this year be approved.
It is not any news to your Lordships that every year about this time for the past 13 years the Government have sought renewal for a further 12 months of the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I think your Lordships might legitimately ask for an explanation. The answer simply and sadly is that there remains an absence of political agreement in Northern Ireland on any way forward in politics.
Direct rule is a means of coping with this situation. In the absence of a devolved administration, the 1974 Act enables legislation to be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council rather than by measure of the Assembly; and further it provides that in the discharge of their functions the Northern Ireland departments shall be subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For as long as we are unable to make progress towards devolution, direct rule must continue if government in Northern Ireland is to function properly.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that direct rule is not an ideal arrangement. It is a firm and fair framework, and it enjoys a good deal of acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. It has brought many advances to Northern Ireland, and in many ways we should be proud of it.
808
But whatever its advantages direct rule does not provide a system of government which is close to the people of Northern Ireland and with which they can easily identify. It has never been envisaged as a permanent arrangement. The intention of Parliament, embodied in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, was that greater responsibility for governing Northern Ireland should be returned to the people of Northern Ireland themselves. That remains the firm objective of this Government.
In commending the order before us this evening to your Lordships I ought to give an account of the stewardship of the Government of the affairs of Northern Ireland during the past year, and also of the steps we have taken and intend to take to promote peace and stability in the coming months. As your Lordships will know, direct rule remains most people's second choice as a form of government for Northern Ireland. The need for dialogue about the future remains urgent. I shall have a little more to say about this in a moment.
First, it is right that I should say one or two words about the security situation. For the Government, security remains the top priority in Northern Ireland. We aim to defeat terrorism through the impartial enforcement of the criminal law, while maintaining a high level of security force activity on the ground to deter and to prevent terrorist attacks, and to reassure the community. The unremitting work of the security forces to prevent more violence and to deny the terrorists money, weapons, explosives and recruits will continue.
I know that all your Lordships will join me in praising the courage, the impartiality and the steadfastness of the RUC. The professionalism and determination that marks the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a constant reassurance to all law-abiding people in the province. I also want to pay tribute, as I know the RUC would wish me to do, to the support provided to it by the armed forces, including the Ulster Defence Regiment. We all of us owe the security forces a debt of gratitude which we and the people of Northern Ireland can best discharge by giving them our full support and co-operation.
In recent years the security forces have made substantial progress in bringing those who commit violent crime before the courts to be dealt with according to the law. But the continuing seriousness of the terrorist threat must never be underestimated. The first half of this year saw the terrorist campaign enter a new and vicious phase. Significant extra resources have been deployed to assist the RUC to meet and counter the new terrorist ruthlessness. All of us admire the community for its commendable steadfastness and resilience in the face of this latest terrorist onslaught. The Government give the community this assurance: the terrorists will not succeed. We are committed to fight and defeat the evil of terrorism, but the eradication of terrorism is of necessity a long haul.
Perhaps I may say one or two words about the economy of Northern Ireland. The troubled image of the province deters people from investing in, and developing, new projects there. Such investment is much needed in a province where unemployment,

809
which was at a level of 18.4 per cent. in May this year, remains a grave problem. Unemployment represents a dreadful waste of talent and causes deep personal frustration. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate that burden.
There are some bright patches in the economic scene, but we should like to see more. The Government have introduced measures to deal with Northern Ireland's special economic problems. In the financial year 1987ߝ88, the year in which we are now, the level of public expenditure will be in the region of £4,800 million, which per capita is substantially higher than that projected for comparable programmes in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, Northern Ireland offers the most generous industrial development incentives available anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have in place a battery of special employment and training measures for adults and young people.
The results of the IDB for 1986ߝ87 show that, at a cost of £109 million of financial assistance, investment of £311 million was secured for Northern Ireland. As a result, companies entered into agreements to provide 4,187 new jobs and to renew and maintain 815 jobs in the province. At the same time, LEDU entered into contracts with existing local firms, which should lead to the creation of 4,244 jobs; it committed a total of £17·5 million and secured investment totalling £47 million. In addition, 773 jobs were promoted in new firms at a cost of £3·2 million. I think that those statistics go some way towards showing that there have been real achievements. However, we accept that there is no room for complacency, especially in view of the figure I mentioned earlier on. I think that every one of the unemployed people in Northern Ireland would concur with that statement.
We shall continue to encourage the development of a thriving and profitable private sector in which lasting jobs will be created, for Northern Ireland is overdependent upon the public sector. I cannot help but reflect on how much more successful our efforts to promote Northern Ireland and to achieve economic development would be if some widely acceptable and stable political settlement could be found.
As your Lordships are aware, the aim of the Government is to seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The test which Parliament has decided new devolved arrangements must meet is that of widespread acceptance throughout the community. That must be right. A system which did not command the support and confidence of both sides of the community would simply not survive, nor would it deserve to. In pursuing this objective, we know that formidable difficulties stand in the way of agreement. There is a need for all concerned to be realistic. We have to start from present circumstances, and with a consciousness of the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements for governing Northern Ireland.
These arrangements provide for direct rule of the province by British Ministers. Although that system
810
offers Northern Ireland efficient and impartial government, direct rule has obvious and widely recognised defects. Chief among these is the fact that it does not allow elected representatives with their roots in Northern Ireland to exert a major influence in the province's affairs. Direct rule involves too a legislative process which cannot easily give adequate time and consideration to Northern Ireland primary legislation. But direct rule was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it does not provide an adequate input from Northern Ireland to the processes of government which might enable local people to have a real say in their affairs.
We also have in place the Intergovernmental Conference operating under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government believe that this arrangement gives the minority the reassurance that their voice is heard in the administration of Northern Ireland. We acknowledge, however, that Unionists feel themselves excluded from that process and that they feel their interests are not necessarily given due weight.
The Government want to talk to the political leaders of both communities about the way ahead. The party leaders are, we believe, also seeking a way forward through dialogue, and we welcome that. It was in this spirit that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland welcomed in his speech in another place on 7th July 1987 the contribution to the debate made by last week's publication of an abridged version of the Unionist Task Force report. We hope that it can contribute to a movement towards dialogue in which, in due course, all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will be able to discuss their ideas, and the ideas of others, with the Government. We want to be able to talk to all the parties about the future form of government in the province. We therefore welcome the willingness of the Unionist leaders to enter into discussions which will need to be tentative and exploratory, without prejudice and without preconditions.
Meanwhile, direct rule provides a fair framework for the administration of Northern Ireland, despite its imperfections. We want the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy greater security and prosperity. We shall continue to do all we can to eradicate terrorism; we shall continue to promote reconciliation and partnership between both parts of the community; and we shall continue to encourage the growth of wealth-creating enterprise and industry. It is to serve those objectives that the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remain necessary, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister has reviewed the current situation in Northern Ireland and has made out the Government's case for the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for yet another year. Sadly we accept that the order must be passed, and we on these Benches give it our support.

811
Northern Ireland presents the most intractable and, we would say, probably the most important of all our domestic problems. In the Queen's Speech Northern Ireland merited at least one paragraph of seven lines, although, as I shall indicate, there were two omissions from that paragraph. It set out the Government's threefold commitment: to seek an agreed basis on which responsibility can be devolved to the people of the province; to work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism; and to build creatively upon the relations established with the Republic of Ireland. We endorse those commitments.
The Minister's speech has been helpful. He has given the House a rough indication of how the Government propose to seek an agreed basis for devolution. As I interpret the Minister's speech, at this stage the Government are not committed to some new model which might be acceptable to the people of the province. Instead, it is one's impression that the Government will feel their way, seeking to encourage the constitutional parties to nourish the will to begin to construct the basis for an advance.
I believe that the Government can draw some encouragement from the debate on this order which took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. I believe that there is some evidence to be found in those speeches that the political parties may be coming to terms with the reality of the Government's strong mandate. I regret that they have that strong mandate, but nevertheless it is there and that is the harsh reality. I trust that this will lead to an awareness among some of the politicians that a boycott of Parliament and of the Northern Ireland Office cannot serve the cause of Ireland. That would be a good start at the beginning of a new Parliament.
The Government rightly expect support for their resolve to stand up to and defeat the forces of terrorism, violence and coercion. We on these Benches agree that the defeat of terrorism must be the Government's top priority. I pause to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the officers of the RUC and the men and women of the security forces who died or sustained injury, pain and suffering while doing their duty in very difficult circumstances.
However, it must be realised that the paramilitary forces remain dedicated to their task and are still able to summon up resources and the will to prosecute their campaign. Undoubtedly and sadly there will be more suffering and yet more suffering before the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is one day set aside. We are gratified—I believe that that is the right word—that the Government, notwithstanding the high level of violence, and casualties to which the Minister has referred, are satisfied, on the basis of the confidential evidence available to them, that progress has been made in the last 12 months in achieving improved co-operation between the police north and south of the Border. However, the Minister will appreciate that that is not how it looks to many people in the Province. The sooner the Government can point to visible evidence of improved and effective co-operation between the two Governments the better it will be.
We are fully in support of the Government's third commitment. The Government must continue to build upon the constructive relations established with
812
the Government of the Republic. Indeed, we believe that the improved relations with the Republic are one of the few important gains over the last few years.
It has not gone unnoticed that, unlike the Queen's Speech last November, there is no reference in the Queen's Speech to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which has been the main vehicle of co-operation in the last 20 months. The words of the Queen's Speech are of course very deliberately chosen. This tempted one at first to wonder what significance, if any, we were to attach to this omission. The Minister has gone a long way in his speech to assure me that there has been no radical departure from existing policy and that the omission of the reference can probably be accounted for by the Government's desire to create an environment in which political progress can be made in Northern Ireland. We gladly go along with such an explanation.
There was I thought another significant omission from the Queen's Speech. It contains no reference to the Government's intention to tackle, let alone solve, the problems of unemployment in the Province. I was particularly pleased therefore that the Minister brought unemployment and the economic difficulties into his speech. I do not propose to comment on the economic position in Northern Ireland because we shall have an opportunity next Thursday night to deal with it.
There are two matters to which I should like to refer. Although we give our consent to the order now before the House, we are not satisfied with the way in which primary legislation is enacted for Northern Ireland. Here again the Minster has anticipated our criticism. Since 1974 Northern Ireland, which had its own Parliament for 50 years, has had less influence on legislation than any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a very odd result. We suggest that it far outweighs the benefits that the 1974 Act may have brought to Northern Ireland. That very odd result to some extent is because Parliament has no effective influence over Orders in Council.
Last Monday evening the House dealt with three orders in just under one hour. It is true that their subject matter was not controversial, but next Tuesday night the House will have before it a highly controversial order, the Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, and that order cannot be amended in a single respect. We have voiced this criticism on many previous occasions, but apparently to no avail.
A year ago the Minister—no doubt on instructions—dealt with this criticism simply by asserting that it would place an enormous burden on Parliament if Northern Ireland legislation were to be enacted by Bill. Of course, it would be a burden, but it should not be an unwarranted burden. It was Parliament which imposed direct rule on the people of Northern Ireland. Having willed that end, it should now will the means to ensure that the legislation enacted for the Province is capable of being amended as necessary, at least by the elected representatives in another place.
There are many Orders in Council in the pipe-line. The Government must surely find a way of bringing public opinion effectively to bear on them. I believe that the Minister's speech this evening showed that the Government are alive to this criticism.

813
My final point is not entirely related to the last issue. It relates to the accountability of the intergovernmental conference. If the inter-governmental conference is to remain a part of the machinery of government in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future, do the Government intend to make it in some way answerable to the two parliaments? The conference is far more than a private discussion, as has been suggested, between two sovereign governments. It has been working for about 20 months and, on the Government's acknowledgement, it is bearing fruit in Northern Ireland. If it is to remain a part of the machinery of government of the Province for the foreseeable future—and we believe that it has a role to play, subject to the role to be played by the Assembly—the members of the two parliaments should be able to play their part within the machinery of the conference, thereby influencing its agenda, its discussions and possibly its decisions.
I have referred to some of the most important mischiefs and the difficulties that have to be resolved. They are of course old mischiefs apart from the non-accountability to Parliament of the inter-governmental conference. However, at the beginning of this new Parliament with the Government in a commanding position, there are hopeful signs, as I have suggested, that the mood among some of the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland is beginning to change. One cannot be too sure, but there may be prospects that the Government will soon begin to attract a coalition of interest broad enough to make talks, and thereafter negotiations, possible about an Assembly that will have proper checks and a balance of forces, and that at the same time will be an adequate instrument of government.
With those remarks, I support the order.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having introduced the order once again with his usual courtesy. It is of course inevitable that the order has to be accepted. I am afraid that the necessity for that is a reflection of the failure of those of us in Northern Ireland who have tried to take some part in the political process to find a more suitable way of governing the province. But I think that now there is probably more hope than there was this time last year because the report of the Unionist Task Force, An End to Drift, indicates at least a willingness to talk, which is a major advance and perhaps the most hopeful sign we have seen in the 20 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Incidentally, whereas one can read almost anything one wants to read out of election results, perhaps it is not unreasonable to say that one could read out of the last general election results the indication that the electorate of Northern Ireland felt that just to say no was not good enough and that something more constructive was needed to be, in their view, acceptable and favourable.
However, if I may digress for a moment, I do not think it was for that reason, that sadly at the last election we lost one of the greatest parliamentarians who has ever represented Northern Ireland—I would say certainly the greatest parliamentarian in my
814
lifetime. I refer of course to the previous right honourable Member for South Down, Enoch Powell. It is ironic that he actually sacrificed himself some years ago by pressing for an increased number of seats at Westminster for Northern Ireland. The result of that seemed to be that the newly-formed constituency of South Down had a built-in anti-Unionist majority. The surprising thing is not that he lost his seat a few weeks ago but that to his very great credit, he actually managed to retain it in 1983.
He may have been an adversary, but you could not but respect him. One might have disagreed with him but he had an irritating habit of being proved right on a discomfiting number of occasions. So I hope that the other place's loss will be this place's gain, and perhaps if the noble Lord on the Front Bench could have what is sometimes known as "a wee word" in the places that count, I am sure that the presence of that towering intellect, with his incisive eloquence and vast parliamentary experience, would be greatly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that.
To return to future prospects, one of the encouraging things that I read in this report, An End to Drift, was the statement that in the opinion of the authors,
"the expedient of compromise and barter can only succeed if it is a two way process".
That is absolutely right and I am delighted that they said that. A two-way process means that there has to be generosity on both sides, as in any negotiation. There is no place for a "no surrender" attitude and no place for a "not an inch" approach—or perhaps in these days of metrication one ought to say "not a 2.54 centimetre" approach. There is the need for generosity and a strong government can afford to be generous. I sincerely hope that they will be, and I also hope that the Unionist politicians will reciprocate equally generously in this respect.
No doubt in the course of such talks the various options will be discussed once again. One of them is continued direct rule, with its imperfections, to which reference has been made. It may turn out that this will be identified as being a solution which, though far from ideal, is the one least unacceptable to the most people. In passing, I mention that it would be rather more acceptable—and certainly much easier for those concerned—if our Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office (and particularly our Secretary of State) did not have to spend quite so much time at altitudes in excess of 25,000 feet—that is, if they did not have to spend so much time in the air to-ing and fro-ing. If they could spend more time in Northern Ireland, I think it would be helpful. However, I would hope we could do better than continue direct rule.
A second option which may be looked at again is that of total integration. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord, just to clear the air, what the attitude of Her Majesty's new Government is towards total integration; but on reflection, I should not like to press him for an answer because I should not like to prejudice any discussions or negotiations which may take place. My own attitude is that total integration would not help the minority in Northern Ireland further to identify with the state in which they live. It would not be helpful in that respect. So far as

815
concerns the campaign for equal citizenship—one of the main proponents of integration—I would merely observe that it is up to political parties to say whether or not they want to organise in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for the Government.
A third option which might be looked at again is the one that the late Mr. Airey Neave was enthusiastic about before his most tragic assassination: the upgrading of local government. That could be looked at once more, but here again I would say it has not a lot going for it because unfortunately, as we know, the previous abuses in Northern Ireland occurred largely at local government level. Furthermore, it must be said that the recent record of local government over the past 20 months has not been such as to inspire confidence in public representatives in that field.
The fourth option is devolution. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord whether he felt that devolution would have to be of a partnership nature. I think he inferred that it would, when he said it would have to be acceptable to all sections of the community. This is something which my party and I myself have been advocating throughout. It is one which would be difficult for the Unionists to address themselves to in view of what they have said in the past. I recognise the disadvantage of partnership in devolved government in so far as there is no opposition, which is an essential part of the democratic process; but it may be the best solution in this peculiar situation.
However, it must be asked whether the SDLP, who represent the minority community, really want it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, may possibly wish to comment on that—he knows more about it than I do—but they let us down, I am afraid, in the last Assembly by not taking their seats. We could have made something of the 1982 Assembly; but because of the absence of the SDLP it never really got off the ground.
The fifth option is some form of independence. People who talk about that are not just talking nonsense—it is not just dangerous nonsense; it is frighteningly dangerous nonsense. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not give that any serious consideration whatsoever. It would not just be the minority community in Northern Ireland who would feel abandoned. I would myself, as would a lot of my friends; and a great many Unionists, if they addressed themselves to this, would feel the same. So I would sincerely hope that is not an option to which any serious consideration would be given.
We have to accept this order and I wish Her Majesty's Government good luck in whatever conversations, discussions—and ultimately, I hope, negotiations—that are entered into with political leaders.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, this is by far the most important order that we have to debate every year in Parliament, because without it all the other orders would not be debatable at all.
Unlike my noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench, on Monday I sat through the debate in the other House and did not leave that Chamber with any degree of optimism whatsoever. Indeed, I was
816
bitterly resentful at the intervention of the English newly elected Member for Brent, East, who made an incursion into the debate with one of the most damaging contributions to any hope for peace in Northern Ireland. The people of Ireland, North and South, can do very well without such incursions from people who know nothing about the situation there. Indeed, the speech that was made could very well have been made by the absentee Member for West Belfast because every sentence was laden with Republican sentiment and innuendo that was totally untrue.
I listened avidly to the speeches that were made by the Northern Ireland representatives. Having been born and reared in Northern Ireland and having been a member of a political party there for a number of years, I was able to detect some of the weasel words used in the Northern Ireland political vocabulary. In the other place it is easy to say that one is quite willing to enter into discussions with one's political opponents without preconditions when one knows very well that the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the biggest precondition that it is possible to place in the way of discussion. Like my noble friend on this side of the House I am quite happy to hear that the Unionists have called off their boycott of Government Ministers and institutions in Northern Ireland but I am only too well aware that they were not the originators of political boycotts in that country.
In the 1970s when I was leader of the SDLP, it continuously boycotted local authorities, called on people to withdraw from public life and totally took itself out of the political process. Looking back on the activities of the SDLP, if the Unionists thought that there was something to be gained from embarking on the same tactics I suppose they would have been quite justified in using them. However, it has been proved that the boycott tactic is no longer available.
All the Unionist politicians love to be called "major" or "captain" throughout their political life. Perhaps that is why they were able to pick out a task force to draw up a political judgment—the report of the task force. However, it appears that there are some sections—and only some sections—of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland who are prepared to acknowledge that the boycott tactic has failed and that they should enter into discussions with the representatives of the minority; in other words, the SDLP. The noble Lord. Lord Dunleath, has already alluded to this matter. But is it a fact that the SDLP now wants discussions to take place which would lead to devolved government? As a former leader of that party I have serious doubts that the SDLP now wants to bring into operation a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
During the recent election I listened to a broadcast on the BBC and to a talk-back programme on Radio 4 in which two prominent spokesmen for the SDLP took part: Seamus Mallon, now a Member of Parliament, and Brian Feeney, a councillor in Belfast. Questioned by the BBC interviewer as to whether they would like to see some form of political structure recreated at Stormont, both of them said no. They said that to recreate a talking shop at Stormont would not achieve anything. They would only get the

817
same amount of financial subsistence from Westminster and it would come down to a question of apportioning its distribution. I listened to what they said with a great deal of disappointment. Both spokesmen said that they were not interested in the return of government to Northern Ireland.
What was even more damaging was that when justifying the Anglo-Irish Agreement one of them said, "The SDLP lays great store on the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement". They regard that as a great political victory, and in Northern Ireland terms if it is a great political victory for the SDLP it is a great political defeat for their opponents. There are victories and defeats in Northern Ireland. There are no compromises.
But what did the SDLP Member say in that broadcast? When questioned by the interviewer as to what effect he thought the Anglo-Irish Agreement was having, he said that he found it to be of great assistance. He said that when one of his constituents came to him with a problem he did not, as hitherto, ring up the local authority or the Civil Service department in Northern Ireland; he rang up the bunker at Maryfield. The Intergovernmental Conference is known as the bunker in Northern Ireland. In other words, he rang up the representatives of the Government of the Republic to settle some constituency problem that he had.
One needs to know only a little about Northern Ireland to understand how bitterly resentful any member of the Unionist community feels when he hears that within Northern Ireland his representative did not ring up the people who were elected or any of the civil servants but rang up what the Unionists term an agent of a foreign government. That is bound to create friction and discontent, bitterness and resentment.
Why are such statements made? I realise that the SDLP has to justify the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the Unionist Members have to decry the importance or even the existence of the agreement. But while it is there there will be great difficulty in trying to bring the two communities together. I am a former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is now referred to as the constitutional Nationalist Party. That is not denied; it says it is the constitutional Nationalist Party. The raison d'etre of the SDLP is to further the aspirations of nationalism, and if that is its primary objective then to it the hunker at Maryfield is more important than the creation of political institutions at Stormont. The creation of political institutions at Stormont lessens the impact of the march towards Irish nationalism.
There you have the contradiction. Is it in the interest of the SDLP to maintain that line of communication from Holywood Arches in Belfast to Dublin, or to see it taken away and new political structures created in its place? I urge the Minister seriously to question the bona fides of the leaders of all those parties to make sure that they do not engage in discussions just for the sake of talking and in the course of those discussions begin to find the easiest way out so that they can lay blame for the failure of the discussions on their political opponents.
Throughout my lifetime in politics in Northern Ireland I have listened to such discussions. It would
818
be better if the parties had no discussions whatsoever rather than engage in discussions which are bound ultimately to fail. I realise that it is very difficult for Members of this House and of another place to understand what has happended in the past 10 days in Northern Ireland. Although I do not now live in Northern Ireland I have relatives who still live there and they phone in with the news bulletins every morning. I read all the Irish newspapers and I am still very much involved with what is happening there. Eight people have been killed in 10 days; eight people cruelly and brutally murdered, six by the IRA and two by loyalist paramilitaries. It takes one who knows Northern Ireland to realise the great resentment brought about by these murders and the great panic that exists within the community. The question is: when is this all going to end?
Those who support constitutional nationalism would have argued that the coming into being of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was going to lessen the campaign of terror. It has not. The IRA terrorist murderers will continue with their campaign irrespective of whether or not there is an Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Anglo-Irish Agreement may mean that Irish-American or various embassies throughout the world call off their attacks on British embassies and the British Government. The British Government will then be able to say, "We brought into being an Anglo-Irish Agreement; it is not our fault." It will lessen the criticism that Britain was receiving internationally.
I have said repeatedly, and will continue to say as long as I remain in politics, that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be settled in Brussels, Strasbourg, Washington, Dublin or in your Lordships' House. The problems of Northern Ireland can be settled only between the two communities which exist and inhabit that part of north-east Ireland. Unless and until discussions—real, honest and sincere discussions—can take place between people who live in Northern Ireland, then all attempts from Irish-Americans, the EC or Dublin to influence events in Northern Ireland will be to no avail.
My only reason for entering the debate was to tell the Minister that I have great reservations about the sincerity of some of the men who spoke during the course of the debate in the House of Commons. I believe that the SDLP—the party which I formerly led—could do a great deal to lessen the tension and hostility in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland if it were to make an unequivocal and non-ambiguous statement of support for the RUC in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP cannot say that it is a peaceful party, looking for reconciliation, while it continues to withhold support from the RUC, the only force in Northern Ireland that is capable of apprehending and bringing to justice the terrorists of both communities. If the SDLP is really sincere in seeking reconciliation and talks with its political opponents, I believe that its first step should be to give recognition to the RUC which has suffered so grievously over so many years.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister, before the talks take place, to make sure that the people entering into

819
them are doing so with a dedication and resolve that they want them to succeed.
9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful for the tremendous interest which has been shown in the order this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as always, was most eloquent. He raised a number of very interesting points from what appears to be a somewhat brief and uninteresting order. However, the noble Lord and your Lordships appreciate this is attached to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Nevertheless, the noble Lord raised one or two serious and interesting points.
First, we are particularly grateful for his remarks on the tremendous and valiant efforts of the security forces in their attempts to stamp out terrorism and to bring evildoers to court in the due processes of law. Of course, the noble Lord was right—as always—in highlighting the women members of the security forces, together with those who still suffer from injuries which they acquired in the course of their duties.
The noble Lord raised one or two queries about security co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement certainly provides a framework for promoting the co-ordination of activities by the security forces on both sides of the Border. However, as I have stressed on a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere—and I am sure this will not be any great news to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—the benefits will come only after fairly long and patient endeavour.
The noble Lord also raised one other query concerning the problems of legislating, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The query concerned the problems of legislation and dealing with Northern Ireland affairs properly in your Lordships' House or indeed, in another place; namely, do we carry out these duties in a reasonable way? We hope that we give the proper attention to the legislation which we introduce for Northern Ireland. As stressed before, Orders in Council are certainly not a perfect way of proceeding, but we believe that they are the best available.
Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the number of legislative documents that we have considered—in 1983 there were 17 affirmative Northern Ireland Orders in Council; in 1984 there were 14; in 1985 there were 13; and in 1986 there were 20. Most of them made different provisions for Northern Ireland and to accommodate such a volume of legislation in Bills would increase the work of Parliament, and I hesitate to suggest to the noble Lord what it may do to your Lordships' House. If we said that we could not deal with such a volume of legislation in your Lordships' House and elsewhere because of the problem of time, and we adopted a different course we would then lose much valuable legislation which is tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland.
I stress once again to the noble Lord and to the House that we appreciate the difficulties which are
820
posed by Orders in Council which are unamendable. The problem may best be addressed in the context of discussions about devolution; but as I have said before, we are willing to talk about all of those issues to all interested parties and also to consider constructive suggestions against the background which I have described.
Before I come to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, I wish to stress that I referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in my opening speech and again just now. I acknowledge that many in Northern Ireland have strong feelings about it but we hope that a process of dialogue may now begin again. We were very encouraged by the mood and the tone of the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, attended in another place earlier this week when there seemed to be a sense of realism on both sides although that may not be the gloss of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on the debate which he witnessed from his eagle's eyrie above the other place. However, it would not be helpful to the process of dialogue if I said anything more at this stage.
We recognise the concerns that have been expressed for legislation in Northern Ireland by Order in Council; and, as your Lordships will be aware, similar concerns have been expressed in another place. But it is for the reason that we have never made any claim that Orders in Council are the perfect method of legislation for Northern Ireland that our existing procedures provide for extensive prior consultation. It is just this evening that I have not heard the usual point that is raised in your Lordships' House which is that there has not been adequate consultation. That point is usually very fairly made by many noble Lords, but perhaps tonight is the unique occasion when the question of adequate consultation is not raised. Nevertheless, we accept that that question poses problems and causes a great deal of discussion in Northern Ireland. I stress that we take a great deal of care to ensure that any points made to us on proposals for draft legislation are considered. It is much easier to do that before draft orders are laid.
However, our minds are not closed to the possibility of changes in legislation and in the procedures to bring legislation before your Lordships. However, Orders in Council during direct rule stand in the place of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore we wish to consider any changes in a wider constitutional and political framework. I have stressed that we are willing to talk about the problems to all interested parties, including the Unionist parties, and to consider any constructive suggestions bearing in mind the wider framework of the whole of Northern Ireland.
I have probaby covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, as always, raises the voice of North Down in your Lordships' House and it is always so welcome. However, I noted one comment in the noble Lord's remarks when he said that we could have made something of the 1982 Assembly. I think that that is an approximation of one of the points that he raised.
I think that everyone in Northern Ireland and all of your Lordships would agree that nobody could have worked harder than the noble Lord both in Northern

821
Ireland and here to make the processes of law and legislation work in Northern Ireland. I have always thought that the shining example shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has been apparent, certainly in the 14 or 15 years since I first spoke in your Lordships' House on Northern Ireland affairs—although perhaps in the past I spoke from a different position to my present one. The noble Lord need never feel any guilt that the Assembly of 1982 and subsequent years did not work.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the loss in political terms and on a personal basis of the right honourable Enoch Powell—although I understand that I may no longer call him that because he is no longer a Member of another place. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on that on a purely personal basis in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised briefly the question of integration. There is no evidence in our opinion that integration would prove widely acceptable in the sense of being in any way reasonable to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It would make devolved government impossible and there would be no room for a devolved administration alongside the powerful local authorities recommended by those supporting integration. There would be a general parity of policy and Northern Ireland's special needs and problems would no longer be catered for in different legislation. We do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland desire integration or that it would be widely accepted that that suggestion represented a sensible solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was right to draw attention to the unhelpful comments made in another place during the course of the debate which he attended. I regret that those comments have been splashed around widely in media in this country. I shall only say in that regard that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is a shining opposite to the honourable Member of another place. The obverse of everything we dislike about what was said and the context in which it was said in another place is reflected in the conduct of the noble Lord and everything he did in his career in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord also drew some interesting analogies between 1974, which is the time I presume that he had in mind, and the current thoughts of the Members of another place and political leaders in Northern Ireland. I am sure that his words will be noted by many in Northern Ireland as well as in this country.
Finally, there is a great deal of truth in the words spoken by the noble Lord concerning the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It must be seen by everyone and above all by the minority community as being their police force and their guardian against evildoers, breaches of the law, terrorism and all the other problems that beset Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by your Lordships. If there are any which I have missed, I shall write briefly and succinctly to the noble Lords concerned. With that, I hope that your
822
Lordships will agree to extend the life of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
Channel Tunnel Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have referred the amendments to the Bill set out in the Lords Message of 7th May, in the last Session of Parliament, to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Associated British Ports Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY STUDY
  NATIONAL ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY STUDY
  VAT REVENUE ESTIMATE
  VAT REVENUE ESTIMATE
  US REVIEW OF NUCLEAR WINTER: STUDY
  US REVIEW OF NUCLEAR WINTER: STUDY
  BRITISH WEST INDIAN AIRWAYS: FLIGHTS
  BRITISH WEST INDIAN AIRWAYS: FLIGHTS
  BBC FINANCES: STUDY
  BBC FINANCES: STUDY